| If You Hate America You Have a Lawyer - Chai Feldblum |
 |
 |
| Written by TVC NEWS |
| Thursday, 17 September 2009 20:11 |
|
President Obama has picked Chai R. Feldblum (pictured left) to become a member of the Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency which enforces workplace civil rights laws. If confirmed, she would serve 5 years on the EEOC and issue edicts that will impact all areas of employment. Feldblum isn't known by most Americans but her career experience and employers make her a sort of general counsel to the Forces of Darkness. She has worked for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign Fund and she founded something called the Moral Values Project, a "gender equity" group meant to sound like something conservative.
She is a lesbian and has played a major role in pushing the LGBT agenda in American culture for the past 20 years. Feldblum is professor of law (gay studies) at Georgetown University. She is the primary author of the pro-gay/transsexual bill known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which is being pushed again in Congress. She is also a strategist for gay activists. She advocates the use of "incrementalism" in the achievement of the gay agenda. She wants to use incrementalism in ENDA, for example, by first covering employment and then later moving to housing and public accommodations. The same tactic was used in another Feldblum-authored bill the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) where housing was the first target and then the ADA was later expanded to cover more areas of our culture. In the mid-1980s, Feldblum clerked for Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the notorious liberal judge who authored the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. He invented a right to abortion not found in the Constitution. Feldblum praised him as someone who had the "ability and desire to look behind the law and see the people is not the classic way to do law .... He brings a sense of caring and compassion that will be missed." Clearly, Feldblum favors liberal judicial activists who ignore the Constitution and who impose their own political views on the law. She is author of such articles as:
In her paper, "Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion," Feldblum argues for legislative and judicial "outcomes that will allow LGBT people to live lives of honesty and safety in today's society." She believes that eventually, many jurisdictions will have "modified their laws" so that gays will freely marry or have civil unions with the same benefits as marriage. She also believes that religious people who run businesses or operate other institutions have no right to deny services to gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered persons. "As a general matter, once a religious person or institution enters the stream of commerce by operating an enterprise such as a doctor's office, hospital, bookstore, hotel, treatment center and so on, I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity." In short, she wants the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom to impose the gay agenda on all Americans - including those with strongly held religious beliefs about homosexuality. "Once again, President Obama has demonstrated there is no one too radical to serve in his administration," said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. "By picking Feldblum, he has signaled to his many fringe group fans on the Left that he will help them accomplish all of their goals to undermine the Constitution and overturn biblical morality and decency in America. "Liberals hate America and so does a President who insists on appointing them to positions of power and responsibility within his already tottering administration."
Trackback(0)
Comments (9)
  written by Chuck In Chicago, September 18, 2009
How about if a gay owned business didn't allow religious folks access? This scenario is identical to that which you believe to be just and right and good. You wish to outlaw homosexuality because your religious tenets say it is wrong. What about religious tenets that say it is not wrong? Those religions should be descriminated against because YOU belong to an opposing religion? I daresay, you have bizarre notions about the Constitution of the United States and what religious freedom entails. It entails allowing the freedom to believe even those things YOU, your self, don't believe. It entails ensuring that ALL humans are treated with dignity and respect. If I spat upon you in public simply because you held conservative christian values you would say I was infringing on your Constitutional rights, but you feel completely justified in doing just that to homosexuals. And you also consider yourself "Christ"-like. Yes, I think I see Christ in you. He would be proud.
 written by LegalCookie, September 18, 2009
You don't know what you're talking about. Have you had any personal experience with the woman? She loves this country in a way that you can't possibly fathom.
 written by Liberty-Clinger, September 18, 2009
Chai R. Feldblum: "I believe the enterprise must adhere to a norm of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity."
The word "nondiscrimination" means "equalization," which is to say the rights of homosexuals should be equal to heterosexuals. This type of "nondiscrimination" leads to a claim that homosexual couples (I won't call this a marriage) must have an equal right to adopt children, even though children grow up happier in a traditional family with mother and father. There is a self-evident inequality between the two in their fitness to raise children; so discrimination is in this case a good thing, not bad. Equalization is the key; whenever one hears the word "nondiscrimination" substitute the word "equalization;" and whenever you hear the word "discrimination" substitute the word "unequal." Marxists believe in the equalization of nearly everything that is self-evidently unequal. Economic Marxism requires the non-productive proletariat cla*s to be irrationally equalized (no discrimination) in property to the productive middle cla*s even if it results in equal poverty for all (except for the Marxist rulers of course). Affirmative action is a form of Cultural Marxism as it requires a minority race or ethnic group (any cla*s will do) to be irrationally equalized to the majority race or ethnic group (cla*s) during the granting of government contracts or during college admissions procedures rather than an equal application of rules based on business skill and performance, or academic achievement. Inequality of outcomes in life is a natural and healthy expression of individual human nature. People are naturally unequal in their grades on tests; unequal in their goals scored in sports; unequal in their creativity, labor and earned property. What should be equal? People should be equal before law - equal rules - that is it. All else is natural and healthy inequality. Forced equality is Marxism; Equality before law is American. By forcing, through government power (notice Feldblum's use of the phrase "must adhere") equality, i.e.: “nondiscrimination,” between the rights of a heterosexual married couple with that of a homosexual couples Feldblum enjoins Marxism to American law and government. Marxism is an irrational, hate-America political ideology; so it follows that Feldblum is a cultural Marxist (possibly a complete Marxist), and therefore hates America. http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
written by Liberty-Clinger, September 18, 2009
"you may not like her views, but she plays by the rules. Highly educated, Georgetown Professor, supreme court clerk. seems competent enough."
"They (intellectuals) prefer ideas, which give them jobs and income and which enhance their power and prestige...They look for ideas, which enhance the role of the state because the state is usually their main employer, sponsor or donator. That is not all. According to Hayek “the power of ideas grows in proportion to their generality, abstractness, and even vagueness”…Hayek put it clearly: “the intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties.” He is interested in visions and utopias and because “socialist thought owes its appeal largely to its visionary character” (and I would add lack of realism and utopian nature), the intellectual tends to become a socialist.…The free market system does not typically reward those who are, in their own eyes, the most meritorious. Because the intellectuals value themselves very highly, they disdain the marketplace. Markets value them differently than their own eyes and, in addition to it, markets function nicely without their supervision. As a result, the intellectuals are suspicious of free markets and prefer being publicly funded. That is another reason, why they are in favour of socialism…” President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=wFYl3mgsTzI6
written by Liberty-Clinger, September 18, 2009
I should have said:
Forced equality of outcome is Marxism; Equality before law is American.
 written by liberty not liberalism, September 29, 2009
'has she ever been a member of a group that advocates the overthrow of the government?' For the sake of brevity let us do or homework and not just accept how it makes us feel. Well well, how about the ACLU! I hear the snickering and scoffing at the very notion that this organization bent on the destruction of our way of life would be an advocate for the overthrow of the government. So instead of baseless name calling I will merely quote the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin. (this despite the fact that truth mean nothing to liberals) Ahem...and I quote "I am for socialism, (helluva start eh?- ed. note) disarament and ultimately for abolisihing the state itself as an instrument of volence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied cla*s, and sole control by those who produce weath. Communism is the goal". You gotta like how he makes it nice and plain so that even a highly educated Georgetown professor can understand.
 written by Johan B., October 07, 2009
"Well well, how about the ACLU!"
How about them? Are they advocating for armed revolution? Have they called for violence against our government or their political opponents? No and No. Are they hatching some sort of secret plot to take away our freedoms? Not unless you also believe in the Tooth Fairy. In case you hadn't noticed, the ACLU plays out their mission by working within the framework of our laws. They argue cases in court and advocate for what they see as the Constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans. Simply because one of their founders believed that the government should not be a tool of oppression and violence does not make them revolutionaries bent on overthrow. And if you're suggesting that Roger Baldwin's beliefs (which I might add are far closer to actual communism than has ever been tried here on Earth) mean that he hates America, I would suggest you look again. Sure he's talking about radical social and political change, a lot of which I am skeptical about personally. But equating desires for reform with anti-Americanism is not only counter-productive, it's downright intolerant.
 written by Mario, December 05, 2009
She's probably a smug europhile authoritarian, as are most leftists, so if she hates America is due to that, not that she supports gay rights. I don't know if supporting gay rights means you hate America. I support gay rights AND America. I believe liberty is a two-way street. I think that the right wing and left wing are dangerous to American liberity. I think both groups are authoritarian. One hides behind the Bible, the other hides behind socialism. Neither are caring or concerned for anything but their own patholotical narcisistic needs to push their will onto the ma*ses. Supporting anyone's rights is hardly anti-American. But yes, I'm sure this latest Obama appointee is a jacka*s who thinks that Cuba is the role model America should aspire to.
Write comment
|
| Last Updated on Thursday, 17 September 2009 20:27 |
TraditionalValues.org
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
you may not like her views, but she plays by the rules. Highly educated, Georgetown Professor, supreme court clerk. seems competent enough.