Yes, originally it was but it is clear in Momma Sheehan’s rant on MichaelMoore.com (did you doubt that she is truly part of the Leftist Fringe and not the PR image of a bereaved Mom?) that she hates America and everything we stand for. Time to take a field trip to Baghdad, Momma! I’ll pack your bags. (Hat tip: Expose The Left)

After the tragedy of 9/11 we were on our way to becoming a fledgling Matriotic society until our leaders jumped on the bandwagon of inappropriate and misguided vengeance to send our young people to die and kill in two countries that were no threat to the USA or to our way of life. The neocons exploited patriotism to fulfill their goals of imperialism and plunder.

This sort of patriotism begins when we enter kindergarten and learn the nationalist “Pledge of Allegiance.” It transcends all sense when we are taught the “Star Spangled Banner,” a hymn to war.

What the hell is a “Matriotic” society? What a buffoon.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Calling Cindy a “malignant narcissist,” our pal Tammy Bruce notes how this unhinged activist tried to make the State of the Union address all about her. As with anything by Tammy, it’s best just to read the whole thing.

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): Lorie Byrd has more.

UP-UP-UPDATE (from GPW): Gateway Pundit has even more (along with a picture).

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (from GPW): While an AP reporter describes Cindy Sheehan as a “mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement” while James Taranto describes her as “an anti-American crackpot.” If the MSM reported honestly on Ms. Sheehan, they might more accurately call her the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who has recently associated with some of the more radical anti-American zealots at home and abroad.

**UPDATE** SOTU is being webcast at the White House homepage.

**POST-SOTU UPDATE** — Welcome Instapundit & Tammy Bruce readers! Please check out this SOTU preview from yesterday by my co-blogger Dan, GayPatriotWest.

Okay, I’m the guy that never walks out on the worst movie. But I couldn’t bear American Idol tonight anymore. Horrible. So I’ve switched to the Fox News Channel to live blog the SOTU.

Laura Bush just walked in to take her seat. Love her pink dress! Looks like she may have a woman from Iraq sitting with her.

9:01 PM. The Supreme Court is entering. Hey, Teddy…. that is Chief Justice ROBERTS and Associate Justice ALITO walking by you with lifetime appointments. House Clerk, ready the CPR machine!

9:02 PM. Jim Nicholson, Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, is the guy from the Cabinet who was picked to stay behind. That means if Tom Clancy’s fiction ever became reality, we’d have President Nicholson. Oh boy, whoopie.

9:04 PM. FOX is reporting that Cindy Sheehan was taken out of the House gallery in handcuffs for trying to unfurl a banner. Hahahahaha!

9:05 PM. Who are these people coming down the aisle? And it looks like pink dresses are in vogue tonight! (I am wearing a blue robe in case anyone cares.)

9:06 PM. Brit Hume was just saying that there was talk of impeaching the President which reflected the tenor of Congress right now. He also said they didn’t have much political momentum and that rallies to impeach the President this week in Washington, DC have been (his words) “sparsely attended.”

9:08 PM. President Bush has been announced and he’s walking into the House chamber now. Looks like Nancy Pelosi, Bill Frist and Roy Blunt are immediately behind. I’d laugh if Pelosi broke a heel and took a tumble.

(more…)

Eh…. American Idol has too many “characters” in their melodic drama for me to do a play-by-play quite yet. But some singers from tonight stick in my head… like the female African-American prisoner guidance counselor who sang, “I’m A Redneck Woman”…. and sang it very well. Me like! Me like!

Then the very overweight guy who kind of looked like a young Louie Anderson was rejected by all three judges bitched and moaned outside the door to Ryan. As he left the room, Simon said “thank God it was a ‘no’… we couldn’t afford the food bill.” Okay, mean… but I admit I laughed. I’m sure the Gargantuanly Large Americans Against Defamation (GLAAD) will put out a press release tonight.

I’m also browsing some other blogs and find more proof our friend Dandy Andy is a Liberal.

Yes: this president! George W. Bush. I repeat: George W. Bush. He thinks we’re consuming too much oil. I’m not making this up. Promise. They just sent me an email.

And look: I know, I know. But the only sane response is to cheer and check the details. Five years too late … but better late than never. Now, how about that gas tax?

Andrew… Al Gore is on the phone for you.

(more…)

Come right back here to this very spot where I will be liveblogging President Bush’s State of the Union speech to Congress. Don’t expect your typical analysis though. I fully intend to type whatever pops into my head, and err on the side of snarky, un-politically correct comments.

Join the fun right here at 9PM Eastern time. I’ll begin a few minutes early with a post-mortem on tonight’s American Idol episode.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

*cue music*

Advocate sez: “It’s the end of the world as we know it.”

The confirmation troubled many gay rights leaders who opposed Alito’s nomination on the grounds that he would likely vote against the advancement of gay rights.

If Alito were nominated by Bill Clinton, they would have wrote: “Alito’s record is unclear on gay rights, but we are confident the Gay Messiah will anoint him with his Presidential blessing and ensure he upholds DOMA.”

I found this note at the bottom of the Advocate news article quite amusing: ” (AP, with additional reporting by Advocate.com) “

Um, more like with additional editorializing by Advocate.com.

Meanwhile I see that the Gay Left is unhinged and has their hate campaign all revved up. (hat tip: Malcontent)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

About a year ago, to paraphrase one of the great Ethel’s signature songs, everything seemed to be coming up roses, this time for the GOP. Despite tens of millions of dollars spent distorting his record and trying to defeat him, despite an MSM engaged in similar endeavors, the president won reelection comfortably while our party picked up seats in both houses of Congress. The economy continued to grow while the successful elections in Iraq on January 30, 2005, were a sign of success that even the naysayers, try though they might, couldn’t deny. And the president’s approval ratings were well above 50%.

Some conservative blogs were forecasting GOP gains in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections, then nearly two years away. Perhaps, it was because of the sense of overconfidence — as well as the bitter 2004 elections that the president, as Fred Barnes put it last month “ wanted to soften the partisan edge of his image and be more statesmanlike.” After an acrimonious campaign, the president intended to focus of governing and decided to eschew divisive rhetoric.

But, as yesterday’s Senate vote to close debate on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. AlitoJr., to the Supreme Court showed, some Democrats would rather attack him, his policies and his nominees than put forward policies of their own and work with him and try to effect compromises on a number of issues. Those twenty-five Democrats behaved yesterday — as many of them had all last year — as if they were still campaigning against him and the voters’ verdict in November 2004 meant nothing.

While the president put forward a positive agenda, the Democrats continued to campaign against him. He proposed Social Security reforms; they accused him of lying about pre-Iraq war intelligence. He turned away from such divisive issues as the constitutional amendment barring gay marriage; Democrats accused him of racism in his response to Hurricane Katrina. By last fall, with his poll number tumbling, he must have realized that (again to quote Barnes) that his “nonpolitical strategy was a failure. Democrats picked up on none of his overtures.” So, after Senators (as well as bloggers and columnists) questioned his choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, he needed a bold move in order to change his fortunes.

Like King Theoden hunkered down in the Keep at Helm’s Deep, the president rallied his troops by tapping Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. A few days later, on Veteran’s Day, after enduring months of unanswered accusations that he lied us into war, he again went on the offensive, with a speech responding to those dishonest critics and defending his decision. George W. Bush always seems to do better when he’s down.

Perhaps had he not been so complacent at the outset of 2005, the year might not have been as rough for him. Given what he learned last year, expect him to stay on the offensive this year, beginning tonight in his State of the Union address. With a bold vision — and some positive policy proposals, the president will make clear that he intends to build on the success of the Alito nomination. If the president, the Administration, Congressional Republicans and the party faithful follow through on a strong speech with unrelenting efforts throughout the year, 2006 could prove to be a good year not only for him, but also for our party.

(more…)

In just over twenty-four hours, shortly after President Bush delivers the State of the Union address, Timothy M. Kaine, the new Democratic Governor of Virginia will delivered “his party’s response.” Although this Democrat signed a bill calling for a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban state recognition of gay marriage in the Old Dominion, gay leaders have largely been silent about the Democrats’ choice of Kaine. They have not faulted Democrats for tapping such a man nor have they even faulted him for supporting this measure.

And unlike Connecticut’s Republican Governor Jodi Rell, who signed a bill into law recognizing same-sex civil unions in the Nutmeg State, the Virginia Democrat opposes civil unions. Indeed, while the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) faulted California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenengger in multiple press releases for his veto of a bill which would have recognized same-sex marriage in the Golden State, the only reference on HRC’s web-site to Kaine’s support of his state’s amendment resolution was a Washington Post article on the Virginia referendum that they posted here.

HRC accused California’s Republican Governor, more open to state recognition of same-sex unions than his Virginia Democratic counterpart, of putting “politics over people.” (Schwarzenegger has publicly endorsed the state’s domestic partnership program. Not only that, last year, he signed five gay-friendly bills.) Yet, their silence on Kaine suggests that they believe Democrats never put politics over people. No wonder HRC removed the word bipartisan from its Mission Statement.

(more…)

About ten years ago, in their very smart book, Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, Chris Bull and John Gallagher wrote, “Religious conservatives and gay activists have become perfect enemies, propelling each other’s movement and affecting the politics of the country as a whole.” As perfect enemies not only are the “remarkably alike in their tactics,” as those writers observe, but remarkably alike as well in their obsession with gay sex. Social conservatives have accused gay people of engaging in sexual behavior that I did not know existed until I read their attacks on our community. Some gay activists write openly about their sex lives (in blogs and columns) and get all worked up about perceived threats to their sexual freedom.

It thus should perhaps not have surprised me to read the last question Bruce C. Steele asked Peter Shalit about his father Gene’s review of Brokeback Mountain in an interview published in the February 14, 2006 Advocate. Recalling how the elder Shalit described Jack Gyllenhaal’s Jack Twist as a “sexual predator” in that flick, Steele wondered if it was “possible that even though your father loves you, his review reflects his deep-seated disgust with gay sex?” To this strange question, the younger Shalit delivered the perfect response, “I don’t know. What does any straight person think of gay sex?”

As this is not the first time that I have read a gay writer ascribe straight people’s prejudices (or perceived prejudice) to a disgust with gay sex, I wondered why so many gay activists are obsessed with what straight people think about our sex lives. I have many straight and lesbian friends and we very rarely talk about each other’s sex lives. Perhaps if I really thought about some of the things they do, I might be disgusted. But, so what? I’m not going to like my friends any less because of what they do — or what I perceive they do — in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

The bottom line should not be whether or not people “approve” of what we do in our bedrooms, but that they allow us the freedom to do those things. With his question, Mr. Steele seems a perfect reflection of social conservatives who delight in pointing out some of the things we do (or are alleged to do) in the privacy of our own homes. On the one hand, some gay activists are concerned that straight people might be disgusted by such actions. On the other, social conservatives want straight people to be so disgusted.

And then there are those of us, quite possibly the great majority of gay people — and hopefully of straight people as well — who don’t really concern ourselves with the sexual behavior of other people (providing of course they’re not molesting children or violating unwilling adults). If straight people accept us as we are, inviting us and our dates into their homes, just as they would invite other straight people (and their dates) into their homes and not holding our difference against us, then we needn’t concern ourselves about whether or not they’re disgusted with gay sex. Because I’m sure that most of them aren’t wondering what we think about straight sex.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

I have more exciting news about our expanding GayPatriot family. This week we have a special “Revolving BlogPatriot” who will be covering Super Bowl XL activities from Detroit, Michigan.

(drum roll)

It is none other than Mike, a.k.a. “republic of m“. Here’s a brief bio of Mike that he sent to me earlier today.

I am Mike and I am a Michigander thru and thru. Born and raised in the Flint area (yes in the same area that Michael Moore grew up. No one likes him there either), I have lived in Metro Detroit since 2000. I attended the University of Michigan, where I double majored in History and Anthropology. I was briefly married (yes to a woman, I know it was a mistake), but I am actually gay, and currently single – I know this isn’t a personals ad, but hey you never know. I am 31 and love anything and everything about politics, which is why I started RepublicOfM.com (feel free to visit). If you would like to know anything else, my e-mail address is in the sidebar to your right.

Welcome Mike, and we are looking forward to his reports from the Motor City during this Super Week. (With photos to come, too!!)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Back when I used to read Andrew Sullivan’s blog regularly, that is, before 2/24/04, the transformative date in his political life, I appreciated that he was able to praise as well as criticize President Bush. (I did not read him much prior to 2003 when I understand he was often a gusher of admiration for the president he now reviles.) He hailed the president for his leadership in the War on Terror, yet at the same time, took him to task for having difficulty firing officials who were derelict in their duties. (I am grateful to Andrew for drawing my attention to this flaw of the president — which I might not have noticed had I not read his blog.)

Before 2/24, Andrew showed that one could support a leader even while disagreeing with some of his policies. What makes his transformation which James Taranto calls “one of the oddest, and saddest, stories on the World Wide Web over the past few years,” particularly sad to gay conservatives is not only that he had been the first prominent openly gay, conservative pundit, but that he had also been a kind of role model, even a “poster boy,” for us. He wrote well, indeed still writes well, spoke well and made solid arguments. He could not easily be pigeonholed.

Many conservatives looked up to him and saw a smart gay man who did not let his sexuality define his politics. In many cases, it allowed them to see gay people in a different light, no longer as individuals who change their politics as soon as they come to terms with a sexual orientation which differentiates us from the social norm, but as complex individuals who make political decisions pretty much as everyone else does, by balancing a number of concerns.

Thus, when the blogger who once held a nuanced view of President Bush shifted so completely when the president, on February 24, 2004, announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (which, like Andrew, I also oppose) Andrew, as the most prominent gay conservative, made it seem, for a moment, that, unlike most people, gay conservatives would let one issue so completely change their view of a man they had once praised.

With that as introduction, perhaps you can see how Andrew came to mind as I finished up my post yesterday on Tom Coburn. (And even before Bruce posted his piece about being fit, like Andrew, with a CPAP mask to help him breathe better at night!) If we were to judge the Oklahoma Republican, as Andrew has judged President Bush, letting his view on one gay issue, cause us to change our political views altogether, we would fail to appreciate those aspects of the politician we would otherwise have admired. As I noted in the post, Coburn has taken the lead in opposing earmarks and in standing up for fiscal restraint — to the great delight of many of my favorite conservative bloggers and pundits.

(more…)

Is this all you need to know?

For the click-averse, here are a couple pictures in case you were wondering what America’s favorite maternal embarrassment has been up to (with apologies to V the K):

UPDATE: Now I remember what this reminds me of:

Was Dan’s humorous suggestion over a year ago actually a sad prophecy? (Is GayPatriot the new Andrew Sullivan?) And yes, that’s what the “original” GayPatriot site used to look like! LOL

Well, gang I hope this isn’t one of the seven signs of the End of Gays for me! Last night I went to my second visit to a sleep lab here in Charlotte to stop my excessive snoring (8 out of 10 scale!) and possible apnea. And, like Andrew, I too was fitted with a CPAP mask that will help me breathe better at night, stop the snoring, and help with the apnea. Andrew looked something like “Hannibal on oxygen” when he showed off his device on CNN.

Frankly I do not think I will allow a camera, much less one with live broadcasting capabilities, near me when I don the damn thing.

Here was Andrew’s take on his experience.

In general, I haven’t had the amazing burst of energy I had after my night in the hospital. Maybe the psychosomatic explanation holds up. But my sleep has been better; and longer; and deeper. I’m told it takes time to feel the cumulative effects; I do feel more rested; and sleeping itself has been much easier than I anticipated. But one side-effect has surprised me. It probably shouldn’t have. It makes sense, after all. I’ll give you a subtle hint: when you have air being pumped into you with a face mask for eight hours a night, and when there’s nowhere for it to escape, except some small holes in the top of the mask, then the air finds other outlets. So now, I officially have hot air coming out of both ends. The boyfriend has to choose between being deafened or fumigated. But my sleep is heavenly.

As for me, the first night with the CPAP mask (albeit in a sleep lab) was not the kind of euphoric experience Sully had. I just hope that I develop the long term, deeper sleep deal he talks about. PatriotPartner will probably be glad to sleep sans 32 decible earplugs, that’s for sure.

So I’m hoping that an increase in forced oxygen doesn’t turn one from a pro-war conservative to a Gay Leftist. Perhaps that’s why the Left wants to clean up the air? They know some secret molecule in O2 will brainwash all of us?

Anyway, my lack of sleep (perhaps stretching back over two years) is probably one reason I’ve been irritable at times and having increasing short term memory problems. The other reason is that I am irritable at times, and frankly the less I remember the less I have to testify to under oath.

-Bruce (GayPatriot… headed to Cleveland)

While generally supporting the president, I disagree with him on a number of issues. I have criticized him for his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment and for failing to follow the Gipper’s vision of federalism. I have not, however, devoted as much time as I should to his apparent inability to veto pork-laden and otherwise bloated budget bills. But, thankfully, a number of House and Senate Republicans, particularly three Senators elected in 2004, North Carolina’s Richard Burr, South Carolina’s Jim DeMint and especially Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, have stood up for fiscal discipline.

Taking the lead in the fight for fiscal responsibility, along with his Arizona colleague, John McCain, Senator Coburn is challenging “special projects that senators insert into spending bills until the practice stops.” Together with another Arizona Republican, Representative Jeff Flake, Coburn has proposed requiring “that every earmark be specifically included in the text of the legislation Congress is voting on” (via Instapundit), thus preventing legislators from slipping in expensive projects at the last minute.

Yet, this Republican who is spearheading an effort near and dear to the hearts of Reagan Republicans, including this blogger, has also made some unusual comments about gays. In his 2004 campaign, he warned of lesbians lurking in the lavatories in schools in southeast Oklahoma. Almost two years ago, he claimed that some kind of gay “agenda” threatens our freedom:

the gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country and they wield extreme power. That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.

Despite this strange views on gay issues, when he served in the U.S. House of Representatives, he was, according to The Advocate “a vocal supporter of AIDS funding.” He met with a Log Cabin group and told them, “We have a common enemy. It is called HIV.” At that meeting, he noted “the great strides being made in the battle against AIDS, adding that no one should allow his or her own prejudices or feelings of persecution keep him or her from doing the right thing.“

Given his leadership on AIDS funding and his commitment to containing the growth of federal spending, Coburn would be my favorite U.S. Senator were it not for his attitudes toward the gay community.

(more…)

Just over four months ago, when Instapundit linked a piece where I asked “If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller?, we received a record number of comments — and not just from those who agreed with the post. We attracted a number of critics, many of whom expressed their disagreement in less-than-civil tones. And I saw an uptick in the amount of hate mail I received. The same thing happened again last week when Glenn linked my post on the Canadian elections. We got a lot more comments and I got a little more hate mail.

Yet, whenever, Glenn links Gateway Pundit whom he seems to link at least once a week (and for good reason), that apparently straight blogger never seems to attract the number of comments we do. And he gets approximately six times as many daily visits as do we. In a post where Instapundit linked both of us, we received three times as many comments as did Gateway. From his most recent Insta-link, Gateway (at the time of this writing) received only three comments.

And that got me thinking. Earlier this month, I had read Michelle Malkin’s book, Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild wherein this woman (who happens to be Asian) shared some of the nasty e-mails she has received from her critics on the far left. A number made derogatory references to her ethnicity, calling her a “yellow woman” and “gook” who “ought to be shot between those Viet Cong eyes!”

I wondered if this reason that we attract more nasty comments (than does Gateway) is the same that Michelle seems to attract so much hate-mail — that “moonbats” get particularly agitated by “minority” conservatives, that it upsets their view of the world when gay people and Asians refuse to join some “coalition of the oppressed” in speaking out against conservatives. They would rather all conservatives be white Christian men so they could more easily dismiss our ideas.

(more…)

It was a cold January morning where I lived twenty years ago. My rural Chester County, Pennsylvania school district had called off the day due to snow. But I also remember how cold it was in the Northeast on January 28, 1986. I had forgotten there was even to be a shuttle mission, nevermind that a teacher was to be on board. So I wound up flipping channels on our cable TV system.

I don’t remember what else was on TV that day, but I do remember coming upon the then-called “Discovery Channel.” There was one of the marvels of modern time sitting on the launch pad in Florida. It was a bright blue sky that framed the live picture of Challenger aimed toward the heavens. I remember thinking to myself…. “oh yeah, the teacher is on this flight…. that must be why the Discovery Channel is showing this launch.” I also thought about the millions of school kids across the USA that were watching the same thing I was at the moment in their classrooms.

Discovery Channel had no commentators on their broadcast, they were merely showing the live feed from NASA with the dialogue between Mission Control and the Challenger Seven. The countdown descended to zero and then the blast of the solid rocket boosters shot flame and smoke across the blue sky canvas and filled my television screen. Launch commentator Hugh Harris, the voice of NASA-TV that day said the words that began the events that linger in our memories today: “Liftoff of the 25th space shuttle mission, and it has cleared the tower.”

I remember marveling at this mechanical beast in its struggle against the force of gravity; slowly rolling and climbing into that rich blue sky. Harris’ voice gave way to Mission Control spokesman Steve Nesbitt in Houston: “Good roll program confirmed. Challenger now heading downrange.” Shortly after, I remember marveling at this sight and wondering almost aloud to myself, “Gosh, I wonder what they would do if this thing blew up.” It is a thought that has repeatedly haunted me for twenty years.

A few moments later, Nesbitt continued marking Challenger’s progress: “Velocity 2,257 feet per second (1,539 mph), altitude 4.3 nautical miles, downrange distance 3 nautical miles…”

And then the words that will forever be etched into my mind and experience as a child of the 1980s. NASA Astronaut Dick Covey at Mission Control says, “Challenger, go at throttle up.” And aboard the soaring spacecraft, Shuttle commander Dick Scobee utters the infamous words, “Roger, go at throttle up.”

*********

A few hours later, President Ronald Reagan tried to console a nation with more famous words of my past. I have always thought this was one of Reagan’s greatest moments at one of America’s lowest.

We’ve never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we’ve forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.

We’ll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and “slipped the surly bonds of earth” to “touch the face of God.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In a recent post, reflecting on how often those who refuse to understand gay conservatives use the erroneous epithet, “Jews for Hitler,” against us, Malcontent observes that the imagination of the anti-conservative fabulists “is the only place where such claptrap is remotely plausible.” Not long after reading his post, I received an e-mail where the writer showed such fabulism. He had initially e-mailed me to note that Canadian Prime Minister-designate Harper “has pledged to re-visit the gay marriage issue.” My response that this is what happens when “you let courts decide such issues” prompted this diatribe:

“You guys are such self-loathers that it gets in the way of your capacity to use any logic. The fact is that Harper is an elected official. Elected officials pass LEGISLATION….(that means law making, in case that word’s too big for you). Harper wants to make gay marriage illegal legislatively –just like your beloved “W” (sooo dreamy!) wants to do The judicial branch of government and the legislative branch of government have turf wars –you like the legislative because it’s emotional and can respond emotionally to hot-button issues and it frequently feeds into anti-gay hysteria. I prefer the judicial because it’s thoughtful and deliberative. I would suggest that they are reflective of our individual perspectives of the world.”

THEN THOUGHT THE BETTER OF IT….

I hope you were not raised in a place where gays are fags, and blacks are niggers….etc. and Democrats are evil and Republicans are saintly… and the world is black and white, and one’s eyes can’t see the color gray. Are you angry because you wound up gay…. and gay is wrong. Gay is twisted. And the rancorous approach you have to the world…. the misanthropic reflection of self-loathing is transparent The world can see those things, my friend. And I’m sure that within the bosom of your own family, they prefer to see you hate yourself (because gay is disgusting)than to see you at peace with yourself? And you’ve accommodated them –because, well, how could you not? You’ve incorporated their own dirty prejudices about filthy gays?And I wonder…. have they accommodated you… (do they even know about you?)? And what would they think of any partner you might fall in love with? Evil seducer? Sexual predator (like Gene Shalit called Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain)…? Jesus pal! You’ve got one life …. I’ve got one life…. we all have only one life.You may be young… and have it all before you… but don’t let your life be UNLIVED… Drop the loathing that manifests itself in 100 ways you might not even be able to fathom Christ, I do care about you, regardless of the snarky political back-and-forth…

At least this guy wished me well at the end. That beats some of my previous hate mail.

Fascinating how he makes so many assumptions about me, but offers no references to any of my posts. He accuses me of anger and rancor, yet the tone of his e-mail is angry and rancorous. He trots out one of the old standard accusations of leftists who refuse to understand gay conservatives, calling us self-hating. And while he hold that that my “loathing that manifests itself in 100 ways,” he fails to identify a single one of those many ways.

Moreover, he seems unable to understand that someone can support a political leader while opposing some of his stands. As we have made clear on this blog, we think the president was wrong to support the FMA, yet back him primarily because of his leadership in the War on Terror.

I could go on and on. Given this man’s failure to reference any of my posts (or comments) to justify his accusations, his angry e-mail is just further proof that left-wingers’ narrow-minded criticism of gay conservatives derives not from the reality of our ideas (or, our lives, for that matter) but from their own fevered imaginations.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Please note that I changed the title of this post a few hours after I first posted it.

… what an Ultra Maroon!

Kerry will try Alito filibuster – CNN

What is it with Democrat Presidential losers who jump the shark after they are defeated in an election?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Commenting on Kerry’s call for a filibuster, The Truth Laid Bear writes:

Kerry has become the Paris Hilton to Al Gore’s Nicole Ritchie on the stage of American politics: creatures whose fame has become self-sustaining; and who remain in the public eye not because of any achievement or acumen, but who are simply famous for being famous.

(Via: Instapundit).

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): In this morning’s (Friday, January 27) OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund writes:

But there is more than a whiff of absurd opportunism. Senator Kerry already knows his effort is doomed. . . . . Senator Kerry is well known for his political selfishness, and no doubt this grandstanding move will endear him to portions of the loony left as he plans to run again for president.

(Emphasis added.)

UP-UP-UPDATE (from GPW on 01-27-06 @ 8:25 PM EST): As to Senator Kery and the filibuster, OpinionJournal.com urges Senator Kerry to “Bring It On:”

Apparently, this is not a parody. . . . Imagine the political gain for Republicans after a Supreme Court filibuster–with all of its 24/7 publicity–by blue-state liberals against a modest Italian-American with impeccable legal credentials and stainless ethics. Mr. Kerry really seems to believe that the country will rise up in fury when it discovers that Judge Alito believes that the Constitution gives a President wide powers to defend America.

Back on planet Earth, at least three red-state Democrats have now said they’ll vote for Judge Alito.

Read the whole thing!

I’m starting to get angry. The Human Rights Campaign has raised tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars with their concentration camp-esque scare tactic fundraising techniques in the decade. They have themselves a beautiful multimillion dollar building in the heart of Lobbyist Row in downtown Washington, DC.

Meantime, the Log Cabin Republican national organization claims to have tens of thousands of supporters and grown its budget from a few hundred thousand a couple years ago to over $3 million, if I recall from my chat with LCR Prez Guerriero last year.

So my fellow gay Americans, I ask you…. Where Is Your Money Going?

A study released today offers up some of the most disturbing figures surrounding the gay marriage debate. Even more so than the actual numbers for which voters approved state bans (ration of 3-1). What is more frightening than the 3-1 ratio of people who feel I should not be granted equal rights is the amount spent on the 2004 campaigns dedicated to the constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. 13 states voted on gay marriage in 2004 and only $13 MM total was spent on the political campaigns. And even more upsetting was the fact that the ban proponents spent more ($6.8 MM) than our (gay) lobbying groups ($6.5 MM).

I’m shocked. I thought we were in this war to win it. I thought that our lobbying groups were fighting the good fight. And by that, I mean spending our money on campaigns to oppose the gay ban on marriage. Where was the HRC, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Log Cabin Republicans, GLAAD? All groups which promised me in their literature asking for my time and donation that they were fighting for my right to marry. What the F*CK did they do with the money I sent to them? And the money YOU sent to them?

The gay lobby only spent $6.5 MM to fight bans in 13 states? No WONDER we lost.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. These so-called gay “rights” organizations have got to become more accountable to their members and those of us who just send money from time to time. We must demand transparency and open books. If it is good enough for Congress (in the wake of the lobbying/corruption scandals), why not HRC, LCR, GLAAD and others?

I don’t give money to any of these groups anymore since they all have become virtual mouthpieces for the liberal wing of the SurrenderCrats. I won’t give any of my hard earned money to Log Cabin until they truly put the “Republican” back into their organization.

But I know a lot of you do support these groups. Friends, you are getting ripped off. Your money is lining the pockets of well-paid lobbyists and PR masters who work for registered charitable organizations. You need to demand to know where your money is being spent. You need to demand accountability and open books. The time is now to demand these answers from our “gay leaders.”

Right here. Right now.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Nah…. just overwhelmed with work. This week is my company’s national sales meeting in Orlando. (Yes, TGC…I know I’m in your state and I didn’t let you know!!! But there’ll be no time for socializing with blogger friends this week, I’m afraid!)

I see Dan has been doing a great job here with some excellent posts! He even tackled the awesome victory by the Conservatives in Canada yesterday. PatriotPartner was hounding me to do pre-election posts about the obvious Conservative electoral win. It is nice to have our friends up North come around like so many are around the world. We need true allies in both the people and their governments in the global war against Islamic terror.

Anyway, I apologize for my light blogging this week. I’ll try my best… but this meeting is brutal.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

So many on the Left are so blind to reality of the modern Republican Party that whenever they encounter a Republican who does not fit their stereotype of the narrow-minded Bible thumper or greedy tycoon, they have to inform us that the radical right controls the GOP. Many of these people claim that they know more about a party whose meetings they have never attended and with whose leaders and activists they have never conversed. But, they know more about the party than those who have actually been involved and so insist that our party’s leaders enforce a strict right-wing ideology and brook no dissent.

With today’s party-line Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems that the party which enforces a strict ideology is not the Republican Party, but the Democrat – and the ideology is not a right-wing one set by greedy industrialists and intolerant theologians, but a left-wing one set by a variety of D.C.-based interest groups and angry bloggers.

And while Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats voted en masse against a qualified conservative jurist (tapped to replace the court’s “swing” vote), Senate Republicans, members of the party supposedly in thrall to the radical right, did not so vote against Ruth Bader Ginsburg when President Clinton tapped this one-time American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney to replace a retiring conservative jurist nearly thirteen years ago.

My state’s senior Senator, the normally sensible Dianne Feinstein said that things had changed since the Senate voted on Ginsburg and Clinton’s other nominee Stephen Breyer, claiming that “There was not the polarization within America that is there today, and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction” (via Powerline). While she’s right that there was not such polarization at that time, she fails to acknowledge that her party which has polarized the process. As John Hinderaker puts it:

Republicans didn’t try to defeat judicial nominees on a purely political, partisan basis, but rather voted for qualified nominees of the President’s party and judicial philosophy. But over the last five years, time after time, the Democrats have been willing to trash our institutions and traditions for the sake of political gain.

And we’ve seen this before. Democrats level accusations while their ideological confreres hurl insults – at qualified conservatives, merely to tarnish their names and so make them less palatable to the American public.

(more…)