A group of prominent conservatives including former top Reagan adviser and Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese today endorsed the Conservative Party candidate over the Republican Party candidate in next Tuesday special election in New York’s 23rd  Congressional district.

“We are convinced that Doug Hoffman represents the clearest choice for those citizens who believe the current administration and Congress in Washington are out of control and out of touch,” said an open letter from the group.

“Doug Hoffman supports the right to bear arms, the right to life, a fiscally responsible budget, and school choice. He opposes ‘card check’ for union organizers, same-sex marriage and President Obama’s stimulus spending extravaganza.

“Unfortunately, Hoffman’s Republican opponent – Dede Scozzafaca – supports giving union organizers ‘card check’ power to undermine worker freedom, supports same sex marriage, supports the Obama stimulus, voted for higher taxes 190 times in the New York State Assembly, voted to force all New York State employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and has been endorsed multiple times by ACORN’s Working Families Party in New York.”
 
The statement was signed by 15 conservatives including Meese, former Reagan Budget Director James C. Miller III, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, publisher Alfred Regnery, ConsevatveHQ.com Chairman Richard Viguerie, and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.

They join former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty in backing Hoffman in the party battle.

Among those backing Scozzafaca is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi became unusually emotional Thursday when she recalled the tumult that bedeviled San Francisco in the 1970s_problems that reminded her of today's mood.

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this, myself, in the late ‘70s in San Francisco.  This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place," said Pelosi, who lives in San Francisco.

The San Francisco area in the 1970s endured several shocks, notably local cult leader Jim Jones, who took his followers to Guyana where in 1978 they committed a mass suicide.

Several days later, former city supervisor Dan White killed Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay official elected in the state.

This year has seen nothing on that scale from political outrage. In August, protesters at town hall meetings occasionally spewed ugly rhetoric, and during President Barack Obama's address to Congress last week, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., interrupted to tell him "You lie."

Wilson, who apologized to the White House, would not apologize on the House floor. The House voted earlier this week a resolution of disapproval of his action.

"I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made," Pelosi said Thursday, "so that understanding that some of the people — the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."

For all the criticism that gay rights activists have directed at President Barack Obama recently, on Monday he became the first chief executive to mark Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month at the White House.

To applause and cheers, Obama repeated his yet unfulfilled campaign promises to end the military's ban on openly gay service members, expand hate-crimes protections, enact a law to prohibit employment discrimination and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which earlier this month had been defended by his own Justice Department.

"I know many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough. And I understand that," Obama said. "I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by promises that my administration keeps."

Obama moved to quell some of the concern two weeks ago by granting limited benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, including relocation expenses and long-term care insurance. However, it didn't include health insurance or survivor benefits, which most married couples take for granted.

Sunday was the 40th anniversary of the birth of the modern gay-rights movement. On June 28, 1969, police raided the Stonewall Inn in New York's Greenwich Village. Such raids were once commonplace, and patrons usually dispersed for fear that their sexual orientation would become public. This time they fought back in a riot that lasted for three days.

As if to illustrate the challenges gay people still face, Fort Worth, Texas, police raided a gay nightclub over the weekend, sparking a protest on Sunday. Last week in an e-mail, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis denounced the vandalism of posters for gay pride month at the agency's headquarters in Washington.

The lack of openly gay people in prominient positions in the administration, including the Cabinet, has caused some to wonder whether Obama is really in tune with their concerns. Nancy Sutley, the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and John Berry, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, are the highest ranking openly gay members of the Obama team.

Today, President Barack Obama signed a measure to extend limited benefits to the gay partners of federal employees.

However, gay rights groups, which supported Obama's election, are still furious about a Justice Department motion filed last week that defends the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed in 1996.

The motion, which seeks the dismissal of a California lawsuit challenging DOMA, argues that the act is Constitutional. DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

The document was written by W. Scott Simpson, who's a holdover from the Bush administration. Among other things, it argues that forcing states that prohibit same-sex marriages to recognize them would burden those states' taxpayers. It also maintains that in enacting the law, the federal government, rather than imposing discrimination on same-sex couples, took a position of "neutrality" on the issue.

But what's really angered gay rights and civil liberties groups is the document's apparent equation of same-sex relationships with incest and statutory rape.

The document dismisses the obvious comparison of same-sex marriages with interracial marriages, which before a 1967 Supreme Court decision were illegal in many states. However, it does compare them with marriages that involve cousins, uncles and nieces and underage brides:

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

Obama, who doesn't fully support gay marriage, opposed DOMA as a presidential candidate, supported the expansion of hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation and promised to end the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly.

Many of Obama's supporters are growing impatient with his reluctance to address these issues. Today's move may help quell their concerns, but they won't stay quiet about it.

The House of Representatives Tuesday is expected to pass historic legislation that will dramatically expand the nation's volunteer service programs--but conservative congressional Republicans are worried and wonder if the programs will help abortion rights and gay rights organizations..

The bill "stretches the definition of a volunteer by paying them for their service, frequently providing volunteers with health benefits, housing, and other items that undermine the definition of a volunteer," warns the conservative congressional Republican Study Committee in a "legislative bulletin."

The bill passed both the House and Senate recently by huge margins, attracting lots of GOP lawmakers as well as Democrats. It needs final passage in the House before going to President Barack Obama for his signature.

But watch out, says the RSC. The bill funds AmeriCorps, the nation's major volunteer program at "such sums as may be necessary." But, the RSC notes, "AmeriCorps has funded programs in the past such as Planned Parenthood of Western Washington and the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center (LAGLC).  In addition, they ran a program that gave $5 to children for each toy gun they brought in."

The group also makes a philosophical point: "Many conservatives may not agree that individuals who are paid monthly stipends, compensated for living expenses, and granted healthcare benefits should be classified as volunteers—AmeriCorps indentifies their participants as volunteers.

"This bill is part of a Democrat agenda to force taxpayers to fund liberal service organizations, while at the same time, increasing taxes on charitable donations for individuals who want to support organizations with which they agree."

And, the RSC notes, "Many conservatives may be concerned that the programs authorized and expanded in this bill reflect a big government response to local and community needs—instead of a more effective encouragement of community and individual response to such need."

To read the full RSC report: http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=116380