Category: GLBT Civil Legal Human Rights

Heads Up America: Obama-Clinton Ticket in 2012 Under Consideration

Copyright 10.06.10 By CK Hunter

Keep in mind as you read the article referenced below that once upon a time, in my foolish lesbian feminist liberal youth, I actually admired Hillary Clinton. Those days are now long gone.

The only thing that could be worse than an Obama re-election in 2012 would be an Obama-Hillary re-election. That would open the doors to total illuminati control of the country in strange new ways that no one has actually imagined yet. Hillary has proven herself to be a devoutly loyal CFR mouthpiece for the hidden ruling elite over and over again, and she will carry forth any hidden agenda they give her to the letter.

We need solid female leaders in this country, but we do not need Hillary as VP in 2012. We need independent American patriot Christian women leaders who cannot be corrupted, and who cannot and will not be puppeteered illuminati mouthpieces for the Godless globalist new world order crowd. We need intelligent well educated moderates who will direct their energies toward the real problems of this country, instead of wasting time and credibility by trying to scapegoat American gays and lesbians for everything they perceive to be wrong with America. The far radical right within the American Tea Party movement is destroying the integrity and credibility of the movement by doing what Bush did for eight years, trying to make the fictitious “gay agenda” the make believe enemy of America.

I was born gay and I am NOT going to argue with anyone about it. It’s no one business what my sexual predisposition is but me and God’s.

There is no “gay agenda” other than achieving the same civil rights that other American citizens have. Those in the Tea Party movement who are now trying to make the “gay issue” their calling card are destroying the credibility of the movement.

Hillary may be gay friendly, but she is also much more “illuminati friendly” than I am comfortable with. Moderate conservative Christian women are now needed desperately in American government, more than ever before, to restore a sense of balance and sanity to the current derangement which is appearing in political circles.

I never before this year began to equate “Christian far right” with neo-nazi fascist politics but I see threads and slivers of of the nazi mindset apeearing on the far right fringes of the tea party. I am sounding the call for sanity. Get a grip people. Gay people are not “the enemy” here.

The hidden powers that be, those who run the country from behind the coat tails of public American politicians, are the ones who we need to confront. Begin with the Bilderberg crowd, and follow the money.

CK Hunter


October 6, 2010 9:17 AM

Obama-Clinton Ticket in 2012? White House, Clinton Dismiss Woodward Remark That It’s “On the Table”

Updated at 12:30 p.m. ET

Longtime Washington reporter Bob Woodward said Tuesday night that the possibility of a Barack Obama- Hillary Clinton presidential ticket in 2012 was “on the table,” but the White House is shooting down that idea.

“Some of Hillary Clinton’s advisers see it as a real possibility in 2012,” Woodward said on CNN. “President Obama needs some of the women, Latinos, retirees that she did so well with during the 2008 primaries and, so they switch jobs, not out of the question.”

However, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today that reports the secretary of state will replace Vice President Joe Biden are “absolutely not true,” CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports. Gibbs said that President Obama thinks Biden is doing an “extraordinary job” and that choosing Biden to be vice president was one of the best decisions he’s made. Gibbs added that the president is “quite pleased” with Clinton’s performance.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod was more blunt: “It’s complete bulls**t,” he said, CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid reports.

Meanwhile, a source close to Clinton said the rumor is “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,” Reid reports. The source said no one close to Clinton is pushing for that change.

There has long been chatter in Washington that Mr. Obama should make Clinton the next in line. Columnist Sally Quinn wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post in June entitled, “Hillary Clinton should be Obama’s vice president.”


A recent Gallup poll showed that voters may even be open to the idea of Clinton replacing Mr. Obama: 37 percent of Democrats surveyed said they would support Clinton if she were to challenge the president in 2012. Clinton has said unequivocally in previous interviews that she has no intention to run for president again, but that hasn’t stopped her supporters from hoping. In fact, the first 2012 presidential ad to air on television was in support of Clinton.

Update: At the 12th Annual Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit today, Clinton brushed off speculation that she would replace Biden, CBS News State Department reporter Charlie Wolfson reports.

“I think the vice president is doing a wonderful job,” Clinton said. “He’s a great friend of mine. We work together closely. He’s an expert on foreign policy, he chaired the foreign relations committee in the Senate for years and we have a great relationship, and I have absolutely no interest and no reason for doing anything other than just dismissing these stories and moving on because we have no time. We have so much to do, and I think both of us are very happy doing what we’re doing.”

Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for You can read more of her posts here. Follow Hotsheet on Facebook and Twitter. 

2012 ,
Joe Biden ,
Hillary Clinton ,
Barack Obama
Campaign 2012 ,
Obama Administration

The Seven Significant Truth Movements of the Early 21st Century

Genetics, DNA, Human Sexuality: Human Sexual Orientation Has Deep Biological Roots

The Rainbow Flag, GLBT Pride
Image by dbking via Flickr


For nearly 25 years I have tried to explain to “gay hating bible thumpers” [I am a gay progressive Christian mystic, clairvoyant, and Cherokee Shaman] that my being gay was a matter of biology, not choice. My uncle was gay, my father was secretly gay, but married and had four children, my brother is gay, my two sisters lean heavily bisexual. I have several cousins who are gay, and so forth, on my father’s side of the family tree.

It did not take a rocket scientist to study the genetics of my family tree and to ascertain that some members of my family had a pre-disposed genetic penchant, for art, literature, the spoken and written word, music, theology and were biologically gay.

However, in the southern Baptist culture in which I was raised in the 60s and 70s, gay people have been called everything in the book, including “demon possessed” by uneducated sub-literate southern Baptist, pentecostal, and fundamentalist ministers, who often had not much more than a 7th or 8th grade education themselves.

Many of these ministers refuse to even read any other book other than a bible, and they represent the worst fears and nightmares of a progressive,  educated religious American mainstream who are still struggling to understand why approximately 9 to 19% of the USA population at any given is biologically gay, how to address it, and what to “do” about it.

I personally always wondered why other Americans felt they needed to “do something” about their gay children, neighbor’s kids’ friends and office workers. Whose business is it when someone is born gay? Excuse me, but it is primarily God‘s business and no one elses’. That is the utter truth of the matter.

When a soul is born homosexual, it is strictly between that soul and their maker as to the reasons why and the implications. It’s not the problem or concern of society, or ministers, or the Vatican, or politicians, or theologians. The religious community has now stepped knee deep in this issue, against God’s Will, and they will have to answer for it. Their meddling in the private lives of millions of innocent gay people who just want the same spousal rights as any other Americans has cost many same sex families untold humiliation, persecution, suffering, financial hardship and even death, as in the case of Matthew Shepard. When the minister in the pulpit gives his congregation permission to hate, he is utterly and absolutely accountable and he will answer to God for it.

I could no more change my sexual orientation [I tried in the 80s and hated it and stopped trying] than I could change the actual color of my eyes. Once American theological society and the political and religious community finally comprehend the simple biological facts of sexual orientation, get an education, emotionally grow up, and being behaving like adults about this issue, and stop behaving like medieval neanderthals, then finally we can get on with the business of loving our neighbor as ourself,  live and let live, and also get on with the more pressing issues facing our nation, which demand our urgent attention.

Chase K. Hunter



Genetics and Proposition 8

Human sexual orientation has deep biological roots.

By Dean Hamer and Michael Rosbash February 23, 2010
There was an elephant in the San Francisco courtroom where lawyers contested the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California law that prohibits the marriage of same-sex couples. One key issue should influence every aspect of the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger proceedings yet remained unspoken: What makes people gay? Is it a choice or is it innate?Most geneticists consider sexual orientation a phenotype — namely, an observable set of properties that varies among individuals. Although physical phenotypes like height and weight are easier to quantify, behavioral phenotypes are intensely studied in animals and humans. Research from many directions leads to a strong conclusion: Human sexual orientation has deep biological roots.

Moreover, the empirical evidence for the role of genetics in human sexual orientation has been quietly but steadily mounting over the last 15 years. Studies of twins — the mainstay of quantitative human genetics — have been conducted on large populations in three countries. The results unambiguously demonstrate that heritability plays a major role in sexual orientation and far outweighs shared environmental factors such as education or parenting.

During the early 1990s, there was an unfortunate flurry of less-than-convincing findings on specific genes and sometimes over-hyped media announcements. Indeed, critics of sexual orientation inheritance are fond of pointing out that there is no single identified “gay gene.” However, they fail to mention that the same is true for height, skin color, handedness, frequency of heart disease and many other traits that have a large inherited component but no dominant gene. In other words, sexual orientation is complex, i.e., many genes contribute to the phenotype.

Gay genes appear paradoxical at first blush. From the perspective of natural selection, how could they persist in the population if they lead to fewer offspring? Recent research has uncovered several plausible explanations. For example, one set of studies found that the same inherited factors that favor male homosexuality actually increase the fecundity of female maternal relatives. By balancing the number of offspring, they would contribute to maintaining these genes over the course of evolution. This explanation may not be exclusive but serves to illustrate that the Darwinian problem is not necessarily overwhelming.

There have been other surprises. One is the importance of epigenetics — changes that alter gene expression without a change in the DNA code of an affected gene. This is evidenced by the lopsided number of maternal versus paternal factors in male sexual orientation and by unusual patterns of DNA modification in mothers of gay men. Epigenetic changes may also explain the finding that a male’s probability of being gay is increased by his number of older brothers.

Although these factors are neither genetic in the traditional Mendelian sense nor fully understood, they are still biological and affect phenotype in an involuntary manner. Who chooses his number of older brothers?

All of these findings demand the conclusion that most gay people no more choose their sexual orientation than most heterosexuals. (“Most” is used here to indicate that — like almost everything biological — these are statistical data and do not apply uniformly.) This conclusion is also consonant with our memories: Most of us were stunned as unsuspecting adolescents to discover our sexual orientation — heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

Biology cannot be avoided in determining whether fundamental rights are protected under the equal protection clause of our Constitution. This is because “immutability” is one of the factors that determine the level of scrutiny applied to possible violations and that determine whether gays are awarded “suspect class” status, which would give them more constitutional protection. Heritability is not necessary for immutability or suspect class status (religion is the usual counter-example), but it should be sufficient; we do not choose our genes, nor can we change them.

The court of public opinion may be the ultimate arbiter, and here there is cause for optimism about what education can achieve. Recent studies in college classrooms show that exposure of students to information on the causes of homosexuality has a direct influence on opinions about gay rights. This fits with polling data showing that people who believe that gays are “born that way” are generally supportive of full equality, whereas those who believe it is “a choice” are opposed.

The importance of education is also underscored by the extent to which a lack of education is problematic. One national survey found that 70% of those who think being gay is a choice favored the re- institution of sodomy laws. This would turn some 15 million Americans into common criminals for simply being who they are. Science education must help people understand that phenotypic variation, including sexual orientation diversity, is an immutable feature of human biology.

Dean Hamer is a molecular biologist who works on human genetics and HIV prevention and is the author of scientific books, including “The Science of Desire.” Michael Rosbash is an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a professor at Brandeis University who studies circadian rhythms.

Re-post courtesy of  The Los Angeles Times

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]