Maher Finds out the Downside of Being a Liberal

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzrUD-5hf1A]

This was a real treat!  The only people dumb enough to believe that the government was involved in 9/11 conspiracies are liberals (aside from the crazies supporting Ron Paul).  Here we go again with more “Building 7” propoganda.  (The same conspiracy Rosie O’Donnell believes in).

I feel sorry for Maher.  Aside for the fact that his guests were Sheila Jackson Lee and Chris Matthews; he actually has to try and sit through an audience of liberals who have spent too much time surfing 9/11 conspiracy sites, Alex Jones sites, and reading Rosie’s blog (and not working like the rest of us have to) . 

I like Bill Maher in the sense that the man is actually smart and funny.  But it has to be said that up until this point, these crazies thought they’d be welcome in his audience.  More Democrats and Ron Paul should vocally denounce these crazies every chance they get.  But unfortunately, most fall into this trap (let’s face it, Paul needs every vote he can get).

If Maher would have spent more time making fun of these crazies in lieu of degrading his President that has kept him safe since 2001, perhaps this type would not show up to act as opportunists.  And perhaps they would never think that this type of venue would welcome them in the first place.

Nice to see him make fun of them and throw them out!

BTW, I didn’t see Sheila Jackson Lee or Chris Matthews vocally denouncing the crazies as Maher did. (Unless it’s in a later segment.)  Prove me wrong otherwise.

****Update****

Apparently Maher did bring this up a month ago and made fun of the 9/11 conspiracy loons.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOljd9oOzo

I give him credit for that, but I still find it funny that he really is the only mainstream liberal pundit to make fun of the Rosie-crowd to this extent.  Maybe Ann can get him really drunk one night and convert him.  😉

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?

Liberals Dig Their Claws Into Another Dead Victim

We all know of the hate-crimes bill that Democrats in Congress are trying to get the President to sign. 

What we don’t know is what this means for justice.  When one digs into the guts of it a little, we see that if a crime is committed against someone because of their race or sexual preference, the consequence is then amplified by the suggested measure in the bill.  For example, the murder of Matthew Shephard would have gotten the criminals ten extra years in prison than of criminals who acted out the same crime against a woman (which happens a lot in this country by the way.)

It also means that a rape of a gay man would carry out larger consequences that the rape of a straight woman. 

Also, I am to understand that Christian ministers who cite the Bible on any issue could be grounds for criminal charges as well (particiularly if it denounces homosexuality).  I’d say we have found the true motive here.

Someone can please shed more light on this for me if they’d like.  But this is incredibly ridiculous.  Crime is crime and the best way to deal with criminals and to discourage their behavior is indeed by electing conservatives so that conservative judges are put on the bench.

Sadly an 18-year old committed suicide last week by jumping off of a cruise ship just one year after he was beaten and sodomized.  During the course of the year, the victim was used by Democrats on Capitol Hill to add a personal tragedy to the story to get the President to sign a bill that was ridiculous.  

I don’t suppose that some people – especially youngsters like David – are entitled to the ample amount of privacy needed to get through such a horrible ordeal.  Democrats with agendas didn’t care about David’s healing process and used him as they do with every other victim to browbeat common sense.

Now, they aren’t too interested in letting his family personally grieve.  Just days after his death, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) was already using his death to promote a preposterous Bill that will; in the end, change nothing but the alteration of free speech of Christian ministers who read and interpret from the book of Leviticus.

The animals responsible for the beating of David Ritcheson are serving sentences currently.  One is serving life and the other is serving 90 years.

Because they shouted “white power” during the attack, Sheila Jackson-Lee wants to pass a bill that would have added ten years onto those sentences?

How ridiculous.  Once again the Democrats are shaming a victim of a horrible crime so that they can prove some useless point.  It just so happens that it would make it a bit more tough to surveil terrorists and for minsters to exercise their rights to free speech.

Talk about a weird coincidence.

If Sheila Jackson-Lee wants real justice for crimes then she should consider converting to the party that actually believes in delivering true justice for victims of crimes.  The party she belongs to is certainly not the one we can rely on to do that.