Skip to main content

The Venal Rhetoric of Barack Obama

As part of the endless PC "dialogue" on Prop 8 that I blogged about yesterday, I came across this gem that summarizes the loathsome disingenuousness of Obama's rhetoric in an easy-to-digest form.

As part of the discussion on why Obama's selection of Warren is so unacceptable, an Obama partisan writes:

obama was elected as a president for all the people, including conservative christians and those who have big unresolved "marriage issues" - you know, *americans*!


Yes! He is The One!

Now that WE have elected him, the seas shall slow their rise, and the planet shall heal! His tongue is dipped in the golden truth, as Oprah Herself noted!

All conflict shall cease! The sky shall open, celestial choirs will sing, and everything will be perfect! (The latter was Hillary Clinton's hilarious and very on-target dissection of Obama's ridiculous rhetoric).

But what's this?!? The same Obama partisan, a couple of paragraphs later, lectures the annoyed homos thusly:

if you are "hurting", you need to let obama & Us know how you feel about his choices re: warren & mcclurkin in a constructive way.


Ahhh.

"Us" = real Americans (who supported Obama)

"You" = filthy homos (who need to explain your perverted rage to we Real Americans so we can decide whether or not dignity should be granted in this instance, in exchange for more money and votes)

"constructive way" = Sit down and shut up, faggots.

Now imagine if the situation was reversed, and a President-Elect McCain was inviting Rick Warren to give his invocation. The same Useful Idiots covering for Obama would be releasing *outraged* statements in support of the LGBT community, noting the pain and suffering such a decision caused, and demanding social justice!

It's enough to make one vomit.

I used to get annoyed at political movements who did this (Bush's movement was identical, incidentally).

But now I am more annoyed at the LGBT leadership, who have transformed a large bloc of voters and political contributions into the abused spouse of the Democratic Party. Despite $80 million in Obama's warchest; despite delivering Obama his margin of victory and then some; despite endless advertising Obama did in the gay press; "we" have to explain to "America" why the selection of one of the country's most anti-gay voices -- from California, home of Proposition 8 -- isn't a good idea.

Here's a better idea. Let's pick up the phone and inform Obama that if he goes ahead with this, we'll stay home in 2012 and keep our pocketbooks closed.

Unfortunately, most queer politicos are in it for the money and influence, and not the principle, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Meanwhile, I'm recommending to LGBT people of all races and political backgrounds, to prepare for an administration that is half Clinton and half Bush. So much for "change."

Comments

Eric Dondero said…
Actually, more like half-Clinton, 1/4 Adolph Hitler and 1/4 Josef Stalin.
Eric Dondero said…
Bush fought Islamo-Fascism. Barack Hussein Obama is one.
Anonymous said…
"Bush fought Islamo-Fascism. Barack Hussein Obama is one."

Seriously? We're still on this "Obama is a Muslim" crap?
Bowly said…
My high school valedictorian's speech:

"Eighteen years ago I couldn't even spell education. Now I are one."

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...