Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton’ Category

Camille Paglia, long the lone bright light (along with Greenwald) at Obama hack Joan Walsh’s (who claimed Andrew Breitbart had faked the selfie pics of Weiner’s junk) website Stalon, left it a few years ago to write a book.  This week the libertarianish lesbian Democrat returns for an interview, selections below:

Camille Paglia: “It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton is our party’s best chance”

In Salon interview, the provocateur holds forth on Rihanna and gay porn, plus Hillary, Anthony Weiner and Benghazi

Camille Paglia: Camille Paglia (Credit: Michael Lionstar)
I can vividly remember the first time I read Camille Paglia. I was visiting New York with my mom during college and we happened across “Vamps and Tramps” at a bookstore near our hotel. Lying in neighboring twin beds, I read passages out loud to her. Explosive things like, “Patriarchy, routinely blamed for everything, produced the birth control pill, which did more to free contemporary women than feminism itself.” I didn’t always agree with Paglia, but I enjoyed her as a challenging provocateur.
I still have that copy of the book. There are asterisks in the margins, double-underlined sentences and circled paragraphs. Reading it was a satisfying rebellion against the line-toeing women’s studies classes I was taking at the time — and at a college with an infamously anti-porn professor, no less. Since then, I have moments of genuine outrage and fury over Paglia’s writing and public commentary (see: thisthis and this, for examples of why) — but she is still compelling and occasionally brilliant. The truth is that many people still want to hear what she has to say — about everything from BDSMto Lady Gaga.
The paperback release last week of her book “Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art From Egypt to Star Wars” — which Salon interviewed her about last year, and which is an example of Paglia at her intellectual best and an antidote to her birther moments — is a great excuse to check back in with the so-called bete noire of feminism. I spoke with Paglia by email about contemporary feminism, Anthony Weiner and the “end of men.”




Two words: Anthony Weiner. Your thoughts?
Two words: pathetic dork. How sickeningly debased our politics have become that this jabbering cartoon weasel could be taken seriously for a second as a candidate for mayor of New York. But beyond that, I have been amazed by the almost total absence of psychological critique in news analyses of the silly Weiner saga. For heaven’s sake, Weiner is no randy stud with a sophisticated sex life that we need to respect. The compulsion to exhibit and boast about one’s penis is embarrassingly infantile — the obvious residue of some squalid family psychodrama in childhood that is now being replayed in public.
I assumed at first that Huma Abedin stayed married to Weiner out of noble concern for her unborn child, who deserved a father. But her subsequent behavior as Weiner’s defender and enabler has made me lose respect for her. The Weiners should be permanently bundled off to the luxe Elba of Oscar de la Renta’s villa in the Dominican Republic. I’m sure that Hillary (Huma’s capo) can arrange that.
Any hopes, fears or predictions for the presidential elections in 2016?
As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.
I for one think it was a very big deal that our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. In saying “I take responsibility” for it as secretary of state, Hillary should have resigned immediately. The weak response by the Obama administration to that tragedy has given a huge opening to Republicans in the next presidential election. The impression has been amply given that Benghazi was treated as a public relations matter to massage rather than as the major and outrageous attack on the U.S. that it was.
Throughout history, ambassadors have always been symbolic incarnations of the sovereignty of their nations and the dignity of their leaders. It’s even a key motif in “King Lear.” As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood. The escalating instability not just in Egypt but throughout the Mideast is very ominous. There is a clash of cultures brewing in the world that may take a century or more to resolve — and there is no guarantee that the secular West will win.
What do you make of contemporary feminism, especially as it’s manifested online?
Oh, feminism is still alive? Thanks for the tip! It sure is invisible, except for the random whine from some maleducated product of the elite schools who’s found a plush berth in glossy magazines. It’s hard to remember those bad old days when paleofeminist pashas ruled the roost. In the late ‘80s, the media would routinely turn to Gloria Steinem or the head of NOW for “the women’s view” on every issue — when of course it was just the Manhattan/D.C. insider’s take, with a Democratic activist spin. Their shameless partisanship eventually doomed those Stalinist feminists, who were trampled by the pro-sex feminist stampede of the early ‘90s (in which I am proud to have played a vocal role). That insurgency began in San Francisco in the mid-‘80s and went national throughout the following decade. They keep dusting Steinem off and trotting her out to pin awards on her, but she’s the walking dead. Her anointed heirs (like Susan Faludi) sure didn’t pan out, did they?
While it’s a big relief not to have feminist bullies sermonizing from every news show anymore, the leadership vacuum is alarming. It’s very distressing, for example, that the atrocities against women in India — the shocking series of gang rapes, which seem never to end — have not been aggressively condemned in a sustained way by feminist organizations in the U.S. I wanted to hear someone going crazy about it in the media and not letting up, day after day, week after week. The true mission of feminism today is not to carp about the woes of affluent Western career women but to turn the spotlight on life-and-death issues affecting women in the Third World, particularly in rural areas where they have little protection against exploitation and injustice.
What do you think about arguments that we are witnessing “the end of men” or a crisis in masculinity?
If this phenomenon exists, it primarily applies in my view to white upper-middle-class culture, a product of the service-sector economy that has gradually displaced manufacturing since World War II. Hanna Rosin’s “The End of Men,” a best-seller last year, is the focus of a Munk Debate that I will be part of at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto on Nov. 15. The proposition is: “Be it resolved that men are obsolete.” Arguing for the motion will be Rosin and Maureen Dowd. Arguing against the motion will be me and Caitlin Moran. It should be a fascinating and substantive discussion. Lineups of opposing views like this have been rare indeed in feminism, which has preferred to ostracize and exile dissident voices.


Two words: Anthony Weiner. Your thoughts?
Two words: pathetic dork. How sickeningly debased our politics have become that this jabbering cartoon weasel could be taken seriously for a second as a candidate for mayor of New York. But beyond that, I have been amazed by the almost total absence of psychological critique in news analyses of the silly Weiner saga. For heaven’s sake, Weiner is no randy stud with a sophisticated sex life that we need to respect. The compulsion to exhibit and boast about one’s penis is embarrassingly infantile — the obvious residue of some squalid family psychodrama in childhood that is now being replayed in public.
I assumed at first that Huma Abedin stayed married to Weiner out of noble concern for her unborn child, who deserved a father. But her subsequent behavior as Weiner’s defender and enabler has made me lose respect for her. The Weiners should be permanently bundled off to the luxe Elba of Oscar de la Renta’s villa in the Dominican Republic. I’m sure that Hillary (Huma’s capo) can arrange that.
Any hopes, fears or predictions for the presidential elections in 2016?
As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.
I for one think it was a very big deal that our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. In saying “I take responsibility” for it as secretary of state, Hillary should have resigned immediately. The weak response by the Obama administration to that tragedy has given a huge opening to Republicans in the next presidential election. The impression has been amply given that Benghazi was treated as a public relations matter to massage rather than as the major and outrageous attack on the U.S. that it was.
Throughout history, ambassadors have always been symbolic incarnations of the sovereignty of their nations and the dignity of their leaders. It’s even a key motif in “King Lear.” As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood. The escalating instability not just in Egypt but throughout the Mideast is very ominous. There is a clash of cultures brewing in the world that may take a century or more to resolve — and there is no guarantee that the secular West will win.
What do you make of contemporary feminism, especially as it’s manifested online?
Oh, feminism is still alive? Thanks for the tip! It sure is invisible, except for the random whine from some maleducated product of the elite schools who’s found a plush berth in glossy magazines. It’s hard to remember those bad old days when paleofeminist pashas ruled the roost. In the late ‘80s, the media would routinely turn to Gloria Steinem or the head of NOW for “the women’s view” on every issue — when of course it was just the Manhattan/D.C. insider’s take, with a Democratic activist spin. Their shameless partisanship eventually doomed those Stalinist feminists, who were trampled by the pro-sex feminist stampede of the early ‘90s (in which I am proud to have played a vocal role). That insurgency began in San Francisco in the mid-‘80s and went national throughout the following decade. They keep dusting Steinem off and trotting her out to pin awards on her, but she’s the walking dead. Her anointed heirs (like Susan Faludi) sure didn’t pan out, did they?
While it’s a big relief not to have feminist bullies sermonizing from every news show anymore, the leadership vacuum is alarming. It’s very distressing, for example, that the atrocities against women in India — the shocking series of gang rapes, which seem never to end — have not been aggressively condemned in a sustained way by feminist organizations in the U.S. I wanted to hear someone going crazy about it in the media and not letting up, day after day, week after week. The true mission of feminism today is not to carp about the woes of affluent Western career women but to turn the spotlight on life-and-death issues affecting women in the Third World, particularly in rural areas where they have little protection against exploitation and injustice.
What do you think about arguments that we are witnessing “the end of men” or a crisis in masculinity?
If this phenomenon exists, it primarily applies in my view to white upper-middle-class culture, a product of the service-sector economy that has gradually displaced manufacturing since World War II. Hanna Rosin’s “The End of Men,” a best-seller last year, is the focus of a Munk Debate that I will be part of at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto on Nov. 15. The proposition is: “Be it resolved that men are obsolete.” Arguing for the motion will be Rosin and Maureen Dowd. Arguing against the motion will be me and Caitlin Moran. It should be a fascinating and substantive discussion. Lineups of opposing views like this have been rare indeed in feminism, which has preferred to ostracize and exile dissident voices.


Read Full Post »

Gay Marriage Ban Dogs Bill Clinton As GLAAD Announces Award

by Jason St. Amand
Web Producer / Staff Writer @Edge.com
Friday Apr 5, 2013
  (Source:AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
GLAAD will honor former President Bill Clinton at its April 20 Los Angeles gala with the first Advocate for Change Award during the LGBT organization’s 24th Annual GLAAD Media Awards.
“President Clinton’s support of the LGBT community and recognition that DOMA, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional and should be struck down shows that the political landscape continues to change in favor of LGBT equality,” GLAAD’s Wilson Cruz said in a statement reported by the Hollywood Reporter. “Leaders and allies like President Clinton are critical to moving our march for equality forward.”
To say that not everyone agrees with Cruz might be an understatement. Last month, Clinton reignited the simmering anger felt by many LGBT Americans over his signing the Defense of Marriage Act into law. In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post in which he urged the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA. The 1996 law defines marriage between one man and one woman on the federal level, denies federal benefits to same-sex couples, and denies federal recognition of same-sex couple married in other nations or even in states of the United States.
“As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution,” he wrote. Bloggers, pundits and activists rejected Clinton’s piece as political expediency. What particularly infuriated them was that “I have come to believe” as ingenious at best; and at worst, a textbook example of Clinton’s putting his political finger to the wind and going with its direction. (His wife, widely considered a potential candidate for the job in 2016, followed him shortly with her own declaration.)
Clinton signed DOMA because “he refused to be leader on a civil rights issue, irrationally fearful of the ramifications of vetoing the bill and rationalizing the damage caused by signing it,” Michelangelo Signorile wrote in The Huffington Post.
He was speaking for many when he spoke of the former president’s “refusal to take leadership really goes back to day one of his presidency.” Signing DOMA, he said, “was when he signaled to the GOP, like a frightened person on the street signals fear to a barking dog, that he was deathly afraid of the gay issue and would not be a leader on it.”
The Washington Blade’s editor-in-chief, Kevin Naff, opined that Clinton’s late apology is a “typically cynical, desperate bid to rewrite history.” He wrote that Clinton’s op-ed is “a naked attempt to get on the right side of history before the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA. He sounds desperate, highlighting the fact that ’DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.’”
As late as 2008, Clinton was still defending DOMA. He told college students that DOMA was only “a slight rewriting of history.” He also criticized Melissa Etheridge for saying he threw the community “under a bus.”
The recent rediscovery of the Clinton Administration’s mixed record on gay rights has also focused renewed attention on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Early in his presidency, Clinton tried to change military policy to allow openly gay service members. But congressional opposition derailed his plans. The result, DADT, was a compromise that please almost nobody.
It stayed in place until 2011. Clinton had more luck with the federal civilian workforce, where the president, as chief executive, has more sway. He outlawed discrimination in all agencies.
Clinton appointed a then-record number of out-LGBT senior staff members and appointed the first out-gay ambassador. He also strongly supported adding sexual orientation to federal hate crimes. His post-presidency Clinton Health Access Initiative has been dedicated to fighting AIDS in the developing world.
Last year, Clinton recorded a robocall for use in North Carolina, where voters nonetheless voted to put a gay marriage ban in the state’s constitution.
GLAAD, which recently formally dropped the full “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation” in deference to the trans community, will give Clinton the award on April 20 in Los Angeles.
The organization should probably brace itself for blowback. Typical were the commentson gay blogsite JoeMyGod.
“Yet another example of the zero accountability culture in Washington DC.,” wrote one. “Is this organization trying to self-destruct and become a laughing stock?” wrote another. “To my gay eyes it appears to exist solely to have glitzy awards ceremonies.”
“This seems about par for the course, honoring someone who signed the most discriminatory act against gay and lesbians in history,” wrote a commenter on Towleroad. “If he doesn’t acknowledge the damage DOMA has caused to millions of people and apologize for it then I hope he gets booed,” wrote another.
Charlize Theron, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence are also expected to attend the gala at the JW Marriott in Downtown Los Angeles. Last month, Madonna dressed as a Boy Scout when she presented Anderson Cooper with an award a GLAAD’s New York City gala.

Comments

  • dangnad, 2013-04-09 19:43:33
    I have contributed to GLAAD, will never consider it again after this. Clinton was the worst, most spineless traitor ever seen in the modern, gay rights era. He was and still is inimical to the gay community. It was he who caved in to Sen Nun on DADT ushering in a huge spike in dishonorable discharges of gays. Later, Hillary was one of the first people to denounce it. It was the shit Clinton who gleefully signed the specifically homophobic DOMA. That ’D’ stands for ’Defense’, as Congress chose to write a special law indicating their disapproval of homosexuality and its assault on traditional marriage. Hillary also denounced it at a later time. Who is this Wilson Cruz above? Is he 10 years old and does he have no conception of history? Apparently so since a hypocritical statement by the jerk Clinton that he is now against DOMA deserves an award from a totally useless, elitist gay organization.

Comments on Facebook

Read Full Post »

Slick Hilly


Fade in, camera shows a room full of reporters at a press conference clamoring to ask their question.
Reporter 1: Mrs. Clinton, do you think you can handle the rigor of 4 years in the Oval Office?
HRC: What difference, at this point, does it make?
Reporter 2: Mrs. Clinton, what is your plan to cut the runaway spending of your former boss, president Obama?
HRC: What difference, at this point, does it make?
Reporter 3: Mrs Clinton, do you support drone strikes, suppression of the constitution, and outright lying to the American people?
HRC: What difference, at this point, does it make?
Voice-over: What difference indeed.
Paid for by AnybodyButHillary.com

Read Full Post »

So I have just watched much of Hillary Clinton’s audition before Congressional Democrats, showing that even though the sociopath currently in the White House out lied her in 2008, she can spin and evade as needed if they will hire her to be their con artist in 2016.  It was as if she were Bill Clinton at his impeachment hearing saying “I … did … not… have… sex… with…that …woman” while an intern tossed his salad under the desk.  At one point Hillary announced in the same paragraph that her investigations would find how what happened in Benghazi had happened while a moment later shouting “why does it matter?” that Americans were killed in Benghazi.  The media and the gay press are now spinning that Hillary is a brilliant lawyer who does her homework and knows all the answers and that she explained Benghazi.

Fascinating as it was to see the Democrats all get dabs of Clinton poo on their noses, to watch Hillary smirk, be unable to make eye contact, and flip through her briefing book when Senator Rand Paul told her he would fire her for her lethal incompetence,  and to listen to her conversion to Hayekian economics, when she admitted a government planner could not process all the necessary information in the 1.4 million cables she receives annually, what I was actually struck by was how much Hillary now looks like an older version of my old friend Claire Lucas, now that she has, as they say in the South, “filled out.”

Claire, who I ran around with from around 1997 to 2004, worked on Hillary’s campaign, and was a major gay Democratic bundler from 2000 on.  Indeed she got me to give a maximum donation in 2000 and I attended Al Gore’s nominating convention with her in Los Angeles, sitting in Andrew Tobias’s sky box, and hobnobbing with Ellen and Betty Degeneres and Anne Heche at parties for major donors.  For her efforts Dr. Lucas was rewarded with one of those low level Plum Book appointments, a deputy assistant etc etc Secretary of State.  So it is funny that Hillary and she are beginning to resemble each other.

I was looking for photos of Claire on the net to compare and I found a little problem.  They’ve disappeared. Which is funny because Claire was involved a few years ago in a lot of press because she was evading being deposed in a law suit, and the articles in the local gay papers did have photos.  Claire was involved with a group of people, including DNC communications director Karen Finney, a sometime TV talking head for Dems, who were said to have defamed Donald Hitchcock, a very pretty gay man who said the DNC fired him for being gay.  He sought to depose Claire, who claimed she could not appear in DC to be deposed since she lived in Newport Beach, California (well adopted, Claire had inherited her childhood home (I’ve had Thanksgiving dinner there as her quasi-beard) and several million dollars).  Problematically for Claire, she was also registered to vote in DC, with a DC driver’s license and a Cleveland Park house she claimed the homestead exemption on, available only to DC resident homeowners, on her property taxes.

Amazingly, the many stories about this employment discrimination lawsuit, at least those with Claire and her flight from being deposed in them, have been scrubbed from the net.  There was a story in the local gay paper of record,  The Washington Blade, and it’s gone!  (Orwellian memory hole much?). The story still exists on the gay news site Queerty (below) which links to the Blade story – but that link is dead, and search engines do not find it!  And her photo seems to have been replaced with a photo of a jackass!

Hillary’s protégés learn their lessons well!

Perjury For DNC’s Claire Lucas?

donkey-11111.jpg
The DNC’s gay discrimination case got stickier this week. Washington Blade reports that gay DNC’s gay board chair Claire Lucas could potentially face perjury charges for lying about her place of residence.

Legal documents filed in D.C. Superior Court this week and obtained by the Blade allege that Claire Lucas, a longtime Democratic National Committee volunteer and National Stonewall Democrats board member, committed perjury when she filed an affidavit asserting that she does not live in Washington.

The affidavit, filed Jan. 4, was part of efforts to quash a subpoena ordering Lucas to sit for a deposition in a lawsuit that alleges the DNC discriminated against a former gay employee.

D.C. property tax records contradict her assertion in the affidavit seeking to quash Hitchcock’s subpoena that she has been a California resident since 2005. Those records show she claimed the Homestead deduction for the tax years of 2005 through 2007, as well as in prior years, according to Hitchcock’s court filings.
The D.C. law creating the Homestead deduction requires, upon possible penalty of perjury, that homeowners affirm that they live in their home as a condition for obtaining the deduction
Just yesterday the DNC released a statement declaring the contemptuous Lucas a Californian.

Lucas has been a key player in the unfolding drama – the wealthy investor reportedly helped draft the DNC’s public statements following Donald Hitchcock’s 2006 firing. She also had private correspondences with other DNC staffers which have now been made public:

Offered as relevant exhibits are e-mails sent by Lucas that show how she and other DNC figures responded to a letter that Hitchcock wrote criticizing the DNC. The letter was published in the Blade on Feb. 9, 2007.

“Ugh,” Lucas wrote to Finney and others. “What a complete loser (and I am happy to put that in writing).”
Karen Finney, the DNC’s communications director, agreed in her response.
“Ugh,” she wrote. “Yes I just saw it. We’ll regroup this morning and figure out a response.”
In an e-mail to Finney and Bond dated Feb. 12, Lucas said D.C. gay Democratic activist Kurt Vorndran, one of her “political mentors,” advised her that it would be best to publish a direct response “and then come back over a couple of weeks with some pro-DNC editorials.”
“One response to Donald and that is it,” she wrote. “We do not want to give him too many legs. As Kurt said, ‘Donald is self-destructing.’ Again, I am open to anything. Let me know.”

Full story here: http://www.queerty.com/perjury-for-dncs-claire-lucas-20080117/#ixzz2IqLRpTev
Read more at http://www.queerty.com/perjury-for-dncs-claire-lucas-20080117/#3HH0KriymMqhPASy.99 

Read Full Post »

Is Hillary the bright spot of the Obama regime, in that she has at least brought up some women’s rights and gay rights issues to socialist and Muslim despots?


Would she be even better able to do this at the World Bank?


I’m all for defunding the World Bank, and kicking it and Hillary out of public life.  But if they both exist, are they a better combination than other likely couplings?

WORLD BANK HEAD WILL STEP DOWN, HILLARY COULD REPLACE

World Bank President Robert Zoellick Resigns | Hillary Clinton to Replace?

World Bank President Robert Zoellick speaks during a press conference at World Bank’s office in Beijing, China, Sept. 5, 2011. (Alexander F. Yuan/AP Photo)
World Bank President Robert Zoellick informed the 187-nation lending organization’s board Wednesday that he will leave office June 30, the end of his five-year term.
This raises a question: who will replace him?
“I’m honored to have led such a world class institution with so many talented and exceptional people,” Zoellick said in a statement announcing his plans.
The board now begins a selection process to find a new leader, a process that is expected to be more open than in the past. Under an informal agreement dating to the bank’s founding nearly 68 years ago, its president has been an American.
“Speculation has been rife in recent months over who might take the job when Zoellick departs,”Reuters reports. “Possible U.S. candidates include Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former White House economic adviser Larry Summers.”
“Hillary Clinton wants the job,” a source told Reuters.
If Clinton were to leave State, Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is at the top of the list of those who would replace her.
And although Press Secretary Jay Carney denies that Clinton will get the nod from President Obama, the rumors persist.
It has also been rumored that Zoellick, a President George W. Bush appointee, may be a potential candidate for a senior position if a Republican candidate takes the White House in November.
Zoellick said he will stay focused on being bank president until June 30 and will continue to drive policies and programs at a heightened tempo. For example, later this month the bank said he will unveil a groundbreaking study on the future structure of China’s economic growth model, the Associated Press reports.
Under Zoellick’s leadership, the bank provided more than $247 billion to help developing countries boost growth and overcome poverty.
Zoellick said he was “pleased that when the world needed the bank to step up, our shareholders responded with expanded resources and support for key reforms that made us quicker, more effective and more open.”
He said the bank was now in a strong position and ready for new challenges “so it is a natural time for me to move on and support new leadership.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read Full Post »

What if HRC had tried to have her own political career about issues she cares about independent of Bill Clinton years ago?

Who and where would she be now?
From The Advocate: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s address before the United Nations in Geneva will be remembered by history, with the Secretary of State unabashedly arguing to the world that LGBT rights are human rights.
Read the Complete Transcript of the Speech, as Provided By the State Department: 
SECRETARY CLINTON: Good evening, and let me express my deep honor and pleasure at being here. I want to thank Director General Tokayev and Ms. Wyden along with other ministers, ambassadors, excellencies, and UN partners. This weekend, we will celebrate Human Rights Day, the anniversary of one of the great accomplishments of the last century.

Beginning in 1947, delegates from six continents devoted themselves to drafting a declaration that would enshrine the fundamental rights and freedoms of people everywhere. In the aftermath of World War II, many nations pressed for a statement of this kind to help ensure that we would prevent future atrocities and protect the inherent humanity and dignity of all people. And so the delegates went to work. They discussed, they wrote, they revisited, revised, rewrote, for thousands of hours. And they incorporated suggestions and revisions from governments, organizations, and individuals around the world.

At three o’clock in the morning on December 10th, 1948, after nearly two years of drafting and one last long night of debate, the president of the UN General Assembly called for a vote on the final text. Forty-eight nations voted in favor; eight abstained; none dissented. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It proclaims a simple, powerful idea: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And with the declaration, it was made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. It does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are, or even who we are. Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.

In the 63 years since the declaration was adopted, many nations have made great progress in making human rights a human reality. Step by step, barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity have fallen away. In many places, racist laws have been repealed, legal and social practices that relegated women to second-class status have been abolished, the ability of religious minorities to practice their faith freely has been secured.

(RELATED: What This All Could Mean to LGBT Rights)

In most cases, this progress was not easily won. People fought and organized and campaigned in public squares and private spaces to change not only laws, but hearts and minds. And thanks to that work of generations, for millions of individuals whose lives were once narrowed by injustice, they are now able to live more freely and to participate more fully in the political, economic, and social lives of their communities.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

The first issue goes to the heart of the matter. Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

(RELATED: Read The Advocate’s Cover Story Interview With Secretary Clinton from Earlier This Year)

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The second issue is a question of whether homosexuality arises from a particular part of the world. Some seem to believe it is a Western phenomenon, and therefore people outside the West have grounds to reject it. Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.

Being gay is not a Western invention; it is a human reality. And protecting the human rights of all people, gay or straight, is not something that only Western governments do. South Africa’s constitution, written in the aftermath of Apartheid, protects the equality of all citizens, including gay people. In Colombia and Argentina, the rights of gays are also legally protected. In Nepal, the supreme court has ruled that equal rights apply to LGBT citizens. The Government of Mongolia has committed to pursue new legislation that will tackle anti-gay discrimination.

Now, some worry that protecting the human rights of the LGBT community is a luxury that only wealthy nations can afford. But in fact, in all countries, there are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other, whether they are women, racial, or religious minorities, or the LGBT. Former President Mogae of Botswana pointed out recently that for as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS. Well, that holds true for other challenges as well.

(RELATED: Inside Secretary Clinton’s Pre-UN Address Meeting with LGBT Advocates)

The third, and perhaps most challenging, issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation. Some people still defend those practices as part of a cultural tradition. But violence toward women isn’t cultural; it’s criminal. Likewise with slavery, what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.

In each of these cases, we came to learn that no practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us. And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing.

Of course, it bears noting that rarely are cultural and religious traditions and teachings actually in conflict with the protection of human rights. Indeed, our religion and our culture are sources of compassion and inspiration toward our fellow human beings. It was not only those who’ve justified slavery who leaned on religion, it was also those who sought to abolish it. And let us keep in mind that our commitments to protect the freedom of religion and to defend the dignity of LGBT people emanate from a common source. For many of us, religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who we are as people. And likewise, for most of us, the bonds of love and family that we forge are also vital sources of meaning and identity. And caring for others is an expression of what it means to be fully human. It is because the human experience is universal that human rights are universal and cut across all religions and cultures.

The fourth issue is what history teaches us about how we make progress towards rights for all. Progress starts with honest discussion. Now, there are some who say and believe that all gay people are pedophiles, that homosexuality is a disease that can be caught or cured, or that gays recruit others to become gay. Well, these notions are simply not true. They are also unlikely to disappear if those who promote or accept them are dismissed out of hand rather than invited to share their fears and concerns. No one has ever abandoned a belief because he was forced to do so.

(RELATED: Speech Gets Negative Reaction Among Some World Ambassadors)

Universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief, even if our words or beliefs denigrate the humanity of others. Yet, while we are each free to believe whatever we choose, we cannot do whatever we choose, not in a world where we protect the human rights of all.

Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.

But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate.

Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn’t until he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in my country that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.

(RELATED: Perry, Santorum Denounce Call for Global Gay Rights)

Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. We need to ask ourselves, “How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?” This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding.

A fifth and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often those who are denied rights are least empowered to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities necessary for political change.

So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this struggle for equality.

Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

At the following session of the Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be the creation of a special rapporteur.

Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay.

And to people of all nations, I say supporting human rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.

And finally, to LGBT men and women worldwide, let me say this: Wherever you live and whatever the circumstances of your life, whether you are connected to a network of support or feel isolated and vulnerable, please know that you are not alone. People around the globe are working hard to support you and to bring an end to the injustices and dangers you face. That is certainly true for my country. And you have an ally in the United States of America and you have millions of friends among the American people.

The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work. And in the coming months, we will provide every embassy with a toolkit to help improve their efforts. And we have created a program that offers emergency support to defenders of human rights for LGBT people.

This morning, back in Washington, President Obama put into place the first U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.

I am also pleased to announce that we are launching a new Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on these issues around the world. This fund will help them record facts so they can target their advocacy, learn how to use the law as a tool, manage their budgets, train their staffs, and forge partnerships with women’s organizations and other human rights groups. We have committed more than $3 million to start this fund, and we have hope that others will join us in supporting it.

The women and men who advocate for human rights for the LGBT community in hostile places, some of whom are here today with us, are brave and dedicated, and deserve all the help we can give them. We know the road ahead will not be easy. A great deal of work lies before us. But many of us have seen firsthand how quickly change can come. In our lifetimes, attitudes toward gay people in many places have been transformed. Many people, including myself, have experienced a deepening of our own convictions on this topic over the years, as we have devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.

This evolution is evident in many places. To highlight one example, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality in India two years ago, writing, and I quote, “If there is one tenet that can be said to be an underlying theme of the Indian constitution, it is inclusiveness.” There is little doubt in my mind that support for LGBT human rights will continue to climb. Because for many young people, this is simple: All people deserve to be treated with dignity and have their human rights respected, no matter who they are or whom they love.

There is a phrase that people in the United States invoke when urging others to support human rights: “Be on the right side of history.” The story of the United States is the story of a nation that has repeatedly grappled with intolerance and inequality. We fought a brutal civil war over slavery. People from coast to coast joined in campaigns to recognize the rights of women, indigenous peoples, racial minorities, children, people with disabilities, immigrants, workers, and on and on. And the march toward equality and justice has continued. Those who advocate for expanding the circle of human rights were and are on the right side of history, and history honors them. Those who tried to constrict human rights were wrong, and history reflects that as well.

I know that the thoughts I’ve shared today involve questions on which opinions are still evolving. As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights. We are called once more to make real the words of the Universal Declaration. Let us answer that call. Let us be on the right side of history, for our people, our nations, and future generations, whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today. I come before you with great hope and confidence that no matter how long the road ahead, we will travel it successfully together. Thank you very much.

Filed Under: hillary clinton

Read Full Post »

Wasim Abdullah wasim.abdullah@yahoo.com
show details 2:53 AM (2 hours ago)

Dear Brother
Assalam u Alaikum
US embassy Islamabad held a “Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) Pride Celebration” ceremony on June 26th 2011 to showWashington’s support and solidarity towards the GLBTs of Pakistan.
Now see what Quran and Hadith  says about such awful and scorn Sin
Do not go near to adultery. Surely it is a shameful deed and evil, opening roads (to other evils)” (Quran 17:32).
“Say, ‘Verily, my Lord has prohibited the shameful deeds, be it open or secret, sins and trespasses against the truth and reason”‘ ( Quran 7:33).
And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you?
Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people ( Quran 7:80,81)
And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: Most surely you are guilty of an indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you;
What! do you come to the males and commit robbery on the highway, and you commit evil deeds in your assemblies? But nothing was the answer of his people except that they said: Bring on us Allah’s punishment, if you are one of the truthful.
[He said: My Lord! help me against the mischievous people (Quran 28-31)
Hadith about GLBT
May Allah curse him who does that Lut’s people did.”
(Ibn Hibban)
Holy Messenger (may Allah bless and greet him) said, “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”
In another hadith related by Ibn Abbaas the Holy Messenger (may Allah bless and greet him) said: “… cursed is the one who has intercourse with an animal, cursed is the one who does the action of the people of Lut.”
In yet another hadith reported in Tirmidhi, the Holy Messenger (may Allah bless and greet him) prescribed death penalty for the doer of this crime. He said: “Kill the one who sodomises and the one who lets it be done to him.”
Homosexuality is an abominable act, detestable and thus condemnable.
But USA in name of Fighting against terrorism are destroying Muslim Society one by one by encouraging all such actions.
Please read the below Press release by US embassy In Pakistan   
They have arranged such celebration in name of Support to Humanity.
They are killing millions of Muslim in name of fighting against Terrorism.

Embassy Islamabad Hosts GLBT Pride Celebration

June 26, 2011
Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland greets guests at GLBT Pride celebration on June 26, 2011

Chargé d’Affaires Ambassador Richard Hoagland and members of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFFA) hosted Embassy Islamabad’s first ever gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
 (GLBT) Pride Celebration on June 26.  This gathering demonstrated continued U.S. Embassy support for human rights, including LGBT rights, in Pakistan at a time when those rights are increasingly under attack from extremist elements throughout Pakistani society. 

Over 75 people attended including Mission Officers, U.S. military representatives, foreign diplomats, and leaders of Pakistani LGBT advocacy groups. In formal remarks, the Chargé underscored President Obama’s May 31, 2011 GLBT Pride Proclamation that, “we rededicate ourselves to the pursuit of equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Addressing the Pakistani LGBT activists, the Chargé, while acknowledging that the struggle for GLBT rights in Pakistan is still beginning, said “I want to be clear: the U.S. Embassy is here to support you and stand by your side every step of the way.”

__._,_.___

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »