do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well:
'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and
'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.
29 August 2007
27 August 2007
Just some random thoughts about the mayoral race in Fort Wayne:
What if Matt Kelty wins and is then convicted?
Who will Slicer Shiney choose to replace him?
Could we end up with a has been of the Party
who wants to get 'their dues' in or payed back?
What is the impeachment process for a Mayor?
Will we have a legitimate precinct vote or will it be whoever Steve chooses?
If the Republican Party is already in shambles because of these fiascoes,
how much longer before it totally collapses to a barely existent Party?
Other thoughts about Tom Henry for Mayor
I out of good conscience can not vote for Tom Henry. He is a career politician responsible for twenty years of bad city policy since he served that long on City Council (five, four year terms). His experience and track record is one reason alone no one should vote for him. The other reason is that of the four initiatives he has announced two (Rivers and the Light Lease) come with hardly any details or action for the first year and a half he would be in office. That is wasted time as far as I am concerned.
For instance, the Safe House program that he is promoting still currently exists, and just needs the mothballs blown off of it; not a new initiative with a new fancy sign and more paperwork, than my mothers childhood pet sheep could chew in an hour. From one of the pointes made, "The schools will help to make children aware of the Safe Houses, distribute maps and teach them how to use them." The last things kids need to do when being chased by an attacker or abused by a parent or relative is to take the time to stop and look at a map!
They should not be Safe Houses they should be Safe Zones similar to the idea that every Place of Worship and Government Public Building (Library/City County Building/Fire Station) should be open to the public and a place of refuge or sanctuary. The other thing to consider is that anyone or a visitor caught off guard at their personal home or not expecting it in their neighborhood might blow the kid off because they are having a bad day. Not to mention the question, "Can the City be assured that some one wont refuse to help some one for social, religious, racial, sexual or gender associations?"
There are common misunderstandings of social gender roles/expectations e.g. 'a teenage boy can take care of himself against anything'; or more realistically, is when his girlfriend just beat the tar piss out of his mastodon and he needs a place of refuge two or twenty or two hundred miles away from home. Will the Safe House turn him away? You have to remember, most males wont talk right away, it is 'beat into us at an early age' and partially instinct to 'not show' when we have been damaged. Will he be told to walk it off or will he get help? Safe Houses don't assure that and neither do Churches completely which is rather unfortunate.
Now I realize that I am ranting on about more than Safe Houses but there is a gap in services for safety and refuge for male victims in this City. Unless you are a foreigner, female, or a drug addict, you almost cant get services without being made to feel like a French cross dressing prostitute coming down off of a three day crack binge.
The Rescue Mission is the only avenue for most adult males and that is a proselytizing hell hole that should be condemned by most Churches. I will say that the new Director has made some positive changes but the track record of the Mission is so historically horrible that it is going to take more than doilies and doorknobs to clean up some of the past sins.
The Salvation Army is a slave labor shoppe to the pointe that Good Will tried to petition the federal government to allow it to stop paying its workers in order to compete with its rival and to prove that SA was slave labor but it got buried by the Labor Department because of lobbying by the Sal. Army.
Anyway enough about that.
My pointe is simply this: fix the gaps in the current system before you try to start over with a whole new system that has so many gaps it is not possible to count them on my fingers and my toes. I may just abstain my vote in the mayoral race. Does anybody else have answers or thoughts?
Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his departure over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend for months until accepting his resignation last Friday.
''After months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department, Judge Gonzales decided to resign his position and I accept his decision,'' Bush said from Texas, where he is vacationing. Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found and confirmed by the Senate, Bush said.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was among those mentioned as possible successors, though a senior administration official said the matter had not been raised with Chertoff. Bush leaves Washington next Monday for Australia, and Gonzales' replacement might not be named by then, the official said.
''It has been one of my greatest privileges to lead the Department of Justice,'' Gonzales said, announcing his resignation effective Sept. 17 in a terse statement. He took no questions and gave no reason for stepping down.
Bush said the attorney general's ''good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.'' Though some Republicans echoed the president's veiled slap at Democrats, Gonzales had few defenders left in Washington.
Many Republicans actually welcomed his departure, some quietly and others publicly so. Congressional aides and lawmakers agreed that any nomination of a new attorney general was almost certain to be acrimonious. The easiest prospects, some said, might be a current or former colleague of senators charged with the confirmation. Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Monday that he would not accept the job, if offered. But, he said, another current or former senator ''might be just the ticket.'' ''If you have a former senator or a present senator or somebody who is well known to the Senate or the committee...that's always a big help if you know the person,'' Specter told reporters in a telephone call as he traveled from Warsaw to Paris. Asked, too, about whether Chertoff might be a good candidate, Specter replied:
''I think he's a first-rate prospect.''
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards applauded Gonzales' resignation, saying it was ''better late than never.''
The announcement came as a surprise to many in the administration. Gonzales was tight-lipped about his thinking before going on vacation more than a week ago and aides were planning events for the next several months. After spending time with his family in Texas, however, and facing the prospect of returning to Washington for months of continued fights with Congress, he called the president on Friday.
The White House has asked anyone staying past Labor Day to stay the remainder of the president's term.
Gonzales, formerly Bush's White House counsel, served more than two years at the Justice Department. In announcing his decision, Gonzales reflected on his up-from-the-bootstraps life story; he's the son of migrant farm workers from Mexico who didn't finish elementary school. ''Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days,'' Gonzales said.
Bush steadfastly _ and at times angrily _ refused to give in to critics, even from his own GOP, who argued that Gonzales should go.
Earlier this month at a news conference, the president grew irritated when asked about accountability in his administration and turned the tables on the Democratic Congress. ''Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong,'' Bush said testily at the time. Actually, many in Congress had accused Gonzales of wrongdoing.
After the 52-year-old Gonzales called Bush Friday, the president had him come to lunch at his ranch on Sunday as a parting gesture, a senior administration official said. Gonzales, whom Bush once considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, is the fourth top-ranking administration official to leave since November 2006, following Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, who had a high-ranking Pentagon job before going to the World Bank as its president, and top political and policy adviser Karl Rove.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., reacted to the announcement by saying the Justice Department under Gonzales had ''suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence.'' As attorney general and earlier as White House counsel, Gonzales pushed for expanded presidential powers, including the eavesdropping authority. He drafted controversial rules for military war tribunals and sought to limit the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay _ prompting lawsuits by civil libertarians who said the government was violating the Constitution in its pursuit of terrorists. ''Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove,'' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
In a warning to the White House, Reid suggested that investigations into the Justice Department will not end until Congress gets ''to the bottom of this mess.''
One matter still under investigation is the 2006 dismissal of several federal prosecutors, who serve at the president's pleasure. Lawmakers said the action appeared to be politically motivated, and some of the fired U.S. attorneys said they felt pressured to investigate Democrats before elections. Gonzales maintained that the dismissals were based the prosecutors' lackluster performance records.
In April, Gonzales answered ''I don't know'' and ''I can't recall'' scores of times while questioned by Congress about the firings. Even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive. Not Bush. The president praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was ''honest'' and ''honorable.''
In 2004, Gonzales pressed to reauthorize a secret domestic spying program over the Justice Department's protests. Gonzales was White House counsel at the time and during a dramatic hospital confrontation he and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card sought approval from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in intensive care recovering from surgery. Ashcroft refused.
Similarly, Gonzales found himself on the defensive as recently as March because of the FBI's improper and, in some cases, illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes.
(Matt Apuzzo, AP)
26 August 2007
I don't know if this is for real or not but it would be a nice alternative to the "IN GOD WE TRUST" plates (which I still believe is not constitutional), but what annoys me even further is we still cant get a GLBT "PRIDE/EQUALITY" specialty plate.
And now from what I have been hearing is that the "IN GOD WE TRUST" is now the official default plate. So for those of us whom despise the religious rhetoric and the particular legislators that gave us this monstrosity, I say, "BOOT 'EM OUT!".
There is no reason why "IN GOD WE TRUST" should be issued by the State as the limited fee issue plate. It is not a saying of Indiana, it is not a tourism motto, it is not an organizational sponsored plate. The plates should not be something that would cause offense based upon religion. What about all the Pagans and Atheist or non theists like Buddhists? Then there is also the issue of, "Which version of, "God" (read: Jewish~Christian) you do in fact "Trust In"?".
People should not be forced to choose a specialty plate in order to keep from being offended every time they look at their own car. We are the "Crossroads of America", this smacks in the face our well known "Hoosier Hospitality", and I never thought that after "Wander"ing around the "Amber Waves Of Grain", I wouldn't want to come "Back Home Again" to "Indiana".
"INDIANA" is going to be the new issue plate in 2009. Come on people. Why must we go back to the dark ages of license plates? We have such a strong tradition now of beautiful works of Hoosier Artist (and specifically up and coming artist) that just makes this===> a travesty and a disgrace to the historical application of identifying vehicles on the road.
I don't know about you but on road trips one of the things my family, friends, and fellow boy scout troop members used to do was play 'guess the county' (and way back when) you could also guess the city/town of origin, based on the letters and numbers displayed. Oh well, I am just being nostalgic, I guess.
And btw, two other things, before I forget: 1.) issue front bumper license plates as well, so that way I am not harassed in other states (Ohio and Missouri); 2.) and put the "www.in.gov" back on the plate. It is beneficial for getting out of parking (I don't speed!) tickets and other stuff, since other jurisdictions think they are government property signifying plates! What the clergy decal or cassock and collar doesn't solve the current license plates do, lol.
Hey I wonder if we could get a specialty plate for "CLERGY"? That way I no longer have to post the decals on three places of my car. Oh wait, that would violate the principle of Separation of Church and State. And "IN GOD WE TRUST" doesn't?
TRF plate picture borrowed without permission from: Fetchy's Bantering
24 August 2007
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has reversed an immigration court decision, granting political asylum to a gay man, 45-year-old Jose Boer-Sedano.
On Friday, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled that Boer-Sedano's fear of persecution was very real, and that it was indeed based on his membership in a social group.
In an earlier immigration case, the 9th Circuit had defined a social group for this purpose as one "united by a voluntary association or by an innate characteristic that is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its members that members either cannot, or should not be required, to change it."
For more information on Immigration Equality visit http://www.immigrationequality.org/
18 August 2007
Well apparently I blew the mastodon out of the tar pit and created a rhetoric war… go figure. It is nice to know I still have it in me to challenge an organization to the core and they start revealing their biases publicly. Who would have thought it possible?
So my brother got wind of My response to HRC FW Chapter and Tom Henry for Mayor and threw his two buck shots into the frey and then all hell broke loose. This is going to be a two parter minimum as there is just too much information to disseminate in the course of one entry. So for now the background.
My brothers response to me was as follows:
It's funny, the only inclination I would have ever gathered that the authors of said bulletin posts, blogs, etc. were not representing the HRC in doing so being that the bulletin posts, blogs, etc. are all coming from "HRC Fort Wayne" with a big HRC logo for their avatar, is this very letter to you in response to your bulletin.
I think perhaps if the said volunteers who are not representing the HRC with said bulletins, etc. wish to eliminate such confusion, perhaps they should express such opinions from personal accounts, rather than the HRC myspace account which as far as I knew was affiliated with the actual HRC Fort Wayne chapter.
Sounds a bit like some back-peddling to me. *shrug*
[17 Aug 2007 @ 03:27]
My brothers response to HRC Fort Wayne is a little more blunt:
You mean the bulletin dated Aug 14, 2007 11:32 PM which included the following preface to the News Sentinel story: "Yes, it's hard to imagine someone doing something so obscenely political. Just like it's hard to imagine a 'Christian,' Republican candidate using his opponent's pro-GLBT stance against him!! Now THAT is obscene!!!" That bulletin? Odd it's still in my box. 0.0
I have been a proud supporter of the HRC, displaying the blue and yellow equal sign in my various cars throughout the years. Though I haven't been a financial supporter, I have always been proud to affiliate myself with the campaign. However, I must agree that the recent partisanship shown by the Fort Wayne chapter as well as the national chapter is a bit appauling. The fact that the HRC teamed with LOGO to bring a political forum in which only Democrats were invited, and the local chapter seems to be all but endorsing Tom Henry, appears to me to be in violation of the HRC's very reason for existing. Republican does not equate to anti-gay, nor does Democrat equate to pro-human rights. If the HRC should be endorsing any party, one would think it would be the Libertarian party which is about the only party that is actually fighting for equal human rights on a consistant basis.
I find this recent partisanship of the HRC in general to be disgusting as a gay male, as an independent centrist, and as a free-thinking human being. It is the duty of the HRC to share news which is pertinent to the message and goals of the HRC to keep people informed of the issues, and to attempt to sway voters to take a stand on these issues. That is what activism is about. Activism is not about supporting certain candidates or political parties, nor is it about slandering opponents or attempting to bemisrch their character. I'm not quite sure what purpose informing the public of Kelty's indictment serves to the aims of the HRC, being it hit all the local news media. Although I myself am not a huge fan of Matt Kelty, and I was a bit pleased to hear that he was indicted, due to my disgust toward other Republicans such as Souder, Rove, Bush, etc. who I feel have been getting away Scott-free with similar issues, I don't feel it is the place of the HRC to report this news. Surely there are far greater newsworthy events going on in Fort Wayne that would further the HRC's aim that are NOT getting the news attention of the Matt Kelty indictment that the HRC SHOULD be reporting about.
I hope my two cents helps.
[16 August 2007 @ 23:31]
It doesn’t end there though, you see at some point a member from the HRC decided to respond to my brother, and failed to sign their name to the post. Let’s just say that when you talk down to a Libra, a book will get tossed back and forth in your general direction, in this case it was a dictionary. HRC Fort Wayne Chapter’s Response to my brother item by item (very high school) in a very condescending fashion (edited for space only original primary source text is in tact)
In response to recent blog comments on our page-please read!
The following is in response to comments made on the HRC Fort Wayne's blog, with the comments in quotes being the comments made about HRC and HRC Fort Wayne's volunteers, and numbered points being our response. As always, we welcome all comment/suggestions and help from everyone!
1. Great! We are happy for your support. HRC bumper stickers are free to anyone who wants them, as is submitting your email address to receive HRC "Action Alerts" on issues important to the GLBT community. However, HRC depends on the financial support of its presently 700,000 members and supporters nationwide in its fight for GLBT equality. Annual membership starts at $35/yr. The partners program starts at $10/mon. Their budget is $41 million this year. Compare this to the billions of dollars and millions of supporters the far right has gathered against us and your financial support becomes even more critical. To become an HRC member or to renew your support, go to: https://secure.ga3.org/03/join2?qp_source=
2. HRC's mission statement as found on their website, www.hrc.org, click on "About Us," clearly states, in part:
HRC works to secure equal rights for GLBT individuals and families at the federal and state levels by lobbying elected officials, mobilizing grassroots supporters, educating Americans, investing strategically to elect fair-minded officials and partnering with other GLBT organizations.
3. You have incorrect information on this point. ALL presidential candidates were invited to the forum. ALL Republicans declined to attend, even to a separate Republican only forum. This fact has been widely reported by HRC, Logo and the mainstream media prior to and after the forum. In fact, see this story from the decidedly not independent Fox News. The fact was also reported in the original 7/10/07 HRC press release regarding the forum. Also see this piece from the HRC Back Story blog in which it is noted that none of the Republican candidates have even bothered to return HRC's questionnaire as to where they stand on GLBT issues.
4. HRC will support any viable, competitive candidate (translated as has a chance of winning, which at this stage does not include Libertarians) who is publicly with HRC on issues of GLBT equality. The Fort Wayne HRC volunteer's (the extent of their group definition and structure) efforts have been approved, supervised, and in part planned by HRC's Regional Field (political) Director for IN and through the latter, by HRC's Legal Dept.
5. Although HRC as a federal PAC does not officially endorse non-Federal candidates, the Field department routinely and legally works w/ state and local volunteers on organizing for and working on campaigns of fair-minded pro-GLBT candidates through grassroots activist strategies and activities. How important is this? In 2006, HRC helped on 8 IN House races. 4 of the 8 won, helping to flip the IN House back to the Democrats, who with their newly regained majority, were then able to kill the marriage discrimination amendment in a House Committee for the 2007 legislative session. Voters in those IN House races also helped send 3 more IN Democrats to Congress, helping to flip the US House back to the Democrats control. Subsequently, the Democrats passed federal hate crimes legislation that adds sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes. It await action in the Senate where Sens. Bayh AND Lugar have said they will vote for it.
6. HRC does not only support Democratic candidates. In fact, go to HRC's website for fundraising campaigns they are currently conducting for the HRC-endorsed Democratic Senate candidate (Udall- CO) and Republican House candidate (Shays - CT): https://www.hrc.org/candidateFundraising/
7. Sharing factual news about an anti-gay opposition candidate falls within your parameters as well as their parameter to elect fair-minded candidates. HRC is a partisan (pro-glbt) political action committee, first and foremost. Politics is hardball and the Republicans have been playing it for decades while the progressive coaltion sat around clucking their tongues in disgust. Finally the progressives are just starting to play the game the Karl Rove way. Barely. They need to do more of it if they hope to maintain or increase their slender majorities. It isn't pretty, but neither is losing. And if you think repeating a public news story about a mayoral candidate's indictment and arrest was harsh, it pales by comparison to things the Republicans pull in every election. See this link for a summary of their efforts to Suppress The Vote!
EDITOR'S NOTE: Article: Suppress the Vote! by Austin Cline 09 October 2004
8. In addition to my point already made in # 1, I feel I must point out the rest of HRC's mission statement so you have a record of their stated purpose, not their purpose as perceived by others. As also clearly stated in HRC's mission statement as found on their website:
a. The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
b. HRC seeks to improve the lives of GLBT Americans by advocating for equal rights and benefits in the workplace, ensuring families are treated equally under the law and increasing public support among all Americans through innovative advocacy, education and outreach programs.To accomplish this, HRC works to elect fair-minded candidates. That means choosing one over other and working for glbt-friendly ones.
9. The American Heritage Dictionary defines slander as: "Communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. False and malicious statement or report about someone." The same dictionary defines besmirch as: "Charge falsely or with malicious intent". Repeating facts about Mr. Kelty's indictment and arrest were neither slanderous or besmirching.
10. If Mr. Kelty would come out in support of gay marriage, against SJR-7 (the IN marriage discrimination amendment), for IN and federal hate crimes protections for GLBT Hoosiers and Americans, for IN civil rights legislation, for ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Amendment), against Eric Miller, Micah Clark, Curt Miller and the fundies they cater to, and for human rights and civil rights ordinances in Fort Wayne, I'm sure HRC would be happy to back him. To date, he has not shown support for HRC mission-driven priorities so the local volunteers are happily and energetically supporting the candidate (who happens to be a Democrat) who IS for GLBT equality.
11. Passing on publicly reported news concerning the indictment and arrest of the anti-gay officially slated and endorsed Republican party candidate for the mayoralty of Indiana's 2nd largest city is fair game for repeating by those volunteering to help elect an opponent (in this case, a Democrat) who has publicly stated his support for and commitment to GLBT issues in Fort Wayne, in Indiana, and in the United States.
Thank you for taking the time to post your concerns and to share your thoughts. We invite you to join us in our efforts! We need all the help we can get. How can you get more involved? I leave you w/ this short volunteer-created video challenging all GLBTQSA Americans to ask themselves: "What Have You Done Today To Make You Feel Proud?"
[17 August 2007 @ 13:14]
[EDITOR NOTE: Video from Twin Cities HRC enclosed for easier access and to provide a break]
Now to which my brother had no choice but to respond and continue the challenge. Let alone he had to offer correction to whomever the poster of the bulletin in retort to his complaints that were pretty much avoided or unanswered if not shoved completely under the closet door. (edited*)
In response to the HRC bulletin responding to my blog post
Since apparantly the HRC myspace peeps decided to blow up my little blog entry into a ginormous bulletin entry in order to respond to a few things, I figure I may as well respond in kind. Enjoy!
(1.) Kudos for the ability to spin my inability to contribute financially into a way to remind people to donate. I commend you on that. You guys are good at what you do.
(2.) I don't see any room for interpretation in that mission statement that allows for ENDORSING political candidates, unless that's what it means by "investing strategically..." in which case, I no longer wish to support HRC. I'm all for lobbying the issues, I'm all for mobilizing support for the issues, I'm all for educating Americans, and I'm all for partnering with other organizations to do so. If by "investing strategically to elect fair-minded officials" this means "we will decide who is a fair-minded official and invest financially and otherwise in order to get them elected" then I take issue with your organization as a whole.
My thoughts on what this phrase initially meant was that through other efforts of mobilizing support, education, funding these partnered organizations, funding lobbying efforts, etc. that the HRC thusly is strategically investing in AMERICANS' ability to elect fair-minded officials through INFORMING them. Actually sponsering candidates and endorsing them is a bit more than I feel the HRC should be doing.
(3.) My mistake, I retract my incorrect assessment of the LOGO forum, as much of a farce as it was.
(4-6.) So then I assume HRC would give as much support to Sen. Lugar as they surely have to Sen. Bayh? And I assume that means it would clearly offer as much support to any Republicans in the House that backed the measures? And similarly I suppose that would also justify rallying all sorts of opinionated prefaces to news reprints that make their opponents out to be gay-bashing hypocrites.
(7-11.) First and foremost, I was not referring to simply the reprinting of the article as the besmirching of character. I was referring to the very opinionated preface to the bulletin which was supposedly deleted. In Fr. Fozy's blog which references an email response directly to him, it seems to pass that off as the operators of this myspace as being able to speak their mind about any issue they want however they feel without it necessarily being taken as coming from the HRC. I think in the future such comments should be clearly marked as being the opinion of the author of the bulletin, or perhaps sent out from personal accounts to eliminate such confusion. Just my humble advice. When members of the HRC choose to personally endorse Democrats or chide Republicans with editorials prefacing news posts, that's one thing. But when it comes from a source that is indistinguishable based in name and logo from the HRC as a whole, that is another matter. This was the heart of the matter of my blog post. Also being "pro-LGBT" is not "partisan", Dictionary.com clearly defines "partisan" as: "1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance."
Note the use of the words BIASED and EMOTIONAL. Supporting the LGBT cause is NOT necessarily partisan. It becomes partisan when certain lines are crossed, such as seemingly endorsing an entire political party simply because it has members who are very pro-LGBT and several others who are somewhat pro-LGBT. It becomes partisan when other candidates are ignored simply because they "don't have a chance" to win an election. It becomes partisan when opponents of the cause are set up on chopping blocks, members of the partisan group find satisfaction in their ability to kick a candidate while they are down, and so on. Whether Matt Kelty is "anti-LGBT" or not is unclear to me, I know he certainly isn't "pro-LGBT" but perhaps he is simply against certain issues for reasons other than necessarily being "anti-LGBT". Also, certain issues the author of this HRC bulletin mentions which must be inferred as being "pro-LGBT" must also make any other stance on the issue "anti-LGBT" in the author's mind.
For instance, I do not support gay-marriage. I think civil marriage as a whole should be disbanded and replaced by an across the board equal civil union act. "Marriage" should be left to the churches, "civil unions" be they str8, gay, poly, etc. should be left to the state, and should be dictated as the state sees fit from a fair and logical stance. Does that make me "anti-LGBT" because I am anti-gay marriage? Or does that make me "anti-marriage"?
I believe the HRC should spend more time producing actual INFORMATION to the voters than endorsing/attacking candidates in hopes to sway votes towards candidates IT deems are "pro-LGBT" and away from those IT deems are "anti-LGBT". If a candidate supports gay rights, but is going to support financial legislation that would have adverse effects on most of the LGBT community, I would not consider that candidate "pro-LGBT".
There are MANY issues which determine why someone should vote for a candidate. I am simply asking that the HRC do their job in accordance with their mission by informing the public of the various candidates stance on issues that are deemed "LGBT" issues, rather than championing certain candidates around on pedistols simply for supporting such issues, when in reality they may or may not be the best person for the job or for the LGBT community! Let us decide for ourselves based on the facts!
[17 August 2007 @ 18:08]
Now cums the fun part, dissemination of information and analysis of the rhetoric. Gosh this is going to be fun. Who wants to bend over first and do you prefer fingers or an aide device? Look for the next installment on Monday which means Tuesday or Wednesday by the latest in Gay Standard Time. God it is good to be back in the bridle of journalism and social ethics again!
Fr. Fozy Bear
EDITOR'S NOTE: This post was modified to clean up HTML Code on 03 AUGUST 2009
16 August 2007
Hello Everyone and Greetings,
As the Reformed Catholic Bishop in the area I have to take issue with two things that HRC's Fort Wayne Chapter have posted recently regarding Matt Kelty and his campaign let alone his personal honor and contributions.
1. Matt Kelty was led away in hand cuffs per normal procedure of a felony warrant. However unlike most felons he was allowed to have his handcuffs in front, which is a sign of two things: a. the warrant officer feels the person is not a flight risk or b. a statement by the sheriff that he thinks the charges are bogus. Let it also be made aware, as a matter of official record, he turned himself in of his own accord he was not 'arrested' he was 'taken into custody' (bad reporting on the part of the paper).
2. As a gay citizen it appalls me as to the rhetoric coming from this supposed non partisan group which unfortunately seems as bias in their affiliations. Keep in mind I am the Content Administrator/Editor for the Libertarian Party of Allen County.
3. As a Catholic Bishop, I stand behind Matt's previous record and reconfirmed commitment last night regarding GLBT citizens and still wanting to meet with all GLBT community leaders in the near future. I, as the Founder of Our Lady Rejoice Ministries, have been working directly with Caleb Jehl Director of The Rejoice House and Matt Kelty to arrange that meeting in the fall.
4. Furthermore, as a Youth and Young Adult Pastor in the area, especially, Matt has for six months and still is providing forums for all youth and young adults in the area to offer their voices and dreams to the future of governance in this city on three rivers we all love. He did by hosting concerts not where he spoke but where he let the youth and young adults come together and celebrate life and talk together with every voice being heard in a dialog with him.
I rarely swear my life blood on anything I say, simply because I am naturally too sarcastic; however, I swear my life blood on these words written above and ask you to consider them as truth.
Thank you for the time to consider my perspective,
MREV. FR. KENNETH R. JTPS. M. WHITE, JNR.
The previous memo is in response to the following statements by HRC's Fort Wayne Chapter and by default Tom Henry for Mayor Campaign. These are personal and professional statements but not as official statements of the Libertarian Party of Allen County.
Yes, it's hard to imagine someone doing something so obscenely political. Just like it's hard to imagine a "Christian," Republican candidate using his opponent's pro-GLBT stance against him!! Now THAT is obscene!!!
(2nd paragraph of a bulletin post regarding the indicment of Matt Kelty, Aug 14, 2007 8:32 PM)
As a councilman, Tom Henry authored the non-discrimination resolution in respects to hiring and firing practices including protection for individuals based on their sexual orientation. He was able to pass the resolution despite serving on a Republican-controlled City Council.
(HRC/IE Event House Party Press Release for the 18th of August 2007
One of the many press releases authorized by Tom Henry for Mayor)
14 August 2007
(Fort Wayne, IN.)- The Libertarian Party of Allen County showed up en masse to support the GLBT Community during PRIDE Fest X at Head Waters Park East, held the last weekend of July. Representing the group was the Party Chair, Jennifer Jeffrey. Along side her were three district and one at large candidates for Fort Wayne City Council in this November's elections, and all officers of the party. It was a scorcher of a day, Saturday, and the Libertarian Party of Allen County was honored to celebrate PRIDE with you all.
The Libertarian Party holds to the platform in which governmental intrusion into business practices should be reduced to minimum levels, while allowing the free market to guide business practices. They support the passage of laws that promote individual responsibility and freedoms, and would seek to repeal those laws that remove from the citizenry their responsibility to lead their own lives as they see fit. (Vision Statement, Libertarian Party of Allen County)
There was a paper easel where people could leave notes for their governing officials and for the LP to guide further communication with the public. Jennifer Jeffrey goes further to explain, "The only way to get the consensus of the citizenry is to provide an avenue for that communication to be achieved without censorship. The graffiti board is a perfect way to collect the thoughts of the average person and compile them all together for a unilateral response by our party and our candidates." Some of the responses left by you on the graffiti board were: Keep your laws off my body!, Get out of the way of small business, Support equality for all, The sign code is a taxation and censorship of free speech and property rights, and Get off my back about where I can smoke.
The other way to find the consensus of the citizen is by good old fashion canvassing and attending functions like PRIDE Fest. The LPAC chose PRIDE to be the first big push into the spectrum of community event networking for this election cycle. They introduced you to some of the LP candidates and the listened to what you had to say about politics as whole, as well as your feelings about the current conditions in the Summit City, especially for GLBT persons. At least two officers, the Content Administrator and Chair of the IPFW Campus Libertarians, and several other members are part of the GLBT Community. MRev. Kenneth White, Jnr., Content Administrator for the Party, summarized, "We are out in the community! We are active in the political and civil discussions of our beautiful city's future."
For those who were unable to meet with our candidates at PRIDE the Libertarian Party of Allen County would like to invite any one to contact the Party Chair via phone at 260-418-2750 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org. Any of the candidates are happy to talk with you regarding questions or concerns through their emails listed on the LPAC website www.allencountylp.org .
Come find how their vision for a better Fort Wayne and Allen County is implemented. Monthly meetings are usually on the third Monday of the month. This month and next, they will meet for a business meeting then social gathering at the ACME Bar and Grill on East State Boulevard August 20 and September 17, 2007 at 6:30 pm.
"We are at the City Council meetings. We are getting involved across the board with other organizations like Heartland Communities, which is working with Save Maumee, on amongst other things, to clean up our Three Rivers. Bar and night club groups have endorsed several Libertarian candidates. These are all examples of small business and entrepreneurial spirit and initiatives changing Fort Wayne's future for the better. That is what best describes the Libertarian Party goals: removing the obstruction and regulations hindering the individual and small business and stand back as they explode with success." said Jeffrey.
So who are the Libertarians running for City Council? The Libertarian Party of Allen County has eight candidates running for three at large and five district City Council seats this year. Candidates in the 1st District, Byron Peters; 2nd District, Jon Bartels; 3rd District, Gloria Diaz; 5th District, Robert Fuller; 6th District, Robert Enders; and the At Large Candidates are Doug Horner, Michael Brightbill, and William Larsen. They are hard working people, business owners, local television program host, security guard, commentator and journalist in a local magazine and newspaper, retired teacher, programmer, and the list continues on. Next month the Libertarian Party of Allen County will have an in depth article introducing you to each of the candidates. However don't wait until then. Find them out in the community, talk with them, and share your thoughts on how to make a brighter future for the Summit City, and they will add your comments to the Graffiti Board.