It continually amazes me just how many people are willing to keep defending Obamacare and all of the problems it is causing.

President Obama promised us before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law that “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. I guarantee it.” We are rapidly finding, however, that many of us can’t keep our health insurance plans. An insurance plan can’t simply change; if the cost or the benefits go over a certain threshold (and that threshold is not very high), the plan is cancelled and a new one is rolled out in its place. Thanks to Obamacare, a lot of people who had only bought enough insurance to cover catastrophic injuries or illnesses have lost their plans. It is now estimated that over two million Americans have lost the insurance plans that they liked – all because Obamacare required that insurance cover everything and the kitchen sink. I have friends who deliberately bought that kind of insurance. They had enough money to pay for basic doctor visits and they intended to use their insurance for exactly what it was meant to cover: high-cost emergencies. They liked their plans, and Obamacare is the sole reason they’re unable to keep their plans.

Don’t tell the Democrats, though. They don’t care. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Mr. “I will not yield to this monkey court”, went on Megyn Kelly’s show and claimed that the policies are being cancelled because the insurance companies are somehow seeing the light. He said, “the bottom line is, if you’re selling a lousy policy at a price that’s too high, nobody’s going to buy it. And so they’re cancelling these policies because they know people won’t buy them.” Megyn pointed out that people WERE buying them and they were happy with them. Pallone replied, “they’re not going to buy them anymore when they have a better alternative!” (Really? You call shotgunning someone into buying a policy that has to cover everything “willingly buying a better alternative”?) Incredibly, when Megyn asked, “why do you get to decide what’s lousy?” Pallone responded, “it’s capitalism!”

Quite literally all Pallone could say was that nobody is going to buy “lousy” plans when there’s a better alternative. What he’s willfully ignored is the fact that there has ALWAYS been a better alternative, and people still opted to buy these supposedly lousy plans because they liked them. The ACA had nothing to do with “providing a better alternative.” Even the Democrats who are admitting that plans are being cancelled because of Obamacare requirements are being completely flippant about the situation – all the way up to the President.

President Obama, rather than answer for his lie, had the audacity to tell people yesterday at Boston’s Faneuil Hall to shop for a better plan. He said, “if you’re getting one of these letters, just shop around in the new marketplace. That’s what it’s for. Because of the tax credits that we are offering, and the competition between insurers, most people are going to be able to get better, comprehensive healthcare plans for the same price or even cheaper than projected.”

First of all, you have done nothing to create competition between insurers. You have mandated that everyone buy insurance, so the companies know that they have a guaranteed customer base. Second, your tax credits aren’t going to come close to covering the out-of-pocket increases that I’m now paying. Third, my employer only offers insurance from one company; if I buy my own, including in the government marketplace, it’s going to cost exponentially more. None of this nonsense has made anything more affordable for me. Originally, the claim was that the ACA was supposed to eliminate the people who use the ER as their primary source of health care. Instead, it has only subsidized those people to continue doing that by forcing people like me to pay more up front. I’m not impressed.

It is not up to you to determine what is good enough for my coverage. It’s not up to you to tell me that I don’t have enough coverage or that my plan is “lousy”. It’s none of your business whether I’m insured and you have no right to tell me that I have to have coverage and that the coverage I have is required to cover maternity care, birth control, and OB/GYN. You are not here to rule me and you are not here to decide what is best for me. If you are capable of taking on the power to tell me what’s good for me, then you are one short step away from taking on the power to determine whether I’m worth spending healthcare resources on, and I have a very serious problem with that.

Kathleen Sibelius made an embarrassingly poor appearance before Congress yesterday. After taking full responsibility for the utter failure that is Healthcare.gov, Representatives grilled her on several aspects of the ACA. When asked if she would sign up for Obamacare, Sibelius first tried to skirt the question by claiming it was somehow “illegal” for her to sign up for it. Then, when pressed on whether she would if she were able, she refused to answer. During that testimony she was caught on a hot mic saying, “don’t do this to me!” As if that wasn’t bad enough, when asked whether President Obama bore any responsibility for this incredible failure, Sibelius only said, “you clearly…whatever.” Of course, we all know that Sibelius likely wasn’t the person responsible for deciding who would build and run the website, so one must ask what she’s going to get for falling on her sword in front of Congress over this behemoth of a Greek tragedy.

For the $634 million the Obama administration has poured into the mockery of a website that hasn’t worked for more than twenty people this month, they could have set up a $1 million account for every man, woman, and child in America and earmarked it specifically for their healthcare, and they would have had more than $300 million to spare. They wouldn’t have even needed a crappy website to keep track of it all.

The license being taken by this administration is breathtaking. How are they combating their poor image? They do an end run around those of us who aren’t willing to live with the imposition of these decrees by labeling us as extremists, terrorists, and racists. The media that is supposed to keep us informed is, instead, complicit. Pay no attention to that Tea Party behind the curtain, though. They’re irrelevant.


The “Lies” of Fox News

Whenever I get into a “debate” with a liberal (I use the term lightly, considering the fact that it is usually comprised of someone spewing personal invectives at me for admitting that I’m conservative), I could practically set my watch by their claims that I am a mindless drone for Fox News. “Turn of Fox,” they say, “and learn to think for yourself!”

Didn’t you know? FOX LIES!!! Now learn to be more tolerant, you idiot!

It’s funny when they say that, because it is their go-to accusation whenever you say something that they can’t come up with a decent response to. I have asked multiple times for all of them to give me evidence that Fox actually lies. None of them have even attempted it. They always tell me, “if you can’t see it, then you’re hopeless!” Apparently being able to prove one’s claims is no longer important. Finally, though, after pointing out many of the lies from MSNBC, a liberal actually gave me something I could respond to.

I just picked my head up off of my desk. Yes, it’s that bad.

The first link that the liberal in question gave me was for Salon.com. The article is titled, “12 Most Despicable Things Fox News Did In 2012.”

“Romancing Petraeus: Fox News CEO Roger Ailes Tries to Recruit for the GOP.” The claim is made that Ailes sent a Fox News defense analyst to try to persuade Petraeus to run. Actually, WaPo’s Bob Woodward reported that Ailes sent a personal request – likely in writing – to ask Petraeus to consider it. Ailes didn’t send Kathleen McFarland to talk Petraeus into running in 2012, she was sent by her producers to interview Petraeus about the war in Afghanistan. She was about to ask him if there was anything he felt the media could do to help the troops, and he jokingly made reference to a personal remark that Ailes had made. Petraeus said, “I’m not running.” That was it. It’s not a lie, nor is it Fox News “exploiting its power and wealth to manipulate political outcomes.” To claim such is a lie in and of itself.

“Fox News Produces Its Own Anti-Obama Video.” It’s not anti-Obama…it’s a commentary on how things have changed since Obama rode into the White House on a unicorn promising to change everything. If you’ll recall, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in his first year in office. Not only did he miserably fail, he only made the deficit AND the debt far worse. The writer links Newscorpse, which in turn links Media Matters. MM only answers three of the many points made in the video, and their entire response is, “it’s all Bush’s fault!” Obama has been in office for four years by the time this is all being written, but it’s still Bush’s fault. Oh…and where did MM get their supposed “proof”? From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a group helmed by uber-liberal Robert Greenstein, a former financial advisor for Democrat presidents Carter and Clinton.

“Fox News: How Much Rape Is Too Much?” Dear Lord. Seriously? The oft-slammed remarks from Liz Trotta are, again, paraded out as evidence of Fox being a group of hatemongers. What the writer never mentions is that the segment’s host, Eric Shaw, openly disagreed with Trotta – as has pretty much every host on Fox she’s been on with. Fox is hardly the only network to ever invite a contributor on who has made incendiary remarks. Hell, MSNBC has multiple hosts that do that on a routine basis. Keith Olbermann used the Nazi salute and refused to apologize even after the Anti-Defamation league stepped in, Lawrence O’Donnell challenged one of Mitt Romney’s sons to a fistfight, and Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut”. Ed Schultz also deliberately edited an audio of Texas governor Rick Perry, cutting it off at a certain point to make it sound like Perry was referring to President Obama as “a black cloud that hangs over America.” At least Fox hosts have no problem calling out other right-wingers when they’re wrong. Olbermann had Jeneane Garofalo on his show multiple times and guffawed loudly when she called all conservatives racists.

“Fox News Conning Latinos for Politics and Profit.” Oh, horsefeathers. Fox News has its own Latino site. Yes, Fox reports on illegal immigration – because no other news network will. When was the last time you saw MSNBC or CNN report on the criminals pouring across our Southern border?

(BTW, I had to link Michelle Malkin for most of the stories on illegal aliens who commit rape and murder because most of the media – Fox included – ignores the fact that some of these brutal criminals are illegals. Mrs. Malkin has done an incredible job of reporting some of these stories and she continuously takes a great deal of hate for it.)

“Fox Lies About Military Access to Voting in Ohio.” Actually, they weren’t lying. Absentee voting laws actually began during the Civil War as a way to make sure that the troops were guaranteed the ability to vote. To be sure, absentee voting was only upheld by six states after the Civil War ended, but that doesn’t mean that the military doesn’t have the right to vote – and since much of our military is still caught up in a war, it’s only fair that their special circumstances grant special rights to make sure that their votes are counted. As it was, thousands of ballots in the last election were lost or destroyed between Afghanistan and the US. Convenient, isn’t it?

“Graphic Evidence of the Racism of Fox News: Racial Photoshopping.” This is an egregious lie, one I’m tired of having to answer. Every liberal in America seems content to accuse us of racism when we refuse to agree with them. In this accusation, they claim that a photo of Trayvon Martin was “obviously darkened” to make it look more “ominous.” Click here for the graphic in question. The photo actually came from another publication, and it is actually Newscorpse that makes the outrageous claim that some kind of “racial photoshopping” was carried out to make Trayvon look more dangerous somehow. Then, it’s claimed that Fox changed the graphic to make it look less damning – actually, they changed the entire headline. The first headline stated that charges were to be filed. The second stated that Zimmerman was actually in custody following the filing of charges. It’s all racism, though!

“The Polling Schizophrenia at Fox News.” First of all, schizophrenia is a mental disorder involving delusions and paranoia – not lying. The sub-title just sounds insultingly stupid. Second, the Salon writer (again) links Newscorpse, which claims that Fox ignores its own polls and refuses to report on them…by linking a report by Fox News showing that Obama had gained a lead in a poll. Wow. I’m speechless.

“Fox News Psycho Analyst: Newt Gingrich’s Adultery Means A Stronger America.” Here the Salon writer lambasts Psychologist Dr. Keith Ablow (now notorious for suggesting the possibility that Casey Anthony really didn’t do it) for saying that Obama is “contemptuous of the judiciary” (he is) and “devoid of all emotion” (when was the last time he showed any emotion other than anger?). Nobody had any problem with Dr. Martha Stout constantly referencing George W. Bush in her book “The Sociopath Next Door” and declaring him to be an absolute monster, but they’re going to tear down Dr. Ablow for stating the blatantly obvious? Plus, they’re going to mock Dr. Ablow’s forgiveness of Gingrich’s indiscretions when they weren’t even willing to hold Bill Clinton’s feet to the fire after he was accused by more than one woman of rape? Puh-leeze.

“Fox News Airs Hour-Long Commercial for Anti-Obama Film on Hannity.” First the Salon writer (who is still only quoting Newscorpse) crows about “The Undefeated” being a “flop” at the box office. Then he bemoans Hannity pushing the documentary “The Hope & The Change”, as if doing so was immoral. The Newscorpse writer he links then goes on to say, “Hannity didn’t reveal what other documentaries he’s seen, but it’s fair to guess that his second favorite would be “Triumph of the Will,” Hitler’s propaganda film directed by Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.” Really? We’re calling Fox a network of liars over this? Moving along…

“Fox News ‘Democrat’ Kirsten Powers Accuses Obama of Sympathizing With Terrorists.” The implication here by the Salon writer is that Powers can’t possibly be an actual Democrat if she disagrees with something President Obama has done! This is the SAME organization that proudly posted a “Republican Women for Obama” video in the last post that was linked. Powers wrote an op-ed for Foxnews.com in which she blasted the President and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their comments against the video that was accused of starting the attack on our embassy in Benghazi. We have since uncovered (no thanks to Fox News and others who have refused to let it go) that the video, “Innocence of Muslims”, had nothing to do with the attack. It was premeditated by multiple jihadist organizations well in advance, and there were multiple warnings that it was coming. Both President Obama and Secretary Clinton were swift to righteously condemn the video, but said nothing against the terrorists who plotted and carried out the attack. It was refreshing to hear a Democrat admit that her side was being cowardly in refusing to respond to the attack.

“Fox News Spinning Furiously On Unemployment Rate.” The spin here appears to be a Foxnews.com headline questioning the report in 2012 that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.1 to 7.8. Never mind the fact that they’re reporters and their job is to question the official story. Never mind the fact that unemployment is actually dropping in some cases because some folks have been out of work for so long that they’re just giving up – no employer wants to hire someone with an extensive gap in their employment history, and some people have been out of work for so long that they’re dropping out of the workforce altogether. There’s a lot that plays into the unemployment numbers, and trying to simplify it into “something GOOD is happening under Obama!” is irresponsible at best.

And, the kicker…

“Fox Opposes Ban on Assault Weapons But Imposes Ban on Talking About It.” Okay…let’s get something straight for the umpteen jillionth time: the First Amendment is meant to protect you from the government, not from private entities. Even if you could prove that Fox had instituted a ban on talking about assault weapon bans, trying to say that Fox is “slaughtering the First Amendment” by refusing to allow guests to talk about it is every bit as silly as conservatives who accuse MSNBC of somehow abridging our First Amendment rights. I will tell you what I tell them…you have the same right that the other guys have. You just need to exercise it. That said, Fox has instituted no such ban on discussing proposed revivals of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban. David Clark, one of the executive producers, instituted a temporary ban on discussing gun control policy for a short time because he felt it was too soon after the Newtown tragedy to talk about such a charged political issue. The ban was lifted not too long afterwards and there have since been quite a few discussions on FNC and Foxnews.com about gun control and assault weapons bans.

The author of this article is Mark Howard, who appears to have written the multiple Newscorpse articles that are literally the only thing linked. It’s remarkable that Salon would allow this kind of hit piece to appear on its pages. What is more remarkable is that there are liberals out there trying to point to this tripe when they claim that they have proof that Fox News does nothing but lie. It seems more like liberals are obsessed with Fox, so much so that they’re willing to pass anything off as proof – even if it’s a lie.

Next up: George Soros, Media Matters, and the war against Fox News.

Please, Make It Stop!

Many of my friends have been posting a video clip of Alex Jones on Piers Morgan telling the British liberal elitist that “1776 will commence again” if the government tries to take our guns. They all think it’s great, but they forget who he is.

Jones is a 9/11 truther, a bona fide member of the tin-foil hat brigade who was interviewed along with several other truthers for a History Channel special on 9/11 conspiracy theories – toward the end of the special, he compared himself to Galileo, saying, “I’m saying the world is round, I’m saying that 9/11 is an inside job, I’m showing the official story is a fraud, a flat Earth theory, and I know I’m going to be vindicated.” Later, outside the Denver Mint (near the 2008 Democratic Convention was taking place), Jones went on a screaming rant during which he chased Michelle Malkin around the crowd, calling her “evil” and “a monster”. In an interview after that incident he claimed that he was set up, that his voice was normal, he was being polite and just asking a question – but that Malkin’s “people” created the video as disinformation.

In short, Alex Jones is a couple of french fries short of a Happy Meal.

I can’t stand the guy. He’s an embarrassment to the conservative cause. Completely aside from fudging the fact that 1776 actually wasn’t the start of the American Revolution (it had been cooking for years prior to the outbreak of the actual war, with the Tea Party occurring in 1773 – yes, I really am that cheeky), Jones did exactly what Piers invited him on the show to do: have a complete meltdown.

Jones fudges a few points in his long-winded growling and howling session. He states that out of 11,000 supposed gun deaths in America in 2012 (a figure that can’t be backed up since statistics won’t be available until next year), 74% were gang-related – that is false, and he never says where he gets his ridiculous statistics. The most recent statistics available from the FBI show that in 2011, 12,664 homicides occurred. Of that number, right around 68% were committed with firearms – 8,583 exactly. About 53% of all homicides occurred during the commission of another crime (burglary, robbery, auto theft, rape, etc.). According to the statistics, only about 673 homicides in 2011 were inter-gang in nature – that’s about .5% of all homicides. Oops.

Rather than calmly countering Piers’ questions about gun murders in the US as opposed to the UK (something that’s easy to do if you simply compare violent crime rates as a whole), Jones just calls him “a Hatchet Man of the New World Order” and then tells him to set up a boxing ring. Jones is a one-man wrecking crew; Piers knew what he was doing when he invited him, and Jones played right into it. He beautifully made the Limey’s point that those of us who support the Second Amendment are all drooling mouth-breathers who don’t know how to have an intelligent conversation.

He is the pathetic caricature that President Obama paints all conservatives as. Sadly, the media is only to happy to give him airtime because of it.

Not quite two years ago, however, Ted Nugent went on Piers Morgan’s show and very articulately took him out to the woodshed on gun control. It’s so beautiful it almost brought a tear to my eye. You aren’t going to see Nuge or John Lott on Piers right now…he’s too busy building the aforementioned narrative.


The Mystery of “Tolerant” Gay Liberals

A friend who reads the blog was recently quoted in a New York Times article about lesbian conservatives. I was surprised – it was very tasteful, something I hadn’t expected from the Times. My hope that we might be looking toward actually being respected for once was immediately dashed when Bruce over at GayPatriot linked an op-ed from Advocate.com about “The Mystery of Gay Republicans.”

If I wasn’t angry before, I certainly am now. In fact, I’m downright pissed off.

Broadway diva John Carroll is the author, and considering the fact that I’ve been openly hated (and even threatened) in the comments section of multiple articles on that website – to the point that I no longer post comments there – I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I am appalled at his open hatred and intolerance. I have to ask, where is all of this tolerance the gay left keeps preaching?

Carroll sings the worship of Obama and describes his elation at the President’s re-election, then goes on to detail everything the President has done for the LGBT community. True enough, he ended DADT – it didn’t happen in a vacuum, though. There were Republicans who wanted to see the policy end. I have friends and family in the military who never saw a point to banning gay and lesbian troops from serving, all of them conservative in nature. What else does Carroll claim the messiah has done?

Well, he signed the Mathew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act into law. So what? How many times have I asked why we need a law to make our lives more valuable than the lives of straight people? Why do we need a hate crimes law in cases where the murderers were already sentenced to death? What are you going to do – resuscitate them then execute them a second time? If you’re like most liberals who are against the death penalty, what more can you give Matt Shepard’s killers than life in prison without the possibility of parole? Do you really think that sentencing them to 400 years is going to send a message that people should stop and ask, “hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t beat this guy to death…after all, I might be kept in prison until my corpse has rotted!” It’s one step closer to hate speech legislation. Sorry, but that’s no great leap forward in gay rights.

What about his executive order to all facilities that accept Medicare/Medicaid patients to immediately allow patients to be cared for by their same-sex partners? That wasn’t just for us, kids. It was a blanket order forcing hospitals to allow patients to decide who they wish to see and who will make decisions for them. What that order doesn’t have power over are situations where the patient is incapacitated and there’s no living will in place (I learned in EMT school to have one, and my significant other is listed on it along with my father). If you get into a wreck and you are brought to the hospital in a state of unconsciousness, the hospital still has every right to restrict your visitors to immediately verifiable relatives. We’re still not onto anything major here.

He announced that the Dept of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. I’m sorry, but how is this supposed to make me happy? He didn’t say he was going to work to repeal it, he just said he wouldn’t defend it anymore. That is what we riding the fence, and it’s a tactic commonly employed by politicians looking to seal the gay vote in their bag. By not openly supporting DOMA the way he did during the 2008 elections, he gets on your good side. It’s his way of making you happy without having to anger the rest of the liberal base. Believe what you will but there are many Democrats who still believe that homosexuality is wrong and gay marriage is an abomination. Ask Bill Clinton, who signed it into law. Ask Democrats Robert Byrd, Dick Gephardt, James Clyburn, Gary Condit, Dick Durbin, John Edwards, Steny Hoyer, Jack Murtha, Chuck Schumer, and Bart Stupak – every single one of them supported DOMA when it was passed, and not a single one has come out to say it should be repealed although most of them are still in Congress (two of them died while in Congress, having never admitted they were wrong to vote for it). Republican Bob Barr, on the other hand, helped write the bill and he has vocally come out in saying he was wrong and DOMA should be repealed.

I’m sorry…that last bit didn’t fit the narrative very well, did it?

He expanded benefits for federal employees to unmarried, same-sex partners. Fantastic. My life is already better. Not much to sing about, since the VERY Republican state I live in, along with the very Republican state that Sarah Palin hails from, allow the same kind of thing for the same-sex partners of State employees as well.

He directed all federal agencies engaged abroad to “promote and protect” the human rights of LGBT people in foreign countries. That’s rich…you mean the rights of 12 men currently awaiting execution in Libya for being accused of being gay? How about the rights of gays in Uganda who face stiff jail sentences or even death for engaging in homosexual sex acts? Oh, I know – they’re talking about protecting the rights of gay people in Egypt, Iran and Gaza! (Meanwhile, back on the farm…) Barack Obama has favored Sharia-led nations and their rights for his entire administration, and we have heard him pay lip service to protecting the interests of gay people abroad, but action is scarce. I sincerely doubt that Carroll (or any other gay liberal) could name a single instance in which any member of Obama’s cabinet has made even a half-hearted attempt to intervene on behalf of any gay person in a foreign country.

Oh, but he came out in support of gay marriage! WOOHOO! Hold on there, Sparky. All he did (yet again) was pay lip service to the issue. He may claim to support our rights to marry, but he currently calls it a “state’s rights issue” (the same thing the gay left got mad at McCain for saying back in 2008, as I recall) and told MTV flat-out that gay marriage was not going to be an issue he is willing to take up in his second term. Here’s the telling part, though: he blathered about his supposedly personal beliefs about gay marriage for a couple of minutes before getting to the part where he said he wasn’t willing to approach the issue. Not one of you have called him out for merely claiming to support it and not being willing to do anything. He was playing every one of the gay liberals who voted for him like a fiddle and they let him get away with it.

Gay liberals talk about how we, as conservatives, are willing to merely take scraps from the Republicans’ table. What on Earth do they think they’re doing? They’re supporting a party that lies to their faces. At least I know exactly where I stand with Republicans. Plus, they’ll sit down and talk to me while they won’t give the likes of Carroll the time of day. Why? Because they know that I care about their rights, too, and I’m not being so brazenly insulting that they can’t stand to be in the same room with me.

Instead of wondering how their bastion state, California, could possibly pass Prop 8, now they’re breathlessly asking what Obama can do during this term to further the rights of gays in America. Sorry, folks. This term won’t be one for the record books. He’s not actively trying to repeal DOMA, he’s not interested in fighting for gay marriage, and he’s not even broaching the subject of adoptions for gay couples.

The comment that really roasts me is where Carroll says, “So basically a vote is cast for their bank account while they remain spiritually bankrupt.” Wait just one damned minute. Is that not the exact same kind of line that the gay community has so despised American Christians for? Super-religious Christians are famous for calling gay people spiritually bankrupt. I listened to it all throughout my childhood. He’s willing to make a moral case out of his arguments, but he dismisses the moralizing of the other side as being…what, irrelevant? Who decides who is right? Whose morality is the right one? How do you know that your brand of moralizing is somehow better than the ones you’re so mad at in the first place? Somehow, in an article written about the desire for tolerance, you manage to come off as a self-righteous, arrogant cretin, especially when you congratulate yourself for turning your back on a gay Republican at a party.

Maybe I should tell myself that it gets better.

Best Served Cold

How did conservatives react when Bush was re-elected in 2004 over uber-liberal John Kerry?

Thank God, Kerry won’t pull a Winter Soldier on our troops overseas!

How are the liberals reacting now that Obama has been re-elected?

Take that, Mitches!

No kidding. Pop superstar Beyoncé took to Tumblr to throw it in our collective face, setting the tone for everyone else who would have something to say the day after the election. I visited the homepage of one friend who voted for Obama to find several of her friends had tagged her in a theme photo of Beyoncé’s quote. That friend was willing to agree to disagree with me but none of those I know who voted for Obama have called out those who are behaving like juvenile delinquents. They’re celebrating with them. Relatives who are liberal weren’t willing to admit that the behavior from Democrats on election day was unacceptable; I was literally told to “quit whining” and be more graceful, as Romney was in his concession speech.

Sorry. I fail to see how I’m wrong for pointing out just how callow some people are being about this.

Not one of my relatives or friends who are liberal ever once tried to stand up for me or anyone else when accusations of racism began being tossed about carelessly. Not one of them, who all know many people like me who are conservative and know what kind of people we are, ever raised a single question when we were attacked as hatemongers and homophobes. None of the people who knew me as a child, watched me grow up, and know my heart have ever once stopped to tell others who didn’t know me as well that their outrageous comments were unfair. NEVER. Not a single time.

Where were they when Bill Maher made multiple unutterable remarks about Governor Palin? Where were they when David Letterman made tasteless jokes about her children? Where was such sentiment about being civil when the shooting in Tucson was politicized, and conservatives were branded as being at fault for the tragedy? None of them, not a single one, stopped to think that their side was being hysterical – not even when it was discovered that Jared Lee Loughner wasn’t political at all, but was genuinely koo-koo for Coco Puffs. They certainly didn’t speak up for us. They either let it go or, in some cases, joined in. None of us on the right side of the political spectrum lives in a vacuum. We all have liberals in our lives. How many of them bothered to stick up for us? We called Ann Coulter out for calling the President a “retard” because she was wrong – how many of the liberals in our lives would stand up to Keith Olbermann calling us the worst people in the world?

I love all of my family. I think the ones who are liberal are wrong, but I don’t think it’s up to me to change their minds (and I couldn’t even if I wanted to). Some of my liberal relatives, however, have no respect at all for me. They’ll put on a nice face when the family comes together, but they think I am out of my mind for supporting the one political ideal that they have decided is anathema to everything I am as a lesbian in America. They’ve never asked me to explain my beliefs, but they have no problem spitting out incredibly insulting things (such as remarks about how the troops are all rapists and murderers) in front of me, then looking at me for a response.

I’m sick of it. I’m tired of doing this back-and-forth with liberals, listening to them talk about how evil I am and wondering why the liberals who really know me never had my back. I’m tired of being called a traitor, a collaborator, a quisling, and a self-loathing closet case because liberalism makes no sense to me. I understand mathematics and basic economics, the rules of which say quite plainly that if you keep taxing the people responsible for the jobs in this country to give to people who won’t work for a living, eventually you’ll run out of rich people to tax and everybody is miserably poor.

I believe in charity – I just happen to see the basic truth that charity cannot be forced upon people. If my neighbor, who frequently gushes about how nice my truck is, decides one day to steal it, he’ll go to prison if he’s caught. If he breaks into my house and steals my computer or my guitars, same deal – he goes to prison. It doesn’t matter if he tells the judge that he needed transportation or if he needed to hock my things to eat. The judge will still ask him, “did you know that it was wrong to steal?” If it’s illegal for my neighbor to steal my physical possessions, how is it acceptable for the government to tax me half to death in the name of altruism?

The phrase “revenge is a dish best served cold” has been in use since the first half of the 17th century. Nobody knows exactly where it came from, but the phrase is often misunderstood. What it means is that revenge works best when it is exacted through calculated planning and emotional detachment. When the one seeking revenge plans every step, carries it out, and then walks away without another word, it bears far more profoundly than the oaf who takes a wild swing at your nose and guffaws when you hit the floor.

Most liberals today don’t understand that. They can’t just get their revenge – they have to gloat afterwards, making certain to twist the knife after burying it in our backs. They’ve spent the last five years calling us all racists, homophobes and hatemongers while those who know we’re none of those things sit and let it happen. The propaganda is slowly killing us.

Who are the Nazis, again?

Don’t retreat, reload – and keep your powder dry.

Chik-Fil-A: The Great Flap

If you’re listening to the hard left, you’d believe that the boycott of chicken chain Chick-Fil-A is working and the brand is being dealt an irreparable blow.

Unfortunately for them, this is pure fantasy. There’s a CFA restaurant right next to my loft, and these days the place is absolutely packed. The dining room is stuffed to the gills and the drive-thru line quickly wraps around the building. Every CFA in the country seems to be getting more business these days.

We all know what the kerfuffle is about. Dan Cathy, the company’s CEO and the son of founder S. Truett Cathy, recently said “guilty as charged” when asked by the Baptist Press if he supported traditional family values. He never specifically singled out gay marriage; he did single out divorce quite specifically, but the way things have gone you’d think Cathy held a forum in support of Fred Phelps and called for us all to be rounded up and herded into concentration camps.

Roseanne Barr said that everyone who eats at CFA deserves to get cancer. After then saying that people who feed their kids at CFA are guilty of child abuse, she went on another nazi-cursing tirade against the chain. Non-celebs went completely bats as well, commenting that CFA sandwiches are “deep fried in hate” and called traditional marriage “a sacred bond between two consenting bigots”.

The really frightening thing about all of this, however, is what elected government officials are doing now. It began with Boston mayor Thomas Menino declaring that CFA was banned from Boston and he would see to it that it was nearly impossible for the company to get proper permits to operate. As soon as he did that, actress Eliza Dushku promptly tweeted, “That’s right, B!” (Eliza, you’re breaking my heart here…I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer and SMG is still my celeb girl crush, but I once had a crush on you, too!) That was followed by Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno swearing to block CFA from opening a new restaurant in his district. Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel backed him up, saying that “Chick-Fil-A values are not Chicago values” (strange, since gay marriage is illegal in Illinois and nobody in Chicago politics has moved a finger to change that). San Francisco mayor Edwin Lee then tweeted that the nearest CFA restaurant was 40 miles away and “I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” DC mayor Vincent Gray has now said that “I will not support #hatechicken”.

Calling them a bunch of lunatics is being too nice. They’re outright violating CFA’s First Amendment rights, and frighteningly so. Their reason is that they strongly disagree with Cathy’s beliefs, and they think that because they disagree and can claim that CFA discriminates because of Cathy’s beliefs they have the right to stop the chain from growing, opening new stores and creating more jobs. Our tax dollars hard at work.

First of all, let’s clear the air here: being against the legalization of gay marriage does NOT equal being anti-gay. It certainly does not deserve the title of “hatemonger.” I know a few gay people who don’t believe in legalizing gay marriage. That does not make them hatemongers, they simply want to live their lives in peace and not have to worry about who might be offended. Second, I routinely go to CFA. My item of habit is their grilled chicken sandwich deluxe. I have never, not once, EVER been discriminated against by any employee. In fact, most of them know me by name and chat with me while I’m waiting. They all know I’m gay and not a single one of them cares. CFA employees have frequently been the most gracious I’ve encountered.

Third, it is beyond comprehension that any government official would dare to infringe upon the rights of any person. What would these same people say if a conservative mayor forced a gay-owned-and-themed business out of their city because of religious objections to their beliefs and/or lifestyle? I can tell you now, they’d all be howling for the DOJ to investigate. It’s perfectly acceptable, though, when liberals want to do it.

Boycotting isn’t un-American, and none of us have claimed that it was (Fox News certainly hasn’t, and you’re lying through your teeth when you claim they have). If you want to personally boycott the place, that’s your right. You may not, however, tell them that they’re not allowed to open or expand in your city because of your disagreement with the owner. I will be the first to stand up for their rights, because if I sit back and let you violate their rights, then mine will be next.

The Lies of the Fox Mole

In just a few days, Gawker’s “Fox Mole” has been outed as O’Reilly associate producer Joe Muto. He apparently began working for O’Reilly in 2004 with the express purpose to “get hired, keep my head down and my views to myself, work for a few months, build my resume…” Whether his original purpose was to act as a mole isn’t answered in his first dispatch, posted just a few days ago. The title begins with “Announcing Our Newest Hire”, so chances are he wasn’t in any kind of deal with Gawker. The supposed three-part series is impossible to follow as Gawker doesn’t have one launching point for all three where they’re labeled appropriately; you really kinda have to take a shot in the dark and hope you’re getting the right one if you’re interested in reading them in order.

What he says in his posts, however, is breathtakingly offensive to every conservative on the planet. I’m pretty sure some of his misinformation is deliberate.

First, he claims to be blacklisted because he works at Fox News. If that’s the case, then how did Fox personality Rita Cosby get picked up so quickly by MSNBC in 2005? I find it very hard to believe that other networks refused to pick him up because he worked for Fox.

Second, he refers to Fox Nation – the blog arm of the network where hosts and producers can talk about the news with viewers and readers – as “an unholy mashup of the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post and a Klan meeting.” His whole point is based on a single article called “Obama’s Hip-Hop BBQ Didn’t Create Jobs.” He says, in caps, “HOLY MOLY THESE PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE THE BLACK PRESIDENT.”

Excuse me? Oh, yes – he really did say that. His claims point to odd commenters who used the n-word when referring to President Obama (I have only twice seen anyone use the n-word when referring to the President on Fox Nation, and those people are soundly rebuked by everyone else in short order – something you won’t see on those articles now because Fox routinely shuts down comments on an article once it reaches a certain age). Muto also points to commenters who refer to Obama as “the Muslim president”, something I have said before – it’s not a racist thing. The man has “slipped” before and referred to it as “my Muslim faith.” We’re not lying when we call him that, nor are we being racists. I would think people would get the message when Obama shelled out one and a half billion for the Muslim Brotherhood, but apparently that has gone completely unnoticed.

What’s more, Muto doesn’t link the actual articles. What he links to are the reports from uber-hard-left groups such as Huffington Post, Media Matters and Think Progress. That, in and of itself, should be very telling.

He goes on to provide unseen footage of Mitt Romney and Sean Hannity talking off-air about riding horses – particularly the kind of horses he likes as opposed to his wife. He then has the nerve to compare Romney enjoying horseback riding to Obama playing golf. Hold on just a minute, sparky…Obama goes out to play golf when he SHOULD be running the country. He does it with astonishing frequency. He also goes on “date nights” that include taking a carbon-belching jet to New York to do things that only the very wealthy can afford to do all while telling the rest of us that we need to “tighten our belts”. Exactly who do you think you’re fooling?

Then he really gets under my skin. He mocks Romney’s proper pronunciation of a particular breed of horse – a dressage horse known as an Austrian Warmblood – by saying, “to GOP-voter ears it sounds not only gay, but even worse, French.”

You arrogant little shit.

There are about three or four hundred conservatives I personally know who got pissed about that remark. Every single one of them knows I’m a lesbian, and they think it’s fantastic that I’m both gay and politically conservative. Many of them actually support gay marriage rights despite what morons like you would have the whole world believe. They don’t wish me dead, they don’t want to see me thrown in jail under any re-hashed sodomy law; they wish me all the happiness in the world. Every one of them was just as deeply insulted by your crass remark as I was. We are all continually insulted by the continuing claims that we are all racists who dislike the President because he’s black. I guess you missed the many messages of overwhelming support for Allen West to run. Either you missed them or you deliberately ignored them.

You are just another mouthpiece for the Soros-funded left-wing extremism that permeates our culture like a noxious fume. You’ll decry dangerous rhetoric even as you spit it out like a trained parrot. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

Fitting the Racial Bill

A shooting rampage in Tulsa on Friday left three dead and two wounded. All five victims were black. As soon as I saw the news, I saw it coupled with claims of racist retaliation for the George Zimmerman case. I knew as soon as I read it that the claim was a massive jump to conclusions.

Wouldn’t you know? I was right.

Turns out the shooter is 19-year-old Jake England, a full-blooded Cherokee Indian whose father was shot to death by a black man two years ago. The shooter, Pernell Jefferson, only got six years for the murder. England and an alleged accomplice, 32-year-old Alvin Watts, were arrested for the shootings today. In the interim, the NAACP held emergency meetings and everyone started making assumptions. They’re STILL making assumptions.

Tulsa city councilman Jack Henderson, who spent seven years as a president of the NAACP, said, “Being an NAACP president for seven years, I think that somebody that committed these crimes were very upset with black people. That person happened to be a white person, the people they happened to kill and shoot are black people. That fits the bill for me.”

Now we’ve gone from making assumptions to telling outright lies. Not since Kanye got on a Katrina telethon and blurted, “Bush doesn’t care about black people!” have we seen such willful ignorance.

Ever since the Trayvon Martin shooting, I have heard some insane things. One Twitter user, @KennisTheMenace, claimed Trayvon was a “little kid”, and when I pointed out that 17 is hardly a little kid he got snarky and said, “he weighed 160 pounds. That’s very little!!!” No, actually, it isn’t…take that 6’4″, 160-pound guy, pick him up by his armpits and dead-drag him 50 feet, then tell me he’s still “very little.” Countless people are STILL claiming that Zimmerman went after Trayvon despite a police dispatcher telling him not to; this is a lie perpetrated by the media. Zimmerman had already lost Trayvon in the complex and when the dispatcher told him that they didn’t need him to follow Trayvon, he walked back to his SUV. Once the lie got out there, it was impossible to take back. Now it has formed a life of its own and millions refuse to believe the truth.

Now we have the New Black Panther Party going against Trayvon’s family’s wishes to put a bounty on Zimmerman’s head. We even have untold numbers swearing they’d kill Zimmerman on sight. Another incident occurs and, rather than wait for the facts, a black city councilman in Tulsa claims the shooter was a white man who was prejudiced against blacks. His excuse is that it “fits the bill” for him.

I have never in my life been so ashamed at how my country is reacting to such hatred. No president, not even Bill Clinton, made me nearly as ashamed as I am right now of Barack Obama. When we need leadership the most to stand up and calm both sides of an issue, they’re sitting on their laurels and enjoying what’s happening. Liberals are only too happy to yet again claim that all white conservatives are racists, regardless of the facts in these incidents. Rather than taking a step back and thinking clearly and rationally, we have reactionary, emotionally-charged politics ruling everyone’s behavior. The result will undoubtedly be another race riot, one where I’m sure we’ll see them looting their own neighborhoods and targeting Asian store owners just like they did in Los Angeles twenty years ago over a guy who got hopped up on dangerous narcotics, fled a traffic stop and fought with the cops, then later spit on paramedics who were trying to help him.

We’re not talking about Dr. King’s dream anymore. We’re talking about brutality and murder, all because one group has gotten professional victimhood down to a science. When Dr. King was with us, he refused to become violent, even in self-defense, and he chastised those who called for anger and violence. Were he here today he would weep for what his dream has been twisted into.

According to the news, England referred to Jefferson with a racial slur – one that blacks commonly call each other. There’s more to the story, too. England’s fiancee Sheran committed suicide in front of him just six months after delivering their child. Had a young black man experienced such intense losses, everyone would be talking about how he just went insane and he needs help. Instead, he’s being called a white racist. What England and Watts did was completely wrong and they should face the death penalty for it, but to call anyone who challenges the notion that all white conservatives are out to get all black people a racist is a sin and a damned shame. It is blatant character assassination, and the media has been all too happy to help it along.

Hey, anything that helps paint conservatives in a bad light. Even if it’s a lie, it’ll fit the bill.

Life On The Gay Liberal Plantation

I’ve finally decided on the book I’m going to finish first – it’ll be a nonfiction political/social commentary, and I’m tentatively calling it “Self-Loathing Closet Case” for the infamous insult that so many gay leftists like to throw at me.

I’m about to go off on all of the leftists out there. Here’s why: every single leftist on Twitter says the same thing to me when they see that I’m a lesbian and I’m politically conservative. “Wake up! They don’t want you to marry! How can you vote against yourself?!?”

I’m sick of hearing that.

I fail to understand why I should vote solely on the basis of what’s best for me. I’m a lesbian; I’m part of a group that makes up no more than 8% of the population. Expecting the entire population to cater to me because of my sexual orientation on a singular centuries-old issue is ludicrous; I’ve said before that I’d like to marry one day, but it’s not going to happen overnight and I think we need to be wiser about how we obtain marriage rights.

Liberals, for their part, want welfare, socialized healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy…all in the name of doing what’s right for everyone, not just one group. It’s selfish, they say, to only care about issues that only affect your social group. It’s wrong to be selfish. It’s wrong to be greedy. You should care about more than just yourself and your vote and beliefs should include everyone – at least, as long as the “everyone” you’re talking about is 100% liberal.

Taking that into consideration, why does it make any sense for liberals to tell me I must hate myself because I vote for a political ideal that doesn’t agree with gay marriage? They say it as if it is the only issue I should care about, and I should damn and curse any politician who doesn’t believe in my right to marry.

Here’s the big problem with that line of thinking: most Democrats don’t support gay marriage, either. If you listen to most vocal liberals, they’ll have you believe that gays should all be liberal because everyone who is against gay rights is a conservative. That is a bald-faced lie straight from the pits of hell. I’ve had more conservative friends come out in support of me in the past couple of years than I would have ever believed would. VERY few of the liberals in my life have stuck around. I can count them on the fingers of one hand and still have fingers left over. Even conservative pundit Lee Doren weighed in on gay marriage, declaring that he supports my right to marry and he hopes that the GOP, traditionally the party of civil rights, will be the first to get behind it.

Democrats, however, are not nearly as behind gay marriage as many of these people would have us believe. Proposition 8 – the law meant to repeal gay marriage rights in uber-liberal California – was passed with the help of hundreds of thousands of Democrats who still believe gay marriage to be wrong. Barack Obama has said many times that he believes marriage to be sacred, a pact between one man and one woman. When pressed on it by the gay community, he finally said, “well, how about this…if you challenge DOMA in court, I won’t defend it, how’s that?”

I see that cowardly posturing for exactly what it is: a politician trying to fish for as many votes as he can. The gay liberals all snap to and kiss his feet, ready to lap up the crumbs he offers while he works to destroy our Constitutional rights. They’d rather vote for a man who is willing to lie about his intentions than even entertain the beliefs of a party who will listen if given the chance. The very instant they come across someone like me, someone who refuses to just take what the party of choice is willing to offer right now because there are other dangers lurking within that party, they start hurling insults and death threats to try and put my leash back on and drag me back to the gay liberal plantation.

I won’t go.

Who the hell do you think you are? You claim to be the pillars of tolerance, yet when faced with someone who disagrees, you pitch a hissy fit and try to degrade me by calling me names and threatening bodily injury? Are you serious? Who appointed you the keeper of morals? If it’s wrong for the religious right to impose their morals on you, what makes it acceptable for you to impose your morals on me by way of denigration?

I think for myself. Unlike the liberals (who all vote to try to assuage their own emotions), I am capable of looking at all of the issues, include them all in my beliefs and decide based on the totality of those issues what my beliefs are and who deserves my support. Insulting me when I disagree is not exactly the best way to convince me that I should be liberal – it is, however, the surest way to help me be sure of my conservative values. You can be damn sure of one thing…

I will not be kept.

Matters of Political Importance

I just got into a tit-for-tat with a Twitter user who apparently thinks I’m ignorant for being a lesbian who isn’t interested in gay marriage rights. He isn’t the first to say something like that (although “ignorant” is probably the nicest thing I’ve been called by a liberal after hearing that I refuse to vote solely on the basis of which candidate is for gay marriage rights). He certainly won’t be the last. What’s more interesting is that the conversation started over a comment that Obama couldn’t be a Marxist because he’s a millionaire “moderate”. He made that comment to actor Adam Baldwin.

The user I was responding to said it was “sad” that I’m part of a political group that is against me. That’s exactly what he said. THEN he wanted me to “name one GOP member who is for gay marriage.”

That’s when I said it: I’m not for gay marriage. Not that I’m against it, I’m just not for it at the moment. That was when kingfish called me a bigot, Baldwin got sarcastic with him, and I ended the discussion – because we weren’t having a discussion. It was a bashing session, which is the only thing today’s liberals are capable of most of the time.

Here’s my problem: there are much more important things right now than gay marriage. I have blogged before that I would like to be able to marry my girlfriend one day, but now it just isn’t going to happen. This isn’t all that much like the civil rights fight of the 60’s; we’re not talking about something as obvious as skin color here. DADT has been repealed. That was the one sticking point with me, the one block to my rights as a gay American that I was angriest about. The government was already booted out of my bedroom. They don’t have any right to tell me that I can’t love who I love. Now they can’t tell me that I can’t serve my country, and that’s a huge deal for me.

Marriage, though? That’s a fight we’re not going to win overnight, and there are other issues that need to be faced before we can hope to address gay marriage.

Liberalism is a danger that it wasn’t before. There was a time when being liberal was important; liberal views helped free the slaves, end Jim Crow laws, end segregation…but then liberalism took an extreme twist. Somewhere in the 1970’s, liberalism morphed into a precursor to the extreme it is today. Bernard Goldberg, one of my favorite journalists, still considers himself a “classic liberal”. A classic liberal doesn’t believe in taxing the wealthy above everyone else or putting limits on free speech via the so-called “fairness doctrine”. A classic liberal doesn’t believe in social engineering by forcing gas prices into the stratosphere to bully people into “green alternatives” and other such nonsense. Your run-of-the-mill liberal, however, will call conservative women foul names, call those who disagree bigots and racists, then attack conservatives as liars and homophobes – all while their own people give us legislation like DADT and DOMA and they all scream for more civility.

Any more of this tolerance of theirs and my head might explode.

Every single time I get into a tangle with a liberal, be it on Twitter, a news article, or some other forum for political discussion, they always say the same things:

Liberal: how can you be FOR a group that is against you?

Mel: they’re not against me.

Lib: name one GOP candidate who is for gay marriage.

Mel: when did marriage enter the picture? The issue isn’t gay marriage…

Lib: it’s the ONLY issue! They won’t let you marry! They HATE you!

Mel: actually, the only person who hates me right now is you.


Mel: You cannot be serious…

The funniest part is when they try to define the word “bigot” for me, as if I never studied English in college and have no idea what the word means. On this occasion, kingfish actually linked Wikipedia (insert Soledad O’Brien joke here) for the definition. Here’s the official Webster version:

Bigot (noun): a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Short breakdown: I’m not against gays. I AM gay. Believing that the economy and several Constitutional issues are more important than gay marriage at the moment does not now and will never make me anti-gay. Disagreeing with the running liberal narrative that gay marriage should be the only thing I care about does not make me anti-gay or anti-marriage. The only thing I refuse to tolerate is intellectual laziness – and when you call me a bigot over the gay marriage issue, you are being intellectually lazy.

To answer your original statement, kingfish, yes, it is entirely possible for a rich man to be a Marxist (calling Obama a moderate is ludicrous on its face). Those who agitate “the people” in favor of Marxism are often those already holding the purse strings – the elites who want to tell us all how we should live. Isn’t that the very hypocrisy you accuse Christians of? Or do you really think that Christians are the only ones capable of being liars and thieves?

If my rights as an American citizen are taken from me – if America ceases to be the independent and free nation it was created to be – my right to marry my girlfriend will not matter in the least. That is why other issues are more important than gay marriage for me, because I see liberals calling our current extremist of a president a “moderate” and I see exactly where this is headed if we don’t do something about it.