Okay, so I've let it be known that I am not exactly President-elect Obama's biggest fan. However, I must say that I was thrilled to learn of his choice of Janet Napolitano (curently governor of my native Arizona) to become our nation's next Secretary of Homeland Security.
Even though Gov. Napolitano is a Democrat, she tends to "break ranks" with her party and take more of a hardline, conservative Republican stance towards the important issues of border protection and illegal immigration (which should really come as no surprise since, regardless of political affiliation, she's the chief executive of a BORDER state). As governor of Arizona, she signed into law some of the toughest sanctions against employers who knowingly hire workers who are in the country illegally. She was also the first governor in the nation to deploy National Guard troops to assist U.S. Border Patrol in apprehending individuals attempting illegal entry into the U.S. Even our proud Republican/Terminator governor here in California wasn't tough enough to do that!
It's definitely promising that even someone as liberal as Barack Obama (at least according to his Senate voting record) understands that when it comes to defending our country and protecting our borders, we can't afford to monkey around and play politics. Obama's nomination of Gov. Napolitano, as well as his decision to keep Bush nominee Robert Gates on board as Defense secretary, at least on a temporary basis, demonstrate that Obama is at least smart enough to know when it's time to stop the Messiah act and return back to reality when it comes to the crucial issue of national defense.
Obama further confirmed this when he announced that he would ultimately leave it up to military leaders to decide whether "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should remain in effect, as the leaders in the military are without a doubt the most knowledgeable and qualified to make that decision (no matter how many whiny gay men pout in protest). There is definitely a proper arena for social activism and political correctness in our society, but our military is most certanly NOT that arena!
Also, Arizona will be getting a GREAT governor to replace Napolitano in January. My mom has been close friends with Jane Brewer for as long as I can remember, and I must say that she is one of the most classiest and down to earth ladies I have ever met. Overall, it's a win-win situation for everyone!!!
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Splits Over Prop. 8 Vote
JAKE HENSHAW • Desert Sun Sacramento Bureau • December 4, 2008
Voters were most sharply divided along political and religious lines when they went to the polls in November to decide the fate of same-sex marriage in California, a new poll released today shows.
But the survey also found age, education, ethnic and racial differences in the voting that led to approval of Proposition 8, which allows marriage only between a man and a woman.
The constitutional amendment passed 52 percent to 48 percent, but 77 percent of Republican voters supported it while 65 percent of Democrats opposed it.
Evangelicals or born-again Christians lined up even more solidly behind the measure, with 85 percent supporting it compared to 42 percent of those who didn't identify with this group. Evangelicals comprised 24 percent of the 2,003 voters surveyed as representative of the Californians who went to the polls.
In answer to a separate question, 47 percent of voters said they favored gay marriage, 48 percent opposed it, and five percent were unsure.
The poll was conducted Nov. 5-16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus two percent.
Voters were most sharply divided along political and religious lines when they went to the polls in November to decide the fate of same-sex marriage in California, a new poll released today shows.
But the survey also found age, education, ethnic and racial differences in the voting that led to approval of Proposition 8, which allows marriage only between a man and a woman.
The constitutional amendment passed 52 percent to 48 percent, but 77 percent of Republican voters supported it while 65 percent of Democrats opposed it.
Evangelicals or born-again Christians lined up even more solidly behind the measure, with 85 percent supporting it compared to 42 percent of those who didn't identify with this group. Evangelicals comprised 24 percent of the 2,003 voters surveyed as representative of the Californians who went to the polls.
In answer to a separate question, 47 percent of voters said they favored gay marriage, 48 percent opposed it, and five percent were unsure.
The poll was conducted Nov. 5-16 and had a margin of error of plus or minus two percent.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
DEADLY Black Friday!!!
What is the world coming to??????
Deadly Black Friday: One at Wal-Mart, Two at Toys 'R' Us
Posted Nov 28th 2008 4:56PM by Peter Cohan
Filed under: Wal-Mart (WMT)
I have always disliked the moniker 'Black Friday.' Explaining that 'Black Friday' refers to the day that retailers go from losing money to making it strikes me as awkward -- particularly when my first instinct on hearing that phrase is to think of something very bad happening on a Friday.
Which is why today's deadly events combining shopping for the holidays and death seem so strange and sad. This morning, a Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) clerk at a store in Valley Stream, Long Island was trampled to death by a crowd of 2,000 people eager to grab bargains. "The impatient crowd knocked the man to the ground as he opened the doors, leaving a metal portion of the frame crumpled like an accordion," according to AP. If store cameras can identify who trampled the store clerk, criminal charges could be brought against them.
Later in the day, two people were shot dead at a Toys 'R' Us in Southern California. The Riverside Country sheriff's department reported an argument between two teenagers preceded the shooting. A third person, a male, apparently pulled out a gun, according to AP.
For all those who were affected by these tragedies, today is indeed a Black Friday -- regardless of whether retailers turn profitable after today's sales are totaled up.
Deadly Black Friday: One at Wal-Mart, Two at Toys 'R' Us
Posted Nov 28th 2008 4:56PM by Peter Cohan
Filed under: Wal-Mart (WMT)
I have always disliked the moniker 'Black Friday.' Explaining that 'Black Friday' refers to the day that retailers go from losing money to making it strikes me as awkward -- particularly when my first instinct on hearing that phrase is to think of something very bad happening on a Friday.
Which is why today's deadly events combining shopping for the holidays and death seem so strange and sad. This morning, a Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) clerk at a store in Valley Stream, Long Island was trampled to death by a crowd of 2,000 people eager to grab bargains. "The impatient crowd knocked the man to the ground as he opened the doors, leaving a metal portion of the frame crumpled like an accordion," according to AP. If store cameras can identify who trampled the store clerk, criminal charges could be brought against them.
Later in the day, two people were shot dead at a Toys 'R' Us in Southern California. The Riverside Country sheriff's department reported an argument between two teenagers preceded the shooting. A third person, a male, apparently pulled out a gun, according to AP.
For all those who were affected by these tragedies, today is indeed a Black Friday -- regardless of whether retailers turn profitable after today's sales are totaled up.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Pollster: Slow Down the Prop.8 Protests
Erica Solvig • The Desert Sun • November 17, 2008
It's clear from the recent rallies that there's plenty of local support to overturn the same-sex marriage ban that voters approved on Election Day.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, a respected independent and nonpartisan public-opinion news service, said it would be “wise to wait for another presidential election and put it on the ballot when there is another big turnout.”
The quality of campaigns aside, he pointed out two key reasons:
The historical trend favors supporters of same-sex marriage.
In 1977, 28 percent approved same-sex marriage and 59 percent opposed, according to the Field Poll. By May of this year, the poll found 51 percent approved and 42 percent opposed.
In lower-turnout elections, typically nonpresidential years, “older voters tend to be a bigger chunk of the vote, and they (same-sex marriage advocates) will find it tough going,” he said.
Earlier this month, a joint media exit poll found that 61 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 opposed the ballot measure. Only 39 percent of voters 65 years and older opposed it.
“I think their chances are going to improve down the road,” DiCamillo said. “Eight years is better than four years, 12 years is better than eight.”
But are supporters ready to wait eight to 12 years? Judging by the outcry and immediate legal fight, it's not likely.
As Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, noted in a Thursday e-mail to supporters:
“Today is the first day of the campaign to overturn Proposition 8 by 2010.”
*So ask yourselves this question: Even if you need to wait a tad longer than you'd prefer for marriage equality to become a reality, wouldn't you actually like it to become a reality, and STAY one this time?
It's clear from the recent rallies that there's plenty of local support to overturn the same-sex marriage ban that voters approved on Election Day.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, a respected independent and nonpartisan public-opinion news service, said it would be “wise to wait for another presidential election and put it on the ballot when there is another big turnout.”
The quality of campaigns aside, he pointed out two key reasons:
The historical trend favors supporters of same-sex marriage.
In 1977, 28 percent approved same-sex marriage and 59 percent opposed, according to the Field Poll. By May of this year, the poll found 51 percent approved and 42 percent opposed.
In lower-turnout elections, typically nonpresidential years, “older voters tend to be a bigger chunk of the vote, and they (same-sex marriage advocates) will find it tough going,” he said.
Earlier this month, a joint media exit poll found that 61 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 opposed the ballot measure. Only 39 percent of voters 65 years and older opposed it.
“I think their chances are going to improve down the road,” DiCamillo said. “Eight years is better than four years, 12 years is better than eight.”
But are supporters ready to wait eight to 12 years? Judging by the outcry and immediate legal fight, it's not likely.
As Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, noted in a Thursday e-mail to supporters:
“Today is the first day of the campaign to overturn Proposition 8 by 2010.”
*So ask yourselves this question: Even if you need to wait a tad longer than you'd prefer for marriage equality to become a reality, wouldn't you actually like it to become a reality, and STAY one this time?
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Counterprotestor at L.A. Marriage Rally Is 100% Correct About Obama
Like millions of others across the nation, I attended one of today's marriage equality rallies. Since I was in L.A. last night anyways to support an aspiring-actor friend of mine at a red carpet event (and indulge in the gratitude he showed by buying us expensive "bottle service" afterwards), I figured I'd just stay overnight and attend the rally at L.A. city hall. It was really a great event, with thousands of both gays and straights united for a common cause. Furthermore, everyone was positive, friendly, and a much better and more accurate representation of our community than some others had been at earlier rallies.
Of course, there were counterprotestors there as well, holding up their usual gigantic banners with the typical statements such as "God Hates Fags" and "Homo Sex Is Sin." However, they were for the most part ignored, and a few of us did our part by steering people away from them and towards the main event so there wouldn't be any more embarrassing incidents. Not to mention the fact that they all had a massive ring of LAPD officers protecting them them on all sides, with about 30 additional officers on the steps above who were standing by just in case.
However, I did notice another counterprotestor at the rally apart from the main group, an elderly African-American woman. Believe it or not, I'm actually glad she decided to show up. She was serenading the crowds with classic Christian hyms and didn't seem to be quite "all there" mentally (surprise).
Nonetheless, I could not have been happier with the shirt this woman chose to wear to the rally. The shirt had a picture of president-elect Barack Obama, and above the messiah's charming face, was a direct quote he made during the campaign stating very plainly that he did NOT support same-sex marriage.
He certainly isn't my "messiah" as I already have the real one anyways ;)
Of course, there were counterprotestors there as well, holding up their usual gigantic banners with the typical statements such as "God Hates Fags" and "Homo Sex Is Sin." However, they were for the most part ignored, and a few of us did our part by steering people away from them and towards the main event so there wouldn't be any more embarrassing incidents. Not to mention the fact that they all had a massive ring of LAPD officers protecting them them on all sides, with about 30 additional officers on the steps above who were standing by just in case.
However, I did notice another counterprotestor at the rally apart from the main group, an elderly African-American woman. Believe it or not, I'm actually glad she decided to show up. She was serenading the crowds with classic Christian hyms and didn't seem to be quite "all there" mentally (surprise).
Nonetheless, I could not have been happier with the shirt this woman chose to wear to the rally. The shirt had a picture of president-elect Barack Obama, and above the messiah's charming face, was a direct quote he made during the campaign stating very plainly that he did NOT support same-sex marriage.
He certainly isn't my "messiah" as I already have the real one anyways ;)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Another "Unconventional" View of Same-Sex Marriage From a Gay Man Himself
It's good to see there are at least some other gay men who can look at the "big picture" on the same-sex marriage issue, even at the risk of being reviled by the gay community as a whole. I've learned that it's better to be hated for speaking the truth than to be loved and adored for ignoring it.
Anyways, this is a post from a good friend of mine who is just as gay as I am, and just as gay as any other gay man (perhaps even more so in a way lol). I promised I would not reveal his name so he wouldn't have an angry homo lynch mob after him.
While I don't agree with completely eliminating marriage altogether as he seems to be advocating, he still makes some very valid points. I'm hoping that the one good thing that comes out of the passage of Prop. 8 is that it causes us to become more open-minded and try a new approach next time, since the approach we have been taking (and have continued to take since last Tuesday) evidently is not working. Anyways, time to let my friend speak:
"For years, I've been spewing that gays have missed the mark on the whole gay marriage thing. I've been attacked by gays for years that my views were biased and off base. Of course, I think fairness for all is appropriate. I don't believe one group of people should be entitled to special recognition, benefits, status and the such, due to race, sex, sexual orientation, especially from a government that claims liberty and justice for all.
I was raised in a very conservative, truly evangelical church. One thing I've seen over the years is that people hold close their traditions. Marriage is no different. I think supporters of Prop 8 across the country are afraid that their tradition is going to be disgraced and violated. The religious "rite" of marriage should be protected for those people. However, it shouldn't be protected by an amendment to a Constitution.
To get to the point, I think that if opponents of Prop 8 want to be effective, then they need to change their strategy. Prop 8 opponents really thought that their cause was going to be the victor in the last election. Shockingly to some, those very people who voted blue, harshly criticize and oppose gay marriage. So, we want fairness for all? I suggest Prop 8.2. I feel that if gays want to make a real impact, they will have to turn the tables on Prop 8 supports. How do we do this? We take away their marriage. Well, sort of. I propose gays raise signatures and place a ballot initiative to remove all State recognition of marriage for all. I'm not really sure why the Government ever got involved in the first place, but government has no place in a religious institution. You want to get 'married', fine, keep it in your church. You want your union recognized for legal and social reasons, apply for a Civil Union. Fairness for all why still respecting others.
As a side note, I'm really tired of hearing about how "hateful" Prop 8 was. It's not hateful to hold a value to high esteem and to fight to protect it. I know it's hard for some to understand that the idea of Prop 8 is not hate, it's about protecting. Again, is it their fault their ideas towards the homosexual community are what they are? Maybe it's our message or the delivery of that message. We can't win without educating people about our lifestyle. What's an effective tool? It would be each and everyone of us reaching people in our own circle of influence. We all know people who voted yes on 8. We all know people who would have supported voting yest on 8. It's our duty to reach out to people to show them that we are no different than them. It's our duty to be that connection to those outside our community. We can't remain in the closet and tolerate injustice in our workplaces, schools, and churches. We can't remain in our comfort zone. We have to reach out and show people that we are equal, and sometimes above equal, when it comes to fashion and decorating you know ;-) "
Anyways, this is a post from a good friend of mine who is just as gay as I am, and just as gay as any other gay man (perhaps even more so in a way lol). I promised I would not reveal his name so he wouldn't have an angry homo lynch mob after him.
While I don't agree with completely eliminating marriage altogether as he seems to be advocating, he still makes some very valid points. I'm hoping that the one good thing that comes out of the passage of Prop. 8 is that it causes us to become more open-minded and try a new approach next time, since the approach we have been taking (and have continued to take since last Tuesday) evidently is not working. Anyways, time to let my friend speak:
"For years, I've been spewing that gays have missed the mark on the whole gay marriage thing. I've been attacked by gays for years that my views were biased and off base. Of course, I think fairness for all is appropriate. I don't believe one group of people should be entitled to special recognition, benefits, status and the such, due to race, sex, sexual orientation, especially from a government that claims liberty and justice for all.
I was raised in a very conservative, truly evangelical church. One thing I've seen over the years is that people hold close their traditions. Marriage is no different. I think supporters of Prop 8 across the country are afraid that their tradition is going to be disgraced and violated. The religious "rite" of marriage should be protected for those people. However, it shouldn't be protected by an amendment to a Constitution.
To get to the point, I think that if opponents of Prop 8 want to be effective, then they need to change their strategy. Prop 8 opponents really thought that their cause was going to be the victor in the last election. Shockingly to some, those very people who voted blue, harshly criticize and oppose gay marriage. So, we want fairness for all? I suggest Prop 8.2. I feel that if gays want to make a real impact, they will have to turn the tables on Prop 8 supports. How do we do this? We take away their marriage. Well, sort of. I propose gays raise signatures and place a ballot initiative to remove all State recognition of marriage for all. I'm not really sure why the Government ever got involved in the first place, but government has no place in a religious institution. You want to get 'married', fine, keep it in your church. You want your union recognized for legal and social reasons, apply for a Civil Union. Fairness for all why still respecting others.
As a side note, I'm really tired of hearing about how "hateful" Prop 8 was. It's not hateful to hold a value to high esteem and to fight to protect it. I know it's hard for some to understand that the idea of Prop 8 is not hate, it's about protecting. Again, is it their fault their ideas towards the homosexual community are what they are? Maybe it's our message or the delivery of that message. We can't win without educating people about our lifestyle. What's an effective tool? It would be each and everyone of us reaching people in our own circle of influence. We all know people who voted yes on 8. We all know people who would have supported voting yest on 8. It's our duty to reach out to people to show them that we are no different than them. It's our duty to be that connection to those outside our community. We can't remain in the closet and tolerate injustice in our workplaces, schools, and churches. We can't remain in our comfort zone. We have to reach out and show people that we are equal, and sometimes above equal, when it comes to fashion and decorating you know ;-) "
More On Peggy Joseph and the "Race Card"
As amusing and silly as it was to watch this woman nearly have an orgasm over Obama's victory, it is downright distrubing that there are thousands, if not millions, of disadvantaged blacks (and probably poor folks of other races as well) who really DO think that Barack Obama will be taking care of them the next four years with other people's hard earned money. Granted, part of this phenomenon might be due to the fact that they read far too much into Obama's comments about "spreading the wealth," but has it perhaps occurred to them that Barack Obama, throughout the campaign, seemed to be willing to say just about anything and promise just about anything to get elected? Sadly, so many people fell for it and will be in for a big disappointment.
The harsh reality is that "Messiah" or not, Barack Obama is still a politician. He'll realize very quickly (if he hasn't already) that as President, he will not accomplish anything worthwhile without building alliances with others in Washington and procuring support from both sides of the aisle. In order to do this, he'll need to make some compromises and become more moderate in his views, or else risk alienating even members of his own party. This is the exact mistake that President Bush made, and there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama realizes this and is determined not to follow suit.
As a result, I would not be surprised if African Americans end up hating Obama with a passion as the ultimate traitor and backstabber, once he fails to deliver what they thought he would, and when people like Peggy Joseph don't get as much wealth "spread" to them as they anticipated. I can just picture Rev. Al Sharpton, sometime within the next few years, going on tirade after tirade before frenzied crowds of angry and jaded blacks, proclaiming something like this:
"Barack Obama isn't even a real black man anyway, he's half white! And we have now learned the hard way that even someone only half white is just as much a part of the conspiracy. This man is no Messiah, but a false prophet, and shame on us for being tricked by this Uncle Tom!"
Now, as much as I hate playing the race card, there is no doubt that race played a part in this election like no other election prior. In fact, even goofy Howard Stern, in one of his broadcasts a few weeks before the election, demonstrated the grim reality of this when he sent one of his sidekicks to Harlem to interview potential black voters about who they supported in the election. Of course, nearly all of them said they liked Obama. They were then asked if they still liked Obama when told that Obama held certain positions on the issues that in fact were held by McCain! Without batting an eye, all of these people said that they were pro-life, anti-stem cell research, and believed that we should keep our troops in Iraq as long as possible until the job is finished, as long as they were led to think that these were Obama's beliefs, which they most certainly were not. Even more outrageous, these folks in Harlem said they would love having Sarah Palin as vice-president, once they were told that Plain was OBAMA'S running mate and actually believed it. Here is the clip so you can listen for yourselves:
As hilarious as this was, in reality it's downright scary that these are people whose votes counted just as much as those of citizens responsible enough to cast their votes based on the issues. I am certainly not trying to appear racist, as I am just as disgusted at all of the white hillbillies in Arkansas who said there was no way they'd vote for Obama because he's a Muslim (which he is not). There are people who voted FOR Obama only because he's black, and there are people who voted AGAINST Obama only because he's black. Equally deplorable in my opinion, especially in an election at such a time as this with all of the crucial issues and problems our nation is facing.
I actually respect people who voted for Obama because they truly believed he was the best choice for our country based on his positions (even though I couldn't disagree more). These people, to give them credit, voted for Obama for reasons other than his race or because they got caught up in the "Obamamania" or because they automatically assumed that John McCain was going to be nothing more than a George W. Bush clone simply because he's a Republican.
The right to vote in this country is a right that we should never take for granted, especially considering that there are millions of others in the world who do not enjoy this right. However, with every right comes responsibilities, and our founding fathers assumed that we would never forget this. Apparently, some people in this country have forgotten, and maybe an intensive crash course in basic civics will avoid another embarrassing charade in future election years.
The harsh reality is that "Messiah" or not, Barack Obama is still a politician. He'll realize very quickly (if he hasn't already) that as President, he will not accomplish anything worthwhile without building alliances with others in Washington and procuring support from both sides of the aisle. In order to do this, he'll need to make some compromises and become more moderate in his views, or else risk alienating even members of his own party. This is the exact mistake that President Bush made, and there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama realizes this and is determined not to follow suit.
As a result, I would not be surprised if African Americans end up hating Obama with a passion as the ultimate traitor and backstabber, once he fails to deliver what they thought he would, and when people like Peggy Joseph don't get as much wealth "spread" to them as they anticipated. I can just picture Rev. Al Sharpton, sometime within the next few years, going on tirade after tirade before frenzied crowds of angry and jaded blacks, proclaiming something like this:
"Barack Obama isn't even a real black man anyway, he's half white! And we have now learned the hard way that even someone only half white is just as much a part of the conspiracy. This man is no Messiah, but a false prophet, and shame on us for being tricked by this Uncle Tom!"
Now, as much as I hate playing the race card, there is no doubt that race played a part in this election like no other election prior. In fact, even goofy Howard Stern, in one of his broadcasts a few weeks before the election, demonstrated the grim reality of this when he sent one of his sidekicks to Harlem to interview potential black voters about who they supported in the election. Of course, nearly all of them said they liked Obama. They were then asked if they still liked Obama when told that Obama held certain positions on the issues that in fact were held by McCain! Without batting an eye, all of these people said that they were pro-life, anti-stem cell research, and believed that we should keep our troops in Iraq as long as possible until the job is finished, as long as they were led to think that these were Obama's beliefs, which they most certainly were not. Even more outrageous, these folks in Harlem said they would love having Sarah Palin as vice-president, once they were told that Plain was OBAMA'S running mate and actually believed it. Here is the clip so you can listen for yourselves:
As hilarious as this was, in reality it's downright scary that these are people whose votes counted just as much as those of citizens responsible enough to cast their votes based on the issues. I am certainly not trying to appear racist, as I am just as disgusted at all of the white hillbillies in Arkansas who said there was no way they'd vote for Obama because he's a Muslim (which he is not). There are people who voted FOR Obama only because he's black, and there are people who voted AGAINST Obama only because he's black. Equally deplorable in my opinion, especially in an election at such a time as this with all of the crucial issues and problems our nation is facing.
I actually respect people who voted for Obama because they truly believed he was the best choice for our country based on his positions (even though I couldn't disagree more). These people, to give them credit, voted for Obama for reasons other than his race or because they got caught up in the "Obamamania" or because they automatically assumed that John McCain was going to be nothing more than a George W. Bush clone simply because he's a Republican.
The right to vote in this country is a right that we should never take for granted, especially considering that there are millions of others in the world who do not enjoy this right. However, with every right comes responsibilities, and our founding fathers assumed that we would never forget this. Apparently, some people in this country have forgotten, and maybe an intensive crash course in basic civics will avoid another embarrassing charade in future election years.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
WOW!!! Isn't This a Shocker?
I just came across this post on intheagora.com (one of my favorite blogs). I must say that it is quite interesting to say the least:
Obama's coattails bring victory for gay marriage ban?
By Eric Seymour
The silver lining to yesterday's election for social conservatives is that it looks like Proposition 8--the amendment to the California state constitution to ban gay marriage--is headed for victory. In a predictable yet intriguing twist, increased enthusiasm among black voters (who overwhelmingly voted for Obama) may have helped the measure win.
Exit polls showed that white voters opposed the measure, while black voters supported it. (It is a well-known fact that there is stronger opposition to gay marriage within the black community than in the nation as a whole.) With record turnout among black voters expected, that may well have been a major factor in deciding the measure's fate.
*So let me get this straight (no pun intended). All of these gay and lesbian voters strongly supported Barack Obama, yet his candidacy may have been what ultimately doomed same-sex marriage rights. Perhaps if the "messiah" had openly supported same-sex marriage, Prop. 8 would have been resoundingly defeated (as well as the similar measures in both Arizona and Florida). Nonethless, exit polls showed, for some odd reason, that Obama received almost 75% of the gay and lesbian vote nationwide and was actually perceived as the more "gay friendly" candidate. Didn't I warn people on my blog a few weeks ago that this perception was simply not true?
By golly, you can even look it up for yourself:
caseyblog1.blogspot.com
Monday, October 13
Posted at 9:24 PM
Although I have seen a lot of irony in my life, this is the most extreme and egregious example yet. Although I am not exactly pleased that Obama won the election, I anticipate that I am going to have quite a field day these next four years. Evidently, opening ceremonies have already commenced.
Obama's coattails bring victory for gay marriage ban?
By Eric Seymour
The silver lining to yesterday's election for social conservatives is that it looks like Proposition 8--the amendment to the California state constitution to ban gay marriage--is headed for victory. In a predictable yet intriguing twist, increased enthusiasm among black voters (who overwhelmingly voted for Obama) may have helped the measure win.
Exit polls showed that white voters opposed the measure, while black voters supported it. (It is a well-known fact that there is stronger opposition to gay marriage within the black community than in the nation as a whole.) With record turnout among black voters expected, that may well have been a major factor in deciding the measure's fate.
*So let me get this straight (no pun intended). All of these gay and lesbian voters strongly supported Barack Obama, yet his candidacy may have been what ultimately doomed same-sex marriage rights. Perhaps if the "messiah" had openly supported same-sex marriage, Prop. 8 would have been resoundingly defeated (as well as the similar measures in both Arizona and Florida). Nonethless, exit polls showed, for some odd reason, that Obama received almost 75% of the gay and lesbian vote nationwide and was actually perceived as the more "gay friendly" candidate. Didn't I warn people on my blog a few weeks ago that this perception was simply not true?
By golly, you can even look it up for yourself:
caseyblog1.blogspot.com
Monday, October 13
Posted at 9:24 PM
Although I have seen a lot of irony in my life, this is the most extreme and egregious example yet. Although I am not exactly pleased that Obama won the election, I anticipate that I am going to have quite a field day these next four years. Evidently, opening ceremonies have already commenced.
Focus On the Positive: Election 2008 and the Gay Vote
From the Log Cabin Republicans:
"Exit polls show Sen. John McCain received at least 1.3 million votes from gay and lesbian Americans—more than any other Republican Presidential candidate has ever received. He garnered 27% of the LGBT vote, an increase from 19% support for President Bush four years ago."
This does not surprise me, since John McCain was the most gay-friendly GOP candidate ever to run for the presidency. Even though McCain lost the election, I felt so blessed to connect with so many other gay men across the nation (mainly young, bright and ambitious like myself) who were also proud McCain supporters, scoffing at the idea, espoused by so many other gay men without batting an eye, that they are automatically obligated to vote Democrat because of their sexual orientation. Many of us work just as hard for our money as everyone else, and are thus just as horrified at the thought of the government taking even more of that hard-earned money that it already does, and "redistributing" it to people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve yet another free handout at taxpayer expense. We were also impressed with McCain's pledge to take a hard-line stance toward the Islamofacist regime in Iran, a regime which publicly executes teenagers as young as 15 who are caught in "homosexual acts." And of course, not that gay issues should have been at the top of anyone's agenda with all of the other things going on, but Obama publicly proclaimed his opposition to same-sex marriage just as loudly as McCain (as well as every other Republican AND Democrat to ever run for president).
I lived in Arizona when then Tempe mayor Neil Guiliano (currently President of GLAAD) came out as a gay man, and Senator McCain was the first one to tell the attack dogs from the religious right to back off and that the mayor's sexual orientation "didn't make a damn bit of difference." He gave a lengthy interview to the Washington Blade, while Barack Obama on multiple occasions refused an interview with a major gay magazine in Philadelphia. Let's also not forget that on two separate occasions, Obama refused to have his picture taken with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who isn't even gay, simply because of Newsom's support for same-sex marriage.
The weekend before the election was Gay Pride Weekend here in Palm Springs. When I attended the festival on Sunday, countless gay men were prancing around proudly while sporting their Obama campaign stickers. Some of the stickers in fact, were even rainbow-colored . . . *GAG*
I couldn't help but shake my head and think to myself, "If they only knew . . . "
However, the encouraging thing is that just over one out of every four gay and lesbian voters DID know, and it's great to see people in our community who refused to be intimidated by the renegade gay activists into allowing their sexual orientation to do their thinking and voting for them.
"Exit polls show Sen. John McCain received at least 1.3 million votes from gay and lesbian Americans—more than any other Republican Presidential candidate has ever received. He garnered 27% of the LGBT vote, an increase from 19% support for President Bush four years ago."
This does not surprise me, since John McCain was the most gay-friendly GOP candidate ever to run for the presidency. Even though McCain lost the election, I felt so blessed to connect with so many other gay men across the nation (mainly young, bright and ambitious like myself) who were also proud McCain supporters, scoffing at the idea, espoused by so many other gay men without batting an eye, that they are automatically obligated to vote Democrat because of their sexual orientation. Many of us work just as hard for our money as everyone else, and are thus just as horrified at the thought of the government taking even more of that hard-earned money that it already does, and "redistributing" it to people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve yet another free handout at taxpayer expense. We were also impressed with McCain's pledge to take a hard-line stance toward the Islamofacist regime in Iran, a regime which publicly executes teenagers as young as 15 who are caught in "homosexual acts." And of course, not that gay issues should have been at the top of anyone's agenda with all of the other things going on, but Obama publicly proclaimed his opposition to same-sex marriage just as loudly as McCain (as well as every other Republican AND Democrat to ever run for president).
I lived in Arizona when then Tempe mayor Neil Guiliano (currently President of GLAAD) came out as a gay man, and Senator McCain was the first one to tell the attack dogs from the religious right to back off and that the mayor's sexual orientation "didn't make a damn bit of difference." He gave a lengthy interview to the Washington Blade, while Barack Obama on multiple occasions refused an interview with a major gay magazine in Philadelphia. Let's also not forget that on two separate occasions, Obama refused to have his picture taken with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who isn't even gay, simply because of Newsom's support for same-sex marriage.
The weekend before the election was Gay Pride Weekend here in Palm Springs. When I attended the festival on Sunday, countless gay men were prancing around proudly while sporting their Obama campaign stickers. Some of the stickers in fact, were even rainbow-colored . . . *GAG*
I couldn't help but shake my head and think to myself, "If they only knew . . . "
However, the encouraging thing is that just over one out of every four gay and lesbian voters DID know, and it's great to see people in our community who refused to be intimidated by the renegade gay activists into allowing their sexual orientation to do their thinking and voting for them.
More "Joe the Plumber" Drama
Ohio Official on Leave Over Joe the Plumber Probe
Friday, November 7, 2008 11:58 PM
Ohio's governor placed an agency director on leave Friday, saying the step was necessary because a state computer or state e-mail account may have been used to assist in political fundraising.
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, had been questioned over records checks made on a man who became known as "Joe the Plumber" during the presidential campaign, but a spokesman for Gov. Ted Strickland said that was not the reason she was put on paid administrative leave.
Strickland said in a statement that Jones-Kelley was placed on paid administrative leave because of the possibility a state computer or state e-mail account was used to assist in political fundraising. The Democrat provided no details on the political fundraising in question. He said Cabinet Secretary Jan Allen has been asked to serve as acting director of the agency.
A home telephone listing for Jones-Kelley could not be found in the Columbus area.
Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine said in a statement released Friday night that the governor's administration has apparently turned the state government into a "political party machine."
"The Strickland administration has already demonstrated a profound and reckless disregard for personal privacy, and now they're apparently abusing government resources to raise political contributions," DeWine said.
Jones-Kelley has acknowledged that she approved a records check on Samuel J. Wurzelbacher just after the Oct. 15 presidential debate where he became known nationwide as Joe the Plumber. Wurzelbacher, a Toledo-area man, ultimately endorsed GOP presidential nominee John McCain and campaigned with him in Ohio.
The records were never made public or released to the media. Jones-Kelley has said such checks were routinely conducted when someone suddenly emerges in the limelight. State Inspector Tom Charles is investigating whether she improperly authorized the search.
Strickland said he has asked Charles to include the political fundraising matter in his current investigation.
Republican lawmakers — including state Senate President Bill Harris — have questioned Jones-Kelley's actions. State Rep. Bill Batchelder urged Strickland, a Democrat, to put Jones-Kelley on leave until Charles' investigation is complete.
"No Ohioan should be subject to a 'witch hunt' on the whim of a public official," Batchelder said in a statement.
Wurzelbacher, meanwhile, has paid a nearly $1,200 tax bill, according to court documents filed in Toledo on Thursday. Wurzelbacher has said he didn't know he had a tax lien against him until reporters looked into his background.
Friday, November 7, 2008 11:58 PM
Ohio's governor placed an agency director on leave Friday, saying the step was necessary because a state computer or state e-mail account may have been used to assist in political fundraising.
Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, had been questioned over records checks made on a man who became known as "Joe the Plumber" during the presidential campaign, but a spokesman for Gov. Ted Strickland said that was not the reason she was put on paid administrative leave.
Strickland said in a statement that Jones-Kelley was placed on paid administrative leave because of the possibility a state computer or state e-mail account was used to assist in political fundraising. The Democrat provided no details on the political fundraising in question. He said Cabinet Secretary Jan Allen has been asked to serve as acting director of the agency.
A home telephone listing for Jones-Kelley could not be found in the Columbus area.
Ohio Republican Party Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine said in a statement released Friday night that the governor's administration has apparently turned the state government into a "political party machine."
"The Strickland administration has already demonstrated a profound and reckless disregard for personal privacy, and now they're apparently abusing government resources to raise political contributions," DeWine said.
Jones-Kelley has acknowledged that she approved a records check on Samuel J. Wurzelbacher just after the Oct. 15 presidential debate where he became known nationwide as Joe the Plumber. Wurzelbacher, a Toledo-area man, ultimately endorsed GOP presidential nominee John McCain and campaigned with him in Ohio.
The records were never made public or released to the media. Jones-Kelley has said such checks were routinely conducted when someone suddenly emerges in the limelight. State Inspector Tom Charles is investigating whether she improperly authorized the search.
Strickland said he has asked Charles to include the political fundraising matter in his current investigation.
Republican lawmakers — including state Senate President Bill Harris — have questioned Jones-Kelley's actions. State Rep. Bill Batchelder urged Strickland, a Democrat, to put Jones-Kelley on leave until Charles' investigation is complete.
"No Ohioan should be subject to a 'witch hunt' on the whim of a public official," Batchelder said in a statement.
Wurzelbacher, meanwhile, has paid a nearly $1,200 tax bill, according to court documents filed in Toledo on Thursday. Wurzelbacher has said he didn't know he had a tax lien against him until reporters looked into his background.
Monday, November 3, 2008
KINDERGARTEN Children Already Being Taught About Gay Issues
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.
One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.
The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies.
"
The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.
According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.
The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk.
"
Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school's "Coming Out Day" tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national "Coming Out Day" usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar.
"
When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.
Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.
"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.
"
Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by e-mailing Principal Diana Levy or calling (510) 889-7399. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.
Parents outraged at public elementary's secretive 'coming out' event
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Some parents are shocked to find their children are learning to be homosexual allies and will participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents.
One mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, Calif., said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school.
The little girl replied, "We're learning to be allies.
"
The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch.
According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students.
The school is scheduled to host discussions about families and has posted fliers on school grounds portraying only homosexuals. According to the report, a "TransAction Gender-Bender Read-Aloud" will take place Nov. 20. Students will listen to traditional stories with "gay" or transgender twists, to include "Jane and the Beanstalk.
"
Some parents only recently noticed posters promoting the school's "Coming Out Day" tomorrow – celebrated 12 days after the national "Coming Out Day" usually observed on Oct. 11. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar.
"
When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district's online school calendar.
Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California's proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise.
"Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools.
"
Concerned individuals may contact Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science by e-mailing Principal Diana Levy or calling (510) 889-7399. The Hayward Unified School District can be reached at (510)784-2600 or by filling out the district contact form.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
LISTEN TO RUPERT: Obama Win Could Worsen FInancial Crisis
Global media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has warned that a win by Democratic hopeful Barack Obama in next week's US election could worsen the world financial crisis, a report said Saturday.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, the newsman said if the Democrats implemented protectionist policies it would be "a real setback for globalisation".
Murdoch said he did not know whether an Obama administration would deliver on all the Democrats' stated policies, saying "presidents don't often behave exactly as the campaign might have suggested."
But he warned that an increase in protectionism in the US as suggested by some Democrats in Congress, would risk retaliation from China and could threaten world trade.
"For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don't change their currency," Murdoch said.
"If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously."
The Australian-born mogul, who controls media interests around the world, also criticised Obama's proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.
"Forty percent (of the US population) don't pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut?" he said.
"But you can give them a welfare cheque which he has promised -- a grant of 500 dollars -- which will disappear very fast. It's not going to turn the economy around at all."
Murdoch, who is in Australia to deliver a series of lectures, rejected the suggestion that the ousting of a Republican administration in the US would be a circuit breaker which automatically boosted financial markets.
"To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians," he said of the current crisis.
"You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."
Murdoch said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been "sure-footed" in handling the crisis, deflecting criticism that the centre-left Labor leader had been too quick to offer a blanket guarantee on bank deposits.
But Murdoch said all politicians should be careful not to worsen the situation by "alarming people more than they should be alarmed".
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, the newsman said if the Democrats implemented protectionist policies it would be "a real setback for globalisation".
Murdoch said he did not know whether an Obama administration would deliver on all the Democrats' stated policies, saying "presidents don't often behave exactly as the campaign might have suggested."
But he warned that an increase in protectionism in the US as suggested by some Democrats in Congress, would risk retaliation from China and could threaten world trade.
"For the past three or four years, some Democrats have been threatening to do things like put on extra tariffs (against Chinese imports) if they don't change their currency," Murdoch said.
"If it happened, it could set off retaliatory action which would certainly damage the world economy seriously."
The Australian-born mogul, who controls media interests around the world, also criticised Obama's proposed tax policies which include granting rebates to most US workers.
"Forty percent (of the US population) don't pay taxes, so how can he give them a tax cut?" he said.
"But you can give them a welfare cheque which he has promised -- a grant of 500 dollars -- which will disappear very fast. It's not going to turn the economy around at all."
Murdoch, who is in Australia to deliver a series of lectures, rejected the suggestion that the ousting of a Republican administration in the US would be a circuit breaker which automatically boosted financial markets.
"To some extent it is beyond the power of politicians," he said of the current crisis.
"You are going to find that the politicians are very limited in what they can do: they can make it worse but they can't stop it."
Murdoch said Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been "sure-footed" in handling the crisis, deflecting criticism that the centre-left Labor leader had been too quick to offer a blanket guarantee on bank deposits.
But Murdoch said all politicians should be careful not to worsen the situation by "alarming people more than they should be alarmed".
Friday, October 31, 2008
How's Obama Going To Raise $4.3 Trillion???
by Alan Reynolds
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on October 24, 2008
This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal on October 24, 2008
The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.
The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.
Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295billion a year by 2012.
But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
How is he going to pay for it?
Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.
Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."
Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.
When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.
When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.
But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).
The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.
Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.
In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)
CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.
The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.
Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.
This commentary was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum.
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on October 24, 2008
This article appeared in the The Wall Street Journal on October 24, 2008
The most troublesome tax increases in Barack Obama's plan are not those we can already see but those sure to be announced later, after the election is over and budget realities rear their ugly head.
The new president, whoever he is, will start out facing a budget deficit of at least $1 trillion, possibly much more. Sen. Obama has nonetheless promised to devote another $1.32 trillion over the next 10 years to several new or expanded refundable tax credits and a special exemption for seniors, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center (TPC). He calls this a "middle-class tax cut," while suggesting the middle class includes 95% of those who work.
Mr. Obama's proposed income-based health-insurance subsidies, tax credits for tiny businesses, and expanded Medicaid eligibility would cost another $1.63 trillion, according to the TPC. Thus his tax rebates and health insurance subsidies alone would lift the undisclosed bill to future taxpayers by $2.95 trillion -- roughly $295billion a year by 2012.
But that's not all. Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP.
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
How is he going to pay for it?
Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.
Besides, Mr. Obama does not claim he can finance his ambitious plans for tax credits, health insurance, etc. by taxing the rich. On the contrary, he has an even less likely revenue source in mind.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, "I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels "unverifiable revenue raisers." To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign "tax havens."
Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible. And Mr. Obama's dream of squeezing more revenue out of corporate profits, dividends and capital gains looks increasingly unbelievable now that profits are falling, banks have cut or eliminated dividends, and only a few short-sellers have any capital gains left to tax.
When it comes to direct spending -- as opposed to handing out "refund" checks through the tax code -- Mr. Obama claims he won't need more revenue because there will be no more spending. He even claims to be proposing to cut more spending ending up with a "net spending cut." That was Mr. Obama's most direct answer to Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the last debate, right after Mr. Schieffer said "The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CFARB) ran the numbers" and found otherwise.
When CFARB "ran the numbers," they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list.
But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance. Mr. Obama is thus credited with saving $50 billion in a single year (2013) by reducing "wasteful spending" and unnamed "obsolete programs." He is said to save Medicare $43 billion a year by importing foreign drugs and negotiating bargains from drug companies. Yet even proponents of that approach such as the Lewin Group find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year. So the remaining $37 billion turns out to depend on what the Obama campaign refers to as undertaking "additional measures as necessary" (more taxes?).
The number of U.S. troops in Iraq will decline, regardless of who the next president is. Yet the CFARB credits John McCain's budget with only a $5 billion savings from troop reduction in Iraq, while Mr. Obama gets an extra $55 billion.
Straining to add credibility to Mr. Obama's fantasy about discovering $75 billion in 2013 from "closing corporate loopholes and tax havens," CFARB assures us that "the campaign has said that an Obama administration would look for other sources of revenue." Indeed they would.
In one respect, CFARB is more candid than the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama favors a relatively draconian cap-and-trade scheme in which the government would sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum. Whenever Mr. Obama claims he has not (yet) proposed any tax increase on couples earning less than $250,000, he forgets to mention his de facto $100 billion annual tax on energy. (The McCain-Lieberman cap-and-trade plan is more gradual and much less costly.)
CFARB assumes Mr. Obama's cap-and-trade tax would raise $100 billion in 2013 alone, but the actual revenue raised would be much lower. Like every other steep surge in energy costs, the Obama cap-and-trade tax would crush the economy, reducing tax receipts from profits and personal income.
The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.
Mr. Obama has offered no clue as to how he intends to pay for his health-insurance plans, or doubling foreign aid, or any of the other 175 programs he's promised to expand. Although he may hope to collect an even larger share of loot from the top of the heap, the harsh reality is that this Democrat's quest for hundreds of billions more revenue each year would have to reach deep into the pockets of the people much lower on the economic ladder. Even then he'd come up short.
This commentary was adapted from a paper for Hillsdale College's Free Market Forum.
Obama's Opposition to "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"
In this audio Obama coldly claims two doctors helping a baby born alive after a botched abortion would be a burden for the aborting mother when he is arguing against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act at the Illinois state legislature April 2002.
Obama and Israel
Excellent commentary from pajamasmedia.com:
October 29, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
“I want to remind those of you … who don’t know me and those of you who do know me what my record has been. It has been unstinting in the defense and support of Israel,” he said at a community center, having discussed at length his travels there and work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I give you my word as a Biden, I would not have given up that job to be Barack Obama’s vice president if I didn’t — in my gut, and in my heart, and in my head — know that Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel.”
– Vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, September 2, at a Jewish community center in Florida
Please, dear reader, do call me a skeptic; I am one. I started learning the price of gullibility in first grade. I traded my chocolate chip cookies to a third grader for his promise of a new pencil sharpener at recess. He lied; I learned.
My grandfather helped. He taught me to “always consider the source” before believing a promise and to never place my trust in an untrustworthy person. I lived and I learned.
Now that I’m well into my sixth decade of life, I’m a very hard sell. And the higher the stakes riding on the promise, the more care I put into my decision to proffer my trust.
When it comes to Israel and her survival as a free nation, the stakes are so high that it behooves even the most trusting American to examine closely the words and records of our candidates in this regard. And, sadly, we are forced to admit that the only reason Joe Biden had to make the reassuring statement above to Jews in Florida is that his candidate, Barack Obama, has the most tenuous, nearly nonexistent, and utterly unreliable “record” of any candidate ever to seek the presidency.
Especially in the arena of foreign affairs. Especially with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.
Scores of articles have already been written about Barack Obama’s rubbery rhetoric, the kind that stretches credulity to the popping point. As it stands now, this untested knave has made so many contradictory statements regarding Israel — a divided or undivided Jerusalem, the threat of radical Islamic terrorists, and on and on and on — that one must pinpoint the date of a statement to even attempt to figure out where Obama actually stands on anything whatsoever.
But Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is absolutely certain of one thing. He’s certain — certain — that the unreliable Obama will be tested within his first six months by other leaders around the globe. Where Americans have utterly failed to properly vet and test this candidate for the presidency, rogue regimes and terrorists and leaders bent on flexing their military muscle will not fail to test and terrorize in their attempts to find the limits of Obama’s mettle.
Not surprisingly, John McCain agrees.
But no American voter need take the word of the Republican candidate, John McCain, for any of this. We have the words of Hillary Clinton. We have the words of Joe Biden. We have the words of Joe Lieberman.
What’s even more startling to me is the fact that Barack Obama has laid out his specific plan to weaken America’s defenses — piece by piece — in the hope that countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and a host of other threatening, hell-bent regimes will see our example and follow suit.
Candidate Obama even made a video, in which he states unequivocally his plan to stake the security of the entire peace-loving world upon his own completely untested skill as a diplomat.
From where I sit, this isn’t a job for a diplomat; it’s the job of a messiah.
Nevertheless, Obama makes the following pledges regarding defense:
“I will cut tens of billions of dollars of wasteful defense spending.”
This makes me nervous.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”
Actually these systems are proving quite capable of protecting against attack.
“I will not weaponize space.”
Even if Russia and China do?
“I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
Letting enemy regimes catch up with us helps preserve the peace? How?
“I will not develop new nuclear weapons.”
Well, it might be diplomatic to let Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others catch up with us. But is it safe?
“I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material, and negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Obama’s grandfather clearly did not teach him to consider the source and not to put one’s trust in untrustworthy people.
It is very sad to say, but of all our allies, Israel is by far the most vulnerable. Yet, candidate Obama, who still seems to believe in the tooth fairy, plans to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, albeit with “preparation” but still “without preconditions” in the first year of his presidency.
Whether this little pow-wow will take place before the anticipated “international crisis” or after is anybody’s guess. Eerily enough, a possible international crisis involving Israel was recently stopped accidentally by a group of Somali pirates.
According to the Israel National News website, an Iranian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in August, an event which made barely a blip in the mainstream press.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials maintained a tight-lipped silence on the alleged incident. However, Russian intelligence sources reportedly said the ship was “an enormous floating dirty bomb, intending to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel.”
“The entire cargo of radioactive sand,” said the Russian sources, “[was] obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.”
Several military web blogs have noted that had the ship’s crew succeeded in reaching Israel’s coastal waters with their deadly cargo, it would have been quite easy to escape the vessel in small boats and then detonate explosives on the vessel. The radioactive powder, which would have been blown into the air, would have been carried by the wind straight to Israel.
Of course, the report goes on to say that it’s impossible to verify this with complete certainty, but if we consider Iran as the source, then we know without doubt that this scenario is certainly very plausible.
This simple deductive reasoning ought not be above anybody’s pay grade.
Of course, Americans sitting safely ensconced continents away from the evil masterminds of the Middle East can easily turn a blind eye towards the death and destruction that continues on a daily basis in our sister nation, Israel. But a great many American Jews have abandoned the safety of home to make aliyah and I could not help but shudder when I read this article by Naomi Ragen, who has made Israel her home since 1971 and has learned the hard way to consider the source of all promises.
Ms. Ragen writes passionately of living through the never-ending quest for peace in her adopted homeland, of trusting and voting for “peace now” candidates against her better judgment, of giving into the fantasies of her countrymen over the Oslo accords, of watching men, women, and children she knew get exploded into bits, and even of her own narrow escapes from death at terrorist hands.
On our presidential election, she makes this anguished plea:
The presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician in America — a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors, all of whom side with Israel’s leftist enemies (including Israelis), as well as to anti-American anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same people who brought down the American economy with their “liberalism” in money-lending — is just about a fait accompli. I have no idea what has happened to the America I knew. I have no idea what happened to the American Jewish community’s support for Israel, how it has been washed away by deceptive self-interest and propaganda lies. But when I think what is in store for the America which is doing this to herself, and the American Jewish community that thinks by selling out Israel it will somehow achieve “change” that will benefit it, my heart aches.
I’m not Jewish. I cannot even pretend to know how it feels to have real relatives who miraculously survived the Holocaust. I cannot pretend to know the realities of living under the ever-present threat that the Israelis endure day in and day out every week, every month, every year. And I cannot pretend that I know the frustration that Israelis like Naomi Ragen have with their sister communities of Jewish Americans.
But I am a passionate lover of Israel. Not because of any creed or faith or bloodline. I love Israel simply because it is the right thing to do. Always has been. Americans once knew this without thinking. The Israelis have demonstrated again, again, again, and again that if the Muslim states want to live side by side in peace, then an everlasting peace will be immediate. Only people blinded by foolish gullibility or misplaced loyalties could possibly see it any differently, in my opinion.
Iran is a proven evil in this world. Ahmadinejad states over and over again his intention to bring about the “real Holocaust.”
This is one lesson the world simply cannot afford to learn again the hard way. But if we don’t vote for the wise hand of John McCain on the national tiller next month, then we may very well learn once again how brazen evil can be in the face of weak-kneed leadership.
Never again? One must never say “never” without the necessary conviction to make it so.
October 29, 2008 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
“I want to remind those of you … who don’t know me and those of you who do know me what my record has been. It has been unstinting in the defense and support of Israel,” he said at a community center, having discussed at length his travels there and work as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I give you my word as a Biden, I would not have given up that job to be Barack Obama’s vice president if I didn’t — in my gut, and in my heart, and in my head — know that Barack Obama is exactly where I am on Israel.”
– Vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, September 2, at a Jewish community center in Florida
Please, dear reader, do call me a skeptic; I am one. I started learning the price of gullibility in first grade. I traded my chocolate chip cookies to a third grader for his promise of a new pencil sharpener at recess. He lied; I learned.
My grandfather helped. He taught me to “always consider the source” before believing a promise and to never place my trust in an untrustworthy person. I lived and I learned.
Now that I’m well into my sixth decade of life, I’m a very hard sell. And the higher the stakes riding on the promise, the more care I put into my decision to proffer my trust.
When it comes to Israel and her survival as a free nation, the stakes are so high that it behooves even the most trusting American to examine closely the words and records of our candidates in this regard. And, sadly, we are forced to admit that the only reason Joe Biden had to make the reassuring statement above to Jews in Florida is that his candidate, Barack Obama, has the most tenuous, nearly nonexistent, and utterly unreliable “record” of any candidate ever to seek the presidency.
Especially in the arena of foreign affairs. Especially with regard to Israel and the Palestinians.
Scores of articles have already been written about Barack Obama’s rubbery rhetoric, the kind that stretches credulity to the popping point. As it stands now, this untested knave has made so many contradictory statements regarding Israel — a divided or undivided Jerusalem, the threat of radical Islamic terrorists, and on and on and on — that one must pinpoint the date of a statement to even attempt to figure out where Obama actually stands on anything whatsoever.
But Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is absolutely certain of one thing. He’s certain — certain — that the unreliable Obama will be tested within his first six months by other leaders around the globe. Where Americans have utterly failed to properly vet and test this candidate for the presidency, rogue regimes and terrorists and leaders bent on flexing their military muscle will not fail to test and terrorize in their attempts to find the limits of Obama’s mettle.
Not surprisingly, John McCain agrees.
But no American voter need take the word of the Republican candidate, John McCain, for any of this. We have the words of Hillary Clinton. We have the words of Joe Biden. We have the words of Joe Lieberman.
What’s even more startling to me is the fact that Barack Obama has laid out his specific plan to weaken America’s defenses — piece by piece — in the hope that countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and a host of other threatening, hell-bent regimes will see our example and follow suit.
Candidate Obama even made a video, in which he states unequivocally his plan to stake the security of the entire peace-loving world upon his own completely untested skill as a diplomat.
From where I sit, this isn’t a job for a diplomat; it’s the job of a messiah.
Nevertheless, Obama makes the following pledges regarding defense:
“I will cut tens of billions of dollars of wasteful defense spending.”
This makes me nervous.
“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”
Actually these systems are proving quite capable of protecting against attack.
“I will not weaponize space.”
Even if Russia and China do?
“I will slow our development of future combat systems.”
Letting enemy regimes catch up with us helps preserve the peace? How?
“I will not develop new nuclear weapons.”
Well, it might be diplomatic to let Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others catch up with us. But is it safe?
“I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material, and negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
Obama’s grandfather clearly did not teach him to consider the source and not to put one’s trust in untrustworthy people.
It is very sad to say, but of all our allies, Israel is by far the most vulnerable. Yet, candidate Obama, who still seems to believe in the tooth fairy, plans to sit down and talk with Ahmadinejad, albeit with “preparation” but still “without preconditions” in the first year of his presidency.
Whether this little pow-wow will take place before the anticipated “international crisis” or after is anybody’s guess. Eerily enough, a possible international crisis involving Israel was recently stopped accidentally by a group of Somali pirates.
According to the Israel National News website, an Iranian ship was hijacked by Somali pirates in August, an event which made barely a blip in the mainstream press.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials maintained a tight-lipped silence on the alleged incident. However, Russian intelligence sources reportedly said the ship was “an enormous floating dirty bomb, intending to detonate after exiting the Suez Canal at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and in proximity to the coastal cities of Israel.”
“The entire cargo of radioactive sand,” said the Russian sources, “[was] obtained by Iran from China (the latter buys desperately needed oil from the former) and sealed in containers which, when the charges on the ship are set off after the crew took to the boats, will be blasted high into the air where prevailing winds will push the highly dangerous and radioactive cloud ashore.”
Several military web blogs have noted that had the ship’s crew succeeded in reaching Israel’s coastal waters with their deadly cargo, it would have been quite easy to escape the vessel in small boats and then detonate explosives on the vessel. The radioactive powder, which would have been blown into the air, would have been carried by the wind straight to Israel.
Of course, the report goes on to say that it’s impossible to verify this with complete certainty, but if we consider Iran as the source, then we know without doubt that this scenario is certainly very plausible.
This simple deductive reasoning ought not be above anybody’s pay grade.
Of course, Americans sitting safely ensconced continents away from the evil masterminds of the Middle East can easily turn a blind eye towards the death and destruction that continues on a daily basis in our sister nation, Israel. But a great many American Jews have abandoned the safety of home to make aliyah and I could not help but shudder when I read this article by Naomi Ragen, who has made Israel her home since 1971 and has learned the hard way to consider the source of all promises.
Ms. Ragen writes passionately of living through the never-ending quest for peace in her adopted homeland, of trusting and voting for “peace now” candidates against her better judgment, of giving into the fantasies of her countrymen over the Oslo accords, of watching men, women, and children she knew get exploded into bits, and even of her own narrow escapes from death at terrorist hands.
On our presidential election, she makes this anguished plea:
The presidential election of the most liberal and inexperienced politician in America — a man with strong Muslim ties and a strong Muslim background; a man who is linked to domestic terrorism through Bill Ayers, and to numerous pro-Islamic and anti-American advisors, all of whom side with Israel’s leftist enemies (including Israelis), as well as to anti-American anti-Semites like Reverend Wright; a man whose supporters are among the same people who brought down the American economy with their “liberalism” in money-lending — is just about a fait accompli. I have no idea what has happened to the America I knew. I have no idea what happened to the American Jewish community’s support for Israel, how it has been washed away by deceptive self-interest and propaganda lies. But when I think what is in store for the America which is doing this to herself, and the American Jewish community that thinks by selling out Israel it will somehow achieve “change” that will benefit it, my heart aches.
I’m not Jewish. I cannot even pretend to know how it feels to have real relatives who miraculously survived the Holocaust. I cannot pretend to know the realities of living under the ever-present threat that the Israelis endure day in and day out every week, every month, every year. And I cannot pretend that I know the frustration that Israelis like Naomi Ragen have with their sister communities of Jewish Americans.
But I am a passionate lover of Israel. Not because of any creed or faith or bloodline. I love Israel simply because it is the right thing to do. Always has been. Americans once knew this without thinking. The Israelis have demonstrated again, again, again, and again that if the Muslim states want to live side by side in peace, then an everlasting peace will be immediate. Only people blinded by foolish gullibility or misplaced loyalties could possibly see it any differently, in my opinion.
Iran is a proven evil in this world. Ahmadinejad states over and over again his intention to bring about the “real Holocaust.”
This is one lesson the world simply cannot afford to learn again the hard way. But if we don’t vote for the wise hand of John McCain on the national tiller next month, then we may very well learn once again how brazen evil can be in the face of weak-kneed leadership.
Never again? One must never say “never” without the necessary conviction to make it so.
Local Palm Springs Newspaper Endorses McCain!
What a pleasant surprise, especially considering that this is not the most Republican-friendly place on earth . . .
McCain has the ability to bring about change
The Desert Sun endorses Republican candidate John McCain for president of the United States.
McCain has a long and documented record of leadership. He has taken courageous positions in opposition of his party's leaders, he has fought and sacrificed dearly for this country, and he has the political experience, both foreign and domestic, needed to bring about the type of change Americans want during one of the most uncertain times in our history.
The challenge ahead
The country faces critical challenges. It is embroiled in two wars, national debt is $10 trillion and growing, foreclosed homes pepper neighborhoods across the country, the unemployment rate is climbing and the current president and Congress just passed a $700 billion bailout — money the nation doesn't have — in an attempt to end the credit crisis.
Yes, Americans demand change in the White House. But the issues facing the country are far too momentous to leave in the hands of anyone other than a proven leader. McCain is the only candidate in this presidential race with the experience and proven track record as a leader to deliver that change for all.
We know how McCain has voted in the past and it is not simply in lock-step with the Republican Party. He votes for what he believes is best for the nation, even if that puts him at odds with President Bush and other GOP leaders.
He survived five years as a POW in Hanoi and fought numerous battles in Washington.
Reaching across the aisle
He collaborated with iconic Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy on a solution to illegal immigration and sponsored campaign finance reform through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act. It is considered McCain's greatest legislative achievement.
We can't say the same for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has not been tested. He is three years into his first term as a U.S. senator. He's not been a governor or the CEO of a major corporation. Obama's record is short and it does not transcend party affiliation — that we all know for certain.
An Obama presidency would coincide with Democratic control of both houses of Congress, meaning unfettered control of federal policy by the Democrats for at least the next two years. That is not what's best for the country. The American people have shown election after election that they want a balanced government.
Obama has eloquence
No one can take away from the fact that Obama is an inspirational figure and a skilled orator. He does bring a sense of hope to many. Not since John F. Kennedy have we seen such a charismatic candidate with a keen ability to touch people's emotions. It was these reasons that we endorsed him in the Democratic primary.
But delivering a good speech is not enough for the presidency. We need experience, a record of service and bipartisan leadership. With Obama, the American people have no guarantee that he will govern from the center. McCain has proven he is a centrist.
McCain has substance
McCain's record shows he is willing to regulate when necessary and deregulate when necessary. He supports banking regulations now, but he also has a record of deregulating industries that become mired in government bureaucracy. He is the right Republican for this point in American history.
Obama has pledged repeatedly he will tax the rich and spread the wealth. By contrast, McCain has supported many moderate policies in his career. As he said, he is no George Bush. We agree.
McCain does have shortcomings. We disagree with his policy on health care reform and with his choice for vice president. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin does not have the experience to match McCain's. We also dislike the defensive tone McCain has exhibited in the final weeks of this campaign. These disagreements, however, do not change our position on McCain as the best choice for president.
We support McCain because his leadership is proven and he best reflects the values of this part of California.
The Desert Sun urges voters to elect John McCain as president.
McCain has the ability to bring about change
The Desert Sun endorses Republican candidate John McCain for president of the United States.
McCain has a long and documented record of leadership. He has taken courageous positions in opposition of his party's leaders, he has fought and sacrificed dearly for this country, and he has the political experience, both foreign and domestic, needed to bring about the type of change Americans want during one of the most uncertain times in our history.
The challenge ahead
The country faces critical challenges. It is embroiled in two wars, national debt is $10 trillion and growing, foreclosed homes pepper neighborhoods across the country, the unemployment rate is climbing and the current president and Congress just passed a $700 billion bailout — money the nation doesn't have — in an attempt to end the credit crisis.
Yes, Americans demand change in the White House. But the issues facing the country are far too momentous to leave in the hands of anyone other than a proven leader. McCain is the only candidate in this presidential race with the experience and proven track record as a leader to deliver that change for all.
We know how McCain has voted in the past and it is not simply in lock-step with the Republican Party. He votes for what he believes is best for the nation, even if that puts him at odds with President Bush and other GOP leaders.
He survived five years as a POW in Hanoi and fought numerous battles in Washington.
Reaching across the aisle
He collaborated with iconic Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy on a solution to illegal immigration and sponsored campaign finance reform through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which is commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act. It is considered McCain's greatest legislative achievement.
We can't say the same for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has not been tested. He is three years into his first term as a U.S. senator. He's not been a governor or the CEO of a major corporation. Obama's record is short and it does not transcend party affiliation — that we all know for certain.
An Obama presidency would coincide with Democratic control of both houses of Congress, meaning unfettered control of federal policy by the Democrats for at least the next two years. That is not what's best for the country. The American people have shown election after election that they want a balanced government.
Obama has eloquence
No one can take away from the fact that Obama is an inspirational figure and a skilled orator. He does bring a sense of hope to many. Not since John F. Kennedy have we seen such a charismatic candidate with a keen ability to touch people's emotions. It was these reasons that we endorsed him in the Democratic primary.
But delivering a good speech is not enough for the presidency. We need experience, a record of service and bipartisan leadership. With Obama, the American people have no guarantee that he will govern from the center. McCain has proven he is a centrist.
McCain has substance
McCain's record shows he is willing to regulate when necessary and deregulate when necessary. He supports banking regulations now, but he also has a record of deregulating industries that become mired in government bureaucracy. He is the right Republican for this point in American history.
Obama has pledged repeatedly he will tax the rich and spread the wealth. By contrast, McCain has supported many moderate policies in his career. As he said, he is no George Bush. We agree.
McCain does have shortcomings. We disagree with his policy on health care reform and with his choice for vice president. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin does not have the experience to match McCain's. We also dislike the defensive tone McCain has exhibited in the final weeks of this campaign. These disagreements, however, do not change our position on McCain as the best choice for president.
We support McCain because his leadership is proven and he best reflects the values of this part of California.
The Desert Sun urges voters to elect John McCain as president.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
FLASHBACK: Reagan on Taxes
If Reagan were still alive, he would absolutely cringe at the rhetoric from the Obama campaign about "speading the wealth" and about it being "patriotic" to pay higher taxes.
Reagan correctly pointed out that this type of tax system is "Unamerican" and also understood why attempts to overtax the wealthy always fail.
My favorite part of the speech, though, is when he says that Washington is full of "gobbeldy-gook." God bless the gipper!!!
Reagan correctly pointed out that this type of tax system is "Unamerican" and also understood why attempts to overtax the wealthy always fail.
My favorite part of the speech, though, is when he says that Washington is full of "gobbeldy-gook." God bless the gipper!!!
Remind You Of Anyone?
Victim: Robbers thought they were 'Robin Hood'
by Heidi Homa - Oct. 30, 2008 10:31 AM
The Arizona Republic
SCOTTSDALE - The three men who invaded and robbed the Scottsdale home of a 68-year-old man claimed the crime was "their own form of redistribution of wealth," the victim said, "sort of like Robin Hood."
The invaders beat, choked and tied up Keith Nickels and his girlfriend, 61, Tuesday.
Nickels gave this account:
He was asleep in bed at home, near 85th Street and Wethersfield Road, when he was woken at 4 a.m. by a hit in the head and in the face, while his girlfriend was being choked.
"They said, 'If you quit fighting, we'll quit hitting,'" Nickels said. "They didn't, and I didn't."
The beatings continued until he and his girlfriend eventually passed out. When they awoke, they were tied up and had pillowcases over their heads.
After the beatings, the three men were "quite cordial." They allowed his girlfriend to go to the bathroom, and they spoke to him politely on and off during the 2½ hours that the men ransacked the home.
Afterwards, Nickels and his girlfriend were placed in separate closets, with dressers leaned against the doors and against each other to form a V, to prevent them from getting out easily.
The robbers told them not to get up. They said there were cameras in the closets, but Nickels didn't believe them.
He stayed there for five minutes, pulled the pillowcase off, and used a walking stick from inside the closet to push one dresser upright and allow himself to escape.
He then yanked the dresser from in front of the other closet door, let his girlfriend out, and called 911. He also made sure to get a knife out of a nearby cabinet.
Police arrived, and Nickels and his girlfriend were transported to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn, where their injuries were treated and they were released Tuesday evening, police said.
Nickels was bleeding all over and had 27 stitches in his forehead, eye and ear, he said.
Suspect descriptions are limited at this time, police said. However, Nickels said he thought they were young guys around 30.
"It's kind of cowardly, I think," Nickels said about the attack.
But he also feels that he was "too complacent" in his attitude. "We live in a nice part of town and thought nothing like this would ever happen here," Nickels said. "I've been here 20 years, and it's the first (invasion) in the neighborhood I've ever heard of."
Nickels is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. He's had the locks on his home changed, as well as the garage code. He also plans to have a more sufficient security system installed that will immediately notify police if there is an invasion.
Now all he can do is try to get past the trauma.
"I think we'll be OK," he said. "It's going to take a little while."
by Heidi Homa - Oct. 30, 2008 10:31 AM
The Arizona Republic
SCOTTSDALE - The three men who invaded and robbed the Scottsdale home of a 68-year-old man claimed the crime was "their own form of redistribution of wealth," the victim said, "sort of like Robin Hood."
The invaders beat, choked and tied up Keith Nickels and his girlfriend, 61, Tuesday.
Nickels gave this account:
He was asleep in bed at home, near 85th Street and Wethersfield Road, when he was woken at 4 a.m. by a hit in the head and in the face, while his girlfriend was being choked.
"They said, 'If you quit fighting, we'll quit hitting,'" Nickels said. "They didn't, and I didn't."
The beatings continued until he and his girlfriend eventually passed out. When they awoke, they were tied up and had pillowcases over their heads.
After the beatings, the three men were "quite cordial." They allowed his girlfriend to go to the bathroom, and they spoke to him politely on and off during the 2½ hours that the men ransacked the home.
Afterwards, Nickels and his girlfriend were placed in separate closets, with dressers leaned against the doors and against each other to form a V, to prevent them from getting out easily.
The robbers told them not to get up. They said there were cameras in the closets, but Nickels didn't believe them.
He stayed there for five minutes, pulled the pillowcase off, and used a walking stick from inside the closet to push one dresser upright and allow himself to escape.
He then yanked the dresser from in front of the other closet door, let his girlfriend out, and called 911. He also made sure to get a knife out of a nearby cabinet.
Police arrived, and Nickels and his girlfriend were transported to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn, where their injuries were treated and they were released Tuesday evening, police said.
Nickels was bleeding all over and had 27 stitches in his forehead, eye and ear, he said.
Suspect descriptions are limited at this time, police said. However, Nickels said he thought they were young guys around 30.
"It's kind of cowardly, I think," Nickels said about the attack.
But he also feels that he was "too complacent" in his attitude. "We live in a nice part of town and thought nothing like this would ever happen here," Nickels said. "I've been here 20 years, and it's the first (invasion) in the neighborhood I've ever heard of."
Nickels is trying to make sure it doesn't happen again. He's had the locks on his home changed, as well as the garage code. He also plans to have a more sufficient security system installed that will immediately notify police if there is an invasion.
Now all he can do is try to get past the trauma.
"I think we'll be OK," he said. "It's going to take a little while."
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama "Tax Cut" Would Be ZERO Help to U.S. Economy
By Jack Kemp and Peter Ferrara
Special to Investor's Business Daily
Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut for 95% of all Americans. He is referring here to his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers, except those in the top 5% of income earners.
Those folks, for some reason, are to be singled out for "special treatment"- i.e., tax increases- unless, as he recently yold ABC anchor George Stephanopoulous, "the economy remains weak."
So apparently even Obama realizes that his tax increases would be economically harmful.
Because Obama's tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, it will not benefit the economy. It provides NO added incentives for work, savings, investment, or business expansion.
Because it's refundable (meaning workers get it even if they have little or no income tax liability), for amny it will involve just another check from the government, rather than a reducation in tax liability. In those cases, it would not be a tax cut at all, but a transfer payment and a direct drain on tax revenues.
McCain proposes to DOUBLE the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000, for all families regardless of income. For middle class workers in the 25% tax bracket, this $3,500 increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child. While this tax cut also does not involve a reduction in marginal tax rates, it will promote working families with children.
But McCain also proposes marginal tax rates that DO promote economic growth and encourage investment. Because America suffers today from the second-highest corporate teax rates in the industrialized world, McCain would help restore American competitiveness by reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. This would benefit the middle class and workers by creating new jobs, at better wages, while strangthening the dollar.
It my even raise, rather than reduce, revenues. According to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department, Ireland- with a 12.5% corporate tax rate- raises alsmost 50% more revenue on a comparative basis than the United States does with a 35% rate.
McCain would also hold the top capital gains tax rate and dividend ta at 15%. Both would provide a much-needed boost for the value of stocks, which are now held by more than two-thirds of all Americans.
McCain further propooses to phase out the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise burden 25 million middle-class families. This will save middle-class families $2,700 each year on average, an overall middle-class tax cut of $60 billion per year.
McCain's tax plan includes other provisions that would boost our economy as well, including the expensing of new investment in eqquipment, macchinery, and technology.
Obama, by contrast, has proposed to RAISE marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax- the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the death tax, etc. He would further increase corporate taxes through such measures as the windfall profits tax on oil companies.
These marginal tax rate increases would dramatically discourage savings, investment, business expansion, and job creation. Such tax increases would consequently slow the economy even further and reduce jobs and wages for working people and the middle class, while simultaneously weakening the dollar.
Republicans should promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our confusing, contrdictory, and confiscatory tax code. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system with a standard deduction of $25,000 for couples ($12,500 for singles), plus a personal deduction of $3,500 per family member (exempting the first $39,000 for a family of four).
A 10% tax rate would then apply to the next $100,000 for couples ($50,000 for singles), with a 25% rate above that. Currently, a 15% tax rate starts at $15,650 for couples ($7,825 for singles), with a 25% rate starting at $63,700 for couples ($31,850 for singles).
Ryan's plan, which McCain has praised, would promote a powerful economic and investment boom, while creating jobs and good wwages for millions.
Finally, the biggest middle-class tax cut of all would be allowing workers the freedom to CHOOSE personal accounts for Social Security, which McCain has also praised. These accounts would grow eventually to replace the entire payroll tax for those who choose them, with the accounts financing all the benefits now paid through the tax.
To the extent that workers make this choice, this would eliminate payroll taxes on working people and the middle class, now the highest tax they pay. Instead, working people would be paying into their own personal store of family wealth, opening up broad new vistas of opportunity.
Special to Investor's Business Daily
Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut for 95% of all Americans. He is referring here to his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers, except those in the top 5% of income earners.
Those folks, for some reason, are to be singled out for "special treatment"- i.e., tax increases- unless, as he recently yold ABC anchor George Stephanopoulous, "the economy remains weak."
So apparently even Obama realizes that his tax increases would be economically harmful.
Because Obama's tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, it will not benefit the economy. It provides NO added incentives for work, savings, investment, or business expansion.
Because it's refundable (meaning workers get it even if they have little or no income tax liability), for amny it will involve just another check from the government, rather than a reducation in tax liability. In those cases, it would not be a tax cut at all, but a transfer payment and a direct drain on tax revenues.
McCain proposes to DOUBLE the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000, for all families regardless of income. For middle class workers in the 25% tax bracket, this $3,500 increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child. While this tax cut also does not involve a reduction in marginal tax rates, it will promote working families with children.
But McCain also proposes marginal tax rates that DO promote economic growth and encourage investment. Because America suffers today from the second-highest corporate teax rates in the industrialized world, McCain would help restore American competitiveness by reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. This would benefit the middle class and workers by creating new jobs, at better wages, while strangthening the dollar.
It my even raise, rather than reduce, revenues. According to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department, Ireland- with a 12.5% corporate tax rate- raises alsmost 50% more revenue on a comparative basis than the United States does with a 35% rate.
McCain would also hold the top capital gains tax rate and dividend ta at 15%. Both would provide a much-needed boost for the value of stocks, which are now held by more than two-thirds of all Americans.
McCain further propooses to phase out the alternative minimum tax, which would otherwise burden 25 million middle-class families. This will save middle-class families $2,700 each year on average, an overall middle-class tax cut of $60 billion per year.
McCain's tax plan includes other provisions that would boost our economy as well, including the expensing of new investment in eqquipment, macchinery, and technology.
Obama, by contrast, has proposed to RAISE marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax- the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the death tax, etc. He would further increase corporate taxes through such measures as the windfall profits tax on oil companies.
These marginal tax rate increases would dramatically discourage savings, investment, business expansion, and job creation. Such tax increases would consequently slow the economy even further and reduce jobs and wages for working people and the middle class, while simultaneously weakening the dollar.
Republicans should promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our confusing, contrdictory, and confiscatory tax code. Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin proposes to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system with a standard deduction of $25,000 for couples ($12,500 for singles), plus a personal deduction of $3,500 per family member (exempting the first $39,000 for a family of four).
A 10% tax rate would then apply to the next $100,000 for couples ($50,000 for singles), with a 25% rate above that. Currently, a 15% tax rate starts at $15,650 for couples ($7,825 for singles), with a 25% rate starting at $63,700 for couples ($31,850 for singles).
Ryan's plan, which McCain has praised, would promote a powerful economic and investment boom, while creating jobs and good wwages for millions.
Finally, the biggest middle-class tax cut of all would be allowing workers the freedom to CHOOSE personal accounts for Social Security, which McCain has also praised. These accounts would grow eventually to replace the entire payroll tax for those who choose them, with the accounts financing all the benefits now paid through the tax.
To the extent that workers make this choice, this would eliminate payroll taxes on working people and the middle class, now the highest tax they pay. Instead, working people would be paying into their own personal store of family wealth, opening up broad new vistas of opportunity.
OUR TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED: Bar Style!!!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.
The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all.
The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Monday, October 27, 2008
GAY vs. GAY Homophobia
This article was posted on the Log Cabin Republican website last week. I can definitely relate, especially since not only am I gay and Republican, but also gay and against same sex "marriage" rights. The hostile, nasty, and insipid reactions from so many other gays just strengthen and affirm my positions and beliefs, making it all the more necessary that the intelligent and mature voices in the gay community be heard, even when those voices are few. As I have witnessed first-hand numerous times over the past nine years, there is significantly more "homophobia" within the gay community than in mainstream society.
Here is the article:
As we enter the election's homestretch, gay and lesbian Republicans have come under intense fire from the gay community for daring to speak our minds about this campaign. Instead of arguing the merits of their candidate, too many on the left resort to name calling. Emotion replaces fact. Name calling replaces logic. In this case, those we often hear speaking about tolerance sound awfully intolerant.
Despite having the most pro-gay GOP presidential nominee in American history, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite an history Q&A Sen. McCain did with the Washington Blade, a gay publication, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite a campaign and a candidate who has reached out and asked for LGBT votes like no other Republican nominee before, we are attacked from the gay left.
Just check out a tiny sampling of the senseless inaccuracies filling the pages of popular, mainstream LGBT blogs and websites:
Gay conservatives "support those who would throw us all in prison.
"
- Alex Blaze, Oct.
21st, writing for the popular LGBT website the Bilerico Project
[Log Cabin Republicans'] "suicidal tendency to help a party that despises them is the pink elephant in the room.
"
- Popular gay writer Wayne Besen, in a Sept.
19th column for the Huffington Post titled "Log Cabin Republicans Should Disband"
"Gay Republicans? What about Jews for Hitler? or Blacks for the KKK?"
- Typical comment posted to the Advocate. com
It doesn't stop there. The e-mails we receive usually include the same tired stereotypes about gay and lesbian Republicans. Rarely do we receive a thoughtful analysis or critique of our work.
"It must be so painful to bear that much self-hatred, to be so ashamed of your sexuality that you would willingly sacrifice your rights in order to fit in with that...Republican party.
"
"Do you folks ever vote based on anything but your wallets?"
"F___ you a__holes. You make me sick and embarrassed that you are gay. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"
Noted gay conservative writer Dale Carpenter said it best: "It's the worst vitriol against gay conservatives I've seen in fifteen years in this movement.
"
*For your further entertainment and reading pleasure, I'll add a few silly comments that have been directed my way in recent weeks, comments which are of such deep thought and high intellect that they certainly help to advance the case for gay rights, as I'm sure you'll agree:
"You have a lot of hate and bitterness that you need to deal with man ... just like your man McInsane there ... Typical oximoran gay repugnant! YOURE AN A__HOLE!!! You are a disgrace to ANYone gay or lesbian.
Go find a woman and be done with it a__whipe!!!"
"I keep reading what you have written and I still can't believe it. You must have something wrong with you if you really think this way ... Just because you haven't had a good relationship yet in your life, doesn't mean that others haven't either OR that you won't someday.
"
Here is the article:
As we enter the election's homestretch, gay and lesbian Republicans have come under intense fire from the gay community for daring to speak our minds about this campaign. Instead of arguing the merits of their candidate, too many on the left resort to name calling. Emotion replaces fact. Name calling replaces logic. In this case, those we often hear speaking about tolerance sound awfully intolerant.
Despite having the most pro-gay GOP presidential nominee in American history, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite an history Q&A Sen. McCain did with the Washington Blade, a gay publication, we are attacked from the gay left.
Despite a campaign and a candidate who has reached out and asked for LGBT votes like no other Republican nominee before, we are attacked from the gay left.
Just check out a tiny sampling of the senseless inaccuracies filling the pages of popular, mainstream LGBT blogs and websites:
Gay conservatives "support those who would throw us all in prison.
"
- Alex Blaze, Oct.
21st, writing for the popular LGBT website the Bilerico Project
[Log Cabin Republicans'] "suicidal tendency to help a party that despises them is the pink elephant in the room.
"
- Popular gay writer Wayne Besen, in a Sept.
19th column for the Huffington Post titled "Log Cabin Republicans Should Disband"
"Gay Republicans? What about Jews for Hitler? or Blacks for the KKK?"
- Typical comment posted to the Advocate. com
It doesn't stop there. The e-mails we receive usually include the same tired stereotypes about gay and lesbian Republicans. Rarely do we receive a thoughtful analysis or critique of our work.
"It must be so painful to bear that much self-hatred, to be so ashamed of your sexuality that you would willingly sacrifice your rights in order to fit in with that...Republican party.
"
"Do you folks ever vote based on anything but your wallets?"
"F___ you a__holes. You make me sick and embarrassed that you are gay. You should be ashamed of yourself.
"
Noted gay conservative writer Dale Carpenter said it best: "It's the worst vitriol against gay conservatives I've seen in fifteen years in this movement.
"
*For your further entertainment and reading pleasure, I'll add a few silly comments that have been directed my way in recent weeks, comments which are of such deep thought and high intellect that they certainly help to advance the case for gay rights, as I'm sure you'll agree:
"You have a lot of hate and bitterness that you need to deal with man ... just like your man McInsane there ... Typical oximoran gay repugnant! YOURE AN A__HOLE!!! You are a disgrace to ANYone gay or lesbian.
Go find a woman and be done with it a__whipe!!!"
"I keep reading what you have written and I still can't believe it. You must have something wrong with you if you really think this way ... Just because you haven't had a good relationship yet in your life, doesn't mean that others haven't either OR that you won't someday.
"
Friday, October 24, 2008
WHY THIS GAY MAN SUPPORTS PROP. 8 !!!
I'll say it very clearly:
I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE."
In fact, the very thought of it makes me cringe!
Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?
First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA). Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married!
Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision, and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.), and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire legal practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.
I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"
To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how DARE the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit. I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!
Let me clarify something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not feel the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.
Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to these ideas for several years, and they got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seem content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.
Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, EVERY str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions here and there, but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.
When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and who is genuinely happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, then they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!
The bottom line is that I support Prop. 8, mainly because contrary to what many believe, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Again, Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.
I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.
Furthermore, it has been shown time after time that pushing a gay marriage agenda has almost always eroded, not enhanced, society's support of gay people. Many who otherwise support gay rights, and believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people often finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough!
Personally, if a same sex couple is truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurities about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore feel that they need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real and loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition whatsoever.
Ironically, many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.
Regardless of your sexual orientation, I hope you'll agree with me that giving "marriage" rights to same-sex couples is a horrible idea. It's best for everyone, gay or straight, that traditional marriage is kept intact.
I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE."
In fact, the very thought of it makes me cringe!
Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?
First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA). Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married!
Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision, and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.), and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire legal practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.
I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"
To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how DARE the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit. I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!
Let me clarify something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not feel the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.
Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to these ideas for several years, and they got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seem content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.
Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, EVERY str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions here and there, but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.
When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and who is genuinely happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, then they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!
The bottom line is that I support Prop. 8, mainly because contrary to what many believe, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Again, Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.
I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.
Furthermore, it has been shown time after time that pushing a gay marriage agenda has almost always eroded, not enhanced, society's support of gay people. Many who otherwise support gay rights, and believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people often finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough!
Personally, if a same sex couple is truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurities about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore feel that they need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real and loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition whatsoever.
Ironically, many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.
Regardless of your sexual orientation, I hope you'll agree with me that giving "marriage" rights to same-sex couples is a horrible idea. It's best for everyone, gay or straight, that traditional marriage is kept intact.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Gay Marriage and Public Education
Although I support Proposition 8 (for reasons I explained in a previous blog), several recent TV ads here in California by Prop. 8 supporters have been EXTREMELY misleading, attempting to scare parents into thinking that if Prop. 8 fails, gay marriage will be taught to public school children from a very young age.
The ad features a law professor from Pepperdine University (which is just about the lowest ranked ABA law school in the state) speaking of a court case in Massachusetts in an attempt to make parents think that the public schools will be allowed to teach their children about gay marriage without notifying parents beforehand.
This approach confuses voters by suggesting that the law in California is the same as it is in Massachusetts. This is most certainly not the case. If anything, gay marriage would not be taught to CA public school students until middle school sexual education classes (and shouldn't be until this time, if at all), and California law clearly states that parents DO have the right to opt their children out of sex ed classes.
Again, I will be voting YES on Prop. 8, and you can call me a "hypocrite" or "traitor" all you want. It starting falling on deaf ears long ago, and will just affirm all the more why the ballot measure needs to be passed in the first place. At the same time however, I think the T.V. ads are very irresponsible. Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public education, and as I mentioned in my prior blog, it doesn't even really have anything to do with gays either.
The Prop. 8 opponents are also guilty of misleading the public by saying the measure is about "discrimination" or treating some people like "second class citizens." This is also completely false. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 would not even be on our ballot if the California Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds in the horrible ruling it made earlier this year that was not even a court's decision to make.
The Bottom Line: Proposition 8 (as well as a similar measure on the Arizona ballot this election) is about the institution of marriage, and what it was always intended to be since its inception.
Here's an article in today's local paper that further speaks to the issue:
Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • October 23, 2008
A young girl exclaims to her mom, “Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.”
Her mother's eyes widen as a law professor at Pepperdine University says, “Think it can't happen? It's already happened.”
This is one of several Yes on Proposition 8 ads on TV and radio claiming that if the man-woman marriage measure fails on Nov. 4, students as young as kindergarten will learn about same-sex marriage.
The professor points out that a Massachusetts district judge in 2007 dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by the parents of a second-grader who read “King and King” in class without the school district providing parental notification. Massachusetts' curricula “encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students concerning different types of people and families.”
California educators, however, say the state education curricula does not address marriage. It's up to local school districts, they say.
Although the proposed amendment says nothing about public school education, it has emerged as a central issue in this hotly contested measure that has had both sides volleying charges of unfair political advertising.
“We teach the California standards, and marriage, of any kind, is not part of the California standards or required to be taught by state Education Code as the television ad states,” Palm Springs Unified Superintendent Lorri McCune said via e-mail on Wednesday.
“Passage of Proposition 8 will not change anything that is taught or not taught in our classrooms.”
Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot would amend the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
A yes vote would reverse the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in May that found a ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2000 unconstitutional.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many locally as the Palm Springs area boasts one of the largest gay populations per capita in the U.S. and is renowned for its gay-friendly businesses and events.
Gays and lesbians have been legally marrying in the state and the Coachella Valley since June 17.
Tolerance lessons
Opponents of the measure say the ads are deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians.
To combat anti-gay discrimination, California schools have addressed topics such as gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years, well before the state Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal this year.
The California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell have all maintained Proposition 8 has nothing to do with public school education.
“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O'Connell has said in statements.
“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chose by local school governing board.”
Proposition 8 supporters received fodder for their claims earlier this month when a public charter school took 18 first-graders on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall, with parental permission, where their teacher and her female partner had married.
“The other side's argument is (Proposition 8) has nothing to do with education. Our argument is this has everything to do with education,” said Chip White, a Proposition 8 spokesman. “It's already happening.”
About 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in California, which is one of 12 states with comprehensive anti-bullying laws that apply to gay students and children with unconventional families.
The need for such awareness training was brought home to California in February, when a 15-year-old who sometimes wore feminine clothing and talked about being gay was shot to death at his Oxnard junior high school. A classmate has pleaded not guilty to murder and hate-crime charges.
The education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. Most California districts do not teach sex ed.
California gives local districts authority — and in the case of sex education, the imperative — to adopt curricula that reflect community mores while meeting certain standards.
“We teach tolerance and acceptance,” said Shari Stewart, president of the Palm Springs Unified school board.
“We don't specifically have a curriculum (regarding) sexual orientation. We only teach what's on the state test.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The ad features a law professor from Pepperdine University (which is just about the lowest ranked ABA law school in the state) speaking of a court case in Massachusetts in an attempt to make parents think that the public schools will be allowed to teach their children about gay marriage without notifying parents beforehand.
This approach confuses voters by suggesting that the law in California is the same as it is in Massachusetts. This is most certainly not the case. If anything, gay marriage would not be taught to CA public school students until middle school sexual education classes (and shouldn't be until this time, if at all), and California law clearly states that parents DO have the right to opt their children out of sex ed classes.
Again, I will be voting YES on Prop. 8, and you can call me a "hypocrite" or "traitor" all you want. It starting falling on deaf ears long ago, and will just affirm all the more why the ballot measure needs to be passed in the first place. At the same time however, I think the T.V. ads are very irresponsible. Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public education, and as I mentioned in my prior blog, it doesn't even really have anything to do with gays either.
The Prop. 8 opponents are also guilty of misleading the public by saying the measure is about "discrimination" or treating some people like "second class citizens." This is also completely false. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 would not even be on our ballot if the California Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds in the horrible ruling it made earlier this year that was not even a court's decision to make.
The Bottom Line: Proposition 8 (as well as a similar measure on the Arizona ballot this election) is about the institution of marriage, and what it was always intended to be since its inception.
Here's an article in today's local paper that further speaks to the issue:
Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • October 23, 2008
A young girl exclaims to her mom, “Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.”
Her mother's eyes widen as a law professor at Pepperdine University says, “Think it can't happen? It's already happened.”
This is one of several Yes on Proposition 8 ads on TV and radio claiming that if the man-woman marriage measure fails on Nov. 4, students as young as kindergarten will learn about same-sex marriage.
The professor points out that a Massachusetts district judge in 2007 dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by the parents of a second-grader who read “King and King” in class without the school district providing parental notification. Massachusetts' curricula “encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students concerning different types of people and families.”
California educators, however, say the state education curricula does not address marriage. It's up to local school districts, they say.
Although the proposed amendment says nothing about public school education, it has emerged as a central issue in this hotly contested measure that has had both sides volleying charges of unfair political advertising.
“We teach the California standards, and marriage, of any kind, is not part of the California standards or required to be taught by state Education Code as the television ad states,” Palm Springs Unified Superintendent Lorri McCune said via e-mail on Wednesday.
“Passage of Proposition 8 will not change anything that is taught or not taught in our classrooms.”
Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot would amend the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
A yes vote would reverse the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in May that found a ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2000 unconstitutional.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many locally as the Palm Springs area boasts one of the largest gay populations per capita in the U.S. and is renowned for its gay-friendly businesses and events.
Gays and lesbians have been legally marrying in the state and the Coachella Valley since June 17.
Tolerance lessons
Opponents of the measure say the ads are deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians.
To combat anti-gay discrimination, California schools have addressed topics such as gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years, well before the state Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal this year.
The California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell have all maintained Proposition 8 has nothing to do with public school education.
“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O'Connell has said in statements.
“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chose by local school governing board.”
Proposition 8 supporters received fodder for their claims earlier this month when a public charter school took 18 first-graders on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall, with parental permission, where their teacher and her female partner had married.
“The other side's argument is (Proposition 8) has nothing to do with education. Our argument is this has everything to do with education,” said Chip White, a Proposition 8 spokesman. “It's already happening.”
About 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in California, which is one of 12 states with comprehensive anti-bullying laws that apply to gay students and children with unconventional families.
The need for such awareness training was brought home to California in February, when a 15-year-old who sometimes wore feminine clothing and talked about being gay was shot to death at his Oxnard junior high school. A classmate has pleaded not guilty to murder and hate-crime charges.
The education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. Most California districts do not teach sex ed.
California gives local districts authority — and in the case of sex education, the imperative — to adopt curricula that reflect community mores while meeting certain standards.
“We teach tolerance and acceptance,” said Shari Stewart, president of the Palm Springs Unified school board.
“We don't specifically have a curriculum (regarding) sexual orientation. We only teach what's on the state test.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
FROM THE HEART: Self-Serving People
*DISCLAIMER: This is not a political message, for once ;)
It is just a shame how selfish some people are, who are so out for themselves that they do not care who they hurt or how far the "fallout" of their actions reaches. One of my dearest friends, who means the world to me, was completely used by one of these types of people and then kicked to the curb like trash. As a result, he's going to probably lose his house (that he has put so much work and pride into) and need to get a THIRD job to make ends meet as a result of all of this. It makes my heart absolutely ache to see what he's having to go through right now.
This just goes to show how important it is, especially in times like these, that we look out for one another and surround ourselves with genuine and caring people who will build us up and enrich our lives rather than tear us down and deflate our spirits.
I also believe that we have a God in heaven who loves each and every one of us and shares our hurts. I understand some of you don't believe in God, and I respect that. However, for those of us who do, it's a great comfort to know he's looking over us and shares our hurts with us.
Let's take care of each other folks, and I challenge each and every one of you to call at least five people who you are thankful for and appreciative of, and let them know that, especially if it's someone you haven't told that to in a long time.
And if any of you ever just need to talk to someone who will be there to listen, remember that wherever you are, I'm just a phone call or e-mail away.
Love,
Casey
(760) 835-8563
SuiGeneris1122@aol.com
It is just a shame how selfish some people are, who are so out for themselves that they do not care who they hurt or how far the "fallout" of their actions reaches. One of my dearest friends, who means the world to me, was completely used by one of these types of people and then kicked to the curb like trash. As a result, he's going to probably lose his house (that he has put so much work and pride into) and need to get a THIRD job to make ends meet as a result of all of this. It makes my heart absolutely ache to see what he's having to go through right now.
This just goes to show how important it is, especially in times like these, that we look out for one another and surround ourselves with genuine and caring people who will build us up and enrich our lives rather than tear us down and deflate our spirits.
I also believe that we have a God in heaven who loves each and every one of us and shares our hurts. I understand some of you don't believe in God, and I respect that. However, for those of us who do, it's a great comfort to know he's looking over us and shares our hurts with us.
Let's take care of each other folks, and I challenge each and every one of you to call at least five people who you are thankful for and appreciative of, and let them know that, especially if it's someone you haven't told that to in a long time.
And if any of you ever just need to talk to someone who will be there to listen, remember that wherever you are, I'm just a phone call or e-mail away.
Love,
Casey
(760) 835-8563
SuiGeneris1122@aol.com
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
McCain WILL Confront Obama About Ayers In Final Debate!
By Andy Barr, Politico. com
(Oct. 14) - John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is "probably ensured" that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday’s debate.
"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn't have the guts" to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station.
"I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.
"
McCain was responding to Obama's charge last week that the Arizona senator was willing to make attacks on the campaign trail that he would not say in person.
"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face," Obama said. "But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.
"
Obama has also accused McCain of trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers.
Despite challenging Obama on the association, McCain insisted that he does not care about the "old washed-up terrorist" but said that the Illinois Democrat is not "being truthful about the relationship.
© 2008 Capitol News Company LLC
2008-10-14 14:58:55
(Oct. 14) - John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is "probably ensured" that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday’s debate.
"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn't have the guts" to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station.
"I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.
"
McCain was responding to Obama's charge last week that the Arizona senator was willing to make attacks on the campaign trail that he would not say in person.
"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face," Obama said. "But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.
"
Obama has also accused McCain of trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers.
Despite challenging Obama on the association, McCain insisted that he does not care about the "old washed-up terrorist" but said that the Illinois Democrat is not "being truthful about the relationship.
© 2008 Capitol News Company LLC
2008-10-14 14:58:55
Could The Polls Be Wrong? Obama and the "Bradley Effect"
Interesting article on CNN. com today, especially since it's so disgusting how that T.V. network has shown such pro-Obama bias . . .
(Oct. 14) - Sen. Barack Obama has a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain, polls show, but those numbers could be deceiving if the "Bradley effect" comes into play.
The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982.
Exit polls showed Bradley leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat thought it would be an early election night.
But Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian.
The theory was that polling was wrong because some voters, who did not want to appear bigoted, said they voted for Bradley even though they did not.
"People will usually tell you how they voted after the election, but we found in the Bradley campaign ... that people were actually not telling us who they voted for," said Charles Henry, who researched Bradley's election.
The Bradley effect is also called the "Wilder effect," after Douglas Wilder, Virginia's former governor. He won by just one-tenth of a percent, but as he pointed out to CNN, "people forget -- in the exit polls, I was still double-digits ahead.
"
According to CNN's latest poll of polls, Obama is leading McCain by 8 percentage points, 50 to 42.
Some analysts say the race could be much closer or even tied if the Bradley effect is factored in.
iReport. com: iReporter pleads with voters to 'stop the racism'
"It leaves a question mark over this race, and we won't have the final answer until the votes are counted," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN.
But there could be an opposite effect, Wilder said.
"There's going to be a reverse Wilder or Bradley effect. ... There are some Republicans who are not going to say out front that they're going to be voting for Obama, but they're going to be, because the economy is what's driving people to consider what's in their best interest," he said.
Some analysts say the Bradley effect can account for 6 percentage points against an African-American candidate.
Michelle Obama told CNN's Larry King that a lot has changed since Bradley lost.
"That was several decades ago, and I think there's been growth and movement," she said. "I just believe that the issues are going to weigh in people's hearts more so as they go into the voting booths this time around.
"
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said last week that he thinks the Bradley effect could cost Obama several battleground states -- and possibly the presidency.
Race "is still a problem in this country," Brown told CNN. "It goes away when there are other troubles that are more challenging, and right now, whether or not we survive in the economy is more challenging. But race could rear its ugly head. I just hope it doesn't before November 4.
"
In the past 15 years or so, there's been no indication in the polls that the Bradley effect has been a factor in statewide races.
Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, said that if there is racism in this year's election, it's probably already showing up in the polls.
And Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, pointed out another important caveat:
"We've never had a black presidential candidate as a major nominee, so the polls don't have any history at all when it comes to national elections," he said.
© 2008 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(Oct. 14) - Sen. Barack Obama has a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain, polls show, but those numbers could be deceiving if the "Bradley effect" comes into play.
The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982.
Exit polls showed Bradley leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat thought it would be an early election night.
But Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian.
The theory was that polling was wrong because some voters, who did not want to appear bigoted, said they voted for Bradley even though they did not.
"People will usually tell you how they voted after the election, but we found in the Bradley campaign ... that people were actually not telling us who they voted for," said Charles Henry, who researched Bradley's election.
The Bradley effect is also called the "Wilder effect," after Douglas Wilder, Virginia's former governor. He won by just one-tenth of a percent, but as he pointed out to CNN, "people forget -- in the exit polls, I was still double-digits ahead.
"
According to CNN's latest poll of polls, Obama is leading McCain by 8 percentage points, 50 to 42.
Some analysts say the race could be much closer or even tied if the Bradley effect is factored in.
iReport. com: iReporter pleads with voters to 'stop the racism'
"It leaves a question mark over this race, and we won't have the final answer until the votes are counted," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN.
But there could be an opposite effect, Wilder said.
"There's going to be a reverse Wilder or Bradley effect. ... There are some Republicans who are not going to say out front that they're going to be voting for Obama, but they're going to be, because the economy is what's driving people to consider what's in their best interest," he said.
Some analysts say the Bradley effect can account for 6 percentage points against an African-American candidate.
Michelle Obama told CNN's Larry King that a lot has changed since Bradley lost.
"That was several decades ago, and I think there's been growth and movement," she said. "I just believe that the issues are going to weigh in people's hearts more so as they go into the voting booths this time around.
"
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said last week that he thinks the Bradley effect could cost Obama several battleground states -- and possibly the presidency.
Race "is still a problem in this country," Brown told CNN. "It goes away when there are other troubles that are more challenging, and right now, whether or not we survive in the economy is more challenging. But race could rear its ugly head. I just hope it doesn't before November 4.
"
In the past 15 years or so, there's been no indication in the polls that the Bradley effect has been a factor in statewide races.
Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, said that if there is racism in this year's election, it's probably already showing up in the polls.
And Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, pointed out another important caveat:
"We've never had a black presidential candidate as a major nominee, so the polls don't have any history at all when it comes to national elections," he said.
© 2008 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barack Obama Is NOT the "Gay Friendly" Candidate
Let's look at the cold, hard facts, as tough as they may be for some of you to swallow:
As a gay man, I have been shocked and downright ashamed of the way so many gay men blindly think that just because they are gay, they MUST vote for a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama. What is even more pathetic is the fact that so many of my fellow gay men do not realize that God gave them a brain so they can think intelligently FOR THEMSELVES about issues completely irrelvant to the gay agenda, such as: abortion, affirmative action, economy, edcuation, environment, national security, offshore drilling, the war in Iraq, etc., etc.
However, even if "gay issues" are all that you care about in this election, let's examine Barack Obama's record in that arena to "clear the air" once and for all (feel free to "fact check" all you want as everything I am about to say can be confirmed 100%):
1.) Despite protests from the gay community, Barack Obama has continued to stand behind an anti-gay minister, the Rev. Donnie McClurkin.
In fact, Rick Garcia, a long time gay rights activist who founded Equality Illinois, went as far to say the following:
“I thank God that the Rev. Fred Phelps doesn’t have a strong political base to follow him. If Rev. Phelps had a strong base, maybe Sen. Obama would hook up with him, as well.
"
*It should also be noted that Reverend Phelps (godhatesfags. com) is no Republican, but a Democrat! Since it is now slightly past the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder (remember how Phelps and his forces were picketing at the funeral), it is a very timely moment to bring this up.
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times.
These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas.
2.) Barack Obama has refused to grant interviews to the gay media.
After courting anti-gay votes through affiliations with anti-gay preachers, and advocating segregation for gay Americans, Obama has refused to speak with the Philadelphia Gay News, one of the largest and most established LGBT papers in the country.
Unfortunately for Obama, the gay press has been operating increasingly independently of the Democratic Party as of late (FINALLY THANK GOD). They struck back and called Obama out on the carpet -- embarrassingly so.
Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, said, "Senator Obama's lack of dialogue with the local gay press is disappointing. The local gay press often is to the LGBT community what churches are to the black community.
"
3.) Barack Obama refused to be photographed with San Francisco's gay-friendly mayor, Gavin Newsom.
"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.
"
Insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either. "He was pissed," said one former staffer.
In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.
"Barack Hussein Obama will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that person - not once, but twice - because of this issue.
"
Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the pro-gay mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign.
"
*On the other hand, being born and raised in John McCain's home state of Arizona, I recall that McCain's attitude toward a gay mayor was quite different. In the late 1990's, then Tempe, AZ mayor Neil Giuliano came out as a gay man. When the religious right started to attack, McCain was the first one to tell them to "back off" and that it did not make a bit of difference.
ELECTION 2008: It's your choice, but I hope you understand that with the right to vote also comes the responsibility to make the best decisions for this great country we live in.
Let's get real: Do we really want someone like Barack Obama as our next president? Just remember that if he wins this election, we're stuck with him the next four years whether we like it or not!
As a gay man, I have been shocked and downright ashamed of the way so many gay men blindly think that just because they are gay, they MUST vote for a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama. What is even more pathetic is the fact that so many of my fellow gay men do not realize that God gave them a brain so they can think intelligently FOR THEMSELVES about issues completely irrelvant to the gay agenda, such as: abortion, affirmative action, economy, edcuation, environment, national security, offshore drilling, the war in Iraq, etc., etc.
However, even if "gay issues" are all that you care about in this election, let's examine Barack Obama's record in that arena to "clear the air" once and for all (feel free to "fact check" all you want as everything I am about to say can be confirmed 100%):
1.) Despite protests from the gay community, Barack Obama has continued to stand behind an anti-gay minister, the Rev. Donnie McClurkin.
In fact, Rick Garcia, a long time gay rights activist who founded Equality Illinois, went as far to say the following:
“I thank God that the Rev. Fred Phelps doesn’t have a strong political base to follow him. If Rev. Phelps had a strong base, maybe Sen. Obama would hook up with him, as well.
"
*It should also be noted that Reverend Phelps (godhatesfags. com) is no Republican, but a Democrat! Since it is now slightly past the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder (remember how Phelps and his forces were picketing at the funeral), it is a very timely moment to bring this up.
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times.
These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas.
2.) Barack Obama has refused to grant interviews to the gay media.
After courting anti-gay votes through affiliations with anti-gay preachers, and advocating segregation for gay Americans, Obama has refused to speak with the Philadelphia Gay News, one of the largest and most established LGBT papers in the country.
Unfortunately for Obama, the gay press has been operating increasingly independently of the Democratic Party as of late (FINALLY THANK GOD). They struck back and called Obama out on the carpet -- embarrassingly so.
Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, said, "Senator Obama's lack of dialogue with the local gay press is disappointing. The local gay press often is to the LGBT community what churches are to the black community.
"
3.) Barack Obama refused to be photographed with San Francisco's gay-friendly mayor, Gavin Newsom.
"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.
"
Insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either. "He was pissed," said one former staffer.
In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.
"Barack Hussein Obama will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that person - not once, but twice - because of this issue.
"
Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the pro-gay mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign.
"
*On the other hand, being born and raised in John McCain's home state of Arizona, I recall that McCain's attitude toward a gay mayor was quite different. In the late 1990's, then Tempe, AZ mayor Neil Giuliano came out as a gay man. When the religious right started to attack, McCain was the first one to tell them to "back off" and that it did not make a bit of difference.
ELECTION 2008: It's your choice, but I hope you understand that with the right to vote also comes the responsibility to make the best decisions for this great country we live in.
Let's get real: Do we really want someone like Barack Obama as our next president? Just remember that if he wins this election, we're stuck with him the next four years whether we like it or not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)