Posted on 08/18/2012 10:33:30 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
President Obama and Mitt Romney have found some new common ground -surprisingly – on an issue of gay rights.
Obama today joined Romney in publicly disagreeing with a controversial ban on gay members of the Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest and most well-known youth development groups.
“The president believes the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century. He also opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such opposes this policy that discriminates on basis of sexual orientation,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye in a statement to the Washington Blade, a LGBT newspaper.
It’s the first time Obama, who was named honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America in 2009, has publicly taken a position on the issue.
Romney first voiced support for gay scouts back in 1994 — a position that his campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said remains his position today.
“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Romney said in the video from 1994 recently re-surfaced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. He added at the time that he supports “the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.”
Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com
Last month, the group affirmed its ban on openly gay scouts and leaders after a two-year review of the policy, prompting the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to call on Obama to “reconsider” his honorary post.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I don't know how much you've read of or listened to Romney's words or how much you've looked into his record. I think deep down, Romney is a base political animal in ruthless pursuit of control. He is amoral -- lacking reference to morality -- which in its way is more dangerous than being immoral, or "contrary to moral principles."
Promoting the presence of homosexuals around youth is grossly immoral, to the interests of vulnerable young people as well as to society as a whole. Romney has actively promoted such a presence and continues to do so. Why is that? Is it because he thinks it's immoral to "discriminate against" declared homosexuals by, in his view, allowing government to let free people reject the presence of open homosexuals in their lives? That NOT to create government powers to punish those who reject open homosexuals, would be immoral on his part as an American "leader"? Or is it because he is amoral and wants a block of votes and special interests?
Now, before you start spinning that into proof that "he can be persuaded to go to whatever side has the most of offer," please also recall where AMORALITY inevitably leads.
Obama is dangerous and scary and a wild card. He is a fraud, he is bleeding support, and for all his opaqueness, is pretty transparent. Americans are sick of him as much as you are terrified of him.
But I didn't vote for Obama, and neither will a lot more folks this time around.
Romney is only a fraud in terms of "Republican" and "conservative." Other than that, he is the real deal -- look how he got the nomination, which has come as no surprise to those of us who've been watching him since 2007. He plays political hardball, he manipulates, he deceives, he distorts, and he misleads with deliberation, as if he thinks its perfecly moral to do those things in pursuit of success. He has a lifelong record of wholly embracing liberal agendas. Now, you can endorse that with your vote in the hopes the results wouldn't be as bad as four more years of Obama, but I'll pass having a say in preferring either one. I'm voting to weaken whichever one wins.
Voting for liberals is bad business. It guarantees a bad outcome. Once entrenched, Romney would make you forget all about Obama, and think only, "Why did I vote for this monster?"
The better gamble is to vote to ensure a plurality for whichever bad liberal wins, because a Republican Congress will have an easier time "holding his feet to the fire" if the next president, Obama or Romney, has only squeaked in on a plurality.
I lived and breathed the impeachment of Clinton. I arranged for a friend to get in front of the house investigators to tell them of his evidence that Clinton committed perjury in the criminal trial of bankers Branscum and Hill. Dave Schippers became a friend, was on my radio show two or three times, and appeared in my film, HILLARY! UNCENSORED. You go ask him if a Democrat will ever be impeached, no matter what he does.
Gaining steam? That is what is naive beyond belief. If it gained any steam, do you think the community organizer would just sit there and take it? No, he would violate anyone’s privacy, get dirt on them, and destroy them. He would have his ACORN thugs show up at people’s houses to threaten them. (Like they did to bank presidents.) He would have “his people,” as Holder calls them, rioting in the streets. You just do not understand that Obama and his leftists have no rules. When I showed HILLARY! UNCENSORED at George Washington University, a guy came to the film and talked to me afterward. He had been with a PI firm responsible for threatening Kathleen Willey and her children. He could not be a part of that and quit. Obama and his thugs would have absolutely no problem in carrying out the threat. We have never confronted anything like this guy and those who surround him. Never.
For something that lacks real legal consensus...
The Heritage Foundation - The Role of Congress in War
Early in American history, in an era of limited peacetime budgets for military resources, Presidents tended to defer to Congress. In modern times, the debate over the allocation of war powers between Congress and the President is dramatically affected by the institution of a large United States peacetime military force following World War II. Starting with the Korean War, modern Presidents have been more aggressive in asserting unilateral authority to engage in war without declaration or other congressional authorization. In 1973, Congress attempted to affirm its control over war through passage, over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto, of the War Powers Resolution. Presidents have generally refused to recognize the constitutional operation of the War Powers Resolution, although Presidents have often taken actions “consistent” with the War Powers Resolution to avoid unnecessary conflict with Congress.
My plan is to vote him out...it's a very real possibility.
Yours has no chance of success...it's not so much a plan as it is an exercise in baseless hope.
I'm posting it again:
Conservatives never had a place at Obama's table. Not even as the court jester. This is nothing new. But in the last years, we learned how to cripple Obama. Brewer just flipped him the political bird with regard to amnesty. The freshmen senators held the line and didn't ratify the Sea Treaty.
Obama didn't show up in my state, Wisconsin, to even attempt help unseat Walker in the recall. Yes, we've learned how to cripple the liberal advances made by team Obama.
Changing the leadership while maintaining the advances breaks our line. Instead of opposing Obama, our team will get their "asses in line" for sake of party unity and decimate conservatism further under Romney.
Electing Romney does nothing more than introduce an opponent into the center of our circle, so the circular firing squad can ensue.
When you vote for a liberal, you advance liberalism, every time.
Doug, thanks for the reminder of all you did in those impeachment years—brought back a lot of memories.
I agree with you totally. We are up against professionals in the Obama Administration. When we get rid of his and his thug Administration in January, only then will the dam break and we will find out how mnuch damage he really did.
I don’t understand the pyrrhic victory type thinking of some that refuse to vote out Obama when it is the easy course of action with the best chance of success.
Winston Churchill said it best:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
You and I are not sellouts. We love our country too much to not rid it of a horrible Democrat leadership that has it tied up on the beach like Gulliver, straining under the ropes of the Lilliputians.
Godspeed,FRiend.
So we all chanted and vowed "Anybody but Hillary," and got our wish: Obama. People should shiver to think realistically about his successor if Romney has 8 years.
I'm voting to weaken whichever bastard wins, because they're both bastards.
Nope, knew it all along. Just pointing out the obvious.
... when actually, Romney's entire record is of advancing liberal cause after liberal cause, and big government interference after big goverment interference. He's all for the global warming game and for government telling businesses and individuals how to "be." He thinks people need to be managed and that government is there to do it. That's why he grandfathered ObamaCare.
But ABOers are ignorant of it. They are only seeing what they want to see. They don't dare look too close.
Treehouse of Horror VII. Look it up on wikipedia.
Those words definitely live up to your screen name.
And I won’t give my vote to someone who hates this country and is destroying it as well. :)
It is good that we have reached an understanding.
You may see someone who permits the bloodshed of 60 million people to continue as an acceptable option. I do not.
Obama permits killing 60 million unborn babies. Heck, he even likes infanticide. Vote for who you want - or not at all. Its your decision. But, if zero wins another 4 years - all I can say is God help us. He will pull out all the stops, because he won’t have to face the voters ever again. Just some food for you to think about - since you are so pig-headed.
Wow - a trifecta - juvenile, obscure and inapplicable.
Do you reside in a swing state?
The question must finally be asked. If the Democrat ticket was Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, would you want Romney to lose?
re: But ABOers are ignorant of it.
Condescending and insulting. We know of Romney’s liberalism. We will fight it. There will be no fighting Obama because the Constitution does not get in his way.
I will put to you the same question as I posted a short time ago. If the Democrat ticket were Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, would you want them to defeat Romney? I really would appreciate an honest answer.
Great Churchill quote. Many historians have determined that resisting Hitler sooner would have saved millions of lives.
Even those who hate Romney would agree that Obama is even worse than Carter. That he is destroying our economy. That he wants to radically transform this country (and is part way there). That he will side with Islam when given the chance. That he is not burdened by the Constitution. That he doesn’t care if Iran has nukes. That the U.S. deserves to be punished. That wealth must be distributed. That there are no rules when fighting the “right wing.” That the ends justify the means. And yet they think it will help the conservative cause if Obama wins. If Churchill were here, he would slap them silly. Better yet, I’d rather have Patton slap them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.