While anti-war activists hoped their rally yesterday would be the “largest peace rally in the nation’s capital since the Vietnam War,” it doesn’t seem they reached their goal. In order to make the rally seem larger than it was, the BBC and other new outlets relied on the organizers’ claim that 100,000 turned out. Little Green Footballs found this picture of the rally at Yahoo and observed that “it looks like the turnout was much less than 100,000 people.”
A reader wrote in to Glenn Reynolds to report the same thing: he did not see 100,000 there either. Jeff Goldstein shows how the MSM has been spinning news of the rally to make it appear larger and more diverse that it actually was.
It seems that every critic of the Iraq war claims that it is another Vietnam, that not only are our troops in the process of losing, but that public opposition is growing. Yet, while polls may show that more Americans oppose the war than did at the time we liberated Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, the number of those who are fervently opposed to the war does not match that of the Vietnam era.
There were few (if any) large-scale protests when, in August 1964, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution effectively declaring war on the Communist government in North Vietnam. Yet, hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) rallied in cities across the country in 2003 to oppose the impending U.S. (and coalition) war against Saddam’s regime. Even the organizers don’t claim more than 100,000 attended yesterday’s rally. And as I noted above, most observers believe that number to be inflated.
As the war in Vietnam escalated so too did the protests back home, that is, the rallies got bigger. But, as our troops continue to fight the terrorists in Iraq, the size of the rallies has not so increased. Those who follow what’s really going in Iraq know that our involvement there is nothing like that in Vietnam. Although we are experiencing a few setbacks, we are winning the war. And the inability of the anti-war movement to draw a large crowd for their rally yesterday shows that the situation back in the U.S. is nothing like it was in the Vietnam era.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!! While you’re here, take some time and browse around at one of the blogosphere’s leading gay conservative voices.
ADDENDUM: Michelle Malkin photoblogged the rally. Her pictures show how uncorked some leftists have become.
UPDATE: Fellow Bear-Flag Blogger Baldilocks (and very nice gal) has pictures from a sparsely attended rally in LA.
UP-UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein provides information suggesting that the MSM is massaging the protest numbers. HT: Instapundit.
UP-UP-UPDATE: PrismWarden provides a picture from the rally that is just too creepy to describe.
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: California Conservative has pictures from a sparsely-attended (and hate-filled) rally in San Francisco.
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt provides the details which make my point. The first anti-Vietnam War protest in 1965 brought 16,000 to the White House. In November 1969, more than 250,000 protesters — some estimates went as high as 500,000 rallied against the Vietnam War. In other words, back then, the protests got bigger as the war escalated. Thanks, Hugh.
Hello, Hello!?! Schumer=Nixon?
Good news folks…. we won’t have to see or hear Senator Camera Hog for a while now that this news has broken….
Newsday.com — They’re Not A Credit To Schumer
WASHINGTON — Two opposition researchers working for Sen. Charles Schumer at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee obtained copies of a confidential credit report on Maryland’s Republican lieutenant governor, prompting calls for their prosecution.
In July, committee research director Katie Barge and Lauren Weiner, a junior staffer, used Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele’s Social Security number to get his credit report, according to a Democratic official familiar with the case.
The committee, which works to elect Democrats to the Senate, has been compiling research on Steele, Maryland’s highest-ranking African-American official, a GOP contender for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Democrat Paul Sarbanes in 2006.
Since Steele is an African-American, I assume that based on the usual LibDem talking point strategy, that Schumer must be a racist, right?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Judiciary Committee vote on Roberts Shows (Once Again) why Republicans are Better than Democrats
With the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to approve the nomination of John Roberts as the next Chief Justice, we once again have proof that Republicans show more respect for their ideological adversaries than do Democrats. Only three of the Committee’s eight Democrats (Vermont’s Patrick Leahy and the two Senators from Wisconsin, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold) joined all ten Republicans in voting to confirm this good man. Five voted against. This contrasts with the same committee’s unanimous vote twelve years ago to confirm a one-time American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) activist to the Supreme Court.
Yep, all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993 voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg even though her appointment would shift the court to the left. President Clinton tapped her to replace Byron White who, while appointed by President Kennedy, usually voted with the court’s conservative bloc; he wrote the dissenting opinion in Roe. v. Wade.
Even though conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer thinks a Chief Justice Roberts would “move the court only mildly, but most assuredly, to the left,” a majority of Judiciary Committee Democrats voted against this good man. My state’s normally sensible senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, said “her vote was decided after Roberts refused to fully answer questions from her and other Democrats in his confirmation hearing last week.” Twelve years ago, she didn’t express similar qualms about Ms. Ginsburg’s failure to fully answer questions from Democrats — or Republicans.
Let’s face it, while Democrats and others on the left repeatedly accuse conservatives of intolerance and narrow-mindedness, they, by and large, are far more ideologically hardheaded than are most Republicans and conservatives. Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote in 1992, yet Republican Senators respected his constitutional role in appointing judges — even if his first Supreme Court appointment shifted the court to the left. Today’s Senate Democrats are a much different sort, more concerned with answering to left-wing interest groups than in respecting constitutional principles.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: Powerline‘s Paul writes, “The Democratic “no” vote on the 18 member Committee exceeds the number of Republican votes, Senate-wide, against Justice Ginsburg.”
UPDATE FROM GP: I noted with interest the point that Rush Limbaugh made today. DiFi was voting no on Roberts partially because she wasn’t sure how Roberts was as a husband and a father. Really. So feminism is now decided on whether you are a GOOD husband and father? I thought it was irrelevant to them. Plus, imagine the screams from the LibDems had someone asked Ginsberg if she were a good mother or wife!!! Double-standards never end among our friends from the Anti-Religious Left.
Required Reading for our Youth
Hat Tip: GOP Vixen
“HELP! MOM! THERE ARE LIBERALS UNDER MY BED tells of two brothers who open a lemonade stand. Their plans to save up their hard earned profits to buy a swing set go awry when a Ted Kennedy character taxes away their profits and a pants-suit clad Hillary Clinton look-alike outlaws sugary drinks.”
I hope there is a chapter where the Liberals are so afraid of offending their voters that they allow Al-Qaeda to infiltrate the country. Thank goodness this is only fiction…..
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
The Charge of Hypocrisy: Leftists’ Standard Dodge in Debate
Over at PrismWarden, Robbie offers some insight into the recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway. Hitchens shares his thoughts on the debate here (HT: Powerline), but I found Robbie’s post a better read. As an outside observer, he provides a most unique perspective.
Robbie noted that:
Galloway’s entire argument, it seemed, was that Christopher Hitchens opposed intervention in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, thus supporting it now nullifies anything to be said on the topic. Similarly, Galloway’s answer against the present war on terror seems to rest entirely on the realpolitik practices of the U.S. and Britain during the 1970’s and 1980s. We helped create the situation, you see.
To oppose these various regimes now makes us hypocrites.
Indeed, Robbie finds that “For many on the Left, hypocrisy is quite possibly the greatest crime one can ever possibly commit.” Thus, instead of engaging supporters of the war (or indeed, advocates of any argument they oppose), liberals are all to eager to nitpick at the hypocrisies (or alleged hypocrisies) of conservatives rather than address the merits of their arguments. Recall, the ruckus a few months back over the supposed hypocrisy of Jeff Gannon? As if the hypocrisy of a reporter for a two-bit news organization who happened to get a White House press pass somehow merited national attention.
Anyway, I think Robbie’s right on the money about many on the left. They’re all to eager to dwell on our hypocrisy (or supposed hypocrisy) as if it absolves them of the responsibility of making real arguments. He has more to say on this topic — and says it in a manner that is fun to read — so just read the whole thing!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Bill Clinton: Without Class
After returning yesterday evening from an afternoon & evening of socializing and entertainment, I logged on to find another whopper from the master of the whopper, the man who joins Democrats Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson (Democrats as well) as the only presidents re-elected without winning a majority of the popular vote:
It’s like when they issued the evacuation order. . . . That affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn’t have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn’t have cars, so they couldn’t take them out.
Yep, while interviewed on ABC’s This Week by his former acolyte George Stephanopolous, Bill Clinton spoke those words. The former president forgot to mention that it was the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans who let his city’s fleet of buses sit idle and so failed to evacuate the less fortunate residents of the Crescent City.
Perhaps, Clinton was upset that many of those affected the hurricane liked the president’s speech last Thursday. Even the woman who managed his designated successor’s presidential campaign was proud of the president and the plan he put forward.
Clinton didn’t just take issue with Mr. Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina. He also faulted him for the war in Iraq and other issues. And while I was busying socializing, browsing for books and watching the pleasant flick, Just Like Heaven, a few bloggers weighed in on Mr. Clinton’s lack of class. They pointed out how his criticisms of his successor were at odds with his past statements, made both while he was in office and after he left. This blogger does a good job of fisking the former president’s interview with his one-time aide. (HT: Polipundit’s Lorie Byrd.)
Powerline claims we are entering “uncharted waters” for until now, “former Presidents of both parties have stayed out of politics and have avoided criticizing their successors.” Lorie Byrd has two posts on the topic (calling him a “No-Class Slime” and providing great links here). At National Review Online’s the Corner, K-Lo says Clinton’s working on the “MoveOn crowd for Hill.”
[Read more…]
Required Reading at the DNC
Apparently, this book is not only one of Chairman Dean’s favorites, but it’s also been seen on the nightstands of Arianna Huffington, Michael Moore, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.
Michael Moore’s Minutemen
Michael Moore said that, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.”
Well, via The Washington Times , Army Col. H.R. McMaster offers some details about Michael Moore’s Minutemen:
But it was his description of how the enemy occupied their safe haven that got the most attention. Col. McMaster told of beheadings, gunshot killings, a booby-trapped dead child and kidnappings. “This is the worst of the worst in terms of people in the world,” he said. “To protect themselves here, what the enemy did is they waged the most brutal and murderous campaign against the people of Tal Afar. … The enemy here did just the most horrible things you can imagine, in one case murdering a child, placing a booby trap within the child’s body and waiting for the parent to come recover the body of their child and exploding it to kill the parents.” . . .
Col. McMaster said soldiers captured some associates of lead terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi. “They are some of the worst human beings on the face of the Earth,” he said. “There is no really greater pleasure for us than to kill or capture these particular individuals.”
While U.S. soldiers are eager to kill such barbarians, Michael Moore is rooting for them to win.
Hat tip: National Review Online’s The Corner.
Liberals Take Principle Over Money
Hey, you have to admire that right? Anyway, I thought you’d all enjoy this email exchange….
From: GayPatriot
To: Scott-O-Rama
Sent: Fri, 16 Sep 2005
I’m disappointed… but not surprised. Open minds are a rare commodity in the gay community these days.
I am the one who is sorry for you.
—–Original Message—–
From: Scott-O-Rama
To: gaypatriot2004@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:08:44 -0700
Subject: Ad Rejection Explanation
I am sorry, but I am rejecting the BlogAd you submitted to my site. I am a proud liberal, and your site goes against a lot of what I believe in. While I’m not trying to censor you, I don’t believe carrying your ad on my site is appropriate either.
Thanks anyway.
Scott
scott@scott-o-rama.com
www.scott-o-rama.com
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Pelosi Upset Because House Panel Won’t Prove Bush alone is to Blame for Katrina Failures
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led all but seven of her fellow Democrats in voting against a special committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina.” Labeling this committee “partisan,” the San Francisco liberal faults the federal response for falling “so very short” in its relief efforts, yet in a press release (which, for some reason comes up in a Yahoo! news search), she utters nary a word about failures at the state and local level.
For Ms Pelosi — as for all too many of her fellow Democrats and the overwhelmingly majority of the MSM — the issue is not determining what exactly happened in the wake of this the “seventh deadliest natural disaster to strike this country” (HT: GOP Vixen), but finding fault with President Bush and the Administration. They don’t want an investigation to find the facts but one which confirms the legend they have created about this disaster.
Will DNC Charter A Plane To London On Sept. 24?
Because I fully expect to see Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson locked arm-in-arm with their socialist brethren that day in the United Kingdom….
March Against War, Terror and Racism – Socialist Party of the UK
We think that’s possible, when the majority of people organise to take the vast wealth of the world into our own hands and plan our own destinies, instead of leaving everything in the hands of the greedy multinationals and their warmongering governments.
Demonstrate on 24 September. Join our red socialist contingent. But don’t leave it at that. Join our party, and help us fight against war, against terror, against racism, and for a socialist world.
Sounds like a line from a John Kerry for President speech to me….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Just like the Shinbone Star, MSM neglects the facts, prints the legend
Last night, I watched a movie which instantly joined Shane and Clint Eastwood‘s Unforgiven as one of my favorite Westerns. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, James Stewart plays Ransom Stoddard, a lawyer who thinks he can deal with Liberty Valance, a bloodthirsty bandit, through the law, but ends up facing him in a gun battle. Legend has it that he shot Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin), but in reality, hiding in the shadows, Tom Doniphon (John Wayne) fires the bullet that finishes off the villain. When, years later, Stoddard returns to the town for Doniphon’s funeral, he tells the press the true story, the editor of the Shinbone Star refuses to use it, saying “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
It seems in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina, the MSM is not much different from its fictional counterpart. In this case, the media made the legend–that President Bush and the federal government failed miserably in response to this once-in-a-century catastrophe. As the resignation earlier today of FEMA head Michael Brown indicates, the federal response was far from perfect, but as this blog (e.g., here, here and here) and others have shown, local agencies made the lion’s share of mistakes in the evacuation and recovery efforts.
But, despite this evidence, the MSM continues to report the legend. In an AP article today, Jennifer Loven notes that the president visited New Orleans today with “New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco — both of whom have criticized the federal response.” Ms. Loven focuses only on criticism of the president and neglects to mention that many have criticized those two individuals for flawed city and state responses (respectively) to the disaster.
[Read more…]
Joe Solmonese: Same old liberal song and dance
In this post on Chris Matthew’s Hardblogger, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese shows his true colors, as an activist more concerned with the agenda of the left than as a leader committed to gay and lesbian issues. Weighing in yet again on the Roberts’ nomination, he writes that “the Human Rights Campaign joined the growing chorus of those speaking out in opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts.” He neglects to mention that this “growing chorus” of opposition largely includes only voices from the far left (with an a handful of extreme right-wingers thrown in). And his piece merely rehashes the standard left-wing arguments against the good judge’s confirmation.
Moreover, in the entire piece, he makes only two references (three, if we count AIDS) to gay issues. In his first comment, he contends that Roberts
dismisses the “so-called right to privacy” and by doing so not only threatens reproductive freedoms but also threatens the legal underpinnings to Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned laws that effectively labeled gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans as criminals.
He offers no evidence, only interpretation to suggest that as Chief Justice, Judge Roberts would overturn Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision which found that state sodomy laws violated the Constitution. And once again, he brings up “reproductive freedoms,” probably in deference to his previous employer, but not an issue appropriate to a gay and lesbian organization.
[Read more…]
Proposal to turn USS Iowa into museum honoring gay servicemembers
Patrick of the Gryphmon blog alerted us to another us to the latest wrinkle in the saga of San Francisco and the USS Iowa. Now, some want to “turn part of the vessel into a museum honoring the contributions of gays, lesbians, ethnic minorities and women to the military” in order to “help sway the Board of Supervisors’ decision.” As we reported in July, the Board voted against the permanent berthing of the USS Iowa in their city.
While it’s important that we recognize the courage and sacrifice the countless gay and lesbian service members over the years, this is not the place to do it. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors should reverse their July decision and agree to berth this battleship in their fair city to honor all those who served to defend our freedom–and the particular history of this ship. Most of the men and women who served aboard the ship were straight.
We must honor them as well when we tell the story great ship. It brought President Roosevelt home from the Tehran Conference and “suffered one of the nation’s most deadly military accidents in 1989 when 47 sailors were killed in an explosion during a training exercise.”
As we remember that history, let’s find another means to honor gay and lesbian veterans. And let us do so in a way that shows their sexuality was incidental to their service to our great nation.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Announcing opposition to Roberts, gay groups stand with the left
Just as I was about to turn in, I received a press release from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) noting that three gay organizations had joined them in opposing the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Just a week after GLAAD names a Republican as its new head, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) have come out against the president’s nominee for the Supreme Court before the Senate has even held hearings on his nomination. (I guess it’s too much to ask that more than one national gay organization acknowledges the significance of the 2004 elections.) My guess is that the only people who will pay any attention to this announcement are Senators who have already made up their minds to oppose the good judge’s confirmation.
Not waiting to hear his how this good man handles tough questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, these groups have decided to join the growing number of left-wing organizations opposing his confirmation. In their release, they provide little evidence to show how Roberts would not be good for gay people. They borrow a few arguments from the left and strain (without much evidence to back them up) to show that he just might possibly be bad for us. Shouldn’t they wait and see how he addresses questions on gay issues in his confirmation hearings before rushing to conclusions?
They mention a September 1985 memo where he “cautioned President Reagan against stating that the AIDS virus could not be spread through casual contact among schoolchildren, claiming that this conclusion was in dispute.” But, given how much more we know about AIDS today than we did back then, it might be a good idea to ask the judge if he believes he erred in writing that memo twenty years ago–and if he was aware (at the time) of the Centers for Disease Controls (CDC) guidelines which stated that casual contact “appears to pose no risk.” (Or maybe he was aware of those guidelines and thought the word “appears” justified his caution.) We can better know how his views on AIDS have evolved if Senators ask him about that memo (as I believe they should).
[Read more…]
The president’s attitude toward our fallen heroes & their families
In an excellent piece, Michael Barone asks, “How much coverage would the press have given a World War II-era Cindy Sheehan who camped outside Hyde Park or Warm Springs demanding to meet with President Roosevelt?”
After offering some anecdotes of that Democratic president’s meeting with wounded soldiers during World War II, Barone turns to an erstwhile opponent of the president, John McCain, to describe how our current president handles similar meetings:
Look, I’ve been with the president of the United States when he has met with the families of those brave young men and women who have sacrificed. I have seen his compassion, I have seen his love, I have seen his concern. So any charge of insensitivity or uncaring on the part of this president, is absolutely false. He cares and he grieves. . . . I have seen him, I have seen his care, and I have seen him grieve. And I’m sure he wouldn’t like to hear me say this, but I saw him afterwards. He was very, very grieved. And that’s the job of the president of the United States. He fully appreciates the tragedy of the loss of these brave young Americans.
So, why then, I wonder, is the media giving so much attention to antics of one angry relative and so little attention to the reality of the president’s visits with relatives of our fallen heroes?
Hat tip: Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd. And be sure to read Barone’s post as well as the Anchoress’ post on the president’s meetings with the grieving families.
Cindy Sheehan and the liberation of Iraq
A reader wrote in yesterday wondering if we were going to post on Cindy Sheehan. I agree with him that this is an “incredibly rich topic,” so thought I would share a few thoughts.
As least as far back as the Greeks, people noted the particular sadness of the death of a child. In the Fifth Century before the Common Era, the historian Herodotus wrote, “In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons.” I cannot imagine the grief that Ms. Sheehan and thousands of other parents have experienced at the loss of their son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan. Just as many parents grieved on September 11, 2001, when their children’s lives were cut short. While some of those parents oppose the war, many continue to support the president even after the loss of their child.
Most of the parents bear their grief in private. Ms. Sheehan has made a public spectacle of herself. As EMT 907 noted last week on his blog, she changed her story about her meeting with the president. Even though she did not support the president’s policies in Iraq, she initially described her meeting with the president in positive terms. Right after the meeting, she said, I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis . . . . I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” But, last week (more than a year after the meeting), she claimed on CNN that Mr. Bush treated the meeting “like a party.”
She now thinks that if it were not for the Internet, “we would already be a fascist state.” I can’t think of a single fascist state which allows its citizens to protest so vociferously so close to the chief executive’s summer retreat while that very state does not prevent the media from reporting such protests.
[Read more…]
Jimmy Carter: Without Class
Just about two months ago, I wondered whether former president Jimmy Carter resented Republicans more than he loves America. It doesn’t seem that this onetime peanut farmer has gotten over his 1980 landslide loss to the Gipper. In a column today, George Will writes that the Georgia Democrat who, in his concession speech that year, noted that, as president, he never “lied to the American people,” has lately been telling whoppers about that conservative columnist. Will well describes Mr. Carter’s lack of class:
The role of ex-president requires a grace and restraint notably absent from Carter. See, for example, his criticism of the United States when he is abroad, as in England two weeks ago. Having made such disappointing history as president, Carter as ex-president should at least refrain from disseminating a historical falsehood.
(Hat tip: Polipundit and Powerline.)
Barone on Multiculturalism
Just read a great piece on multiculturalism by Michael Barone–one of my favorite columnists. He quoted Jean-François Revel, quite possibly the wisest living Frenchman: “A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.” Barone adds: “Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn.” Here he really gets at the heart of multiculturalism and its refusal to note the superiority of western democracies:
Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places–mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.
Emphasis added. Now that I’m whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!
Are Eagle Scouts Acceptable to Syracuse University?
The “Home News Tribune” in Middlesex County, NJ reports that “Eagle Scouts are a rare breed.”
Gaining More By Giving – Home News Tribune
Indeed they are.
But someone better tell poor Ken Stigner, Jr (profiled in the article) that he won’t be welcome at his college-to-be.
“”Being an Eagle Scout will help me with my life goals,” said Stigner, a 2005 Monroe Township High School graduate who plans to study television production at Syracuse University in the fall. “The things I learned during my project will stay with me forever.”
You see, Ken…. Syracuse University doesn’t really want your kind.
Boy Scouts and Orangemen Don’t Mix – GayPatriot archives
In fact, a few weeks ago I contacted the Syracuse University’s Office of Multicultural Affairs whose stated mission is:
The Office of Multicultural Affairs (OMA) provides the necessary support and guidance needed to encourage students to become members of a community respectful of differences. OMA assists students to grow into individuals willing to take a proactive stance against oppression in all its forms.
OMA offers one-on-one support for students of color at Syracuse University. OMA reaches out to students of all colors who are struggling with mixed messages they may receive in dealing with the issues of race and diversity in their own communities.
So I asked the head of OMA what policies are in place to deal with the discrimination faced by conservative students and faculty. After all, conservatives are discriminated against across America’s campuses.
My response was a non-answer. But what else would I expect from the University that bans the Boy Scouts?
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com