Outing True Hate

I got into it on Twitter with a guy who talks like a 15-year-old. He says he’s Catholic. He openly hates gay people, loves using the word “fag”, and is an incredible hypocrite.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the man who calls himself Daniel Cali – AKA @dheaddan from somewhere in the liberal state of Illinois:

Now, after the “discussion” began (if you could really call it that), I called him a hypocrite. Why? He spouted the tried-and-true Leviticus “clobber passage” to try and prove to me that I am damned for being gay. I pointed out that the same set of ceremonial laws – the very laws that Jesus Christ purportedly sacrificed Himself to fulfill, thus no longer requiring ceremonial cleanliness – ban us from handling pork products and wearing cotton/poly blends. Simple argument, right? He comes back with the argument that the New Testament tells us we are allowed to eat foods considered unclean despite that law, purely because of Jesus’ sacrifice. He replies that only food was made spiritually acceptable again (but not fabric woven of two different materials? Interesting…). I called him a hypocrite, because that’s exactly what he was.

He later made multiple excuses for calling me a sodomite and a fag.

First he called me a sodomite – which, since I am a lesbian, is not possible. Sodomy is defined as “anal or oral copulation,” the key word being the very last one. Copulation requires the involvement of male genitalia, and Dan apparently doesn’t know enough about biology to understand this. He insisted that I was a sodomite even after I first pointed him to Ezekiel for the reasons that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (homosexuality is never listed among the sins God destroyed those cities for), and I contend that based on scripture, the use of the name of that city to describe male homosexual acts is incorrect in any case. He continued to call me a sodomite even after being reminded that the word describes male interactions, gay or straight.

He wasn’t listening. He went on to call me a fag multiple times (all spelling inaccuracies are his, cut-and-pasted from his Twitter feed):

Daniel Cali ‏@dheaddan
@animelmaguire I am not a hypocrite, but your a fag.

Daniel Cali ‏@dheaddan
@animelmaguire BTW when you cite chapter and verse where fag is OK with God, then let me know until then you’re wrong and don’t bother me.

Daniel Cali ‏@dheaddan
@animelmaguire Sodmite is another one of those inaccurate descriptions, sodomy is any abominable sex act which, you as a fag engage in.

Daniel Cali ‏@dheaddan
@animelmaguire keep twisting sorry that is not condoning fags

Daniel Cali ‏@dheaddan
@animelmaguire I am in good company for the same term “fag” was used by William F Buckley when referring to Vidal Gore.

Daniel Cali ‏@dheaddan
Fag-> @animelmaguire: I thought you were shaking the dust off your feet. Since you cannot stop using that foul word, let me help you.Buh-bye

If you doubt me, click here and read his tweets before he deletes them.

His first excuse for using the word “fag” was he was “saving space.” I called him on it, and his next excuse was that we had “perverted” the word gay and he refused to use it in that connotation. Well, in England they call cigarettes fags…cultural reference. If a word has such extreme negative connotation, you’re not doing yourself or your so-called faith any favors by using it continually. In reality, anyone with half a brain knows that you’re playing games with me, particularly trying to get me worked up. I’m doing with you what I did with Jeffrey Don Davis – I’m outing you, a supposed conservative, for the hard-right hatemonger that you are. You are another part of the reason why liberals call me a self-loathing closet case.

I hate to break this to you, but the Constitution will not hold up under social conservatism. It will not jibe with laws being passed based purely on religious dogma, which is all you seem to believe in. America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and I am a believer, but our founding fathers were not all Christians (several were actually Deists, including Thomas Jefferson) and they specifically wrote the Constitution to reflect America as a free nation, one that was never intended to recognize as law the beliefs of a singular religion.

In other words, if you’re against Sharia being passed into US law, you cannot turn around and insist that Catholicism be what our laws are based on.

So that I don’t beat a dead horse, here are a few other blog posts I’ve written on these subjects. Oh, and Dan…take a gander at Luke 11:37-52. The only time Jesus openly condemned anyone to hell (that we know of) were the religious leaders who pretended to have it all figured out. If you look at the way He continually deals with them throughout the gospels, He gets irritated that they put on a good face and twist scripture and the law to turn it into what they want it to say. I find it amazing that, despite His dire warnings, a couple thousand years pass and nothing has changed. Just like Fred Phelps, you claim that you’re behaving this way out of “love”. You apparently missed I Corinthians 13.

Whose Morality? – Commentary on the birth control debate and how liberals are attacking Catholicism

Put It In Context, Part I – Debate over what hate is and how it does still infect those on the religious part of the Right

Jennifer Knapp Makes A Comeback, Part II – contains my testimony and comments on going from being religious to being a person of faith

“Conservatives” Behaving Badly

Up until just now, I was a member of the Patriot Action Network.

I say up until just now because I’ve had a running problem with them. About two weeks ago, I started getting “partner emails” from a group that pays PAN to send emails to users. I’ve never had a problem with any of them until now. Eugene Delgaudio, head of a group pseudo-benignly called “Public Advocate of the United States”, is one of those extremist fringe anti-gay hysterics that Jimmy LaSalvia was talking about in a recent public statement regarding Dan Savage. Delgaudio is almost famous for his lies regarding the gay agenda. Don’t get me wrong – there is a gay leftist agenda, and I’m still every bit as committed to stopping them as I am to stopping Obama’s re-election bid. Delgaudio, however, uses myths, distortions and outright lies to create a problem where there is none.

Here’s a portion of the claims made in his email, sent by PAN to its users:

You see, the Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will:

*** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so “homosexual students” don’t feel “singled out” during already explicit sex-ed classes;

*** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to “experiment” with the homosexual “lifestyle;”

*** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to “freedom of self-expression;”

*** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a “hostile learning environment” for homosexual students.

And that’s just the beginning of the Homosexual Lobby’s radical agenda.

In fact, it will set them up to ram through their entire perverted vision for a homosexual America.

Delgaudio is talking about HR 998, better known as the “Student Non-Discrimination Act.” You can read it in its entirety by clicking here. When I first got this ridiculous email, I posted a blog on my page on PAN’s website detailing why Delgaudio was a liar – at the same time I said that I was 100% against HR 998, I listed the reasons why, and I said specifically that if PAN was going to give Delgaudio a vehicle with which to push his extremist agenda, I was going to leave the network and publicly comment on what they’ve been supporting.

If nothing else, HR 998 runs directly afoul of the Tenth Amendment. The government didn’t have the power to start regulating education in the first place, and according to the Tenth Amendment it is illegal for the federal government to keep meddling in education in America. HR 998 claims to use the Fourteenth Amendment to supposedly protect the rights of GLBT youth in public schools, a claim that is outrageous on its face. The Constitution alone could stop this idiotic law from being implemented.

That’s not to mention the reason for the bill in the first place. It’s purportedly to stop anti-gay bullying; we already have laws that could be used to crack down on bullying. Harassment laws could be utilized, especially when social media is involved. Assault charges can be leveled at bullies who use physical violence against their victims. We don’t need any more laws – we already have plenty of them. HR 998 is a knee-jerk reaction by liberals who want more control over Americans.

Delgaudio is making the case for the liberal side of it. Absolutely nothing in that law says anything about sex ed classes (which I think were a poor idea in the first place) teaching gay sex acts to make gay kids feel included. Nothing is mentioned about private schools being forced to obey federal mandates on anti-bullying measures. The most appallingly insulting claim Delgaudio makes even offends the straight conservatives I know. He claims that the law would protect gay kids from punishment following claims of sexual harassment, something the bill says absolutely nothing about (not even in passing), and is a provision that even the most ardent liberal socialists would be reticent to include. That claim is so egregious I can’t believe that the email passed PAN muster.

Not only did it pass once – it passed twice. I just got the same maliciously lie-ridden email from PAN today. I quietly posted a blog to my PAN site that said I would be leaving because I could not in good conscience align myself with an organization that would accept money from a hack like Delgaudio so he can play on people’s religious sensibilities through emotional statements and complete fabrications. Within hours, Darla Dawald, the national director herself, responded with a nasty, defensive comment that they had “a lot of costs to cover” and “one person being offended was hardly a reason to change anything.” She went on to say that PAN has 90,000 users and they had to find a way to raise money.

Before I could respond to her, however – and before I could save the posts I’d made on the page – she suspended my account. The suspension made sure I wouldn’t be able to take a screen capture of her comment. She took a page straight out of the Huffington Post’s playbook, proving my point that PAN leadership is really no better than liberals. They’ll support people and groups who will lie and peddle those lies to members who won’t question their fellow conservatives, but when called out for their hypocrisy they pitch a fit and shun the person who had the nerve to speak up.

Like it or not, people like Delgaudio are hurting the conservative movement. You don’t want gay leftists indoctrinating our youth in extreme liberal beliefs in public schools? Fantastic! Neither do I! If this is the way you’re going to try to stop it, though, you’re only shooting all of us in the collective foot. Delgaudio is a shill, the kind that will be used as ammunition by the left when the presidential campaign really gets going. His brand of emotional ranting is what gay liberals wave in my face when they call me a self-loathing closet case. And when you have someone like that lying to stop a piece of legislation, you’re only furthering the cause of those who back that legislation. I really don’t want to hear about how you need to raise money, either – Tammy Bruce does it just fine without resorting to selling ad space to those she wouldn’t want to be seen as endorsing. If you refuse to distance yourself from Delgaudio, Darla, you are endorsing him.

We need to stop HR 998 and we need to boot the people backing it from office. We’ll never accomplish that goal as long as we appear to align ourselves with those who gamble with the truth. If we don’t learn to be wiser about this, the war is ours to lose.

Somebody Save Us

I had a love/hate relationship with school when I was a kid. I loved learning but I hated doing homework. I preferred recreational reading and writing my own stories to completing assignments given to me by teachers. I went to several different schools in different states, and I can remember having some really bad teachers along the way. One teacher, however, changed my life; Nita Norwood taught my 7th-grade English class. Even the most boring subjects were interesting in her class. She had well over a hundred students during the course of a semester, but she found a way to make my recreational reading habits a part of my lesson plan. When she saw me getting bullied in the cafeteria – I had lunch during her class – she offered to let me have lunch in the classroom with her. When she found out that I liked to write, she wanted to read it all. Despite how juvenile I’m sure it was back then she encouraged me to never stop writing. Mrs. Norwood was, by far, the best teacher I ever had, and she’d been teaching for eons.

I have just finished watching an eye-opening documentary about the public education system in America called “Waiting For Superman”, and I am floored. I have known for a long time – since I was a kid – that our education system has serious problems. I saw it firsthand when kids I went to school with were coming into class drunk, high, angry, and not paying any attention to the teacher. I saw it when teachers would leave us to do whatever we wanted while they did whatever they wanted. I went through grade school in the 80’s, jr. high and high school in the 90’s…we’re talking two decades ago that I was in elementary school, and I had teachers that I knew didn’t care. I had classmates who were so used to other teachers that didn’t care that when they came into a class where the teacher DID care, they all but ruined the profession for that teacher.

I knew nothing of teacher’s unions when I was a kid. I never heard about it. Now, it’s all I hear about anymore – when teachers are mentioned in the news, they are invariably coupled with unions. Not long ago I linked Matt Damon’s uber-liberal rant about how teachers deserve tenure because, if you believe him, they make next to nothing and there’s not a teacher in the system that doesn’t care, because nobody gets into a profession like that without caring.

(To that, I say this: in EMS, or emergency medical services, we make less money than teachers do, and we have to go through a lot more to prove that we’re worthy of keeping our credentials. I have worked with more than a few who had no business working on ambulance crews. Every profession is plagued by those who don’t want to work.)

In the documentary, writer/director Davis Guggenheim spotlights DC schools chief Michelle Rhee and her quest to do what no superintendent of the DC schools district had ever done: reform the district and improve the state of education in the area. I remember a few years ago, when Rhee caught unimaginable vitriol from teachers and their unions for closing 23 DC schools and firing several principals. She fired a total of 266 teachers whose evaluations revealed remarkably poor teaching skills – what’s more, 76 of those teachers did not even have the proper credentials to teach, yet they were still defended by their union. Rhee also suggested a reform that gave a few union leaders gray hair: she offered salaries in the mid-six-figure range to high-performing teachers who were willing to give up tenure and offered much smaller pay raises to those who refused to give up tenure. The AFT, or American Federation of Teachers – the union that covers DC schools – was so threatened by the proposal that they refused to even allow the body to vote on it. It was never even considered.

What is tenure? It began in colleges and universities, where professors used to have to teach for years and jump through a myriad of flaming hoops to achieve it. The point was to protect them from losing their careers based on bias or political motivation. When I was a kid, tenure was unheard of for public school teachers.

The unions began back in the 1950’s when teachers organized to protect themselves from unfair pay rates. Back then it was believed that men were the primary bread-winners, and since women were teachers, they didn’t need to make much money. Those unions have evolved into massive money machines that give more money to political campaigns than any other special interest group – and over 90% of their money goes to Democrats and liberal causes. Why? Because the Democrats will fight for anything the unions want, including teacher tenure.

The United States sits at the bottom 10% of developed nations for education rates. In most states, math and reading comprehension rates are abysmal – they tend to run between 15%-35%. The last public high school I went to was in Demopolis, Alabama, and as a sophomore (I was homeschooled after that) I had seniors in some of my classes who could barely read, and they were taking these classes because they wouldn’t graduate without them. Many of these kids graduated despite still failing. In the years that have passed, I have seen the paper in that town report that a number of them are either in prison or well on their way.

And we wonder why idiotic shows like “Jersey Shore” and “Teen Mom” are all the rage with kids.

We have tried every single reform we can come up with. The one thing that stands in the way of true reform and an education system that is workable is the union and it’s demand for teacher tenure. Once a teacher is tenured, by contract, they cannot be fired – no matter how often they miss work, no matter how poorly their students perform, they cannot be fired. We need to put an end to that. The unions need to stick to defending the actual rights of teachers, not keeping poorly-performing teachers in their positions. I would be willing to bet that if teachers had to prove that they deserve their jobs, just as I and my fellow EMT’s and paramedics must, there would be an incredible turnaround.

Send Rangel Packing!

(Note: I just read news on one of my hometown’s news sites – click here – that Sarah Palin’s daughter Willow used gay slurs against another Facebook user. Some kid named Tre commented, albeit dishonestly, that “Sarah Palin’s Alaska is failing so hard right now”. This was said despite the fact that the show garnered more viewers on its debut episode than any other show in TLC’s history. Willow fired back calling him a “faggot” and posted on his wall, “Haha your so gay. I have no idea who you are, But what I’ve seen pictures of, your disgusting.” All of us here, myself included, have long supported and defended Sarah and her family and I am stung by this latest revelation. Sarah is going to be in Phoenix, which is where I now reside, next week and I had planned to attend the event. I will personally follow this story and report on what happens, if anything.)

I would write a post about the brave soldier who was awarded the Medal of Honor today, but the good sergeant is uncomfortable in the spotlight and doesn’t feel he deserves it. While I respectfully disagree, there is another matter that caught my attention.

New York Democrat Charlie Rangel, a member of the US House of Representatives for 40 years, was found guilty today by a panel of four Republicans and four Democrats of 11 of the 13 charges against him.

In 2008, the New York Times reported that Rangel had rented four rent-controlled units in a Harlem apartment complex at less than half the market value. He was living in three, which had been combined to one unit, and was using the fourth as his campaign headquarters. The same story claimed that one of the owners of the property (a member of the Olnick Organization) had contributed heavily to Rangel. It was later reported that he’d failed to report income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic – and he was supposed to report that income both to the IRS and to the House of Representatives. It came out that, while occupying his rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, he was also claiming a homestead tax break on a home in the District – and when he sold that home in the Capitol, he failed to report that income as well. He fought for tens of millions of dollars in tax shelters for Nabors Industries, which had contributed $1 million to the City College of New York to have a school named after Rangel. He paid $80,000 to his son’s internet server company to create a PAC website that was so poorly designed that experts said it shouldn’t have cost more than $100. It was discovered he had upwards of $500,000 in a credit union checking account, two properties in New Jersey, stock in PepsiCo and other companies – all of which he failed to report.

Then, about a year ago, Rangel used his clout as the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to stop legislation that would have brought to a screeching halt nearly $4 billion in bailouts for a British rum distillery, Diageo, to make rum in the US Virgin Islands. Just before he did this it was discovered he received an undisclosed amount of campaign contributions for the deal.

In March of this year, Rangel announced he was taking a leave of absence from his post on the House Ways and Means Committee (which, by the way, writes legislation relating to tax codes). Yesterday, his hearing before the aforementioned board began. However, just a short while into the hearing, Rangel announced that he could no longer afford legal representation after paying his lawyers $2 million and refused to defend himself (despite being a lawyer). He walked out of the hearing. Of the 13 charges against him the panel found him guilty of 11. What’s astounding was his salty reaction: “How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room? I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions.”

That’s rich. After 40 years in Congress, he is caught greasing palms and accepting inappropriate favors, and he walks out on his own hearing, refusing to even stand in his own defense – and it’s somehow the panel’s fault? I’m sorry, but I was pretty sure this was a CONGRESSIONAL panel, not a court of law. The Constitution doesn’t necessarily apply to House Ethics Panels. If you break the rules of the House (which are not listed in the founding documents, BTW), you are subject to a different set of rules – much like the military and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). You’re not facing jail time, Charlie. We’re talking about loss of Congressional seniority and privileges. It’s a tad different.

Somehow, though, I get the feeling that the man will die in office, just as Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy did before him. He’ll refuse to retire. His constituents will refuse to abandon him no matter how crooked he is. He will ride that wave of ridiculous loyalty to his grave because his constituents are just as crooked as he is and are only looking out for Number One. When the shoe’s on the other foot, though, they’ll accuse everyone else in America of the same damn thing while they demand free healthcare and housing.

Wonder why Rangel cursed and walked away from Jason Mattera in 2008 when Mattera had the gall to question him on his ethics? Because he’s guilty and he has no defense.

Drain the Puss: Send Grayson Packing

I am convinced.  The Democrats must have grown up in bitter homes and must thrive off of hatred to survive, to attack like no other, and to feel better about themselves by putting other people down.  Even if it means lying.  They thrive on the same types of fungus that puss needs to exist. 

The truth to that very simple observation plays out in front of our eyes.  Last night on O’Reilly, Bill Maher actually stated that extremists existed only on the right side of the aisle without admitting the extremism on the left.  This type of derangement (which I believe Sarah Palin should be credited for causing) is priceless and aligns itself properly when the same crowd boasts that the recession is really over, or that jobs really were created with the stimulus, or that Obamacare really will bring costs down.

Of course, in a land of reality, we all know that you don’t have to look far to find the extremism, the poison, the fungus, the true puss of the left. 

If he weren’t in a  seat which has a voice in deciding legislation that affects me, Grayson could be quite comedic.  In fact after he loses his seat this year, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow should pray he doesn’t replace one of them. 

I firmly believe more people would tune into see him than they would any existing host on MSNBC.  (Not to mention the massive benefit this would be for conservatism for years to come.) 

During the health care debacle, he declared Republicans wanted old people to “die quickly.” Just recently released the following attack-ad on his opponent taking a quote completely out of context:


Unbelieveable characterzation considering the full speech, explained here by Dan Webster and shown even by little Contessa Brewer who took Grayson to task over it:



What’s funny is that days earlier, Ed Schultz (almost as insane, yet a lot more boring than Grayson), praised Grayson as being a Democrat who endorsed Obamacare and cited a poll from The Nation stating Grayson was ahead of Webster by 13 points!


Well, since the guts and lies of Grayson-the-puss’s attack ad have been revealed, more relevant polls show Webster ahead now by 6 points and because of Grayson’s insanity, Webster has raised a massive pile of cash as a result.

In hindsight, this is one of the best things Grayson could have done for his country and I look forward to watching his new show on MSNBC when it’s all over with.

Now if we could only get Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to join him.