Okay, lots of my GLBT friends are miffed at me already because I'm really not having a problem with the idea of Jerry Falwell's karmic child being held up to invoke the Deity on Barack's Coronation Day. I wasn't a Barack supporter. As a matter of fact, in retrospect, I am proud to have been a McCain supporter on Election Day. And with the gentle advice of my preferred Presidential candidate, I opened my heart and mind to President-Elect Obama.
So far the man is performing admirably. It's apparent that he is assembling a broad group of individuals who bring diverse ingredients to the Oval Office banquet table. There is no doubt in my mind that this cornucopia of talent assembled to assist him will serve him well with reasoned debate, lively discussion, and precise execution of well-planned strikes in the economic front to get it all rolling again.
So, back to my brothers and sisters in GLBT land. As much as I dislike some of Pastor Rick Warren's positions, I respect his willingness to break bread with those who oppose his religious positions. Pastor Warren, while eerily Jerry Falwell-like in presence, is a man who walks his talk and has done much good in many areas. The bottom line is that we are in one giant cluster of a mess in this world. Economies are collapsing. Billions on paper have dissolved to dust as more crime is recovered from the wreckage. Frankly, who cares who gives the invocation? It could have been Reverend Wright. It is Rick Warren. That's Barack's decision. And in making this decision, he proves again that he is willing to reach out across all aisles, to all groups and political parties to assemble the best of those among us. GLBT America, our time has come. In the next four years we can achieve more than we can dream. But in achieving that goal, let us do it with humility. Let all groups from all aisles work side by side to rebuild this land. Let us talk, interact and celebrate our American existence in this shared endeavor. As the economy rebuilds so shall new opportunities for reaching that day when marriage is an institution for two people entering into a lifelong partnership — regardless of sex.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I hate to rain on your parade, Silas, but given what we saw with the vote on Prop 8 and Obama's background and associations, I think his choice of Warren is a much worse sign than you're willing to admit. Obama is not going to support gay rights or gay marriage. He has more in common with Rick Warren than you realize and the same is true of a large portion of his base constituency.
Dave
2 - zingzing
dave, what the hell are you talking about? do you know who voted for and against prop 8? if you look at the results, you'll find that nearly every place that voted against prop 8 also voted for obama, while nearly every place that voted for john mccain also voted for prop 8.
how you get that obama supporters are against gay rights out of that... well, it's just wishful, boneheaded thinking.
i think you've put your head in the sand ever since election day, only bringing it out every now and again to sputter some nonsense that everyone else can see is pure bullshit.
3 - Brunelleschi
Obama is clever to be inclusive and not exclusive.
He may be a leftie inside, but he never was going to be a revolutionary president. He's a pragmatist.
It's smart to give your potential rivals a job, to keep them working and not organizing opposition.
By picking someone from the religious right to swear him into office, Obama is answering the people that said he shouldn't be president for faith reasons or some supposed lack of allegiance. He's going to share the stage with one of them.
I wouldn't read anything else into it.
4 - Baronius
The invocation is being performed by Warren; the benediction, by Reverend Joseph Lowery. Lowery supports gay marriage.
5 - Dave Nalle
Zing, it's been acknowledged widely, even by Democrats that the primary factor in the passage of Prop 8 was high turnout among black voters who came out to vote for Obama and voted for Prop 8 at the same time. The fact is that 69% of black voters voted for Prop 8. That's strong support for it.
Opposition to homosexuality is strong among religious blacks who may vote with the democratic party on other issues. Well established demographic fact.
Dave
6 - Brunelleschi
Dave-
That's not the only fact in the brew. Another would be what was the percentage of white, rightie, born-agains that voted Obama? Don't bother, we know the number is pretty slim, but he didn't kick them off the stage.
7 - Irene Wagner
Whitey righties...I like it.
Whitey righties,
In whitey tighties,
Not lingerie,
That is too gay.
Attired thus,
They're still too staid
to march with the
Lesbian and Gay Band Association
in the Inauguration Day parade.
No one has any reason to feel left out.
8 - pablo
Hmmm,
I wonder how many preachers are in the Council on Foreign Relations, I think very very very few, perhaps under 4, however Rick Warren is one of them!
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
9 - pablo
And so is John P. Holdren his new Environmental chief, another CFR member. This coming from a guy (Obama) who claimed on national TV that he didn't even know if he was a member! Sure, it just so happens that 95% of his new (Change) administration are also CFR members.
10 - Matthew T. Sussman
"I hate to rain on your parade, Silas"
[Snerk] He's here, he's optimistically full of cheer, get used to it.
11 - Zedd
Where did you get it that Warren is like Falwell?
12 - Condor
The preacher is giving an invocation. If you don't believe in god/gods/myths then...what's the beef? If one admits that god doesn't exist then this whole argument in moot. Let the god/gods/myth believers say their little prayers and read their mythology and carry on in their little ceremonies.
If you can't get past this, or won't, then one would have to ask, "are you sure you don't believe in god/gods/myths?"
13 - Dave Nalle
It's not the preacher's belief in god which is the problem, it's his belief that god condemns certain private acts between consenting adults which is the problem.
Dave
14 - Mark Edward Manning
Great piece, Silas. I commend you on your willingness to applaud Obama's attempt at bipartisanship. Obama is displaying true tolerance, something the gay community and their liberal supporters are always themselves preaching about. And while it's true what Dave Nalle says about Obama and Warren sharing the same antipathy toward gay marriage, Obama's presidency will still no doubt be probably the gay-friendliest in history.
15 - Dave Nalle
Good point, Mark. I don't mean to minimize Obama's good intentions. He may well do much good for gay rights, but he's not going to take the lead for a sudden leap towards gay marriage. Whatever he does is going to be a lot more moderate, again a lot like Bush or McCain with their support of civil unions.
Dave
16 - zingzing
oh, ok. well, let's say that the black vote is based on religious adherence to anti-gay malarky. or maybe it's based on skin.
here's the truth: people voted yea or nay to prop 8 based on age.
so let the haters die. and they will.
i think we're living in the last age of anti-homosexual legislation, and that everyone knows that. they're just trying to keep it going as long as they can, because they figure that their religion will die if the homosexuals are allowed to partake in the rights that they take for granted.
but a lot of people see that this isn't the end of godliness or anything. it's just another step towards equal rights. we've crossed the gender line and the white/non-white line already, and this is a comparatively small line to cross.
those who are in favor of equal rights across gender/race/sexuality lines are always going to win. it's just a matter of time. those who are against such things are just the idiots of the day.
but i don't think anyone's arguing that anymore.
17 - Christopher Rose
Could someone please explain to me, in brief, what it is that people like Pablo find so worrying about the CFR?
A more integrated global political and economic structure? Ooh, how scary!As far as I can tell it is doing a piss poor job of both "promoting understanding of foreign policy and the United States' role in the world" and, as many of its opponents fear "planning a one world government".
The fact that so many powerful and influential people and corporations (including Google, with its [failed] motto of "do no evil") have achieved so little, make me wonder what all the fuss is about.
Mind you, they do get a couple of brownie points from me for having Angelina Jolie on their council!
I think the organisation could do itself a lot of good if it became more open. for a start, it would go a long way towards helping its goal of raising awareness of the US' international role in the wider population.
In general terms, however, it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of either its formal role or that feared by the distrustful of forging a one world government.
David Rockefeller wrote in his autobiography
18 - Jet
I'm not concerned at all. Obama has already made it crystal clear he supports gay rights. He's also made it crystal clear he is giving everyone a voice regardless of view, which is as it should be. It's impossible to balance a scale unless you have weight on both sides.
What's good for us, should be good for the right wing. Inclusion is the key word, exclusion is what we're fighting against.
Stomping your feet and screaming hysterically is only going to get you ignored by Obama.
19 - Jet
By the way, Dave's right about the black vote, and it could become dangerous as gays become more and more resentful of their well documented support of Prop 8.
By the way the California supreme court seems close to overturning it, which could only make things more tense.
20 - Condor
"It's not the preacher's belief in god which is the problem, it's his belief that god condemns certain private acts between consenting adults which is the problem." -- Dave
Dave, while that plays, I think it's deeper than that, and perhaps all the contention is from people who haven't come to terms with theirselves(i.e. conscience or subconsceience).
If there is no god then this precher lacks any validation and there is no comdemnation.
21 - Jet
Nope Condor, It's people who firmly believe that anyone that doesn't not believe as they do and are "born again" into their religion, are condemned by them to live in hell for eternity...
Not by God-By them.
22 - Georgio
I agree with what Jet said in #18 but now that I heard Warren say he would not except homosexuality even if science proves gays where born that way..that shows me that he puts the bible first and facts second .
23 - pablo
Re post 17 Christopher Rose
Although I am not somebody like Pablo, I am in fact Pablo, I will step up to the plate and offer my two sense worth.
I will also embed several links should you want to peruse them.
I have no problem with a one world government that is based on the sovereignty of the individual Chris, as laid out by our founders in the Declaration of Independence. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, a small r republican form of government that guarantees that a person is born free, and has certain unalienable rights as laid out in the first ten amendments to our constitution.
However what these globalists have in mind is a much more sinister form of government, where a simple rule of the majority, and that majority is not common citizens, but a majority of designated delegates by the power elite to rule in THEIR interests, not the common human. We see a very similar sort of government emerging now in the EU, although you will hear very little criticism in the controlled corporate media about it. In the EU you are not considered born with rights, they are given to you, a fundamentally different proposition than ours. Also in the EU you are not innocent until proven guilty, but they use a form of Napoleonic government where you are considered guilty until you can prove your innocence.
This globalistic plan was hatched centuries ago, and is only beginning to come to fruition now. Indeed it started with Adam Weishaupt, a Jesuit from Frankfurt, and has been continued by the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Cecil Rhodes, and the Fabian Socialists, of whom both Tony Blair and Prime Minister Brown of the UK are currently members of.
The Fabians believe unlike other revolutionaries of a fascist totalitarian ilk, that the best way to bring about change is very very slowly, incrementally as it were, and they are doing a damned good job of it.
The CFR is in fact part of the Royal Insitute of International Affairs and today is called Chatham House. It was hatched by JP Morgan along with several other Robber Barons early in the twentieth century. Their stated goal has always been a one world government, again not one that I believe in, that I referenced above.
It is indeed a conspiracy and plainly visible to see to anyone who is willing to open up their eyes and see it. Among some of the more pernicious people in it are: Cheney (although he tried to keep it a secret from his constituents, video available upon request), Oliver North, James Woolsey, Richard Armitage, David Rockefeller, Charles Krauthammer, Elliot Abrahms, John Bolton, Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Condaleeza Rice, Rumsfeldt, Alfonse D'Amato, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, and many others of that ilk.
I suggest Christopher that you do your own research on the CFR, you will be surprised what you will find provided your studies about this organization comes from writers that are not members. There are numerous books about them, and for the most part quite negative.
The best source that I know of comes from Bill Clinton's self professed political mentor Caroll Quigley former Professor of US history at Georgetown University with his book Tragedy and Hope, which lays out quite clearly this cabal's plan for a one world totalitarian state.
It is true, because of the nature of this organization, that they have both public figures from the left and right wings of the political spectrum, that is because they control both sides, and only the people think there is a fundamental difference between them, as we are now seeing with Mr. Change Obama, who is for all intents and purposes part of the elite status quo.
If you go to the Chatham House website you will find that the CFR and Chatham House are actually the same organization, which leads to questions of US sovereignty issues very fast.
As to David Rockefellers statement in his autobiography, he admits to being traitorous, as a one world government, which implies sovereignty, would not be the sovereignty of the individual, nor the Bill or Rights nor the Constitution, but a form of government of the corporations, by the corporations and of the corporations. Speaking of which, you may be familiar with the history of corporations in which originally they had to serve a public interest, and were controlled quite carefully by the government as in the UK. Today they are the ruling elite, and given their limited liability protections, and their ability to accumulate vast sums of money, and are treated now in law as individuals should give all common people reason to shudder.
I do not believe quite frankly that all that are in the CFR are privy to its goals and objectives, and many join (by invitation only) for obvious status and connection reasons. I do however believe that most of the politicos are privy to those objectives, and because of the nature of this global cabal traitorous to the US as David Rockefeller so eloquently stated.
You will find at the top always Rockefeller, Kissinger, and the Rothschilds. Whether it is the Bilderberg Group, The Trilateral Commission, or the CFR. Dave would have you believe that the Bilderbergs meet to play tiddlywinks cuz they are lonely, kind of a billionaires social club, that is about as naive a position that I could possibly imagine. They are planning global strategy, and these folks do not believe in the sovereignty of the individual, or that freedom comes from our maker and not our government as laid out in The Declaration of Independence.
CFR 1
CFR 2
CFR 3
24 - pablo
One other great CFR link, which I find very accurate.
CFR 4
25 - pablo
I do find it rather amusing that Dave Nalle will continually smear those that are trying to prevent totalitarianism both in our country and in the world in general with the labels of hate, racist, and hitlerish, as he has done with Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and Jesse Ventura. These good men are doing everything that they can for freedom, for you and me, and against tyranny, yet Dave will smear them all day long. It does not surprise me however coming from him.