President Obama and the Homosexual Agenda.

In case you were fooled by his dissembling, he's in favor of it.

The full text of Obama's speech to the HRC Dinner includes:

I vowed to keep up the fight against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. There’s a bill to repeal this discriminatory law in Congress, and I want to see that passed. But until we reach that day, my administration is no longer defending DOMA in the courts. I believe the law runs counter to the Constitution, and it’s time for it to end once and for all. It should join “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the history books. (Applause.)

Gosh, it seems like only three years ago, in a debate with McCain, that Obama told us he was against homosexual marriage.

And then there is this:

We don’t believe in a small America. We don’t believe in the kind of smallness that says it’s okay for a stage full of political leaders — one of whom could end up being the President of the United States — being silent when an American soldier is booed. (Applause.) We don’t believe in that. We don’t believe in standing silent when that happens. (Applause.) We don’t believe in them being silent since. (Applause.) You want to be Commander-in-Chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient. (Applause.)

The problem is that this last claim is an utter and total fabrication as Ann Althouse documents.

The meme is false, as explained here. There is a contagious lie and the President — he who often speaks of transcending divisiveness — is enthusiastically spreading it... while — ironically! — posing in the mantle of oneness, E pluribus unum. The crowd goes wild, by the way. Listen to the audio (at the link). They find the infected red meat scrumptious! And can you blame the poor man? He must serve something to the assembled hungry masses, and this — this! — is the best he's got.


And what does "We don't believe in them being silent since" mean? It's not a transcription error. I've checked the audio. Did he misread the TelePrompTer? There's no simple fix, like combining it with the next line, "You want to be Commander-in-Chief?" The pronouns don't match up. But the crowd loves it. This gibberish is quite delicious!

Here is Althouse's post on the claimed booing.

I have listened to the video several times, and I stand by my perception that only one person audibly yells "boo."


I hear a loud "boo," then a difficult to decipher noise — which could be an ugh response to the booer — and then a little more of a boo, which sounds like the original guy.

ADDED: From Jim Geraghty (who faults Rick Santorum for failing to thank the soldier for his service):

Sarah Rumpf, who was in attendance, writes:

... There was audible booing after his question . . . however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.

I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back... The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.

See, that's my point. The sound after the loud boo was not more booing or any negativity directed at the soldier. It was hostility to the booer.

Also, Santorum says: "I did not hear those boos . . . If I had, I would have said, 'Don’t do that, that man is serving his country and we ought to thank him for his service.'" As I said in my original post on the subject, these inferences about how the candidates responded to the audience "assumes they hear the sounds and can immediately correctly interpret whether it's an approval or disapproval sound and what it refers to."

In fact, if Rumpf is correct, most of the people watching at home were failing to correctly interpret the sounds they heard. If only one guy booed, and all the other voices were people trying to shush him, and the candidate had launched into some righteous chastising of the the audience, it would have opened that candidate to criticism about how he assumed the people were intolerant and ungrateful.

So, the post-partisan President is attempting to stir up hatred with calumny.

Not surprising.