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?

Maybe Someday I’ll Make Top-Billing

I would have missed this but for Kevin at QueerConservative.  It seems that a gay-liberal has decided to attempt to analyze the land of common sense.

The author of this blatherfest that refused to fail its expected reader by characterizing me as “self-loathing” (gee, why haven’t I heard that before?)  goes on about how liberals like us more and how being gay automatically makes one pro-abortion.  It also points out how loathing it is to expect my community to have a little “pride” by refusing freak-floats on the one day of the year we are supposed to commemorate the victims of the Stonewall era. 

Of course, the author of this would be the first one to whine when the rest of humanity views the gay community as the freaks that play with straight freaks, wear big wigs, and trade “wet stories” about golden showers publicly. 

This fella is also delusioned to believe that it is Democratic politicians that are going to convince the rest of America.  He also lumps the entire community in with other areas of liberal insanity:

One facet of the all-powerful gay stereotype that affects both gay men and lesbians is the idea that we’re all on the liberal side of any political argument. Pro-gay rights, naturally — but also anti-war, pro-choice, and in favor of teaching evolution and comprehensive sex education in schools. This is one area of the gay stereotype that I happen to fit. I’ve often said that I’m happy to be a tree-hugging peacenik

So, I suppose the gay community is a bunch of sheep and nobody has any original thoughts of their own if they happen to be attracted to members of their same-sex?  He wants to teach Darwinism in public schools but also fails to realize that Darwinism considers any species’ mating-practices that do not result in reproduction direct-qualifiers for being exiled from the gene pool.  Does he view this as a compliment?

This is indeed someone who seems to be following Hollywood and is someone who is not thinking outside of the box.  Just because he’s gay, he’s liberal.  Yep, that’s original.

My only request is that next time he gives me top-billing.

Elizabeth Edwards: Sticking to the Issues

kerryedwards.jpg 

Who does Elizabeth Edwards think she is, Evita?

Parading around and giving speeches to the descamisados of San Francisco, Edwards allegedly has made gay-marriage a new concern and is using the death of a Sacramento man for leverage.

Unfortunately for Elizabeth, some of us remember John Kerry admitting his opposition to gay marriage during the 2004 debates while John Edwards simutaneously baited Mary Cheney by using her name against her father.

Fortunately for Elizabeth, half of the gay community does not pay attention to Presidential debates so it’s not all bad news for her husband’s failing campaign.

Gay Pride: Freak For a Day

prideflag.jpg 

Over the last few years, I have refused to attend the annual gay pride parades here in Chicago.  I used to attend a few years back. 

For me, it was a day to have a few drinks, celebrate with friends, and ultimately have a good time. 

Lately; however, it has changed for me.  The focus of gay pride used to be the celebration of individuals who are proud to be gay and exemplify behaviors to show our fellow Americans that we – just like everyone else – are hardworking citizens who are here to stay.   From the current displays of gay pride, we now see that it focuses more on the right to parade up and down the streets in chaps, various pieces of leather, and to display our rights to vulgarly make out with various individuals in the middle of the street in front of others.

Also, various straight groups into S&M, swinging, etc. are coming out more each year to use the day of gay pride to celebrate their own freakish fetishes.  What do these have to do with gay pride?  And is our community so pathetic that we cannot be choosy about how our day of commemeration is being exploited by other groups like this?

Other unapproved-of groups include NAMBLA and Democratic politicians.

Let one Christian show up though to talk to the community about God and let’s see who the gay elites will have the problem with.

In an article written yesterday, St. Petersburg Governor Valentina Matviyenko says:

“When  it  comes to the protection of people’s rights and freedoms,
including  those  of  sexual  minorities,  this should be within a legal
framework.  Demonstrating  such delicate and intimate things and staging
provocative  actions  seems  wrong to me”

As I have said before, it is the kind of people we choose to hang out with and the way we present ourselves that are amplifying the segregation factor that already plagues us as a community.

Gay Activists, take that!

gaybar.jpg

You can’t say we don’t deserve it after every single time the activists that represent us to the rest of the world respond to every bit of adversity like such ninnies.

A woman in Montreal is suing a gay-bar establishment for refusing to serve her – BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN. 

The club apparently only serves to gay men and if you ask me, they deserve exactly what they get for this.

Especially after all of the equal rights’ arguments coming from all over the world.  What does this only apply to gays wanting their victories?

Gay-Beating Victim Points Political Fingers

Sunday an Australian “gay activist” alleged he was beaten while in Moscow for their second gay pride parade. 

In America we like to call this “yet another reason to elect Republicans.”  Liberals’ easy penalties against hardened criminals just won’t cut it to make me happy, sorry!

In any case, the victim said:

“Russian orthodox fundamentalists together with right-wing nationalists and neo-nazis attacked the Gay Pride marchers as we assembled outside City Hall.”

Then later remarked:

“The right-wing gangs set on me, punching me in the eye, they dragged me to the ground where I was kicked and punched.”

Does this sound like a true victim?  Or does this sound like someone stretching the truth a little bit to use his “victim status” explicitly?  Jerry Falwell (the biggest-baddest-Christian-bully of them all) NEVER advocated physical harm or disrespect to anyone that was gay or anyone that hated him for being a Christian (as many did and prove to this day.)

There are haters all over the planet and if that happened here in the United States and this was brought before the Supreme Court with Alito and Roberts, I guarantee this type of crime would be cracked down on a lot more effectively than by, say, Ruth Bader Ginsberg or basically any Supreme Court Nominee that could be appointed under Hillary’s administration.

I feel sorry for the guy – but to label someone in the Soviet Union as a right-winger who physically attacks him is preposterous. 

**********Update**************

By clicking here, CNN tells us a different story.  Apparently there were no gay pride parades and gay protesters were there to deliver a petition to the mayor of Moscow.  The violence then broke out between the protestors and the opposers. 

The first article on here leads one to believe that a peaceful parade was already in progress – and then the EVIL RIGHT stepped in and ruined it.

I do believe gay rights should advance in all countries.  But we should not have to lie and defame Conservatives and Christians to get it.

Teletubbies are back with a vengeance, girlfriend!

teletubbies.jpg

I supposed now that Reverend Falwell has passed on, it is okay for the liberal media to start promoting the Teletubbies as gay friendly again.  Or, is it?

Articles published all over the web today take issue with Poland’s government looking into the famous children’s TV show to determine if this is homosexual propaganda aimed at introducing the gay lifestyle to young children.

As Ann Coulter pointed out on her webpage,the main media outlets like People magazine, Time magazine, and the NY Times were celebrating Tinky Winky’s ‘out and proud’ way of life before Falwell ever mentioned anything about them. 

Now today after Poland has decided to invesigate this, the article mentions how “conservative” their government is and of course drags Jerry Falwell back into the issue by implying that Falwell was the first one to make the homosexual connection to the TV show:

“The 10-year-old Teletubbies, which features four rotund, brightly coloured characters loved by children around the world, became a target of religious conservatives after Falwell suggested Tinky Winky could be homosexual.”

If I was a gay man (oh wait, I am!) I would think to put the needs and safety of children before my own insane agendas.  Globally, parents have rights to make sure their children are not being baptized in activist blather whether it be on PBS or in a classroom.

What should be taught in a classroom, OR on the Teletubbies is the ultimate respect for ALL people without having to shine spotlight on one issue like homosexuality. 

Respect and decency is one thing but acceptance is quite another.  Let parents do their jobs.