Jim Hoft @ Gateway Pundit:
Priorities.
Barack Obama called NBA veteran Jason Collins this afternoon after he announced that he was gay.But on the night of 9-11, after the US Embassy in Cairo was stormed, and after hearing that the US Consulate in Benghazi was under attack, Barack Obama did nothing.
A commenter at the link writes:
But EVERYONE knew that Ambassador Stevens was gay.
He made no secret of it.
Hillary even set new rules for hiring local (Muslim) security for the Ambassador who had to be INCLUSIVE as to sexual orientation.
So, that can’t be it.
In Obama’s background are a few really sordid gay stories,including a couple of well-timed deaths.
And Obama has recently slipped his old “body man” Reggie Love back into his life.
Maybe Obama was trolling for a new date.
When things are going your way, you leave things as they are. There have been more casualties in Afghanistan in obama’s first term than both of George Bush’s terms. Remember when Petraeus said he hadn’t talked with obama for 10 weeks? Again, when things are going your way, you leave things alone.
@Nan G: #1
Two of those gay stories are:
(1) In his college days he wore a wedding ring, even though he wasn’t married. Back then it was common for gays to do this.
(2) There are rumors that Wright had a secret club in his church for gays to get together, and that obama belonged to it.
I don’t care if he is gay. We are born the way we are, and don’t have a choice.
If a gay man married a woman and fathered two children with her BEFORE getting a shot at the White House, surely he wanted the job a whole lot more than Mitt Romney did. By calling Collins, he was just stroking one of his constituencies, no less than a Republican president would do in the same shoes.
Being a celebrity and staying in the limelight of pop culture are the areas our president prefers to cultivate. It goes over well with the low information voter base that came out in droves to vote for him.
@Mully:
Hey, it worked for him… twice. It’s one of the weaker features of how we choose “leaders” that voters are largely unqualified for the task. If you want smarter voters, put more money into education. MAYBE that would help…
@George Wells:
We put plenty of money in education. In DC alone it’s about 15k per year per child. Yet most of our national elected leaders choose not to use the public school system there.
It’s quality that matters and how those dollars are spent.
@George Wells: #6
An educated voter will still have to vote AGAINST the one they don’t want, and not FOR the other candidate. I’m still hoping for a candidate I can actually voter FOR, but I don’t have much hope.
@Mully: #7
It’s OK with politicians if YOUR child is brainwashed into accepting a different kind of government than a REPUBLIC, but they don’t want their kids to go through the same brainwashing. Does your school call the USA a democracy, or the REPUBLIC that it is?
@George Wells:
Odd choice of words.
Oh, yeah, dumping even more money into a system that has clearly been failing for over a generation is the trick.
If you want smarter voters, get your kids out of public schools which have become not the halls of learning, but Gramsci Indoctrination Centers.
@retire05 re: #10, and Mully re: #7:
Excuse me, but I’m not finding in my comment #6 where you are seeing any reference to “public education.” My comment implied that smarter voters MIGHT result if more money was spent on education. Private education is GREAT, but its expansion won’t be without cost, and someone will have to pay it. I agree that public education is a mess, and that throwing money in that direction isn’t cost effective. So what was your beef with my comment?
@George Wells:
I think it is safe to say that anytime you speak of “eduation” along with “put more money into” that people would assume that you are speaking of public education since government entities don’t put ANY money into private schools, at least not at a elementary level.
And all of us, at least those who don’t consider April 15th as payday, are paying for the existing failing [public] school systems. You want better schools? Get the federal government out of the education business. Leave it to the states where government becomes local. Give parents the right to send their children to the school of their choice, via the voucher system. And stop persecuting those parents that opt to home school.
Yet, you continue to vote for those who want to become the village that raises our children and removes all parental rights. So my problem is not with your comment, per se, but with you in general.
@retire05:
You said: “So my problem is not with your comment, per se, but with you in general.”
So you have a problem even when I am agreeing with you. That’s so smart…
I’ve tried to explain to you before that I support 2nd amendment rights, I support small government, I support lower taxes, I support school vouchers, I love home schooling (wish everybody’d do it) and in general I am supportive of the Republican philosophy. The ONLY reason I vote “Democrat” is because if the Republican party had its way, homosexuality would be a crime, and I’m “gay.” The Republican party has never done ANYTHING positive about homosexuality, while the Democratic party has. I’m sorry that it infuriates you, but I’m a one-issue voter. But if you read me carefully, you will discover that I often lobby on your side.
@George Wells:
So you are willling to vote for those who would remove our First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights, and have already make a mockery of our Fourth Amendment rights, just so you can get a blow job (your term, not mine) from another man legally?
You’re even more dispicable than I originally thought and no different from those who said “Who cares if they’re violating the rights of a few Jews? At least my train is on time.”
They don’t come much lower than you, George.
@retire05:
Don’t look now, but my blow jobs are already legal.
@George Wells:
Well, goody, goody. So sticking your manhood in another man’s mouth in the privacy of your own home, or any private place, is legal.
Being a drunk in private is legal.
Being a porn freak in private is legal.
Legal doesn’t equate with moral.
@retire05:
Didn’t say it was. What’s your point?
Obama is showing blatant tendencies.
Wouldn’t be the first time for the Whitehouse.