There was a lot of coverage over the last several days of the homosexuality and gender confusion advocacy events in the USA's capitol, and President Obama's action - or lack thereof. The themes seem to focus on marriage law and military service. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board recognizes the importance of prioritizing, even as they say that Obama "owes gays more support".

As anxious as we are to see gay rights recognized throughout this country, it also is important for the administration to set priorities and make progress in a politically strategic way.

Still, they call on him to offer a timeline.

Then they go on to bemoan confusion of marriage laws from state to state, citing the Texas divorce case. Whose fault is that? Most states affirm bride+groom marriage. If we're going to make everything the same, let's go with the majority.

Then they go on to dismiss the concerns of the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine, before going on to a general plea for Obama to do the bidding of homosexuality advocates.

Here is the paper's Katherine Skiba previewing Obama’s speech to the (LGBT) Human Rights Campaign at a fundraiser.

And here is her article reporting on the speech afterwards.

He acknowledged in his remarks that some gays have been dissatisfied with the pace of his reforms.

There will always be a contingent that is "dissatisfied", no matter what. It is how they make their living.

In an address that was at times poignant and reflected on the sometimes "painful and heartbreaking" experiences gays face, Obama said he recognized that a gay relationship was "just as admirable as a relationship between a man and a woman."

This is his opinion, but he doesn't back it with anything. It is a mere assertion. However, it is demonstrable that both-sexes relationships contribute to society in ways that no same-sex pairing can.

The uneven track record to date has Cleve Jones, 54, a former aide to late gay rights leader Harvey Milk, fed up with what he termed "incrementalism" and tired of politicians telling activists to prioritize their demands.

Well, yes, how dare legislators focus on war, terrorists getting nuclear weapons, and major investment fraud when they could be focusing on whether or not the laws make someone get all tingly inside?

On Thursday the House passed a bill that would broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays.

Really? Just "gays"? Or anyone of any sexual orientation targeted due to their perceived sexual orientation? And if so, will it protect a husband with a polygamist orientation from assault by his lawful wife? if she throws something at him, will that be a hate crime?

Obama noted Saturday that the bill was named after Matthew Shepard, the gay college student whose killing in Wyoming in 1998 galvanized the gay rights movement.

I condemn murder for any reason, but notice this was back in 1998. So has there been no other murder of a homosexual person in our union motivated by their sexual orientation in 11 years (I mean by someone other than another homosexual, committing what has been referred to as "homocide")? Then I'd say things are good, and a much bigger threat to deal with would be substance abuse in the "community". But for comparison, I note there have been Christians killed this very year here in the USA due to their religion.

Associated Press writer Brett Zongker reported on the march, pointing out...

The weekend also included political training at several D.C. universities for young activists to learn how to build support and lobby lawmakers at home.

This is why we can't let up. We can't let a tiny minority dictate the terms of our lives. We must continue to demonstrate what is and is not marriage, why marriage is important, and that both mother and fathers are important.

And here is Katherine Skiba again, reporting on the march.

They are seeking "full federal equality" and singling out issues pertaining to marriage, adoption, military service and the workplace.

I really can’t see where any individual is a lacking federal equality, except when it comes to being able to be in the military and engage in homosexual sodomy without keeping it private. Do all of these people really want to serve in the military that badly?

A pair of young women wore T-shirts exhorting: "Legalize gay."

Where in the union is being gay illegal?

A subsequent article by her added more coverage.

Later, at the Capitol rally, Rosendahl told the crowd that 36 states allow housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and 29 states permit firings on those grounds.

I tend to side with property owners and employers being able to run their businesses as they see fit. But I also tend to agree that as long as the government is going to get involved to protect renters and employees from discrimination based on certain behaviors (such as religious practice), then there is an argument to be made to protect them based on certain sexual behaviors. However, the Bill of Rights specifically mentions freedom of religion.

Depriving gays of the right to wed, Rosendahl said, deprives them of 1,100 rights.

Yet again: People have access to legal marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

The rally drew impassioned speakers, including NAACP Chairman Julian Bond

Yes, because the NAACP has outlived its purpose when it comes to law and government, anyway - so now it is involved in unrelated issues. These groups never go away. When they get what they want, they simply move on to another problem, even if it isn’t really a problem. The best thing the NAACP can do for the "ACP" would be to encourage "C" men and women to marry before having children, then stay married at least until the children are raised. Encouraging them to engage in homosexual behavior and tear down heteronormative structure won't help with the "ACP".

Bond linked gay rights to civil rights.

"Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about," he said.

We should all be treated equally by the government as human beings – regardless of circumstances of our birth or characteristics we are born with. However, the law often treats different behaviors differently. That is what law is all about.

"We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them."

And yet there you are rallying for it. So you are giving a speech about something you don't consider to be important?

You can read what I wrote about what has been going on in California over at The Opine Editorials.

I support the President of the United States of America. Currently, the person in that office is Obama. I generally believe in the smooth transition of power as provided for in our Constitution.

As I am not an employee of the federal government, I do not serve the President. As a citizen, he serves me. As I am not a federal employee, I do not need to obey the President, except where he is enforcing the law.

When the President is protecting us from foreign enemies, when he is prosecuting criminals, when he is doing what the Constitution tells him to do, I support him - except when he is signing legislation I believe to be harmful to the union or my rights, and when he vetoes legislation I support.

I believe in supporting candidates, including Presidential, who will have the guts to defend our nation, and the restraint to work for limited government. I will do that with my votes, my time, my money, and my efforts. I will use the ballot to remove a President from office - I condemn any effort to do it with violence or coercion or deception. We are a nation of laws.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that it can be demonstrated that Obama's birth disqualifies him from serving as President.

What then?

Someone still has to take action.  Does SCOTUS?  Does Congress?  Does a Democrat-controlled Congress initiate the impeachment process?

What if it can't be demonstrated that Vice President Joe Biden did anything wrong in connection with this?  Does that mean that Obama is removed and Biden becomes President?  (If Biden is removed as well, doesn't that make Pelosi President?)

Are Obama's actions - the bills he signed into law, the Executive Orders he issued - automatically invalidated, only to have Biden or Pelosi restore them?

Does anyone really believe that Obama is going to be removed, and that it will end up making a difference?

I just don't see it.

What I do see are actions that Congress and the President are taking that I find to be troubling, and I would like to see more resources directed at countering or mitigating those things - offering credible alternatives.  Card check, Obamacare, bailouts, porkulous, cash for clunkers, cap & tax, shamnesty... the general expansion of federal government... these are things we can fight against and make a difference.

We need to make the most of our time.

A financial system overhaul?  Life is sounding more and more like Left Behind every day.  Just for the record - I do expect that Jesus Christ will return and life as we know it will end, but whether that's happening soon after an any-day-now Rapture with the world going to hell under a powerful antichrist world leader, or whether that is happening thousands of years from now under different circumstances - I'm not convinced either way.  (What I am sure of is that we're never guaranteed another day - follow Christ and be prepared to die today or to live to a ripe old age.)  But when I read today's headlines, it is like I'm reading bad rewrite of The Late, Great Planet Earth.  Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn And Martin Crutsinger bring us the story on Obama's plans to "help" the market.

The Obama plan would give new powers to the Federal Reserve to oversee the entire financial system and would also create a new consumer protection agency to guard against credit and other abuses that played a big role in the current crisis.

Great – just what we need.  We need more power to be centralized at the federal level.

So the feds are going to fight "credit abuses" and mortgage problems.  What does that mean?  Making sure that people aren't given credit or mortgages that they can’t afford?  Okay, good.

But then what will happen?  Fewer "poor" people, and thereby a "disproportionate" percentage of minorities, will be getting lines of credit or mortgages.  Obama and others who think his way will see that as a problem.

So what will that mean?  It will mean Obama will be "forced" to help out those people being denied their "dreams".

That will mean the rest of us, through our taxes, will have to be on the hook to provide those people lines of credit and mortgages, and when they default, we're going to have to eat the costs.  Write it down.  This is how it will work out.  How is that different than what is going on now?  Well, it won't be a "voluntary" reaction by Congress and companies any more.  It will be a matter of policy, course, and law.

Lawrence Summers, head of the president's National Economic Council, said that those who believed this power should not reside with the Fed had the responsibility to make the case for some other agency.

Wrong!  Wrong wrong wrong!  It is up to you to show where the Constitution permits this, and why it is necessary.  You aren't allowed by the Constitution to just make up new government agencies to do new things.

The creation of the new consumer agency is aimed at guarding against the kinds of lending abuses which resulted in many Americans being saddled with far more mortgage debt than they could handle.

It is up to the customer to find out what they are buying.  As long as the lender didn't lie to the borrower, the government should stay out of it.

Marriage neutering advocates think Obama isn't doing enough for their cause.  He's extending benefits to "partners" of federal employees, but the advocates think it is too little "progress".  What they are obviously failing to take into account that if Obama keeps going the way he has, every employee will be a federal government employee before too long, thus extending the benefits to all same-sex partners.  From my Opine Editorials entry on this topic and today's marriage neutering coverage in the Los Angeles Times:

Marriage provides a clear delineation. Employers, especially the government, have some incentive to extend benefits to spouses - in no small part because normal marital behavior naturally creates children. When non-marriage is incentivised as though it is marriage, the results can discourage marriage. On what basis are these benefits to be extended to non-spouses? Will a sexual orientation test be included? I am open to an argument for the value to society for extending (some) benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, but I am reluctant to officially encourage and sanction what I am convinced is harmful behavior. However, there must be some way of distinguishing between a committed couple and a casual one.

More businesses have failed.  More people have been his with foreclosure.  More people are out of work.

The Islamofascists in Iran are still running things there, and now people are getting shot.

North Korea is making nuclear threats.  Iran continues to head for nuclear war capability.

There are still homicidal terrorist attacks going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are still prisoners in Gitmo, and Obama is fighting the release of "torture" photos, contrary to his promise.

Oil/gas prices are rising.

He's not even coming through on "gay rights".

Is this what you voted for, all of you Obama supporters?

See also: On Promoting a Limited Government GOP

I'm still waiting for Obama to work his magical powers to put an end to stuff like this.  Maybe he needs to apologize more?

Maybe my memory is lacking, but I don't think Obama has ever given a speech where he gave Christianity credit for what it has done for the world the way he just did with his speech on Islam and Muslims.

And I'm sure the ACLU and other groups will be chastising him for calling us a Muslim nation.  How can we NOT be a Christian nation, but we are a Muslim nation, when Christians have always far outnumbered Muslims here, especially in positions of power and policy-making?

I like how concerned Leftists suddenly are that the SCOTUS nomination process be "civilized", and that Senators be more respectful, less partisan, and show less hostility.  Did papers like the Los Angeles Times run editorials like this when either Bush was President?

If proceedings for Obama's nominee resemble recent Supreme Court confirmations, the nominee and the nation will be subjected to a spectacle in which self-obsessed senators, cribbing from playbooks prepared by others, will harp on trivialities, suck up time with soliloquies and throw either softballs or screwballs at the nominee.

Then they suggest:

Show considerable deference to the president.

Well, of course.  It is ****O B A M A !****

As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) reminded Democrats during the Alito hearings, "elections matter."

And the Los Angeles Times loves to promote Republican ideals, after all.

This page probably will be happier with Obama's choices for the court than we were with President George W. Bush's, but that's not the only reason we believe the Senate should be respectful of Obama's choice.

No, no of course not.

Rein in the interest groups…The stock in trade of these groups is hyperbole, and senators are willing to turn the Judiciary Committee hearing room into an echo chamber for their sometimes hysterical talking points.

Speak for your side.

No candidate should be judged by a single act.

Hmmmmm.  Can I file that away for future use?

Prospective justices may be more responsive to senators' questions when they know that one unsatisfactory answer won't produce a partisan piling-on.

And hillbillies prefer to be called "sons of the soil."  Ain't gonna happen.

In general, it is entertaining (if sad) to watch Leftists who opposed Bush tooth and nail in every way possible call on people not to use those same tactics used when it comes to Obama.  You can see this happening everywhere.  And when Obama does the very same thing that Bush did that made Bush so intolerable to them, well Obama gets a pass.

I'm glad he is apparently putting national interests above his ideology in not releasing the interrogation photos in question, but are his supporters?  Doesn't this amount to another broken promise?

Or maybe he doesn't think the pictures are as bad as Leftists imagine, and he doesn't want to expose the bleaters as whiners?

Of course, if TMZ finds out that any of the interrogators doesn't support marriage neutering, I'm sure they will post any pictures they think will embarrass them.

And why is this stuff still going on?  Wasn't Obama going to stop all of this?

The scandal-ridden SEIU, which is ever-fighting for your right to pay higher taxes so that their members have more money to contribute as dues, is working with the Obama administration to thwart a bone being thrown to the taxpayers of California.  You may have heard Rush Limbaugh mention this.  Evan Halper of the Los Angeles Times has the story.

Officials in the governor's office say a politically powerful union may have had inappropriate influence over the Obama administration's decision to withhold billions of dollars in federal stimulus money from California if the state does not reverse a scheduled wage cut for the labor group's workers.

And the Governor, a RINO, has generally been really friendly towards Obama.

The officials say they are particularly troubled that the Service Employees International Union, which lobbied the federal government to step in, was included in a conference call in which state and federal officials reviewed the wage cut and the terms of the stimulus package.

I guess this is what is meant by "unprecedented access" and "inclusiveness".  Too bad  taxpayer group wasn't included.

During the conference call, state officials say, they were asked to defend the $74-million cut scheduled to take effect July 1. The cut lowers the state's maximum contribution to home health workers' pay from $12.10 per hour to $10.10.

Here’s the defense:  The state is tens of billions of dollars in debt, and should be focusing on public safety and crime prevention/prosecution, not everything else in the world.  The state needs to reign in expenses.

The wages go to some 300,000 people who care for the elderly and ill in their homes.

Many of them are family members getting paid to take care of their own family.

Those workers collectively pay millions of dollars in dues each month to SEIU and another union.

To paraphrase a certain mayor, "Whether they like it or not!"  What a brilliant scam.  The union gets more money, the union can spend more money on candidates and measures that will expand government, thereby creating more union members.

SEIU was among the biggest donors to President Obama's campaign, contributing $33 million.

Mere coincidence, I'm sure.

The union is also consistently among the biggest donors to Democrats in Sacramento and had aggressively fought the wage cut during state budget negotiations.

Yup.  Do you know where your union dues are?

The rapidly expanding program is intended to keep low-income elderly and disabled Californians out of nursing homes. People who qualify for the program can hire anyone they choose to take care of them, including relatives and friends.

Emphasis mine.  By the way, there is little to prevent fraud in this program.

The Obama administration has ruled that California must revoke the wage cut -- which would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and thus would need GOP support -- or lose $6.8 billion in federal stimulus funds.

So, here Californians are paying out much more to the federal Treasury than we're getting back in services, and Obama is going to hold back some of our own money because the union says so?  Either way, the California taxpayer gets worked over.

A recent commentary in the Los Angeles Times by Bill Maher on TEA Parties and the GOP has prompted a responding commentary and some letters.

Phil Kerpen, the policy director for Americans for Prosperity, wrote the commentary.

The amount of money for which the government put taxpayers on the hook through bailouts -- undeserved rewards for people who took risks that didn't work out -- went from a shocking $7.7 trillion under George W. Bush to an utterly incomprehensible $12.8 trillion during Obama's brief time in office so far. The anti-bailout majority of Americans are justifiably angry. They were angry when Bush got this mess started and are really angry now that Obama has made it worse. People who played by the rules, took care of their families and paid their taxes are going to pick up the tab for special interests on Wall Street and in Washington.

And they'll pay for their immoral neighbors.

Rod Hallock of Chino Hills wrote:

Bill Maher makes the same mistakes as other pundits when he writes that he doesn't know what the "tea party" protests were all about and then goes on to imply that it is all about President Obama's race.

I went to the protest in Yorba Linda because I am concerned about the inevitable inflation that will result from spending trillions of dollars we do not have to spend.

Linda Winters of Culver City, still not getting it, wrote:

What is bothering Republicans is the plain fact that they lost the last two elections and haven't a clue what to do to clean up their sorry act.

TEA parties were not Republican events.

Instead of acting like grown-ups and working together with the new guy, they can do nothing but pout and rant and call Obama silly names.

It's a good thing that Democrats didn’t do that when Bush was elected.

Hey, GOP, I've got a flash for you: You were beaten fair and square by Obama, an intelligent, hardworking guy who will get this nation back on its feet, even if you won't lift a hand to help him do it.

Drastically increasing debt, inflation, and the size of government is not going to get this nation back on its feet.  We'll get back on our feet despite these things.  We’ll get back on our feet faster and stronger if we halt the growth of these things and let the free market work.

The Left, including the Obama administration, has put an emphasis on the importance of symbolism and appearances, even over substance.  They, of all people, should know why some of us have expressed outrage over things like shaking hands with oppressive rulers, bowing to monarchs, etc.  In fact, they do know, but they find it politically expedient to accuse of us nitpicking.

We should not allow the Left to be inconsistent – which is one of their hallmarks.  We should call them on it each and every time.  Either ceremony and symbolism matters, or it doesn't.

The President of the United States of America should always behave in a way that expresses the superiority of our nation, and not allow himself to be used to bolster the stock of tyrants.

I thought that the reason we were seeing these terrorist acts in Iraq was because of Bush and electing Obama was going to fix it?  Aren't all of these people supposed to suddenly be loving now, and like America?  Maybe Obama isn't shaking enough hands?

Can the "volunteers" get uniforms and a book of Obama's philosophy, too?  Can they learn a special salute?  Or maybe a secret handshake, suitable to shaking the hands of two-bit dictators?  Associated Press writer Ann Sanner has this puff piece lauding The One.

The AmeriCorps program started by President Bill Clinton will triple in size over the next eight years, and tens of thousands of other Americans will soon see new opportunities to give back to their communities.

Huh?  The only way you can create new opportunities for someone to give back to their communities is to 1) remove legal restrictions on doing so, and 2) create more need in the community.  Mostly #1.  Even if there isn't a perceived need (#2), someone can "give back" to their community by improving it, like with beautiful artwork.

It's all part of a $5.7 billion national service bill President Barack Obama is scheduled to sign Tuesday to foster and fulfill people's desire to make a difference, such as by mentoring children, cleaning up parks or building and weatherizing homes for the poor.

What, was it illegal to do these things before?  If someone wanted to give back to their community by cleaning up a park, who was stopping them?  I mean, besides the gangsters hanging out there?

Congress passed the bill last month with largely bipartisan support and Obama is seeking $1.1 billion [1,100,000,000.00] to fund it next year.

Wait a minute... I thought these were volunteers.  Why do we need to organize and fund volunteers serving their own communities from way out in D.C.?  It doesn't cost anything to go to the park and pick up the druggie needles, although good luck to you if you want to dispose of them legally.

Some Republicans complain it is too costly and is an unnecessary intrusion by government into something Americans already do eagerly and in great numbers — helping their neighbors and communities.

Yes, only some Republicans complain - instead of taxpayers expressing concern.

It outlines five broad categories where people can direct their service: helping the poor[1], improving education[2], encouraging energy efficiency[3], strengthening access to health care[4] and assisting veterans[5].

1. One way to help the poor is to keep them from becoming dependent on the government.
2. Vouchers?
3. We could increase energy efficiency if all climate change alarmists would go sit in a cave, off of the grid.
4. Who doesn't have access to health care?  It's called the Emergency Room.
5. We can assist veterans by not accusing them of being murderous failures ripe for recruitment by "right wing extremists".

The bill also ties volunteer work to money for college.

Ah-HA!  And I'm sure the colleges will not raise their rates accordingly.

Businesspeople serve their communities.  If they don’t, they go out of business, unless they can finagle some tax money.

Ironically, the taxation that will be used to fund this program will generate more "need" in the community.

I have an idea.  It’s called TRUE VOLUNTEERISM.  If people care about their communities, they will do it, given the freedom to do so.  If they have to work extra hours just to pay their taxes, they're not going to have the time to volunteer.