Gay Emergency

 

Pandering to gays is a perennial preoccupation of Cleveland Hts., Ohio city officials.  There is no gay cause to which they will not subscribe in the name of diversity.  Here’s a resolution introduced (and passed as a gay emergency) at the May 15th regular meeting (I guess it was not enough of an emergency to call a special session.)

Council Member Tumeo [recently elected as an openly gay man to replace Jimmy Hicks, a black minister, thus making City Council more correctly diverse] continued, “Thank you. I have one more resolution tonight. I would like to introduce Resolution No. 51-2006(AS), declaring June, 2006 as LGBT Pride Month; and declaring an emergency. Cleveland Heights has historically been a community which values and seeks diversity in its residents. Thirty years ago, in 1976, this Council committed itself to a Resolution establishing a Nine-Point Plan to promote a well-maintained, full service residential community which is racially, religiously and ethnically diverse. In 1982, this policy of tolerance was extended in prohibiting discrimination in City employment based upon sexual orientation as well as race, religious, sex, disability and ethnic status. In 2001, our own Visioning Committee found that the overwhelming majority of Cleveland Heights residents consider diversity to be one of our main and most important strongest assets.

Diversity is the watchword which permits the city to endorse any type of neo-pagan behavior.  Never will a Christian group or view be promoted in the interest of diversity.  Mind you, only diversity among liberal interests and opinion is celebrated. 

In 2002, this Council extended employment benefits to domestic partners, and in 2003, Cleveland Heights initiated and passed an Ordinance to provide for the establishment of a domestic partner registry. So, with many communities and organizations across the United States who will be celebrating June, 2006 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, this Council by this Resolution, will declare June, 2006 the LGBT Pride Month and recognizes the LGBT community for its many and varied contributions to this city. I would like to introduce this Resolution for passage tonight.”

Mayor Kelley accepted Resolution No. 51-2006(AS).

Roll Call: Ayes: Wilcox, Caplan, Dietrich, Evans, Kelley, Montlack, Tumeo

Nays: None Resolution passed

Council Member Tumeo concluded, “I would like to personally thank Council for this support in this resolution. It’s very important to me and I am deeply honored by your support. Thank you very much.”

Mayor Kelley commented, “Very important to all of us.”

Touching.

And in case you are wondering, yes, Cleveland Hts. has declared itself a “Nuclear Free Zone.”  But I’m sure that if you are a radical Muslim seeking the nuclear destruction of the city, city officials could work something out in the name of “diversity.” 

Top Eleven From Normandy Protesters

 

Check outh Nihilist in Golf Pants’ top 11 protester sound bites from D-Day 1944.  These are the top 3:

11. No blood for French Wine!

10. It’s been two and a half years since Pearl Harbor and they still haven’t brought Admiral Nagumo to justice

9. In 62 years, the date will be 6/6/6. A coincidence? I think not.

Countries are all Morally Equivalent, Not

 

I read (as I listened to the mp3 audio) a Hugh Hewitt interview with Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos (06/06/06) after the good professor made some disparaging remarks about Hugh in a recent column.  Look (and listen) to the transcript and see the level of moral confusion that plaques many of those on the left today.  The interview covers a number of areas and topics including the morality of nations.  Here’s a bit of the back and forth (HH is Hewitt and PC is Campos):

HH: Is the United States morally superior to the theocracy of Iran?

PC: I would…I don’t think that the people who make up the United States are morally superior to the people who make up Iran. Now I think the political system the United States currently enjoys is certainly superior to the political system that the Iranians are stuck with. And certainly, I wouldn’t dispute that.

HH: So what you’re…that’s very deft, but it’s surely not what you intended to convey when you write that a delusion to believe a nation is morally superior to other countries. When you say nation, you’re specifically including not people, but the governmental structure. So I mean, you’re refuting your statement here. Nations are morally superior to each other, aren’t they?

PC: No, because the definition of a nation is not its particular political system at any particular time, but a people, that as in America as a people is different from its government. If we had a different government, we would still have the American people, even if we had a different kind of governmental system.

HH: You would have a different nation. But semantics aside, is the United States morally superior…and I just say this, not a trick question, than, say, Zimbabwe right now?

PC: I don’t think that nations as…I don’t think that nation-states as nation-states have the quality of being moral or immoral, in terms of being better or worse than each other.

The confusion continues:

HH: So is the United States a good agent in history, or a bad agent in history?

PC: Well, on the whole, I think the United States has been a good agent in history.

HH: And so we are doing a good job of saving the world?

PC: No, we’re not doing a good job of saving the world, because no country can save the world. The world is not open to being saved by any nation. And I think…

HH: Did FDR and the alliance that he forged, post-Pearl Harbor, save the world from the Nazis?

PC: Well, they helped free Europe from the Nazi regime, which was of course, great, historical achievement.

HH: I guess that would be a yes?

PC: But does that mean they saved the world? I mean, if they had failed, would that mean the world was lost? I don’t think so. It would mean that a terrible thing would have happened historically, but…

HH: I’m kind of stunned by that. Do you want to rethink that one? That the world would not have been lost if the Nazi government had not been defeated?

PC: Well, what would one mean by the claim the world has been lost?

HH: What do you think that the Nazi regime would have been like unchecked and dominant over Europe and Great Britain and Russia?

PC: Oh, it would have been horrible.

HH: And so, what would have been the cost of that?

PC: Well, probably similar to the cost that was inflicted on Eastern Europe by the Russian domination that followed the Second World War.

HH: Would it have been worse, because it would have been more generalized, and with an industrial base that would have lasted longer, and weaponry that would have been more devastating, with an ambition completely unquenchable in the hands of sociopaths that make…only Stalin compares to them, and not most of the Russians were like Stalin.

PC: Well, but I think the Stalinist regime was just as bad as the Nazi regime, and the Stalinist regime ended up controlling several hundred million people.

HH: Maybe I’m getting…this is too complicated. It was good thing, right, that we won the war?

PC: Well, of course.

HH: And it was a bad thing that we lost the Vietnam war, right?

PC: Yes.

HH: And so it would be a good think if we win the Global War On Terror, and jihadists are either removed or encouraged to lay down their arms?

PC: Well, I think the Global War On Terror is a misnomer. I don’t think it can be compared to something like the Vietnam war, or World War II, which are actual wars.

This is the confusion of the moral relativists.  This professor cannot see that the US has been and is the most moral nation on Earth.  We of course are in error on many occasions but on the whole are as Abe Lincoln stated “the last best hope” for the world.

Read or listen to the entire interview.  It’s very instructive to see the gymnastics required for the professor to attempt to defend his beliefs.