Conservative LGBT community responds to Obama.

Empty, empty promises from the President. Here is the Log Cabin Republican's response to Obama's speech at the Human Rights Campaign Gala. We've heard the campaign stump speech--by the way, please inform the president he is no longer a candidate for president, but IS the president. Let's see some action!

From the Log Cabin Republicans

***

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON PROMISES MADE TO LGBT COMMUNITY AND INSTRUCTED JUSTICE DEPT TO BLOCK EFFORTS TO OVERTURN 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' POLICY

(Washington, DC) - Log Cabin Republicans issued the following statement in response to President Obama's speech Saturday at the Human Rights Campaign's gala:

"President Obama may have the highest level of respect for our community, but his lack of actual progress overshadows any kind of campaign-style promises he may make," commented Terry Hamilton - Log Cabin Republicans National Board Chairman. "Barack Obama is the President now - he gave the same speech tonight that we have heard many times before. Being an ally means that you need to need to not just 'have gay friends' but know what we are experiencing, and most importantly to do something about it."

President Obama tonight promised to repeal the damaging & dangerous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Currently, Log Cabin Republicans is the only organization with an active lawsuit given standing by the federal courts challenging the military's discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and was the first case introduced on the issue after the landmark Lawrence decision. 

Despite the President's promise this evening, he has instructed his Justice Department to fight Log Cabin's lawsuit, as well as other court cases challenging this LGBT discriminatory policies. Find more information at :
http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=25795643

"If President Obama is serious about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", he can take action tomorrow and instruct his Justice Department to drop its challenge to our case," says Hamilton.

Log Cabin Republicans National Spokesperson Charles T. Moran comments - 

"Gays and lesbians are not looking for the same 'hope and change rhetoric' that we've heard for so long. The President's speech tonight rings of hollow promises that we have all heard before. While he gives his speech tonight at the HRC, his senior aides in the White House are engaged in a political game shutting down and putting the breaks on any substantive progress in efforts to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', 'Defense of Marriage Act' and pass employment non-discrimination through legislative and judicial channels. It is time that President Obama stops talking about bringing forth a 'better America' and starts making it happen."

# # #

Log Cabin Republicans promotes legislation to provide basic fairness for gay and lesbian Americans and works to build a more inclusive GOP. The 30-year old organization has state and local chapters nationwide, a full-time office in Washington, DC, a federal political action committee and state political action committees.

***

Buyer's remorse.

Like the Constitution the words of wisdom by one of our founding fathers William Penn still ring true today. Penn is credited with saying:

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it."

The other day a good friend e-mailed me with what I would term as "buyer's remorse". The subject of the conversation was implicitly the direction our new President is taking this nation, and the explicit realization that she wished she could "get her vote back". This kinda thing really excites me. That excitement does not come from a realization that I articulated an argument powerful enough that in hindsight it still lingers, rather I am excited that she is interested in what is going on with the direction of this country.

I was probably not a popular person to talk to during the elections of 2008. I was a staunch opponent of Barrack Obama, and I went to an art school that was overwhelmingly liberal in ideology. I wasn't swept into the new "hip" campaign that had an awesome brand and great use of a helveticaesque typography (design-wise, they branded an awesome product with an effective campaign),  put on by the Democrats, and like I never do, I was not impressed with the color of either of the major party's candidates skin. I was interested in the issues, in our historical tradition, and in the direction that either person would take us.

I may seem like an oddball, because I am an art major, who is still comparatively(to other politicos) young in age, that happens to take a peculiar interest in politics and government, but I wish everyone with the power to vote took a serious interest in politics, or at the very least does the research to know what the candidate actually stands for, as opposed to what they say they stand for. In the end they are at best politicians, and generally will govern in-line with the same convictions that make-up their past voting record. 

Realization of the awesome gift our forefathers gave us in the ability to control the direction of our country with something so simple as a vote is really the greatest blessing they have secured for us as a people. What we do with that vote has a direct impact on the future we will secure for ourselves and our posterity. 

Do it wisely.

 

That scary barrier.

With the announcement of Supreme Court Justice Souter's retirement the hunt is on for a suitable replacement. Although Souter's replacement will likely not change the ideological make-up of the court, the demographic of the court is likely to change.

There is already wide speculation that President Obama will appoint a female to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is currently the only woman on the court, and an even greater chance that the new justice will be a minority.

Although It is great to see the advancement of traditionally underrepresented groups in the nation's highest offices, it is deplorable when those factors become determining components to nomination. We see it all too often in the failed policies of affirmative action. Yes affirmative action did increase diversity where implemented but at the same time denied qualified individuals the right to equal opportunity. There is a distinction between the promise of equal opportunity and equal results, the latter is not guaranteed by our Constitution. Minorities like myself would rather accept a hand-up, than a hand-out.

We can never move forward as a nation that has broken the racial or gender barriers if the push to hand out positions is based on either. It is in all actuality reverse discrimination.

 A resolve based on caliber is better than a decision based on courtesy any day.

The first 100 days.

Today marks the first 100 days of presidency for Barrack Obama. The tradition of the "first 100 days" dates back to FDR and the "New Deal." Time Magazine earlier this year labeled the new administration's agenda as the "New, New Deal." A fitting title for another very progressive president.

Although, I think it is still a little to early to gauge how President Obama along with his policies will effect the nation--in the long run--I do feel that these first 100 days has shown us how he will govern. 

In celebration of his 100 days I figured I would point out a few things I agree with the president on, and a few I don't. Forgive me if the list isn't equal in line items.

Let's start this off on a positive note.

Things I agree with:

1. The decision to allow the Navy Seals to open fire on Somali pirates in order to save a fellow American. It was nice to see that we still have somewhat of a backbone, that when push comes to shove our Commander-in-Chief has the ability to muster up some courage.

2. A slower, less expedient withdrawal from Iraq. I figured it wouldn't be as easy as the phony promise of a 15 month withdrawal. As a veteran, I laughed every time I heard this on the campaign trail. 

3. The new Portuguese Water Dog. Great dog, hypo-allergenic(as close to it as you can get), and cute. 

Things I disagree with:

1. The massive amounts of spending. For a nominee who campaigned on spending cuts, no pork, and lower taxes, he has managed to spend more than any other president, and has done it in record time. His $3.6 trillion dollar budget was just approved (don't worry, they cut 100 million out), on top of the massive stimulus bill approved earlier in the year. In order to pay off the interest, yes just interest not principle, every American age 20 and younger will have to contribute more than $100 thousand dollars through the course of their lives. Thanks!

2. Getting involved with private businesses such as GM, and Freddie. Now the government is the chief stockholder in private corporations. We are a free market economy based on capitalist principles. Bad companies, that cannot manage their business should be allowed to fail.

3. His inability to function properly and eloquently without a Teleprompter. Um, uh, Enough said.

He has not convinced me that he can be a strong leader, and take this country in the direction it needs to go in order to secure long-term prosperity. Then again we are only at day 100! 

No to Notre Dame!

Mary Ann Glendon was the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican along with other notable positions within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the U.S. Catholic Church, most notably she was the first female president of the Roman Catholic Church's official Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, appointed by Pope John Paul II.

She has just turned down the Laetere Medal from the University of Notre Dame, which is considered to be one of the highest outward achievement awards for American Catholics. Her opposition to the invitation of President Barrack Obama to deliver the commencement speech this May, is due in large part to his staunchly liberal defense of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. The university will also be giving the president an honorary degree. In 2004 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the USCCB, proclaimed that Catholic institutions should not give "awards, honors, or platforms" to "those who act in defiance of [Catholic] fundamental moral principles."

Ms. Glendon, has written a letter to Father Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, and has also released that letter to the public, as to dispel any suspicion.

Way to go Ms. Glendon, I support you! Thank you for your conviction!

The letter follows:

Dear Father Jenkins,

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame's Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame's most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles, and that such persons should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that "talking points" issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

"President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal."

"We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about."

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops' to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops' guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame's example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,

Mary Ann Glendon

source: First Things