Lunacy

There is so much going on in the news right now I don’t know where to begin. From the new statue of Obama as a 10-year-old in Jakarta to Chris Matthews railing about “white tribalism” from a network that’s never met a black anchor it liked, from Democrats crying murder at conservatives against healthcare reform with bogus horror stories to the SEIU-backed immigration bill that Democrats are trying to push despite unemployment levels at an all-time high, I’m not sure where to begin.

Just over a week ago, my uncle Kenny called me from Houston. He was absolutely stunned: it was snowing for the first time in nearly a decade. It wasn’t just snowing, though…it was sticking, and there was enough for my aunt Jennifer and cousin Judy to build a snowman at the family ranch. I watched the news that night to see my hometown transformed into a winter wonderland, a place I couldn’t recognize because I couldn’t see the skyline for all the snow falling.

(It is definitely worth mentioning that Houston voted to elect its first-ever gay mayor, Annise Parker, though I will reserve support for her until I am able to find out more about her positions on key issues that affect my city. She is a Democrat.)

While the biggest snowfall in a decade blanketed Houston, extreme low temperatures were recorded in other parts of the country–and a big pow-wow started in Copenhagen, Denmark. The UN held its first-ever global climate change summit. It’s still going on.

Al Gore made an ass of himself (yes, again). He said this:

“These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

It gets better. The doctor he quoted came back, stunned, to say that there were no actual figures to support this announcement. Dr. Maslowski said that the numbers given by Gore were “ballpark estimates” given in a discussion they’d had several years ago. The good doctor admitted openly that there was no actual data to prove any of this. And doctors from the NOAA soundly rebuked Gore’s nonsense.

While this was going on, the leaders of third-world countries walked out in protest. Why? They were angry over the lack of progress on drafting legally binding emissions targets for rich nations like the US. In other words, they were pitching a fit because all the money they are slated to get if this deal goes through–money to be paid by countries like ours to these poorer countries ostensibly to defray the costs of scaling back carbon emissions, amounts which will end up being enormous–isn’t guaranteed. In short they were angry that payday might not come as some other countries promised. Who wouldn’t walk out?

When my parents were kids, global cooling was all the rage. If we didn’t do something about how were were treating the planet we were going to see the next ice age. Now, a couple of generations later, we’re at the other end of the spectrum. Most scientists say that data points to the idea that the planet goes through these cycles regularly–cooling and warming–to balance itself out. I think our continual obsession with our ability to destroy the planet is little more than narcissism.

Is the World’s “Fever” Really Breaking?

Pre-conference e-mail-attack threatens climate change agenda.

FOX NEWS

But shortly before his announcement, hackers broke into the servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain and posted e-mails in which scientists dismissed climate change skeptics, expressed concern about the lack of evidence to prove the threat of global warming and even made one reference to a plan to “hide the decline” in temperatures. 

Cap and Trade Sham Passes

I was watching CSPAN today and listening to talk radio.  The House passed the massive energy tax this afternoon by a vote of 219-212.  It is euphemistically known as “Cap and Trade.”  CBO estimates show that this legislation will result in 2 million job losses per year [Correction: The CBO failed to analyze the total economic impact of this legislation on the US economy and, in fact, underestimated the impact.  CBO admissions of job losses led to an outlay in the legislation providing billions of dollars for workers who would lose their jobs under this bill. The studies and statistics on job losses were provided by other sources. An upcoming post will present these studies] Additionally, it is expected to drive up energy bills to the residential consumer by 90%.   And it’s all based on alarmism intiated by false science concerning “global warming.” 

I will speak more on this subject in the coming days, but I wanted to focus on the vote.  There were 42 Democrats who sided with the GOP in an attempt to defeat this bill.  Before you get all giddy – realize that a few of those included leftist nuts like Dennis Kucinich who felt that the bill didn’t go far enough.  Mostly, though, the Democrats were conservatives or Dems in unsafe House seats who heard the message from their constituents loud and clear.  Apparently, the House switchboard melted down with people calling in to voice their displeasure over this legislative piece of crap.  The overwhelming number of calls were reported to be in opposition to this irresponsible sham.

On the other side, 8 “Republicans” sided with the Democrats on this legislation – thus providing them with the necessary margin need for victory.  I will list their names and phone numbers below.  I was listening to Mark Levin while the vote was going on.  He had Reps. John Shadegg (AZ), Mike Pence (IN), Eric Cantor (VA) and John Boehner(OH) on the radio during that time.  Cantor (minority whip) and Boehner (minority leader) both came on after the final vote was counted.  Levin pressed them on the 8 GOP traitors.  Cantor was diplomatic but did note that people would respond via the ballot box.  Boehner, surprisingly, was more incredulous and almost promised that those 8 defectors would hear about what they had done.  The minority leader was as pumped and determined as I have ever heard them.  I was really proud of his response.

This measure will go to the Senate now.  Boehner feels that this legislation will not become law.  But we don’t need to rest on his reassurances.  If more celebrities die shortly before the Senate vote, I might buy into some sort of conspiracy theory.  I’m not sure that Americans were focused on the 1200-page monstrocity and its repercussions.  And this 1200 page bill only merited 3 hours of debate in the House.  A 300-page amendment was introduced at 3:09 am this morning.  I can assure you, that the Senate will operate under the full glare of American voters when their time comes to vote on this. At least they will have time to read it before they cast a vote.

In the meantime, here are the names and office numbers of the 8 RINOs who voted for this garbage.  Our campaign against their reelection begins today.  Feel free to call and express your feelings – especially if you are in their district.  In the coming months – as the primaries ramp up – I will be coming back to these people and feature their opponents.  And I can almost guarantee you that each one will face primary opposition. 

Mary Bono Mack (CA – 45th)  202-225-5330

Michael Castle (DE – at large) note:  Castle is thinking about the Senate race.  I’ll be there for him too.  202-225-4165

Mark Kirk (IL – 10th)  202-225-4835

Leonard Lance (NJ – 10th)  202-225-5361

Frank LoBiondo (NJ – 2nd)  202-225-6572

John McHugh (NY – 23rd)  202-225-4611

David Reichert (WA – 8th)  202-225-7761

Chris Smith (NJ – 4th)  This one saddens me.  But he is toast now.  202-225-3765

Anyone see any pattern above?  Same ole, same ole.

 

Madonna, Typical Democrat

I suppose Madonna is part of the majority of Democrats who believe that comparing Republican Senators to Hitler is all it takes to be an effective party-supporter.  But living up to the standards of the party in her private life, never!

This article talks about Madonna’s crew that are accompanying her on her music tour.  The near 250 person crew are complaining and a lot are threatening to walk as they are sick of being hauled from city to city on over-crowded flights and being forced to stay in less-than-acceptable hotels.  Madonna; on the other hand, flies with her husband and children from stop-to-stop on a private jet.

First, doesn’t Madonna know that her wealth should be temporarily re-distributed to offer her crew members the same LUXURIOUS accomdations that she stays in?  Madonna’s behavior really does resemble the myth of Republicans spewed by Democrats on a daily basis.  The rich get richer, while the poor get stepped on!

Second, doesn’t Madonna know what her private jet is doing to our Earth?  For someone who celebrated Al Gore winning the Oscar, she seems to continue the celebration by flying around in as many private planes and sucking up just as much energy as Gore does.

These Democrats, such a principled party.  Comparing McCain to Hitler may very well be the best contribution this bubblehead could do for Democrats.

“Fueling” the Economy

I find it fascinating that Democrats are still pretending to be appalled by high gas prices. 

Barack Obama said recently in an interview with CNBC: 

Well, I think that we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage.  And the president, frankly, hasn’t had an energy policy.

Don’t you just love when a Democrat uses the word “frankly” to make the point seem shocking?  I wonder if FDR used it.

Well excuse us, Barack.  On the “list of things to do” for President Bush the last eight years we had 9/11, a war against terrorism, hurricanes that Bush got blamed for, and we were a little busy keeping North Korea from shooting a missile towards Hawaii because of inept liberal policies that virtually gave them the money, the fuel, and the technology while stopping the U.N. from inspecting them for five years.

What President has placed an “energy policy” at the top of his priority list? Did FDR?  Did Carter?  How was Clinton’s?

Less than a decade ago, Universities began the hype on “Global Warming” by conducting “studies” showing that if we imposed an excise tax of 25 cents a gallon on gas, we could use the proceeds to fund studies on the effects of global warming.

The fact is, liberals aren’t enraged over gas prices in and of themselves.  They’re just enraged that it was free market that raised them, and not taxation.

It’s common sense, folks!  Americans are cutting back on other expenditures to accommodate the new fuel prices.  Now that demand for the other items have gone down, so are the prices!  As they will continue to do.  We demand gas, we must pay for gas.  We don’t demand I-Pods and digital cameras anymore, so we won’t be paying as much for them.

An article written yesterday by CNBC proves this point arguing “What Inflation?”

It’s the free market we love and the market should be the dictators of our national wealth.  We decide how much things cost by purchasing them at a stated price.  Gas is one of those things. 

The question is, who are we going to give it to?  American proprietors who crave success?  Or Democrats that want the success earned by one person to be split up twenty ways and re-distributed to people who aren’t willing to work for it?

Another Conservative Pot-Shot at Global Warming

I can’t resist.  In the 1970s, we were warned of an impending global ice age.  Three decades later, the thermostat has been turned up.  The environmentalist idiots need to either make up their mind or just shut-up and watch the Weather Channel (whose founder has blasted global warming).

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe is one of my favorite columnists of all times (along with Mark Steyn).  He is an inspiration – a conservative columnist in the most liberal state in the Union.  God bless Jeff.  He opines about global warming in his column today.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, “a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption.” In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country’s 24 provinces. In August, Chile’s agriculture minister lamented “the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years,” which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

He cites a Russian scientist to make his point.  I’m not a fan of the Russians, but I love this one.

Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity – sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time – as having the greatest effect on climate.

“Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change,” Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. “Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind.” In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: “The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change,” they write.

People treat global warming as if it were a fact.  Many folks in the scientific community act as if though there was authoritative evidence that us miserable humans are the cause of  “alleged warmer temperatures.”  Forget that.  Look at all of the places around the world that are experiencing record lows and incredible snow.  These doofs discount natural climatological patterns.

In any case, you and I know better.  My only advice is as follows:  The Senate should hold off on endorsing Kyoto or Bali or whatever.  Give things a few years, and we’ll be back to ice age warnings again.  Environmentalists are fickle.  And the uber liberals in the international community will continue to rush from place-to-place in order to assuage these idiots. 

Good grief!

GOP Goes Green?

An article at Politico.com asserts that a growing number of Republicans are buying into global warming.  The article points to Rep. Bob Inglis (SC), Newt Gingrich, Ken Mehlman, John Warner and others to make its point.

 Inglis traveled to Antarctica and, most recently, to Greenland to witness the effects of rising CO2 levels and temperatures. He now believes the science behind global warming. And he believes the politics are equally conclusive: Republicans will “get hammered” if they do not reckon with the issue soon.

You wouldn’t know it from listening to President Bush or most GOP congressional leaders, but a lot of smart Republican thinkers are coming to the same conclusion as Inglis.

The changing politics of global warming will be a useful gauge to measure change in Washington. Two questions loom.

The first is how Republicans will reposition themselves for a post-Bush era in which it appears that many ascendant issues — the environment and health care especially — are historically favorable terrain for Democrats.

The second is whether even powerful shifts in public opinion, as have clearly taken place on global warming, can force action in a Congress where partisan stalemate has been the operating mode on most difficult issues for over a decade.

There’s nothing wrong with being environmentally aware.  I recycle and have done many things around my house to make it more energy efficient.  Of course my reasons are a little more selfish.  We’re given 1 recycle and 1 trash cart to last us a week between dumps.  I recycle to free up room in the trash bin.  As far as energy efficiency, I’m tired of high energy bills from Texas Utilities.  Similarly, a lot of businesses might be motivated by incentives that would compel them to be more environmentally friendly.

That is the focus of many of the Republicans who seems to have gone green (like Newt).  I haven’t read Gingrich’s new book Contract With the Earth, but the reviews and interviews seem to indicate that he is looking for ways to to induce corporate America to invest in environmentalism without resorting to threats, regulations and tax increases.  That’s a noble goal.  After all, the environment is our responsbility. But doomsaying threats and overregulation are irresponsible.

The fact that some of these guys seem to be buying into the warming myth, though, is a reason for concern.  Only two decades ago, we were heading towards an imminent ice age.  What happened to that?  Why are we suddenly on the verge of a global warming catastrophe? 

We aren’t.  The science isn’t solid, and the number of scientists willing to say that have grown exponentially since the warming debate “heated up” a few years ago.  Leftist environmentalist doomsayers are actively attempting to silence the dissent from experts who refuse to spout their warming rhetoric.  My theory is that the left is using this as a platform to increase the control of government over people’s lives – as would be their natural tendency.  Of course, that’s just a thought.

There’s nothing wrong with caring about the environment.  Developing a sound energy policy that emphasizes alternative energy and less dependence on fossil fuels is a great and necessary idea.  Then again, I’m just being selfish.  My major interest there is to reduce our dependency on things that come from people like the ones who hold power in Iran and Venezuela.

So, do something for the environment today.  Just don’t force it on me.  Don’t tax me.  And don’t feed me more baloney about some climate phenomenon that has its basis in faulty science.

My Tribute to Liberals Crazier Than Rosie..

boohoodems.jpg 

You know, whenever liberals try to debate common sense, it’s always fun to throw a general question out there to them like “what could George Bush have done to prevent 9/11?” taking into consideration liberals’ policy of “be nice to our enemies.”

I’m always leery of folks like this fella; Jurassicdork, whose website has one of those phony counters claiming that the United States is responsible for almost one million deaths from the Iraq invasion.  That number; by the way, greatly exceeds the phony John Hopkins’ study performed three years ago — the one Rosie O’Donnell still cites —  “655,000 dead, who are the terrorists?”  Whenever someone owns a blog that posts a phony death counter that exceeds the insanity of Rosie O’Donnell, I become suspicious.  But like a trainwreck, Lindsay Lohan, or the Anne Nicole Smith Show, it’s kind of fun pokin’ your nose in every once in awhile.

Low and hehold, this is just a bellicose blowhard who needed some attention.  I’m happy to say that we over here at the loving and accepting GayConservative.org (people like myself, Philip, Airforcewife, Jennifer, Shawmut and more) were happy to oblige.  In getting his feedback, I’ve decided to highlight some of the funniest moments ever in the history of liberal repartee.

Jurassicdork states in response:

“Because it seems Gay Conservative Steve has a problem with my pointing out the holes in Ann Coulter’s argument”

I don’t think so — I merely asked him to answer what Al Franken could not.  With all of the ridiculous rules and regulations put onto our CIA post-watergate by idiot-Democrats in Congress, what could George Bush have done even if  he knew all of the specific details of the September 11th attacks?  All of his blather factually boils down to once conclusion: NOTHING.  (Also, there were no “holes” in Coulter’s response.  In fact, Coulter pointed out the “holes” in the Democrats’ argument by putting the question to Franken.)

Next, he says:

“Coulter’s stupidity speak for itself without resorting to ad hominems.”

Has JurassicDork checked YouTube lately?  Has he checked with Al Franken?  Has he checked with Bill Maher?  Generally, when people are stupid, we don’t spend endless hours and millions of George Soros’s dollars on attempting to debunk them.  Moreover; let’s ask the college liberals on campuses that throw pies and hurl insults not only at Coulter but at countless other conservative speakers.  When was the last time a conservative threw a pie or attempted to physically attack a liberal speaker?

He says:

“Alas, logic and civility are not enough when dealing with that “other” ilk.”

While in the same message he simultaneously says:

“I’ve taken heat in the past from my own readers that sometimes my cursing is too gratuitous, that I’m too angry. So this first paragraph is for those readers. Your thoughtful pleas for more civility and less anger are very often taken under advisement and, when the mood strikes me, I oblige by laying out the facts with my arguments while not resorting to angry rhetoric. Today is different because circumstances compel me to do otherwise. So, to you gentle souls, if you have delicate sensibilities, allow me to warn you right now that what follows will be the vilest, filthiest, most furious post that perhaps I’ve ever written and will act on you like a microwave oven on Dick Cheney. So take this as your final opportunity to allow your mouse to migrate on over to the right side and click on the link of someone more civil and elegant, like Glenn Greenwald, for instance.”

Is his goal to be “gratutitous” or “angry” or is he begging for “civility”?  Moreover; whenever I hear a liberal discuss civility, I politiely refer them to the loving reactions of Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn (along with the college campus incidents mentioned above.)  Just like their love of the gay community while liberals will use being transgendered or gay in a moment of convenience to better attack Ann Coulter, this joke excuses himself and his rhetoric by proclaiming that it’s the only way to deal with conservative “ilk.”

That part isn’t even the funniest or most ridiculous of his snorefest.  The best is when he “attempts” to inject facts and “common sense” into the debate, which in turn only strengthens the conservative argument against big-government policy and the possibility of liberals owning “common sense” to begin with.

He says:

Yeah, Ann. Better to ask a comedian when the next al Qaida attack will be than to ask your hero who’d been posing as the leader of the free world for the last six and a half years.”

How idiotic!  If a stand-up comedian (or a bellicose-blogger for that matter) is going to continue to run around using the idiotic “Bush was warned!” argument, they better damned well be able to sufficiently answer the questions put to them by anyone.  If Al Franken is just a “comedian” (Jurassicdork’s words, not mine) — that happens to be running for office by the way — then why in the hell is he even blathering about something that Jurassicdork himself even admits that he is unqualified to talk about in the first place?  See to him, Franken’s using it to promote Bush-hate is sufficient, but Coulter asking him to clarify what it is that George Bush could have done with the inept policies put in place by Jurassicdork’s party is totally out of the question.

Hey Jurassicdork, how about unqualified liberals shut up about it altogether?  Then we’ll stop imposing our questions of common sense onto you, okay.

He then inadvertently reminds us of the utter failure known as big government by droning on about ridiculous federal programs like FEMA with the intent to spotlight Bush’s cronies.  Right along with Hillary, Jurassicdork is happy to portray the Federal Emergency Management Administration as “Bill’s FEMA” where eight years ago (long before Katrina), Hurricane Floyd occured in North Carolina that killed 56 people and evacuated over two million.  Clinton, the king of crony placement, and his wonderboy James Lee Witt (then director of “Bill’s FEMA) were so slow to respond to the tragedy that even Jesse Jackson complained.

Conservatives in 1999 could have used this chance to do to Clinton what liberals do to Bush and spotlight Clinton’s cronyism with appointing Witt.  However; as a general matter, it is not conservatives that endorse ridiculous federally funded organizations like FEMA.  In North Carolina and Mississippi for example; when there are massive storms, the local government are on the spot as well as the residents who pull up their britches and get to work.  “Bill’s FEMA” believes the best way to handle an emergency is to pass out debit cards to victims and watch our federal funds be used for such vital supplies from merchants as Bloomingdales and don’t forget the visits to the strips clubs as part of the victims’ healing process.  (Taking the strip clubs into consideration, no wonder Hillary refers to it as “Bill’s FEMA!”)

Liberal idiocy has decided to set up these nuisance organizations at our expense while simultaneously selecting moral outrage over which cronies are worse.  How about we just do away with liberal policies altogether? 

He then complains and mentions Walter Reed.  It has been well-documented that indeed it is again – liberal policy- that put no-good maintenance men in charge at these facilities, that are funded and paid for by taxpayers, to care for the facilities that serve our wounded troops.  While all individuals can agree that the actual medical care at Walter Reed is excellent, liberals then decided that it was Bush’s fault that maintenance men working under liberal policy (making it impossible for them to be fired) aren’t doing their jobs. 

He blathers on about toothpaste, bad food, and liberal hysteria that admit problems with — say it with me — LIBERAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS.  We all know the kind of people that work for places like that and if it makes Jurassicdork feel any better, I will voluntarily sign away all nomination rights to FEMA and the FDA.  Hell, put Teddy Kennedy in all of those positions for all I care!  We conservatives advocate taking care of ourselves and we’ll save our desired appointees for real positions like the Supreme Court.

This is a perfect example of how a liberal is when they are forced to recognize the failure of large government.  It’s these same idiots that create myths of global warming (just 30 years after they were warning us of the next ice-age) to propose massive tax on gasoline and government funded “programs” (like FEMA) to pay unqualified folks to pointlessly count how many leaves fall from oak trees in November.

The frustration is equal, but liberal socialization and big government have been failures stemming way back to FDR.  I’m paying the maximum amount of social security tax that anyone can pay each year to put into a fund that is currently paying for others who did not put in nearly as much as I have.  (And I’m only 33!)  Will it be there for me when I’m 62? These programs have served liberals in two major ways.  First, they get to take more of our money (since working for their own is out of the question).  Second, they get to blame the failures of their own programs on Republicans. 

Moving forward, Juassicdork continues:

“You ask what Bill Clinton had done to fight terrorism. First, let me ask you: What did HW do to fight terrorism because the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was just a couple of months after Clinton took office.”

More attacks happened during Clinton’s tenure than any other administration’s except for Reagan’s.  Reagan had an excuse, he was stuck cleaning up a mess created by the peace-lovers who handed us buckets of unemployment and international enemies, Carter and Mondale.  I forgot, Clinton did bomb an aspirin factory.  That went over well, didn’t it?  I do believe it was Senator Feinstein who insinuated that it was this sloppy attack that made Bin Laden angry enough to plan and execute 9/11.

What did HW do?  Well if you pay attention, between the 1988 Pan-Am flight hijacking and the WTC bombing of 1993, we enjoyed a near five-year break from Muslim violence (all through HW’s term).  This was the longest span of peace between attacks on our interests from 1979 to 2001, but not quite as long as the gap of Muslim violence on American interests since 2001 until the present (six years).  I think HW’s five-year break may have had something to do with us bombing the snot out of Saddam’s regime in Desert Storm that made them think twice before messing with America, plus I think George W.’s six-year break has something to do with our troops kicking some major ass in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

The surge of Muslim violence got its confidence up after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia. 

Continuing with his sad concern for national security he says:

“So far in Iraq, Bush has killed a million hostages to get at a few hostage takers.  At the very least, Clinton never went on record to say, “I am truly not that concerned about him” less than seven months after the original World Trade Center bombing.”

That is incorrect.  We have rounded up all of Al-Queda’s top guys (explaining why we aren’t as worried about OBL as an imminent threat) and are holding them at Guantanamo (you know, the thing you guys keep crying about while simultaneously proclaiming that Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11.)  We have deposed of Saddam, had three elections where millions upon millions of Iraqis have voted, killed HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS of insurgents and terrorists and rounded up more.  All of this with 3,000 American deaths.  Compare that to the 60,000 in Vietnam, 300,000 in WW2, or 600,000 in the Civil War, and I cannot help but wonder what exactly Jurassicdork would have had to say during WW2.

We will win this war and even Jurassicdork’s own Democrats in the House and Senate refuse to put their money where their mouth is and vote against it or its funding.  We can win it a lot sooner if we stop catering to the idiot Democrats in Congress who keep crying phony crocodile tears of concern over blacks, gays, civilians, and the troops. 

To quote Michael Scheuer in regard to winning this war, we can win it:

“Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.”

If liberals would stop politicizing our troops and Iraqi civilians with their counterfeit concern, we could finish this thing tomorrow but as has been pointed out and proven over and over again by liberals like Jurassicpork, they; in their mission to watch this country and its humanity self-destruct, would rather our troops fail to further illustrate their hate for Bush rather than grant Iraqis the same freedom that they take for granted everyday.

Some of us just aren’t fooled

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:

  condicartoon.jpg

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 YuhasJeff GannonKevin, 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?

Madonna: More Hollywood Hypocrisy

m.jpg 

Roger Friedman of Fox News uncovered many secrets of the material girl and her foundations that own stock in many of the corporations that Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and other tree-huggers are detesting and blaming for the Earth’s destruction.

Madonna is the headline at the “Live Earth” show in London which is happening this weekend.  (With many SUV’s and bodyguards to guarantee her security, giving light with the attacks in London last weekend.)

Roger Friedman reports the following:

“Madonna, who seems to be on top of all her many business endeavors, has actually invested about $2.7 million dollars in companies that are creating the destruction that Live Earth is trying to raise awareness about. She has invested in several companies named as the biggest corporate polluters in the world.”

This isn’t the first time we’ve been alerted to Madonna’s hypocrisy when it comes to her concerns on the whole global warming crock.  Earlier this year, a video on YouTube shows her riding in a limousine to the airport and then hopping onto a private jet.

Couldn’t the Patriot Act have included a clause on insane-celebrity hypocrites?