Since the late 90′s when so-called minorities started to “come out of the closet”, liberals have always had a fascinating way of dealing with them. Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure it had something to do with the Clinton administration’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy along with the fact that unlike either Bushes, Bill Clinton failed to appoint an African-American to a position of high power.
As has been well documented by anyone with one eye and half of a brain, the closest African-American to President Clinton was his personal secretary — Betty Curry. Remember the praise Clinton received for appointing the first female Secretary of State?
How about the praise Johnson got for appointing Justice Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court fresh out of the Civil Rights movement? Back when white-Democrats didn’t mind avoiding “alleged” litmus tests for justices, Johnson was sure to be the first politically correct Democrat by making sure a judge would sit on the Supreme Court that did his best to defend hardened criminals who raped and murdered, worked feverishly with William Brennan to whole-heartedly support abortion rights and oppose the death penalty which led to dire consequences (oh yeah, he was black, too). Convicted felons were leashed onto America by the thousands because of previously issued opinions of the Warren Court, where just one year earlier before Marshall came on, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) basically stripped the police of the ability to gain confessions. At this point, the “avoided” litmus test for judicial insanity was running strong among the most liberal court in the history of this country — thus, Thurgood Marshall was appointed because he passed the “insanity test” even though the majority of the country (aside from the Lennon-lovers and Vietnam draft-dodgers) lived in fear of the kinds of opinions he was issuing. Johnson boasted of his “historic” decision to appoint an African American by proclaiming that the majority of black-baby-boys would be named “Thurgood” in honor of his choice. Historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin researched medical records in New York and Boston shortly thereafter and sadly, Johnson’s prediction utterly flopped — even the blacks that were just granted Civil Rights a few years earlier didn’t like this new justice! Nonetheless, this was celebrated and like the case of Bill Clinton with Madeline Albright, Johnson was slurped up one side and down the next by white liberals who love crime and the baby-killing procedure known as abortion.
Upon announcement of Thurgood Marshall’s retirement, you would have thought that President George H.W. Bush would have received rave reviews for replacing him with another African-American — a true Justice — Clarence Thomas. But unfortunately it took white-liberals all over the country all of five minutes to begin labeling Thomas as “Uncle Tom” or “Uncle Clarence.” Somehow the love of promoting African-Americans to positions of higher power had managed to fizzle amongst the “Ebony and Ivory” crowd.
Since Clinton was elected in 1992, I have no choice but to flash forward eight entire years to highlight the next set of African American Promotees –
Under President George W. Bush, we had the first black Secretary of State, Colin Powell. By the time this announcement was made, liberals had already decided that Bush was a war-mongering hater of anyone that was not white, straight, or rich. Unfortunately, pausing for a moment to document this massive history-making promotion would have directly contradicted their position. After all, coming up with a new lie would have required energy.
Soon thereafter, Bush also appointed women to the Federal Appeals Court. One in particular was African-American, the brilliant Janice Rogers-Brown. This black woman was loved so much by white liberals in Congress that they filibustered her nomination for two years before she finally got to go to work.
Finally, let’s not forget Condoleezza Rice. The first-ever black-female Secretary of State. The woman who learned Beethoven by the age of five, the woman who graduated college at the age of 19 and was already teaching at Stanford by the age of 26. When liberal cartoonist Jeff Danziger got news of the nomination, he celebrated this moment of equal rights by publishing racist cartoons of Condi:
Bless the hearts of all those elitist and equality-loving liberals!!
When taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence of liberals’ blatant racism, I think it is safe to say that in any sane world outside of San Francisco, most Americans now know which party truly cares about equality for blacks.
Given the fact that this liberal-trick isn’t working anymore, straight liberals have moved on to claim possession of the gays. White liberals like Bill Richardson, Howard Dean, and most recently, Elizabeth Edwards run around talking big-talk when it’s time to rally votes. Considering the latest development that gays also have an incredible sense of style, Elizabeth has even managed to steal-away a fabulous hairdresser for John.
I have to say that these various articles written about me (and other gay conservatives like Kevin-QueerConservative) are beginning to remind me of what white-liberals are saying about the blacks. The only difference is, these things are being said by members of my own community.
Before I move forward, I would like to point out a few Republican v. Democrats issues regarding the gay community:
- In 2000, after the Vermont ruling, gay activists got cocky and were ready to start putting the test of gay-marriage to acts of Democracy. What better place to start than California, right? After Proposition 22 (to keep marriage between man and woman) passed overwhelmingly in the most liberal state in the land, activists did what they have always done best: silence their opposition and return to the courts for their victories. Thus, explaining their mad campaign in May of 2000 against Dr. Laura Schlessinger for something she said on December 8, 1998. (message for the future Matthew Shepards of the world: if you want true justice for crimes committed against you, it’s not a good idea to wait for GLAAD to respond.) After the passing of Proposition 22, it became apparent that whomever was going to be in the White House shortly thereafter was going to have to respond to the voice of the people on this issue since GLAAD had returned full-force to their old trick of pressuring liberal-judges to handing them their victories on silver platters. Listen up fellow gays — it did not matter if it was George Bush, it did not matter if it was Al Gore, somehow and someway the President of the United States was asked by the people to respond to this on a national level. This of course led to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Boy did Clinton get out just in the knick of time!
- After the Federal Marriage Amendment was introduced to the country, Americans voted and voted overwhelmingly on mandates against gay marriage. In California, gays were sold out by the straight liberals in 2000 with Proposition 22. In Oregon, straight liberals voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage by 73%. (Bush got 37% of the vote in the general election for Oregon that same year.)
- Arizona rejected the ban on gay marriage. (A red state where Bush won 55% of the vote and a state that overwhelmingly rejects abortion.)
- In the 2004 debates, John Kerry vocally admitted opposition to gay marriage.
- By in large, most of the gays I know make nice-sized incomes and are certainly enjoying the Bush tax-cuts (even if they don’t admit it.)
- Currently in 2007, Democrats like Sheila Jackson-Lee are trying to convince us that they want irrationally detailed “hate-crimes” bills passed (because they really, really like us) while they simutaneously want criminals pardoned like Tookie Williams by the types of judges described above. If you were the victim of a beating, would you want your attacker going before that crowd when it was time for justice to be served?
After I posted a brief and somewhat light reply to a liberal-gay man who decided to vocally express his concerns toward myself and other members of the gay-conservative community like Kevin, I did receive e-mails and I did get some comments from one of his readers. (Frankly I’ve been too busy having fun and irritating the atheists lately.) In addition to this, other posts have followed on the same websites along with discussion that basically boils down to one age-old question: “how can someone be gay and conservative?”
Let me be clear by pointing out the fact that I was not “ripping” a new one to anybody. I have been a Republican since 2000 and have faced far worse adversity within my own community than anything the original article said about me.
The only thing that saddens me is how members of the gay community within this country have allowed themselves to become sheep for the Clintons, for Howard Dean, for John Kerry, and Bill Richardson when these politicians have all factually declared that they have no interest whatsoever in advancing the rights for gays to marry. This point will be especially re-confirmed all through 2008 as Hillary will be doing her damndest to prove that she does; in fact, believe in God and really does have “religious values.”
So in conclusion, while some other members of our community are out celebrating abortions, hugging trees, and sweating over global-cooling (ooops I forgot, this isn’t the 70′s!) and allow themselves to continue to be snowed by straight liberals, there are a few of us like myself, Steve Yuhas, Jeff Gannon, Kevin, Patrick, and Philip who tend to think outside the realms of Gayville. All evidence proves that the goal of the Democratic party remains to keep blacks and gays in a sick-victim state to serve at their electoral pleasure.
Noticing this requires objectivity, something that is crucially missing from our community. Until gays wise up, I’m happy to be the “self-loather” and the “Uncle Tom” of the gay community. Anyone else care to join me?
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
What a roll!
Nicely put, Steve. I’m glad you had the patience to write that post, because quite frankly I’m so far beyond caring what the gayborg think of me that I don’t have the energy to respond to every conniption fit they have
They’re in lock stop with the DNC and have the nerve to call us assimilationist.
“Since Clinton was elected in 1992, I have no choice but to flash forward eight entire years to highlight the next set of African American Promotees –”
lol, brilliant line. There is something very Coulter about it.
I read everything you had to say here. Do you actually support gay marriage? You sure sound like u do at least.
Well put, Steve. The dhimmi-gays have so isolated themselves in the liberal themes that their ability to think has been frozen. We can’t let them disguise their defensiveness as advocacy.
why are you a homosexual…
why do anonymous people post anonymous thoughts that have no point?
Wow, another link to my little site.
I have a lot to say in response to your post, but the most important is a crucial clarifier: For the record, I (a self-described gay tree-hugging peacenik pro-choice liberal) think that cartoon is awful. If I saw that in my local paper, an angry letter from me would follow. I actually have a lot of respect for Condoleezza Rice, even if I don’t always agree with her. Please don’t believe that liberals everywhere would snicker at the sight of such obvious and profound racism.
I linked so that readers can see for themselves what I responded to and to alert them of the fact that your original article was not bad as my original response was labeled as my ripping you a new one.
Also the point is that it’s a shame that most of our community is that snowed and fooled by liberals.
Finally, I am glad you feel that way about the Condi-cartoon. Now be objective for a moment to think how you would feel if Bush nominated a gay person and a cartoon was made of them doing their job in drag or in chaps.
You think that wouldn’t happen? Remember it serves the Democrats more purpose to keep alleged minorites believing that Republicans hate them.
Hi Steve,
I should clarify that it was me that described your article as “ripping him a new one” in the comments section of his original post. More to convey what I felt was a general feeling, as opposed to be an intentional and accurate description of your article. I apologize if it was taken any other way.
I also just want to state that in this article you seem to imply that you were spoken of negatively in both my original and follow up article you link to. While both were not in agreement with your points, I felt the first didn’t personally attack you, nor criticize your points unfairly. The second was an article that I wrote over two years ago in response to a separate discussion entirely. I indicate that in the article.
Your point that the overwhelming thing about all of these responses being a lack of understanding how you could be Republican and gay, is I think, unwarranted
I state, “The idea that we hold as a value, an unfettered right to love whom and how we choose, without a dictating, controlling, or limiting hand. I imagine that is a goal most would support. So it is with that in mind, identification as a gay Republican for example, confuses me, as I see it as pandering, selling out”. You might think from that statement I view it a bad decision period. Byt I go on to state:
“However those are my own political beliefs, and should not automatically be the mantra of a collective gay community on the basis of its “progressive” attributes. The rights of gay republicans, gay hairdressers, sports players, and every other variety of gay person are equal under the constitution. It is our own community where the equality line begins to blur in acceptance”.
I guess wanted to clarify my opinion in its full context. Anyway, thanks for the discussion Steve, it was both interesting and respectful.
Cheers,
Al,
I was referring to the general tenor of not just the articles but to the commenters as well — I am used to it, so I have all of this information (plus lots more of you have hours to spare) of how liberals have used minorities and their alleged states of victimization to win votes.
It was a nice opportunity to lay out the facts on some of the most bloody obvious things.
Thank you as well….:-)
“I was referring to the general tenor of not just the articles but to the commenters as well”.
In that sense, I would agree with your perception that many of the comments could be thought to give that impression.
I know for myself, even though my political perspective is about as far away as you can get, I actively try to remember that identification as a gay Republican is not, in and of itself, evidence of self loathing. Though it may be true for some, like it is true of some liberals, to frame it as an essential trait, is unfair assignment that hasn’t demonstrated would it claims to demonstrate.
I am glad you feel that way about the Condi-cartoon. Now be objective for a moment to think how you would feel if Bush nominated a gay person and a cartoon was made of them doing their job in drag or in chaps.
I think I’d feel the same way that I believe you would feel about that, and it wouldn’t matter if the person had been nominated by a Republican or a Democrat; a cartoon like that would lower the level of discourse. I’d be angry, and soon after that, I’d be vocal. However, if that gay nominee were in a position to influence Bush’s proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or his continued support of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy (“I do believe the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is good policy.”), then I’d follow my angry letter to the editor with a less angry letter to the nominee him/herself, asking him/her to use that influence for the betterment of all LGBT Americans, and not be silent on issues that affect them.
You note that Bush has done a better job of nominating African Americans to senior level jobs than Bill Clinton did. You’re absolutely right, and yet … black voters, by and large, love Bill Clinton. From my unscientific observations, the only times I’ve ever seen Bush garner significant support in the black community is when he is trying to legislate limits on civil rights for gay people, and for years he refused to address the NAACP, as a “for instance.” It will take more for Bush, or any politician, than nominating an individual here or there from a minority group to gain wide support among that constituent base. Going back to your example, if Bush did nominate a gay person for a high level post (which I can’t imagine him doing), I wouldn’t immediately begin supporting him or the rest of his administration.
I don’t know if you watched the CNN/YouTube debate last night — for the record, I was disappointed in John Edwards’ response to the gay marriage question. I liked Kucinich’s response to that particular question more — but if given the choice between the two men, I would choose Edwards, who is — in my opinion — more of a realist. Then, after Edwards took office, I’d write lots of letters to Elizabeth, urging her to keep talking to her husband about the issue (!!). I bring this up to say that all of my political decisions are not based solely on the fact that I am gay. As a gay man, I’d like my elected officials to support full civil rights for LGBT people, but there are other issues I care about, including foreign policy, health care, climate control, and the separation of church and state. I happen to fall on the liberal side of most of these issues, not because I’ve been brainwashed by some gay liberal mafia — one could just as easily assume that you’ve been brainwashed by the post-9/11 fearmongering, xenophobia and jingoism of the right … and for the record, I’ve never suggested that.