This past week, I've rediscovered just what a bunch of complainers and whiners the American people have become.
It all started with the media furor (not to be confused with Herr Fuhrer, though of similar mentality) over President Elect Obama's choice of the Reverend Rick Warren to offer a prayer at the inauguration: "Obama Selects Saddleback Founder for Invocation". Reverend Warren is an outspoken preacher, not as outspoken, say, as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but outspoken nonetheless. The gays felt as though they'd been "slapped in the face" with Obama's pick. How dare Mr. Obama pick someone, for a prayer no less, who had actually preached what the Bible taught about homosexual acts and the gay lifestyle?
“Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans,” wrote Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a letter to Mr. Obama today (NY Times, "Gay Activists Decry Pastor’s Role in Swearing-In").
You can't please all of the people all of the time but a lot of Christians were indeed pleased with Obama's choice. If it weren't for the hearty, homosexual hullabaloo, no one would have raised an eyebrow about Obama's choice. However, when you have political heavyweights, such as Anne Hathaway, weighing in on the matter, Obama's choice of prayer-giver becomes impossible to ignore. (See "Anne Hathaway Against Rick Warren, But Won't Turn Back On Him at Inauguration" from FOXNews.com.)
I suppose Obama felt badly that he'd upset the gays (not that that seems difficult nowadays), so he also asked an openly gay Episcopal bishop, Gene Robinson to pray: "Obama chooses gay bishop to pray at inaugural event". The loud LGBT left-wingers went wild with the news. Others were less than thrilled.
To social conservatives, the choice of Robinson was a reminder of their considerable differences with Obama's politics. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, issued a statement criticizing Obama's choice of Robinson, calling him "the most polarizing person in the Episcopal Church" (LA Times, "Obama chooses gay bishop to pray at inaugural event").As if to emphasize how far from mainstream American values Bishop Robinson is, he was quoted as saying:
"That he would not use the Bible in his address at the Lincoln Memorial.Ah, that makes everything all better, at least for the atheistic gay activists, but not for the Christian majority. This gay "Christian" Bishop apparently knows what the people of the US need: to "be careful not to be especially Christian in...prayer." Heaven knows Americans can all do without so much Christianity in our prayers. Robinson doesn't want to offend all those atheists or agnostics with especially Christian prayers, so we'll just have to settle for a prayer without so much Christianity in it. (See also "Watery Prayers to Multiple Gods" from World Magazine.)
"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation" (LA Times, "Obama chooses gay bishop to pray at inaugural event").
The most interesting quote from Robinson was also the most indicative of the whiny, moaning, minorities we've created in the US.
"It's important for any minority to see themselves as represented in some way, whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority or, in our case, a sexual minority," Robinson told his hometown newspaper (LA Times, "Obama chooses gay bishop to pray at inaugural event").Here's the crux of the liberalism gripping the US by the throat: No minority left behind: even at the expense of legality, voter wishes, morality, fiscal responsibility, or common sense. What Robinson says here, is that he believes sexual minorities are a protected class in the US, despite overwhelming legislation, and despite the political absurdity of sexual preference as a minority class.
But wait! The whining about the inauguration isn't just about equal representation in giving prayers.
In a news story out of Montgomery, Alabama, the NAACP criticized the participation at the inaugural parade of a group called Azalea Trail Maids. Why? Because they wear dresses popular in the South during the 1800s.
The head of the Alabama NAACP, however, wants Mobile's Azalea Trail Maids to stay home on Inauguration Day, claiming the group reminds him of slavery.Complaining about dresses not weird enough? How about the truly weird?"These are not just regular costumes. These are the costumes that remind someone of the plantation in Gone with the Wind," Edward Vaughn said in a phone interview ("Alabama NAACP criticizes use of Trail Maids in Inaugural Parade").
Even the number portable toilets for the inauguration draws a complaint, from the Father of Potty Parity. And, not just a complaint, but in true, liberal style, the threat of law suits.
The masses heading to the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama could spend a lot of time in line for a port-a-potty.
A George Washington University law professor says the 5,000 port-o-potties planned for Inauguration Day will be "grossly inadequate."
Professor John Banzhaf, the so-called "Father of Potty Parity" sent a letter to the Presidential Inaugural Committee warning of potential lawsuits.
He says women, who take longer in the restroom, could be forced to wait in longer lines than men, and that amounts to discrimination.
Banzhaf says waiting in long lines is not just an inconvenience. It can trigger medical problems. He's asking the Presidential Inaugural Committee to make the toilets gender-neutral so that women do not have to wait longer than men.
Who's next to complain? I await the coming inaugural news with a pinched nose.
0 comments:
Post a Comment