Apparently Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, has some good media and image consultants. He’s come so far that he is finally back in the good graces of the New York Times. That’s sweet.
There is good news inside Venezuela too. On the same weekend that Mr. Chávez turned on the FARC, he suspended a chilling new law he had enacted by decree that would have forced Venezuelans to cooperate with the intelligence services or go to jail. He has also withdrawn a school curriculum that blasted capitalism as a force to subjugate the people.
That must be a relief for the NYT editorial board. After all, Chavez toes their ideological line. He’s just making it easier now for the liberal press (what an oxymoron) to justify another despot. Maybe Reid and Pelosi should call up Hugo and get the number of his consultant.
While we’re dealing with race and hypocrites, let’s turn to one of my favorite subjects and one of my favorite writers. Jeff Jacoby, of the Boston Globe, broaches the hypocrisyrampant in the West’s response to the events in Zimbabwe.
In less than two weeks, the people of Zimbabwe will vote in the farcical presidential runoff election. As I’ve stated before, the runoff is unnecessary as MDC candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Zimbabwe’s dictator with at least 60% of the vote – that is before Mugabe and his minions changed the results to force the follow-up election.
There’s probably no need to recount the reasons that Mugabe needs to go. But in case you were comatose or just sleeping, Jacoby sums it up rather nicely when pointing to Mugabe’s paranoia about humanitarian aid agencies -
Mugabe claimed, preposterously, that the humanitarian agencies were trying “to cripple Zimbabwe’s economy” and bring about “illegal regime change.”
Actually, it his own demented and dictatorial misrule that has destroyed the country, turning what was once a prosperous land into the world’s most rapidly collapsing economy. And it is his determination to cling to power by any means – including starving and terrorizing voters who support a change in government – that has filled Zimbabwe not just with hunger and sickness but with savagery and bloodshed as well.
The runoff now seems to be hopeless for the MDC as Mugabe and his ZANU-PF loyalists have terrorized the voters and stifled (or tortured and killed) the opposition.
“ZANU-PF and its allies have . . . established torture camps and organized abusive ‘re-education’ meetings around the country to compel MDC supporters into voting for Mugabe,” the report says. Hundreds of voters have been flogged with sticks, whips, bicycle chains, and metal bars. In one “re-education” meeting May 5, “ZANU-PF officials and ‘war veterans’ beat six men to death and tortured another 70 men and women, including a 76-year-old woman publicly thrashed in front of assembled villagers.”
In other meetings, military officers have threatened to kill anyone who votes for the opposition. “Each villager would be given a bullet to hold in their hands. Then a soldier would say, ‘If you vote for MDC in the presidential runoff election, you have seen the bullets, we have enough for each one of you, so beware.’ “
So, what is the international community (specifically the West) doing about all this? Precisely the same thing they did about Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime for decades – nothing. Oh sure – there have been the obligatory condemnations and petty sanctions. But, just as they were willing to turn a blind eye to Saddam’s rape rooms and the millions killed in the Rwandan and Darfur genocides, the world has refused to do anything substantial about the tragedy in Zimbabwe.
Why not? Well, Jacoby says it best -
But why do the rest of us do nothing? Why is the free world so indifferent to the enormities committed by Mugabe and his bullies? Where are the demonstrations outside Zimbabwe’s embassies? Where are the international boycotts, the UN resolutions, the presidential and papal condemnations? Where is the International Criminal Court indictment of Mugabe for his long career of murder, torture, and other crimes against humanity?
Let us be honest: If the people of Zimbabwe were being terrorized by a white despot – if it were a white ruling party whose goons were beating them and burning their homes – the whole world would be aroused on their behalf. Surely they deserve no less just because their oppressor is black.
Touche, Mr. Jacoby. The prosecution rests its case. How sad and vile.
I try not to make it a point to discuss things that seem silly. I did comment on this horrid crowd of people at one time, but I always make it a point to thoroughly investigate and read up on people that make me very sick – which explains my dislike of Obama incidentally. So, I read some articles, watched an entire documentary on the Westboro Baptist Church where they allowed a man to come in and spend a few days with them. He got to know the entire family and other than the picket scenes where they go, they turned out to be a normal interacting family that were courteous to him.
They lost my interest though after a few things: 1.) When asked a series of questions, Fred Phelps (the originator) was condescending and rude, avoided answering questions, and basically told the fella he was doomed for hell. 2.) The fact he was so unlike them, yet, it was okay to bring him in sort of proved to me that this was a crusade of folks looking for media attention – and searching it out every chance they get.
Finally, tonight I stumbled upon three videos. The first was a parody of “We Are the World” where the Phelps re-wrote the words to the same melody and re-titled it “God Hates the World.”
In the video – they depict everyone from Jerry Falwell, to the US Military, to President Bush as people doomed for hell. What I found interesting was the comment sections where extremist atheist types commented on why Christianity is bad and why God is a crock.
It all began to make sense of why the popularity of these lunatics has increased so much. Two things are served. First, the apparent starving media whores they are – in search of their own riches – will do ANYTHING for attention. Second, it gives the irreligious basis for denouncing religion and Christianity as a whole. While Shirley Phelps-Roper remarks about “fags eating feces” it seems they are licking the behinds of the atheists and vice-versa. (Sort of like Democrats in Congress that love for blacks and gays to continue feeling like victims to prey on both communities for votes.)
That, plus the fact that Christ died for all sins. Can you imagine the poor Lord (according to the gospel of the Westboro Baptist Church) having these folks as His eternal company? Talk about wrath!
Moving ahead, there was one final 2-part video that caught my attention of a street evangelist who called the Westboro Baptist Church over one of their latest websites entitled “God Hates Ireland!” The fella was Irish and apparently had a bone to pick with Fred Phelps’ granddaughter, Sarah. You can tell by her jumpiness that he gave her a biblical run for her money.
In ending, he makes an excellent point. If God had this “wrath” as they proclaim, why would He selectively destroy one person, slowly, at a time? Could he just wipe all the “bad people” out at once?
Part of their rationale explains that soldiers in Iraq are dying solely because of God’s wrath on America particularly for accepting homosexuality. This doesn’t make sense on the basis that we lost 600,000 in the Civil War, 300,000 in WW2, and 60,000 in Vietnam. We now know the war in Iraq is being won, the terrorists are running for cover, Iraq’s army is stronger than ever, violence has dropped massively to the point where even the media has stopped writing about the war since there is barely anything negative to report.
Everything accomplished by our great military, at the cost of 3,000 greatest Americans, and comparing this to the numbers of Americans lost in previous wars, wouldn’t this mean that God must be in a pretty good mood now?
They’re attention whores and liberals love them because it allows them to denounce Christianity. Beware of future conversations with liberals as they use this in their arsenal of irreligious arguments.
Welcome to our blog. We won't agree on everything, but that is part of the human experience and we welcome the civil debate.
It is believed that around 75% of conservatives in America are supportive of the gay conservative movement. Even among that number, there are many who ask, "why do you need to flaunt your sexual orientation? Why do you rub our faces in it?" The answer is that we're actually not flaunting anything.
It is important to us that conservatives understand that not all gay people are in lock-step with the liberal movement. We do think for ourselves. It is also important to us that other gay people who feel ostracized for their conservative politics have a safe place to discuss their views and get support from others who understand how difficult it is to be conservative in our community. We don't wish to rub in anyone else's faces anything that isn't shown to us by straight people, either. We live, we love, and we want to share our happiness with the world the same way you do. That's all.
Whether you are among the 75% who support us or among the 25% who are trying to run us out of the movement, we all believe in a number of similar values and we ask that you join us in stabilizing America for future generations. The rest is in the details, and that can be dealt with (in a civil manner) later.
Our Message to Liberals
Welcome to our site. You likely won't agree with us, but you are welcome nonetheless.
The most frequent comment we hear is, "how can you be gay and be politically conservative?!?" That is generally followed by every political slur in the liberal vernacular - idiot, moron, brainwashed, traitor, deviant, and the ever-popular "self-loathing closet case." If you have a comment along those lines, then with all the respect we can offer, please stow it. We've heard it quite enough. If you wish to comment, you are welcome to; it is our policy not to delete comments regardless of whether they agree or disagree with our beliefs. Threats and abuse, however, will not be tolerated. Those type of comments WILL be deleted.
As for the questions about how we can be gay and politically conservative, the answer is simple...such ideas make sense to us. Limited government, individual liberty and patriotism are all a part of our beliefs. Not all of the five contributors agree on every single issue, but for the most part we do agree and none of us is willing to come to a conclusion about any issue lightly. We do not allow our emotions to drive our beliefs; rather, we prefer to see all sides of an issue and think about it rationally before deciding where we stand.
If you are a fellow homosexual, please treat us the way you would wish to be treated. Do not speak to us in condescension or make claims that you refuse to provide solid links for (by solid, we mean non-op-ed news from a valid source). Be the source of tolerance that you demand from others.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
