Bush's "aides" crisis

By Nedd Kareiva

Every once in a while you come across one of those stories where you ask yourself, "What was he (she) thinking?" This is one of those occasions.

From the Washington Blade, a news source catering to the homosexual community, comes this title "Laura Bush attends swearing-in of gay Global AIDS Coordinator."

The first paragraph reads "As First Lady Laura Bush stood behind her, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice administered the oath of office on Oct. 10 to gay physician Mark Dybul as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, a post that has the rank of ambassador."

For those predisposed to think two men or women having sex with each other is not exactly normal, does the term "gay physician" strike you one way or another? Knowing what we know about AIDS and what homosexual behavior entails, would you feel comfortable seeing such an individual to fix your ailments?

Homophobic, you say? How about overly and overtly cautious?

So Mr. Dybul is going to be the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, a position said to be the equivalent of ambassador. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines ambassador as "an official envoy, especially a diplomatic agent of the highest rank accredited to a foreign government or sovereign as the resident representative of his own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment."

In other words, an ambassador is like the right hand man or woman of the CEO of a major corporation at a sister company. Mr. Dybul is essentially President Bush's executive assistant in a foreign country — or in this case, an unspecific location dealing with a specific disease.

Uh, do we have global coordinator for diabetes? What about Alzheimer's? Do we have such an official for heart disease? Why not one for (smokers, take a puff), lung cancer?

I forgot — the last one is the job of our U.S. Surgeon General.

Well, sort of. Maybe national ambassador would be more fitting.

Seriously, we don't have a global anti-tobacco coordinator but it seems we have a never ending supply of politicians, bureaucrats, so-called health experts and child advocates who are on the anti-smoking bandwagon, grandstanding on the need for Americans to "kick the habit." Why does America need an ambassador or AIDS coordinator to tell people in other nations to stop engaging in unnatural sex and drug and needle use? Have we forgotten that AIDS shortens lives by one to three decades?

In other words, why does our government feel the need to send someone overseas (using your tax dollars) to simply tell others to change their behavior and tack on $15 billion (yes, of your own money) in the process? Is that a good reason, let alone constitutional, for doing so? The country of Uganda didn't need the money to reverse their AIDS crisis.

Oh, Nedd, they need the money for AIDS cures. You're so critical and heartless. Really? Should we subsidize (AKA, fork over our money) other nations for the bad behavior of others?

I think not. The question is this: is it constitutional for our government to be sending money we make and they take for a cause, even a so-called noble one, that is based solely on behavior? Shouldn't this be the responsibility of churches, religious organizations and community groups instead of Washington?

Conservative/Libertarian columnist and substitute Rush Limbaugh host Walter Williams calls the feds' actions "legalized theft."

By the way, I nominate C. Everett Koop for Global Anti-smoking Coordinator. Anyone in the White House listening? He just celebrated becoming a nonagenarian. Being smoke and AIDS free, surely he must have a few years left in him.

For those unfamiliar with the last word, check Dictionary.com.

If you think the activists, Hollywood celebs, and the pharmaceutical industry and others want a cure for AIDS, I have a bridge to sell you.

Truthfully, do we want a sexually misguided individual, let alone doctor, who might even have AIDS to represent us in other parts of the world? If such a position must exist, shouldn't the individual be one who doesn't practice homosexual behavior or who has abandoned the lifestyle? Surely we don't need to send a practicing homosexual to speak and encourage other sexually confused individuals and drug users, do we? What would he tell the leaders of Uganda?

Dr. Koop would certainly qualify, notwithstanding some of his odd views.

Also, — since the Bush Administration's policy is one of abstinence first, does it make sense to send someone who by the adjective over his name likely supports condom based or so-called comprehensive sex education? Do we really think Dr. Dybul, a practicing homosexual, is going to enforce the president's position?

It's almost like asking the proverbial fox to guard the henhouse.

The appointment defies all logic. Is the president clueless? Was he not aware of the grave stats regarding homosexual behavior? If he wasn't, he should have contacted his appointee for Secretary at the Dept. of Health & Human Services, Mike Leavitt, before installing Dr. Dybul.

And what about the U.S. Senate who approved of Dr. Dybul unanimously? Were they all clueless as well?

The Blade story points out that Dr. Dybul's domestic partner, Jason Claire, held out a Bible for the "doctor" to swear his oath of service on. Hmmm, I wonder if either Dr. Dybul or Mr. Claire were aware during the ceremonies about the passages on homosexuality in Leviticus or Romans that avowed homosexuals cringe to hear.

For those of you experiencing gender confusion or misleading sexual urges, take a deep breath. I won't quote the scripture verses.

However, memo to Condi Rice, Secretary of State, and Laura Bush, the president's wife — are either of you familiar with these books of the Bible, let alone the passages?

The Blade further identifies a woman named Marilyn as Dr. Dybul's mother-in-law without flinching. Are we supposed to assume that parents of so-called gay partners are to be classified as in-laws? Secretary Rice doesn't seem to have a problem with that, the same way she doesn't have a problem with abortion, just like Laura Bush.

You have to wonder, despite the president's support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), if deep down Mr. Bush has problems with it, considering his nomination of a judge who presided over a "wedding ceremony" between two lesbians and who may be suspected of being a lesbian herself. Sen. Sam Brownback, one of the backers of the FMA, is blocking a vote on her until this is cleared up.

The Bush Administration, despite its support for the FMA, has compromised with the homosexual lobby on many fronts, starting in the early days of his administration, even to the point of Bush's former Attorney General John Ashcroft being compromised and continuing today with Bush's support for civil unions.

However, homosexuality was not only scorned just a few short decades ago, it was totally repudiated.

In 1960, the year yours truly was born, the State Dept. clearly stated in a memo to homosexual activist Franklin Kameny, founder of the unarguably radical homosexual Mattachine Society, that it does not hire homosexuals, that society finds such behavior undesirable, unacceptable, disruptive and gasp, a security risk.

In fact, the web site of Dr. Kameny is replete with many government documents containing powerful rejections of homosexuality from 1960 up until the early years of the Reagan Administration, including one pointing out the ACLU's ties with Kameny.

Accordingly, this was not totally a matter of Republican homophobia as the documents show the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations totally rejected all aspects of the homosexual agenda.

So much for intolerance, right? Or would that be tolerance?

Given the resounding rejection of homosexuality as recently as 3-4 decades ago, why is the Bush Administration so quick to appoint known homosexuals for positions in government. Does an activity once deemed totally immoral, let alone destructive, now deserve acceptance without restriction, let alone approval?

If you are a liberal, you would say yes. However, I believe a majority of Americans, regardless of political persuasion, still equate something immoral that long ago as immoral today (AKA, conservatives).

President Bush identifies himself as a Christian and a man of faith. But most leaders who make a point of publicly testifying to their faith in Jesus Christ practice it in their lives and perpetuate their principles in their policies. To put an avowed homosexual in a position of leadership as Mr. Bush has contradicts not only Biblical principles but denies the faith he claims to possess.

And given his recent, though tacit support, for Plan B contraception to be available over the counter, is the president's apparent abandonment of morality very shocking? Few people who think homosexuality is acceptable oppose abortion and vice versa.

Now if you are liberal, don't misread this piece to say I oppose the employment of homosexuals. What I am saying is that it is not prudent policy to put homosexuals in leadership positions, particularly those that involve extensive intermingling with the public. President Bush has abdicated the faith he professes to have. He has endeared himself to those individuals that would have been shunned under Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

The facts are not in doubt that homosexuals have infiltrated the White House and White House staff. The proof is in the above links and many more (like this one) that can be found thru your favorite search engine. The president's wife and the person who is said to be the president's right hand person have compromised to sell out to the homosexual agenda. And so have other persons in this administration.

The president believes he needs to send our money overseas to help stop the flow of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. He apparently fails to realize that he has a bigger AIDS crisis close to home. It's not the AIDS crises in big cities like San Francisco, New York or even Washington, D.C. It's the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Add the letter "e" between the "d" & "s" in AIDS and you will have figured it out.

It makes JFK and LBJ look saintly.

© Nedd Kareiva