As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota ?

The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit ?

The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America ?

The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as ‘chaplains’?

Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a ‘freedom fighter’ when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya ’s history.

Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa , a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile.

Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of ‘racism’.

Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies.

Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa .

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as ‘bigoted racism’; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts.

Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American ‘free press’ who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case?

Why haven’t ‘newsmen’ pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries?

Where are the stories about this candidate’s cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa ? (WHOM OBAMA WENT TO KENYA TO CAMPAING FOR)

Why haven’t the press regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this ‘out of nowhere’ Democrat candidate or that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his ‘close pastor friend and mentor’ met with Middle East terrorist Moammar Gaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)?

Why isn’t the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

Why isn’t our media connecting the dots with Islam? There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barak Hussein Obama to peek the curiosity of any reporter.

WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohamed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. ‘The process of settlement’ of Muslims in America , Akram explained, ‘is a civilization jihad process.’ This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in ‘America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful.

Where is our investigative press?

Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings-forth a volley of ‘racist’ from the left-wing Democrat crowd. Lies and deception behind a master plan – the ingredients for ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation’s White House?

Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States ?

Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations? Change for America?

What change? To become another ‘nation of Islam’?

Rich Carroll 2008 printed by permission

Email me for our press packet and/or flyer.

OR: a republican to hold us back and regress our rights and support anti-gay legislation.

False choice.

The real choice is:

1) A Democrat who says he/she supports segregation with some rights for gays yet who does nothing about it or;

2) A Republican who wavers on gay issues and will do nothing.

When you look at what counts — actual votes in the Senate — McCain, Clinton and Obama have identical records on LGBTQ issues.

What I think about the current state of the political scene is NOT what is ideal, but what can make the most progress.

Can someone cite progress that’s been caused by such “political incrementalism?”

This has been the mantra since 1991 — yet no progress has been made.

Civil unions in Vermont were driven by a court case against the government taken to the state Supreme Court — not politicians’ actions.

Ditto for marriage in Massachusetts.

Legislation for ending the military’s anti-gay ban has been languishing in the House for years because Nancy Pelosi won’t allow it to go to a floor vote.

Not a single Democrat has even introduced the legislation in the Senate.

Martin Luther King didn’t call for “small steps.” He called for human dignity.

It’s high time that gay activists did the same thing and stopped apologizing for the dismal record of the Democratic Party.

OR: a republican to hold us back and regress our rights and support anti-gay legislation.

OR: an independent who may have our rights in mind, but has no chance of being elected.

Make your own decision as to what is appropriate. The plain fact that Obama is reaching out to the gay community proves that he is supportive of us and would not endorse any ani-gay legislation. Screw Bill Clinton. I don’t endorse parties, just people. And in my opinion, we must get away from McCain, the vitriolic politicking of the Republican party, the kickbacks, the dangers of a privately-controlled government. Obama’s campaign has 1 million donors, over $100 million from normal people. That’s PEOPLE power, not fundies or lobbyists or special interests. Hillary donated $5 million to her campaign, gained from overseas contracts she had Bill had, and refused to release her tax returns to prove where the money came from, and if it came from lobbyists, special interest groups, pork barrels, etc.

Obama’s not perfect. But at this stage in the game, he’s the best we have.

Continue to love and support each other. That’s all we can hope for. One day, everything will be ok.

Let’s finally make change, people. It may not be perfect, but every step in the direction is a right step. Yes. We. Can.

Clinton also endorsed most of them — and encouraged John Kerry to support the anti-gay constitutional amendment too.

The reality is the anti-gay laws didn’t pass because politicians from across the country know that most Americans don’t support those laws.

Now, it’s time for Democrats to stop playing “block” and start advancing equality. If they don’t, we can kick ‘em out and still stop the anti-gay laws, just as we did with Bush and a GOP congress.

None of this stuff is new. As Einstein wisely noted, insanity is repeating the same action over and over with the expectation of getting different results.

Falling into line behind Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and now Obama — all with the same basic message — has done nothing significant for gay people’s basic civil rights. Repeating the same action for Obama isn’t going to get different results, and the old “we have to stop the GOP” canard is worn thin.

A quick look at the top campaign contributors for Clinton, McCain and Obama reveals much — namely, that they’re all the same! They’ll get what they paid for while gay people won’t get what we voted for.

Keep in mind Bush endorsed all the anti-gay laws. No question. Had he had his way, we’d probably all be in Gulag now.

Think twice when you vote. Just remember: ideals are one thing, but with the state of the world we can’t afford to mess around! We absolutely NEED a president who (not to mince words) isn’t Republican. Obama crosses party lines to get things done. That’s what we need. An end to this endless war, non-party support of bills, and hope.

As the campaign says:

Yes We Can.

An “anti-war” candidate is someone like Kucinich, who has voted against every Iraq War funding bill since then.

Obama cannot claim to be against the war when, at every vote, he has voted to fund and expand the war per George Bush’s request.

Sadly, people on the Iraq War issue seem just as determined to ignore the actual votes and facts as they are on LGBT issues. That’s why the war continues, and why gay people get nowhere vis-a-vis our civil rights.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”

Don’t mislead people with crackpot stats:
He has always been against the war: he couldn’r vote in the senate anymore than you could: he wasn’t a Senator: he disd more than most people do.

In fact, we did better.

All of Bush’s anti-gay laws failed. Whereas under Clinton and a Democratic majority we got the anti-gay military ban, and under Clinton we also got DOMA.

All the rest of your rant is emotionalist gobbledygook, and since I prefer to deal in facts, I won’t dignify it with commentary.

Any “gay ” person who would even think of encouraging an anti democrate movement is an imbecile in every way. Neither the Rebublicans or the libertarians ever gave a shit about gay people if you think so take some more acid and climb in the closet.

When I said activism within the Party, I meant activism from constituents–not necessarily people working in the ranks. Sorry for the unclear comment.

Because gay people who actually push the Democrats to do the right thing on gay issues get fired and replaced with partisan yes-men. The Yandura/Hitchcock situation is proof positive of that. The Democrats demand queer votes without delivering anything of note to LGBT people other than platitudes and broken promises.

I disagree on both counts.

Firstly, Obama and Clinton are both polling more poorly against McCain than Kerry polled against Bush at this time, “high turnout” notwithstanding. And we all know how Kerry fared in the end.

Secondly, the 2004 election was noted for its unbelievably high turnout — and the Democrats still lost.

Gay voters represent about 7% of all voters, and trend towards the Democrats about 70%.

If the Democrats had 4.9% of voters not vote for them, they would lose this election, especially as McCain continues to gain momentum. That loss is greater than the polls’ margin of error, and would particularly hurt in swing states with large gay populations, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

The Democrats whined ceaselessly about the Nader campaign in 2000 — a gay exodus from the Democrats on account of their poor record on LGBT issues would make the 2000 Nader situation seem small and insignificant. It would also drain the Democrats of tens of millions of dollars in contributions and a large amount of their volunteer and activist base.

The problem with this view is that Democrats don’t care if they lose your vote. Especially this election season, when voter turnout is so unbelievably high. And, in previous years, voter turnout has been so unbelievably low that the vast majority of voters were hardcore party loyalists. They aren’t going to defect.

I still think it’s worth being an activist within the Democrat party in order to bring about change. It has worked in the past, and can work for our future, too. I just haven’t seen such a huge outcry within the Democratic Party. If the fervor of Stonewall had continued as strongly as it first appeared, I think the Democratic Party would be rather different today than it is.

MLK started his civil rights revolution in the mid 1950s. By 1967, the Civil Rights Act was passed. By 1970, all anti-black laws were unconstitutional. That’s not even 20 years to full legal equality.

The gay rights revolution started at Stonewall in 1969. FORTY years later — over twice as long as the black civil rights movement — we’re nowhere NEAR equality under the law.

Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus. If she’d been gay instead of black, she’d have lots of gay Democrats saying “there are more important issues than being able to sit at the front of the bus that we have to deal with.”

That’s why we’ve given hundreds of millions of votes and dollars over the years and gotten literally nothing.

I don’t agree. I intend to vote Libertarian this presidential election season. If Democrats ask me why, I’ll point out the Libs’ vastly superior record on gay issues.

If the Democrats want my vote, they have to earn it. That means actual votes as incumbents and real action.

If enough gay people voted third party over these issues to cost Democrats a few elections, they’d have their tantrums but then they’d be forced to do something substantive to win back all those LGBTQ votes. With the “pick the best of a bad bunch” model, they can continue their pattern of do-nothing politics for decades without fear of consequences for their moral cowardice.

Civil unions haven’t worked in New Jersey. They are not the same as marriage. Google it and you will see why.

1. Obama keeps talking about how his non-support of the Iraq war, but these are the only senators that voted against the war:

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:

* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

He’s not there. Oh yea, it’s easy to Monday-morning-quarterback. How can one say that he would have voted against the war when he didn’t have a chance to. It’s not a platform to criticize if he wasn’t there.

2. In all his speeches, he has never outlined a plan, or a blueprint, of how he is going to accomplish something. It’s like when Dinkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dinkins) was running for NYC mayor after a major financial crisis. Touted as a mayor of change, he ended up being one of the worst mayors in the city’s history because he got little or nothing done.

3. Obama’s campaign has historically pushed out last minute controversial ads to get the last little bit of votes they can. If he really believed in OUR rights he would have campaigned them from the start.

4. Unifying everyone sounds fantastic, but it takes more than a president.

Don’t buy the speeches, ask how it’s accomplished.

Within the current bunch, I think Hillary has the greatest chance of being persuaded to support further queer rights.

It shouldn’t matter, though. Numbers are numbers.

I’d say it says more about HRC (the organization) and its lack of demands than about the candidates themselves.

That an incumbent who has:

1) Never once voted to repeal the anti-gay military ban or cosponsored legislation to do so;

2) Never once voted to repeal DOMA or cosponsored legislation to do so;

3) Never once voted for UAFA (both Clinton and Obama are opposed to UAFA as written);

4) Never once voted for federal equal adoption legislation or cosponsored it;

5) Never once voted for federal tax treatment equality legislation or cosponsored it

… can suddenly get 89% (a B+!) is evidence of how useless HRC’s scorecard is.

HRC should rate candidates by VOTES and legislation cosponsored. By that rating, Obama and Clinton would have about a 16.7% rating, or a low F.

Incidentally, that standard would also recognize legislative leaders like Dennis Kucinich who have put their money where their mouths are in introducing and cosponsoring actual legislation, rather than just talking about their “beliefs.”

And if Clinton and Obama knew they had to actually support legislation to get points, the pressure would be on to actually achieve something other than slick campaign websites and smooth talk without action.

cheers

Instead it simply proves to me that they need some serious prodding instead of constant cynicism, voting the lesser of two evils and asking for nothing in return.

even if all you can end up doing is sending an email to Tim Russert, the douche, and asking him to prod the candidates next time they appear – its better than trying to stifle the hopes of other people isnt it? I understand the cynicism, but its a different world than 2000 – just ask Canada, and I can only look forward at this point.

Lifelong famed bisexual (or as she says, “omnisexual”) Sophie B. Hawkins made a campaign video for Hillary…

its uh… a little cheesy. Enjoy though if you wish.

1) I don’t think HRC speaks for a large proportion of the LGBT community. I was once a paid member yet never got to vote for chairs or any other offices. It’s a very top-down organization, so its scorecard doesn’t really match with the priorities of the LGBT “everyperson.”

2) That HRC (the candidate) and BHO both got an equal score sorta underscores the fact that they’re undifferentiated — even by HRC (the organization’s) standard.

3) I prefer to judge candidates on actions, rather than easily stated-yet-not-acted-upon “beliefs.” If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama “believe” that gay people should be able to serve in the military but do nothing, their “belief” is as relevant as the Prime Minister of Djubouti’s.

If they’re not willing to take the numerous opportunities they both had to cosponsor legislation and make their “beliefs” happen, then they are completely useless and their “beliefs” are just calculated spin to feed gay voters and the queer press to get more votes and money without having to take actual risks to earn them.

“Barack Obama in the United States Senate: Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard. Here’s how HRC rated Barack Obama:
Barack Obama on Hate Crimes: Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Employment Non-Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – Gays in the Military: Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve.”
Gay & Lesbian Adoption: Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.
Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

“Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn’t cause discrimination,” Obama said. “I think it is the right balance to strike in this society.”
Sources: Chicago Daily Tribune, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force”

I will note that Hillary Clinton ALSO received an 89% from the HRC

HRC – Human Rights Campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton

how bout that?

In the end, if you’re trying to use these links to play the electability game, I think you make a bad case. Nothing rings truer than the facts – in all current polls, Obama beats McCain nationally, Hillary does not; Obama leads Hillary among identified registered Democrats and when it has come time to vote (excluding NH) he has blown out, even in primaries, beyond his expected numbers – clearly because so much of the young voters do not have land lines to be counted…

he has won the majority of his victories in margins of 20% or higher, Hillary has won only won contest by that ratio – Arkansas, Bill’s home state. You can’t come and tell me that secretly Hillary has more votes with all of these cold hard facts out there.

Let’s be super-charitable and assume that he honestly believes this.

What has Obama achieved — or even attempted — as a Senator to lead us to believe he’d deliver on this commitment?

As Senator, he’s had numerous opportunities to introduce or cosponsor EXISTING legislation to make some of the most basic stuff he talks about — such as a DOMA repeal or an end to the anti-gay military policy — happen.

He has skipped on every opportunity.

Why would he suddenly change this dismal record when he becomes president?

Someone should ask him (and Clinton) that question during the debates. Of course, that would require someone who wasn’t vetted by either campaign, and a competent media, ergo, it’s never gonna happen. That doesn’t mean that *WE* shouldn’t be asking that question however.