Put It In Context, Part 2

Jan 26, 12 5:45 PM

(Before anyone asks, yes, I will address the repartee between Gov. Jan Brewer and President Obama – just not right now. I’m giving Obama the opportunity to respond.)

As I mentioned in the last post, I have been accused of doing nothing but complaining about the mean things that liberals say. Also, as I mentioned, the person who made that accusation has never read anything I’ve written calling out those on the right that I disagree with (that would include George W. Bush and Joe Arpaio). So, without further ado, here is the promised outing.

Meet Jeffrey Don Davis.

In Todd Starnes’ report on the incident at Shawano High School in Wisconsin, there were three or four out of a few hundred who posted genuinely hateful comments. This guy led the pack. He was good enough to make his profile picture available to the public on Facebook. He apparently went to technical school at Texas State Technical College and studied computer networking. He also apparently has no idea that Sarah Palin vetoed a very popular bill as soon as she took office in Alaska – the bill that would have stripped same-sex partners of state employees of any and all benefits. I say that because he has her listed as one of the people who inspire him. He lists several other people who wouldn’t agree with what he does. Here is a sampling of his drivel:

“Joe Distefano But it’s ok for a perverted hate pig like you to express your hatred of decent people who do not want to be exposed to your disgusting behavior. As for expressing our beliefs in GOD, GOD himself judged homosexuals and found them to be severly lacking.”

“Dawn Dickinson I have news for you Dawg, some sex change bulld*ke does not a man make.”

“Joe Distefano I speak my anti-pervert opinions in public and the only demeted ****** who ever dared to criticize me spent the night in the hospital. Opposition to sexual perversion (including homosexuality) in public is nothing more than good taste and common decency.”

“Joe Distefano Yes homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia, bestiality, incest, coprophagia, necrophilia, etc. Actually I had a pervert call me a bigot for opposing homosexuality, I spit in his face, he swung at me and I kicked the **** out of him. Once again you POS, anytime you want to see a bigot, just look in the mirror.”

“Joe Distefano Once again idiot, don’t try speaking for your betters, you have more than enough trouble speaking for yourself. Jesus’ father, GOD sentence homoNazis to death.”

“Jeff Taylor I”ll bet you’re mighty macho when another ****** takes your boyfriend to the bathhouse and leaves you in your mother’s basement.”

“Chris Green I take your word that you’re a faggy-behind-a-keyboard.”

“Jeff Taylor If you want to hit on that pervert, buttboy, take it somewhere that decent people don’t have to see it. In typical fag fashion you give up and accuse me of being a fag too. At least your STDs still allow you to think enough that you realize that decent people consider accusations of homosexuality to be insulting.”

“Chad Jonathan Walls As compared to your peach fuzz? Do you keep those cats around to lick cream off your face or do you keep them around to molest. After all, homosexuality is a perversion just like bestiality.”

“Jeff Taylor Go **** yourself instead of the little boys your chase after you demented stool sample.”

“Conrad Shull while an animal like you seeks to put your filthy hands in the pants of little boys. NAMBLA is a homosexual org.”

“The truly intolerant bigots infesting America are homoNazis. I don’t ask for their tolerance. They will tolerate my opinion whether they want to or not and that’s a rule that I personally enforce.”

“Michael Fitzpatrick I don’t ask old faqqots like you to tolerate me. You will tolerate me whether you like it or not.”

THAT, liberals, is hatred. You cannot reason with a person who will threaten you like this. Most of the others engaged me in honest, civil conversation – they asked questions that weren’t staged as thinly-veiled challenges and respected my right to disagree, as I respected theirs. But when you behave like this, whether you’re a religious nutcase on par with Fred Phelps or you’re a liberal claiming that you don’t have to tolerate what you classify as hatred (usually things far milder than this guy and the two who agreed with him), you invalidate your own argument. You make yourself a hypocrite with what Mr. Davis said just as surely as you would by saying, “you anti-gay collaborators need to remember what was done to the Nazi collaborators – they had their heads shaved, their throats slit, and their bodies hung from lampposts.”

In short, here is my belief: Jesus never touched on homosexuality. He did, however, tell us how we should behave. Nowhere in scripture did He give us any command to be belligerent, get in people’s faces, spit on people, judge them, hate them, or spark a fight and later claim you were defending yourself.

I don’t issue threats. I don’t need to. All I will say is that the bible also does tell us to be wise, and while we are to love mercy, we are also to obey justice. If you do wrong and I catch you, I will act appropriately. It is reprehensible that you would try to claim that your religion gives you the right to behave as if there are no rules. You’re an embarrassment to conservatives and the biggest single reason why I find it so difficult to talk to liberals.

Comments (3)

Put It In Context, Part I

Jan 24, 12 4:23 AM

Recently, in the comments of the vlog I posted where I called out gay liberals for their blissful ignorance, one user said that it was somehow one-sided to “only call out liberals who say mean things.” Of course, this was a user with whom I had never had a discussion before and he had no idea that I have, in fact, called out the people on the right who have uneducated ideas about what homosexuality is about; he was commenting on a single video and had no idea what my beliefs were, but he assumed and, naturally, he never admitted he might well be wrong.

This is going to be one of those Come-To-Jesus posts where we sit down and have a good talk about the religious view of homosexuality and the place of both in society.

It starts with a story out of Wisconsin. The Hawks Post, the student newspaper at Shawano High School, published an op-ed mashup between two students of opposing viewpoints. That is perfectly normal for a high school newspaper. What isn’t normal, however, is the subject matter: gay marriage. Even more abnormal was the fact that the student who wrote the dissenting opinion did so from a completely religious perspective, something that doesn’t really jibe with the continued assault on the rights of religious students to express their beliefs.

According to the Green Bay Press Gazette, that student wrote, “If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment. A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”

Pretty harsh. Scripturally inaccurate, for sure, but I’ll address that later. First I want to point out a few other things. The article was seen by a 13-year-old student whose parents are a gay couple, one of several in that school district who lead very balanced, healthy homes. When he asked his fathers about it they were both stunned and upset; they talked to the superintendent of the district, who also expressed shock at the article. Almost immediately, the district issued an apology and called the article a form of bullying. One of the fathers was quoted in the article I linked above saying that the printing of that article in a school paper “sets us back 20 or 30 years” and claimed that it could lead to bullying of gay students at the school.

I have a few things to add to this debate before I get into anything else.

1. This debate has no place in a public high school newspaper. Period. It never should have been done. The reason I say this is that it was an op-ed mashup; when you give one student the green light to write in support of any gay rights, you open the door for other students with deeply-held religious beliefs about this subject to insist that their opinion be printed as well. They are going to find ways to express their beliefs, but when you give those beliefs space in a school-sponsored publication you might as well be giving those views some form of validity. It should have been left alone.

2. Once the damage was done, the worst thing the district could possibly have done was attack the dissenting student. Believe me, that is exactly what they did when they apologized and called him a bully. That student doesn’t understand why his views are so reviled, and he is going home to a family and a church body that is affirming what he wrote as a courageous stand. Everything you say against him is, to them, persecution; you are validating everything they’re teaching him.

3. Far be it from me to criticize a parent, since I am not one myself…I am, however, an aunt, and I also remember quite well what it was like when my mother would pound on my principal’s desk about the things they were teaching that she didn’t like. It was embarrassing because it made me a target of the real bullies in school who didn’t claim any religion at all. If you push too hard, you’re setting your own kids apart more than anyone else is. Plus, if you get upset about it, they will, too – turn it into a learning experience, and do it peacefully. You might make more friends than you thought you could.

Todd Starnes of Fox News reported on it as well, and if you read the comments you’ll see some pretty intense back-and-forth from some genuinely intellectual people and other folks who…well, aren’t quite that well educated. If they were going to let one student write about the subject, then it was only fair that they let a dissenting opinion in, and since they made that decision they should be standing by it. Instead, the district has behaved in the worst way possible.

I’m going to say what they are not going to let anyone else say…while this student has his right to his opinion, he is wrong.

Jesus never, not once, addressed homosexuality. Never in any of His sermons, prayers or responses to the religious leaders did He ever say one word about homosexuality. The only place where it is called an abomination is in Leviticus 20 (which this student did cite) – the very same ceremonial law that also called for the death penalty for adulterers, children who disrespect their parents, idolaters, soothsayers (what we know today as astrologers), and married couples who have sex during the wife’s menstrual cycle (no, I’m not joking). That ceremonial law takes up nearly the whole of Leviticus, and the ceremonial law was exactly what Jesus meant when He said He had come to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). The ceremonial law and the moral law were very distinct and separate. Jesus’ sacrifice – His torture, death on the cross, and resurrection – was the atonement for sin that the ceremonial law called for according to scripture. The biggest reason for the ceremonial law was to set Israel apart completely from other nations, and because Christ is the way to salvation now, the ceremonial law is moot for us.

Nowhere is that point so clearly made than in Galatians 2:15-16: “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” In the very next chapter Paul reminds the Galatians that if you only cite part of the law but do not keep it all, you call a curse on yourself. I would caution religious conservatives who like to point out those scriptures – you’re taking scripture out of context.

My next post will be a little different. I will be dropping names, pictures and direct quotes from a couple of genuine hatemongers.

Comments (2)

Newt Takes South Carolina!

Jan 22, 12 2:09 AM

In a stunning blow to the Romney campaign, Newt Gingrich has taken South Carolina by a whopping 41% – the first time any candidate has taken SC without first winning either Iowa or New Hampshire. It’s a historic upset, and I have a few thoughts about each of the remaining four candidates.

1. Ron Paul – he was done before it started. There is no way that any man who allowed anyone to ghost write racist and homophobic material for his newsletter was going to stand a chance, and that wasn’t all he did; he defended the newsletters at first, never denying anything until 2007, and even then he refused to address his previous defense of them. To this day he has not answered that controversy appropriately. Add on top of that the fact that he has graciously accepted donations and endorsements from the likes of David Duke and his white supremacist organization, Stormfront, and you have a bona-fide loser. I don’t care which way you look at it; no self-respecting black conservative (and there are many) would ever vote for the man. Nor would any Jew or homosexual. Yes, these people all have their rights to their beliefs, but screaming “FIRST AMENDMENT!” isn’t going to win the nomination – in fact, in this case, it’s a damn sure loss. Whether you like it or not people who cannot stand up to that sort of thing will not be invited to lead this country.

2. Rick Santorum – he might have stood a chance if he could have left his religion out of politics. He’s never been able to do that and he has never answered for the remarks he made in 2003 – namely aligning homosexuality with child molestation committed by priests, as well as saying that we as Americans had no right to privacy and sodomy laws should have been re-enacted. He followed all of that up with standing up for SOPA without much explanation (and if I am not mistaken, I believe I have recently heard him reaffirm his belief that we do not have a Constitutional right to privacy, and in 2005 he said on NPR, “I think conservatives understand that most individuals can’t go it alone…”). All of this is based on his very well-known religious beliefs, and I promise you his beliefs haven’t changed. If they had, he would be denouncing his past statements. Since he has not done that, he has managed to alienate a lot of voters. His Iowa win was a fluke – however I believe that now he has too much pride to drop out, even after his astounding loss in South Carolina.

3. Mitt Romney – I will say right now just to clear the air: the fact that he is a Mormon is not an issue, at least not to conservatives. He has never made his faith a cornerstone of his image and never tried to use it to explain his major political ideas, so for now, set that aside. The biggest problem with Romney is that he has zero appeal to the Tea Party and their supporters. Mark will disagree with me on this, but Mitt can’t communicate with them. The biggest reason is Massachusetts health care reform. The short version goes like this: the State of Massachusetts had a very high number of people getting free healthcare through medicare and medicaid; the federal government threatened to yank funding if Romney didn’t do something to lower the number of public healthcare recipients. In the end, he signed a bill into law that carried an individual mandate to buy insurance or face stiff tax penalties, including the loss of exemption for having an income below a certain level – however those with income low enough would still see their healthcare subsidized and employers were required to provide a certain amount of coverage. Rather than asking why there were so many people getting free government-funded healthcare, he further expanded government power on it and then explained it away by claiming that it was conservative in a way because it didn’t result in a government takeover of healthcare. Once he got into the issue, there was no reigning it in, either…he tried to veto eight different highly controversial provisions of the bill, including a nearly $300 fee for every small business employee that the business didn’t provide insurance for, but every single veto was sharply overridden by the Democrats he’d been so cuddly with, who proceeded to pass a bill that so overreached into the freedoms of residents of the State that the bill was mirrored on the federal level just as soon as Obama took office. He cannot escape Romneycare.

4. Newt Gingrich – Newt had been lagging behind until the recent debate. FAR behind, in fact. Most pundits had already decided that the race was already between Romney and Santorum and had already proceeded accordingly. With this week’s debate, however, Newt proved himself more than capable of handling himself – in the first 90 seconds of the debate, he roused not one but TWO standing ovations when he raked moderator John King over the coals for bringing up the recent ABC interview with his ex-wife in which she claimed that he had asked her for an “open marriage”. Now, this isn’t the first time she’s made incredible claims about him, so coming from her, this is not news; what he could have said was, “John, I would really like to know where all of this concern about allegations of infidelity were in the 90′s, when you and your fellow press activists gave Bill Clinton a free pass on all kinds of misconduct, including practically ignoring allegations that he had raped a woman!” However, he stuck to his own issues and displayed more class than I apparently have by only answering for himself. He kicked it off by lambasting the press for their outrageous bias and telling behavior, and that set the tone for the rest of his campaign. If he keeps it up he could very well be the nominee – and possibly the next president.

Leave a Comment

Further Proof of Liberal Hate (As If We Needed More)

Jan 17, 12 4:04 PM

Remember all of those tolerant, lovely people who attacked Ethan Sabo and his supporters? They’ve taken it a step further…one of the users set up a mock Tumblr site for him (I suspect who it is, but I can’t be sure) that calls him a mental disorder, self-destructive, repressive and homophobic.

Boy, all of this tolerance from the gay left is wonderful. Just freakin’ heart-warming.

Comments (7)

Dr. King Would Have Said…

Jan 17, 12 4:34 AM

“Faith is taking the first step even when you can’t see the whole staircase.”

Growing up, I remember a lot of emphasis being put on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in school. They never taught us what Memorial Day or Veterans Day were about; I had to learn that at home. By the 80′s, after the passage of the Vietnam era, public schools had already turned very liberal and didn’t teach respect for our troops nearly as much as they taught worship of activists.

As an adult, though, I do see the importance of remembering Dr. King. I see it in a different light now because I know more about what he believed and taught. It wasn’t just about “I Have a Dream” or even about “How Long? Not Long.” It was about reaching equal status as human beings regardless of color or creed – and reaching it in a spirit of respect. That was the underlying message in every speech he delivered, every march he led, every sermon he preached and every soul he touched. It is overwhelmingly sad that so many have since twisted his teachings into something unrecognizable.

“Forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a constant attitude.”

Early in his days as an activist, Dr. King’s home was bombed over the Montgomery Bus Boycott. I never learned that in school – I had to learn it on my own. His response wasn’t anger. It wasn’t a demand for fellow black people to target white people with similar attacks. He hardly reacted at all. His greatest response – it was far classier than mine would have been – was to simply keep the movement going. That was just the beginning.

He insisted that they march and protest, but that every movement be nonviolent. He encouraged black people to refuse to move to the back of the bus or take their restaurant order outside, yet he taught those who refused to obey Jim Crow laws not to fight back when kicked off of their lunch stool or arrested for refusing to give up their seat to a white man on a bus. Even when police responded to their peaceful protests with water cannons, rubber bullets and dogs, Dr. King still refused to fight in the traditional sense. He went to jail. And when divisions arose over his strict policy of nonviolence, he requested that movements stop until everyone had cooled down.

“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”

Dr. King’s message spoke volumes. His theme of earning respect by first showing it even to those who hated them advanced the rights of black Americans in ways that nobody up to that point had dreamed was possible. His strategy worked: when the first attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery ended in extensive police brutality against the protesters, news footage drew outrage across the country. Dr. King, however, called the very white men who threatened him (and, on occasion, did harm him) his brothers.

That was the remarkable thing about him: he was so hopeful for equality that he didn’t even entertain the notion of black America getting even or taking the upper hand. All he wanted, all he was willing to accept, was equality. He was not willing to be so much as rude or condescending, much less deliberately shocking. His ultimate goal was for people to get to a point where we saw right through skin color to the human being that inhabited that skin.

“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”

The night before he was assassinated, Dr. King gave a sermon at the Church of God in Christ in Memphis. During his sermon he said this: “I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man.” I choked up when I read that he had requested that, at his funeral, no mention be made of his awards or accolades.

Here we had a man so dedicated to peace and equality that he wasn’t even willing to defend himself when he was physically attacked. He wasn’t perfect, but he was dedicated and he set an amazing example – don’t accuse, don’t insult, but instead show love. Even such proteges as Jesse Jackson have lost the lessons that Dr. King left us.

Even worse, the same gay community who believes that Dr. King would have stood up for gay rights in America had he been alive today completely ignores his message.

“Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”

If Dr. King were here today, he would weep for all of the anger there is now in liberal circles. Black, White, Hispanic, GLBT – all of these groups claim King’s legacy as part of their cause yet they either forget or deliberately ignore what he really taught. He taught that sacrifice and dignity in suffering were the moral high ground and would speak louder than anger and hatred, but that very important piece of his message is never observed anymore. Lately there’s been a lot of liberal hatred leveled at myself and other gay conservatives simply because we’re conservatives. We’re trying to have an intelligent conversation, yet we’re being shouted down by the same people who say Dr. King would have marched with them.

I’m not Dr. King. I’m not willing to allow anyone to do me harm simply because they don’t like my politics. In this day and age, I believe it sends the wrong message. I would rather pursue peace, however, and would do what I could to avoid violence. Tolerance is not possible as long as you excuse your own hatred by saying, “well, you’re a bigot, so I don’t have to tolerate you!” You’ll never be tolerated, much less accepted, as long as that is your game. I promise that Dr. King never would have approved.

Dr. King would have wept as well at the pervading attitude among many black Americans today that mere disagreement equals racism, not to mention the fact that freedom coupled with welfare has resulted in multiple generations of entire families doing nothing to build their communities up.

“Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.”

Comments (2)

MORE Gay Liberal Lies

Jan 16, 12 5:19 AM

When Advocate.com linked Ethan Sabo’s video, gay liberals assailed not only him but all who supported him. One commenter apparently felt that calling me a “quisling” made him sound sophisticated, because he kept saying it over and over again (it’s British slang that was used during the two world wars to describe those who collaborated with the enemy). None of them said anything new. I started off trying to have an intelligent debate and was immediately called names – hatemonger, collaborator, anti-gay (that was a hoot), neocon, traitor, angry…several accused me of wanting to pick a fight.

The legend in his own mind who kept calling me a quisling hysterically posted on his Tumblr page that his night had essentially been ruined because “I’ve spent the entire night slapping around a Log Cabin lesbian.” That was hilarious. Let’s talk about some of the idiotic things that were said, shall we? First of all, I’m not Log Cabin. I’m not a Republican. I don’t know how many times I said it – they never got it. I am conservative, and I don’t see the Republican party as conservative anymore, not after Bush’s miserable fiscal policies. Either they didn’t speak proper English or they weren’t even reading my comments.

First came the following comment: “If Republicans would live and let live instead of writing rants about how gay people bring on and DESERVE anti-gay bigotry, if Republicans weren’t passing laws restricting gay rights (like DOMA)…” Okay, kids. History lesson. DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act, was introduced by Robert L. Barr, Jr. (R-GA) on May 7, 1996 – impressively one year after he took office. It passed the House of Representatives on July 21, 1996 with an astounding vote of 342-67 with 22 not voting (it’s noteworthy that Democrats Sheila Jackson-Lee and Major Owens simply voted “present”, and the yea votes included Dick Gephardt, whose own daughter is a lesbian). It passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 with an equally crushing vote of 85-14 with 1 not voting (yays included notable Democrats Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, and Joe “FDR Went On TV” Biden). Then-president Bill Clinton wasted absolutely no time in signing it into law – he did so on September 21, 1996. For the third time in two years, I will remind us all of what Democrat Robert Byrd said in his impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate:

“Many legal scholars believe that only after a majority of society comes to a consensus on the legality or illegality of one issue or another should that issue be written down in our legal institutions. The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal—a proposition which is far in the distance, if ever to be realized. Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible.”

Today, Bill Clinton staunchly defends his continuing support for DOMA. However, the Republican who introduced the bill in the first place – Rep. Robert L. Barr, Jr. – today supports the repeal of DOMA. Funny how some people change and others don’t.

At one point, I pointed out the simplified difference between socialism and communism. I said that socialism is an economic system, while communism is a form of government. Well, the same twit tried to tell me I was wrong – in the form of a “Yahoo! Answers” type of site where someone asks a question and the best answer from other users is chosen by the person who asked the question. The thing that’s really funny about the link is that it basically made MY point, not his. Here’s the truth: Marx himself called socialism just one stage on the road to outright communism. Both are considered systems of production, however, socialism will claim free enterprise while still enforcing severe regulations and making sure business owners weren’t ever wealthy (because, you know, that’s just unfair). Communism allows for no free enterprise whatsoever – nobody owns their own business because the state owns everything.

If I thought he couldn’t get any worse, he (yes, the same guy) tried to tell me that Nazis weren’t socialists. Oh, that was priceless. Let’s have another history lesson, shall we? The term “Nazi” is a name for Hitler’s political party that came from the first syllable of the party name as it is pronounced in German. In German, it was the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Translated to English, that says NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY. Yes, the Nazis were socialists. Believe it or not, socialism and fascism can exist on quite friendly terms in the same government. Fascism is extremist nationalism, socialism is – as I explained above – an economic system. Click here and here for full-color scans of Nazi propaganda posters that pushed socialism and worker’s rights, among other things. If anyone is in doubt of whether Hitler was a genuine socialist, here are his own words, from chapter 1 of Mein Kampf:

“I do not know which is more terrible: inattention to social misery such as we see every day among the majority of those who have been favored by fortune or who have risen by their own efforts, or else the snobbish, or at times tactless and obtrusive, condescension of certain women of fashion in skirts or in trousers, who ‘feel for the people.’ In any event, these gentry sin far more than their minds, devoid of all instinct, are capable of realizing. Consequently, and much to their own amazement, the result of their social ‘efforts’ is always nil, frequently, in fact, an indignant rebuff, though this, of course, is passed off as a proof of the people’s ingratitude. Such minds are most reluctant to realize that social endeavor has nothing in common with this sort of thing; that above all it can raise no claim to gratitude, since its function is not to distribute favors but to restore rights.”

And this, from chapter 12:

“As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation’s economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence”.

Then…there was this guy. Bill Armstrong. After he made a crass remark about gay conservatives being collaborators on the same level as a VERY small number of Jews were with Nazis during WWII, I pointed out what Hitler really believed. Here was Bill’s response to me: “…I do know, historically, what was done to collaborators at the end of WWII. They had their heads shaved, their throat slit and their bodies hung upside down on the lamp posts of Rome and Paris.”

As soon as that not-so-veiled threat was dropped, I ceased any and all attempts to reason with any of them. I will respond to that remark in person just as soon as I get my voice back.

Leave a Comment

Self-Loathing Closet Case!

Jan 14, 12 7:12 PM

Ethan Sabo, a gay conservative who hails from my home state, posted a video after being blasted yet again by gay liberals. He let ‘em have it. Click here and watch.

Once you’ve watched what he had to say, here’s my response – standing in solidarity.

Comments (6)

More Leftist Hate Speech

Jan 14, 12 2:43 AM

“For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know.” -Theodore Roosevelt

Dana Loesch, editor for bigjournalism.com and host of The Dana Show, took to her show to give her two cents about the story about US Marines caught on camera urinating on dead Taliban fighters. Basically what she said was what I did when I first heard about it: yes, it was wrong, but it’s absolutely silly to turn it into a travesty when we’re dealing with an enemy that outlawed music, enforced severe penalties under extreme religious law, and after also outlawing competitive sports converted a soccer field into an execution stage where women and children were routinely lashed or executed for crimes as outrageous as being caught out in public without a male relative to escort them – or not wearing a burqa that completely concealed every inch of skin.

The vitriol that poured out of the left at Dana was incredible. We’ve all seen some serious hate speech from liberals, but this was pretty bad. Here are some of the messages sent to her on Twitter (LANGUAGE WARNING):

@anti_feminist: Ok,no more mainstream conservative pro war loving media for me tonight.fuck #cnn and piss on @DLoesch with acid. #fuckthecowardlytroops also

@anti_feminist: “@DLoesch: Email: “You … will be raped and mutilated repeatedly, and you will be skinned alive.” #newtone” |IF ONLY! That id pay to see!

@anti_feminist: “@RT_America: CNN contributor @DLoesch wants to pee on dead Afghans too [VIDEO] http://on.rt.com/c749mr” |ONE NASTY STINKIN CUNT! DIE BITCH!

(there were so many similar Tweets from the same guy – his name is supposedly Joseph Hunter – that I can’t list them all here.)

@Sorrowmachine: @DLoesch … How did your soul become so rotten? No one could ever love you… evil makes you ugly.

@MrMeano: @DLoesch I want to take a shit on you, since you’re obviously into it.

@SavageDem: I’d happily drop trou and urinate on @DLoesch.

@cassie_51: @DLoesch Fu*cking Pig!!!!How dare you traitor!!! (This was the only one I could see who apologized, BTW.)

Then came Keith Olbermann. Oh, Keith…we all know how he is.

@KeithOlbermann: In short, we have to be better than Taliban. If not, we become…well, @DLoesch

Dana replied:

@DLoesch: So @KeithOlbermann thinks I’m the Taliban? http://bit.ly/zEhJob So ridiculous.

Keith retorted:

@KeithOlbermann: Actually, no. They are unthinking religious fanatics. You’re worse.

THEN, some other guy interjected:

@HateRickScott: @DLoesch Perhaps you need to be throat fucked into submission by the Taliban and then have them piss all over you? I’m not sure, you cunt.

Another user suggested that the FCC fine her for her comments (not within the FCC’s purview, not by a longshot). Then, there was this gem, which ran a close second to the one I just gave you:

@StealthJihad: @DLoesch You better not ever let me see you out. I’ll rub cat sh*t in your face.

My, my…all this tolerance is so heartwarming.

Comments (1)

Oh, Those Rascally Tea Partiers!

Jan 12, 12 7:47 PM

Here in Arizona, we just marked the one-year anniversary of the Tucson shootings. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head and barely survived; six were killed, thirteen were wounded. I will never forget where I was when I heard about it – in the grocery store after getting off duty later than normal. I’ll also never forget what ran through my mind when I saw Pinal County sheriff Clarence Dupnik make his anti-right-wing remarks: fear. Particularly for my friends down in Tucson and Fort Huachuca, I felt fear. In the following days the Tucson tea party members received multiple death threats, but nobody in the media mentioned it (except on Fox News). Dupnik’s office actually told them to stay out of the public. At least two that I know of braved it to appear at the townhall held by ABC immediately following the shooting. They have both since said that they were deathly afraid to walk inside alone.

For months there was a constant stream of anti-right, hate-the-tea-party vitriol spewing forth from the left. Even after it had been proven that Jared Lee Loughner – the shooter – was off his rocker and subscribed to no single political belief, much less the right wing, Democrats kept up their story that we were to blame. We conservatives, we who believe in the Second Amendment and supposedly live on hatred (what, with our using silly-looking versions of crosshairs on a political map, it was no wonder people didn’t get killed sooner, right?). Democratic candidates such as Harry Mitchell got a free pass for using real crosshairs superimposed on a photograph of JD Hayworth (crosshairs that bounced around, much the way they do when I’m looking through a real-life scope at a target). Republicans or independent conservatives, though? We didn’t get one inch of wiggle room. We were immediately cast as the villains and are the villains in this episode to this day.

Today, in fact, DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz once again politicized the shooting with the following quote:

“We need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way. But the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular…has really changed, and I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement. I’ve never seen a time that was more divisive or where discourse was less civil,” she said. “What the Tea Party has done is they have taken it to a different level, and so when they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you’re the enemy.”

In the wake of those remarks, RNC chairman Reince Preibus called her out for blaming us for the shooting yet again. She fired back with a denial that she had done so (I’m sorry, honey, but you need to listen to your own words again). DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse promptly remarked, “Would it kill you folks in the Republican Party to stop making crap up?” THEN Woodhouse re-tweeted a Twitter follower who said this: “Priebus needs jaws tightened 4 his bs.”

So much for civility.

Let’s see about that hate-fueled rhetoric, shall we? I wonder if they were talking about a radio broadcast in which Rush Limbaugh said, “A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: (audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.) Just try it, you little b*stard. (audio of gun being cocked).”

No, wait…that wasn’t Rush. That was Air America hostess Randi Rhodes, back in 2005, talking about Bush.

Maybe they were upset about Mark Levin’s broadcast, where he said, “I have zero doubt that if Barack Obama was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

Damn! Foiled again…that was actually Bill Maher, talking about Dick Cheney on his show several years ago.

I know! They were referring to Laura Ingraham, who said, “If I got her a— on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them.”

No, no. That was actually Spike Lee talking about Condoleeza Rice.

Perhaps they were unsettled by Sean Hannity, who said, “Matthews? Aw, Matthews, somebody ought to wrap a strong Democrat entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce.”

Silly me. That was Mike Malloy, also from Air America, talking about Matt Drudge – and he used the words “strong Republican entrail”.

I’ve got it. They were talking about Ann Coulter when she said, “…And then there’s Obama who said of Iraq ‘We have our good days and our bad days.’ We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say ‘This is one of our bad days’ and pull the trigger.”

*SNAP* Wrong again, folks. That was a quote pulled from a Democratic Party fundraising ad seen in St. Petersburg, FL.

I’d like to know what these civil leftists would say to KGO host Charles Karel Bouley, who said, “F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead.” He’s a gay man who was once fired by ABC for using a string of profanities on the air. Maybe they have a response to Chris Matthews, who said, “You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?”

I’d really like to know what they have to say to Michael Feingold, who uttered this in a theatre review: “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”

Yeah, those Tea Partiers are awfully dangerous. I can’t recall a single member of the Tea Party going on a radio program or writing in a stage review about how leftists should be exterminated. I do, however, balk at the incredible hypocrisy of Courtland Milloy, who wrote the following in the Washington Post: “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”

The Goebbels school of PR is in full swing.

CORRECTION: Clarence Dupnik is the Sheriff of PIMA County, not Pinal. I get those two mixed up all the time.

Comments (7)

The Children of Hamas

Jan 10, 12 6:09 PM

I just got into it with the most absolutely hypocritical Ron Paul supporter ever (and that’s saying something). Myself and a fellow conservative found ourselves set upon by a guy who told us that we weren’t true Christians or conservatives because we supposedly deliberately murdered innocent women and children. Where did he get this?

Well, he might as well be a code pinko, for starters – he likes to quote Ann Wright, a former US Army colonel who resigned in protest of the start of the Iraq war in 2003. Wright is also famous for claiming that Israelis murder women and children every time they go to war in Gaza or Lebanon with Hamas and Hezbollah. Our good little member of the Ron Paul ranks kept telling me that I was swallowing MSM propaganda (no matter how many times I told him that I don’t even have cable TV and don’t watch the MSM all that much) and gave me “facts” in the form of propagandist rants from Ann Wright and like-minded anti-Israeli propagandists who invent stories of so-called atrocities that nobody bothers to question – even with the lies staring them right in the face (anyone remember the pictures of Hamas gunmen staging a milk run through their gun-running tunnels under the Israeli border?).

Well, here’s a little bit of sobering reality – actual facts, none of this is contrived – of those “innocent” children that Israelis are supposedly mowing down in cold blood. I will warn you: these are not safe for work or kids. Some of the footage is disturbing.

With this kind of indoctrination going on, it astonishes me that there are still so many in the world who place the blame on Israel.

Palestinian terrorists not only indoctrinate children to hate infidels – especially Jews – they use them deliberately as human shields. If you watch the first video, you see multiple shots of terrorists dragging kids to stand in front of them. They keep kids around while they wire damaged buildings with explosives that they intend to set off as Israeli forces move through the area. They were knowingly putting these children in harm’s way for a purpose: propaganda.

Thousands have bought the lie that this is all Israel’s fault. This isn’t merely disheartening – it is infuriating. It is an injustice on a massive scale, and I have no tolerance whatsoever for those who spout this crap.

Comments (1)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers