Well, folks… you have the opportunity this afternoon to hear me on the John McMullen Show on SiriusOutQ Radio (Channel 149 on Sirius). I’ve been asked to come on at 1:15PM Eastern time for a live interview.

I’m going to be interviewed about the GayPatriot blog, and my thoughts on why my (our) political views are so at odds with the majority of gay people. I figured, “what the hell.” *grin*

Anyway, you can hear the show by linking here and signing up for a 3-day trial period. I just did.

That’s TODAY, Sirius Radio (OutQ) Channel 149 at 1:15PM Eastern Time.

How many times have you heard, in the MSM and on the lefty blogger sites, that it is the Religious Right, or Bush Conservatives going around threatening people who disagree with them. It is the Republicans that are the suppressors of free speech, right? That is just so accepted it is conventional wisdom.

Wrong. The Gay Left (and the left-wing in general) are in fact the strident force behind squelching people’s right to free speech. This absurd story out of Rutgers University is only the latest, concrete example of this campaign to make all of America a PC-nation.
Students Split on Grease Truck Names – The Daily Targum (hat tip: GP Reader Keith)

The controversy erupted last week over the names of certain sandwiches served at the Grease Trucks on the College Avenue campus. The University community is varied in its response to the incident, when the Department of Parking and Transportation Services demanded the trucks cover up sandwich names such as “Fat Dyke” and “Fat Bitch” because they violate their contract.

Keith has an excellent perspective:

Has no one told people like these crybabies, to choose their battles carefully. The tone of the “activist-victims” was very negative, and from remarks made, it isn’t clear that they people who were “offended” ever talked to the owners of the grease trucks. They also made claims of not feeling “included.”

Not being included? Well, it seemed they were all too upset about BEING included (aka – “Fat Dyke” sandwich).

I note in the photo, by the way, that “Fat Filipino” was not covered up? What does the LGBT community at Rutgers have against Filipinos, I ask you? Do they think they are all fat? Or it is probably that they just don’t care because it doesn’t match up with their political agenda to destroy free speech.

Let me be perfectly clear… the names of these sandwiches are childish and moronic. But this is college. I thought college was supposed to be the laboratory of free speech. It is, of course, protected for liberal free speech….but no one else… not even childish, moronic free speech.

Isn’t this precisely the type of left-wing fascism that turns people off about the gay community’s activism? It sure makes me scratch my head and wonder where these people’s priorities are.

Gay rights must have come a longer way than the Gay Left wants us to believe…. if the only thing the Rutgers LGBT crowd can get excited about is stupid names for sandwiches on The Grease Truck.

The Gay Thought Police…. in full battle gear, folks! Resistance is futile….

Powerline has a great post celebrating the greatness of our nation’s First President on the 273rd anniversary of his birth.

In the March 1, 2005, issue of “THE ADVOCATE,” not, alas, available online, reporter Emily Heil notes that Log Cabin supports the president’s plan to set up personal retirement accounts for Social Security. Log Cabin’s Political Director Chris Barron pointed out that such accounts “would be a tremendous step forward for gay and lesbian families.” Under the current system, he notes, his partner would get nothing if he were to die while “under the president’s plan,” he could leave his account “to anyone.”

One would think that other gay groups would follow Log Cabin’s lead and support these reforms which make it possible for gay couples to get benefits they do not currently have. But, alas, the “ADVOCATE” reports that gay leaders are more concerned with currying favor with Democrats than they are with helping gay couples:

But offering any kind of support for Bush’s plan means going against the Democratic leadership, something other gay rights activists see as shortsighted. “That would be a fundamental and irreparable breach with our allies in Congress who have stood beside us for decades,” [Matt] Foreman [Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force] said.

Is Foreman suggesting that if gay groups were to support the president on this one program, they will thereafter be shunned by the Democratic congressional leadership? By calling such support a “fundamental breach,” Mr. Foreman suggests that the Democratic leadership views any alliance with President Bush as an unpardonable offense. That Democrats are not interested in engaging the president is serious debate and discussion of reform, but in obstructing his every policy.
(more…)

In a comment to one of my posts on Gannongate, Synova alerted us to this insightful post. Reflecting on the “Gannongate” kerfuffle, Tom Veal debunks the notion the Mr. Gannon was a right-wing plant:

A real Karl Rove plant would have asked neutrally phrased questions that offered openings for pro-GOP points that would otherwise get lost in the news shuffle.) His abilities might in time have earned him a significant spot in the small corps of right-of-center journalists, but he was as yet not celebrity, and his employer, Talon News, has a minuscule audience.

Given this miniscule audience, he asks:

why should the Kossacks decide to ride this obscure figure out of town, and why should the elite media now treat him as a poster boy for Rovian dirty tricks? If they regard his day pass to Administration press briefings as a threat, their paranoia surpasses what even I can believe. Rather, we appear to have an instance of policing a leftist plantation. Just as uppity blacks who espouse non-liberal views are reviled, so, too, are homosexuals expected to toe the ideological line. Strays . . . are punished by all available means, including expos?s of their private lives that would be intolerable if conducted by Instapundit or Little Green Footballs.

Hmm. . . . punished by all available means. . . . maybe that’s a little harsh. Or maybe he’s been reading some of the comments to this blog . . . and some of my e-mail.

S.T. Karnick at The Reform Club asks this important question after the CPAC meeting this past weekend. For those who missed it, GPW covered the very promising news that Log Cabin Republicans participated in the event. And, LCR has come on strong to support President Bush’s Social Security reform effort.

From The Reform Club:

Can born-again Christians join with Log Cabin Republicans to support changes in Social Security and then go out separately to very different places afterward, and still see each other as true allies? This is a question that should be central to the discussion on the Right, as we seek to consolidate recent successes and create a movement that can truly compose a long-term majority of the American people.

Isn’t that what politics is all about…. joining coalitions as needed to govern? I think so.

Unfortunately, there is also this more pessimistic view of the CPAC meeting from Ryan Sager at TechCentralStation. No one said this would be easy.

With all due reference to Bonnie Tyler (and Jennifer Saunders), I actually thought of writing this post after reading this somewhat dated column on Advocate.com by Neal Broverman.

While Neal deals with the lack of openly gay male celebrities in the entertainment industry….

In the game of ?Our Team Has More Out Celebrities,? the lesbians are kicking the gay guys? collective butts. With the hardships of Melissa, the days of Ellen?s life, and Rosie?s other world covered by the media and all those who consume their magazines, books, and newspapers, it?s easy for a gay man to develop a complex. Where are the faces making us more human? We love our out gals, but where are the guys?

He does make a very good point about someone outside the entertainment industry who could have been a gay role model, and why he wasn’t.
(more…)

I know, I know…. this is very late. But life has been a whirlwind at the Patriot Household lately. Anyway, here are some photos from my business trip to Key West last week..

These were all taken at Mallory Square just as the sun was setting. Those of you who have been there know the carnival atmosphere that reigns supreme! All of the street performers earn their livings from tips given as they perform.

Here’s a fire-juggler on a unicyle. Not for me… scared of heights!

(more…)

After reading my post wondering why gay men continue to have unsafe sex, a reader wrote in:

I’m sure you know the power of words and how the choice of vocabulary can hide what people are really talking about. Are you pro-abortion or pro-choice, for example.

I applaud you for promoting monogamy. I would like you to go even further by not promoting licentious sexual activities as “playing”. How are gay people to be taken seriously when we treat what is potentially the most intimate expression of love between two people as a method of entertainment? Yes, many straight people do the same thing, but it seems to be almost taken-for-granted that all gay people have sex indiscriminately. Let’s not hide the facts by using euphemisms.

The writer, a gay man in his 40s, gave me his permission to reprint this.

I had read it on Friday just before I took the day off from going online. I printed it out and have pondered his words since then. I had wanted to add some wise and insightful comment of my own and may do that at a later date. For now, I will say, he’s got a point.

At first blush, it does not appear he answered the question I posed in the title of that post which I rephrase (as per his comments), “Why, knowing what we know about AIDS, do gay men continue to have unsafe sex?” But, in revisiting his words, in thinking about them, I think he may have answered it without even trying.

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

For over thirty years, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has been the most important conservative gathering in Washington. In 1974, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan addressed the first large CPAC gathering. Every year, the conference honors the Gipper with a Ronald Reagan banquet.

Organized by the American Conservative Union (ACU), the conference attracts leading conservative activists and policy makers from across the nation. This year, speakers included the Vice President, presidential advisor Karl Rove, Virginia Senator George Allen and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. And this year for the “first time”, according to ABC NEWS, “a gay rights group has been officially recognized by the nation’s annual gathering of conservative activists.” The Log Cabin Republicans paid $3,000 to co-sponsor the event.

Finally, a sign that this organization is attempting to make its case to the conservative movement. Good job, Log Cabin.
(more…)

Congratulations to James of LA for winning the Second GayPatriot movie trivia competition with 16 points, edging out ttbdan with 14 points. James got all the regular questions right, missing only the Bonus Questions. Since James lives in LA, I am treating him to coffee and a pastry at a Starbucks (or other coffee shop) of his choosing.

Read below for the correct answers:
(more…)

Videoblogging John Aravosis‘ appearance on CNN, Trey Jackson writes:

Watch this and then ask yourself: Is the MSM giving this much help to Easongate or RatherBiased? Who knew CNN and the MSM were so helpful to bloggers attempting to break a story?

Check out Trey’s posting where you’ll need to click on “WATCH” to see the video.

UPDATE: Dennis the Peasant has an amusing take on this whole thing. Scroll down to the photos. Dennis asks:

Which is more obnoxious, offensive and juvenile? Me cracking the obvious joke about Helen Thomas’ sexual identity via a bit of insensitive gender stereotyping…OR [t]he Internet’s Leftist Crown Jewels savaging [someone's] sexual identity via a bit of political stereotyping…in all seriousness?

Hat tip: Comment by Richard (#93) to Roger Simon‘s aforementioned post.

And then click, “READ MORE” to read some comments from a listserv to which I subscribe. (Reproduced with the permission of their author.)
(more…)

Jeez, I’m away for a week for work and suddenly there is a twitter of speculation here and here that Christian Grantham may be GayPatriot. Let me say unequivocally that is not the case. Christian addresses the whole thing on his site as well. Anyone who is a serious reader of our blogs can’t possibly think we are the same person anyway. That is just silly.

Let me remind folks that I have addressed my background before, once in this very early posting. I’ll add a couple of more items that should prove I’m not Christian Grantham. I have been a life-long registered Republican voter since I turned 18 years old. I am also in my late 30s. I don’t know how old Christian is, but I’m guessing I have a few years on him.

Here’s the best part about this…. neither one of these speculators has contacted either Christian or I directly to ask us. So it makes the wild-eyed Oliver Stone routine even more laughable.

And now here is the story of how Christian came to be the registered user of GayPatriot.org and .net….
(more…)

Okay, that was an admittedly sensational headline….but you will see my point after I’m done I hope.

In its Sunday edition, The New York Times published transcripts of secret tapes of then-Governor George W. Bush. The tapes were made by a former Bush aide, Doug Wead, who apparently recorded Bush without his knowledge. In my neck of the woods, by the way, that is illegal.

LittleGreenFootballs has a good sum-up. (Hat tip to GP Reader, V the K)

The Times highlights a very important struggle Bush was having with conservative Christian leaders over gays in America.
(more…)

Both Ellen (a straight reader of this blog) and Roger Simon alerted me to an excellent Powerline post on “Gannongate.” (For some reason, the Powerline Permalink is not to the article itself, but to their February archives. You may need to scroll down to HAVE THEY NO SHAME? NO, ACTUALLY THEY DON’T).

As far as the “problem” of reporters asking softball questions (which seems to bug left-wing bloggers the most about this story) Roger asks:

How about Gannon/Guckert goes on Larry King to discuss “the art of the softball”? Speaking of which, has anyone looked into Larry’s background? He’s been throwing softballs for at least four (or is it seven?) administrations. Who’s been paying him? I know – CNN. But there could be more…

Heh.

In addition, Lloydletta alerted me to a great piece detailing the flaws in the liberal bloggers’ case against Gannon.

In the extended section of this post, I have provided some excerpts from Powerline’s post. So just click “READ MORE.”
(more…)

Joined by Senator John Kerry, the Democratic junior Senators of the two largest “blue” states, California’s Barbara Boxer and New York’s Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed “The County Every Vote Act” a bill for electoral reform, which would, among other things, allow felons to vote.

My friend Rick Sincere has just posted an excellent piece on his blog showing why, as he puts it, this bill is so bad in so many ways. Rick is particularly suited to write on this topic. Having run for office on the Libertarian ticket, he has learned the hard way about the problems “third-party” candidates face in our electoral system. And he currently serves as chairman of the Charlottesville, Virginia Electoral Board.
(more…)

In my post on the misguided Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy, I promised to forward the post to a lawyer friend of mine for comment. Here’s his response:

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass policy is an amalgam of statutes, executive orders, and military regulations. A comprehensive guide to it can be found in a very lengthy yet very helpful document available at SLDN. The answers to the specific questions raised by your blog post are (a) the policy applies equally to officers and enlisted personnel, (b) the policy has no wiggle room to distinguish between combat and non-combat roles, and no wiggle room to distinguish between “auxiliary” and non-auxiliary roles.

The basic governing statute is 10 U.S.C. ? 654. [reproduced under "READ MORE"] You will probably find its harshness shocking. Unfortunately, there are other documents (executive orders and regs) one must consult for all of the express language of all of the governing legal rules, but Section 654 should tell you what you want to know for present purposes.

. . . . I do think this is one of the truly great injustices and follies of our time . . . . [Y]ou should tout the great work of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

I agree. DADT is one of the truly great injustices and follies of out time.
(more…)

Like every gay man I’ve met, I know about the risks of unsafe sex and how to protect myself against contracting HIV. In the 1990s, I assumed that all single gay men practiced safe sex and that those who became infected during that period had just been plain unlucky. Either the condom broke or some other mishap negated its effectiveness. It never occurred to me, knowing what we know about how the virus is spread, that a gay man, particularly an intelligent one, would not take proper precautions. It made sense to assume that all gay men played safe.

But, at the end of the decade, friends starting telling me about times when they played “unsafe.” And in many cases, the indiscretion occurred not with somehow they knew, but with a random hookup. In some cases, the guys had been high on drugs. Others got lost in the moment. But, in some cases, both men were fully conscious of what they were doing. An online “chat buddy” (whom I never met) confided that he contracted the virus when he allowed a guy he met at a bar to penetrate him without protection; the guy had assured him he was negative.

When I moved to LA in 1999, I soon learned that unsafe practices, while not the rule, were certainly not the exception. A friend related how one man pursued him for several months online, but [the pursuer] stopped chatting with him when he [the friend] made clear that he only played safe. I kept hearing stories of unsafe sex that, at one point, it seemed I was the only man in West Hollywood who had never played unsafe. Thankfully, I have learned that I am not alone. Many, if not most, gay men continue to play safe.
(more…)

In a post today noting that despite “untranslated terrorist intercepts . . . posing a significant security threat to the United States,” Christian Grantham notes that the federal government continues to discharge gay linguists under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Christian is right to ask:

why is the political agenda of discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans taking priority over tracking down these terrorists? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a clear danger to the national security interests of the United States of America.

I urge the President to either move for an immediate repeal of this misguided law or, at the very least, ask government lawyers to try to interpret the law to allow openly gay members to serve the military in such “auxiliary” roles as translators. I’m no expert on military law nor am I familiar with the wording of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation, but perhaps its language offers wiggle room for individuals serving in non-combat roles. (I’ll be forwarding this post to a lawyer friend of mine to solicit his comments.)

If that’s not possible, then we have former President Clinton to blame for this situation. Before he signed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the ban on gays in the military was administrative policy not an actual law. The president could have overturned — or modified — the policy with the stroke of a pen. Had Clinton not signed the bill, President Bush could merely have issued an executive order exempting linguists from the gay ban.

Perhaps some Congressman or Senator should introduce a bill which would limit the application of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to enlisted personnel. Or modify the law so that it does not apply to linguists. Gay activists may complain that such legislation would not go far enough and demand instead an outright repeal of the law. They would be right that this proposal doesn’t go far enough, but in opposing this modification, they would be making the perfect the enemy of the good.

While I daresay this Congress would not repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it might consider a few minor changes. In pushing for these changes, we need to promote them as part of the War on Terror. To show how allowing gays to serve in the military — even in this limited capacity — would help defend our nation against terrorist attacks and so further our national security.

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

Heh. I wasn’t sure what “category” to even put this in. I’m certainly not creating one for this bizarre story.

I wanted to draw your attention to this Jonah Goldberg posting over at The Corner. I agree with Jonah, this is a well-thought out position from the left that doesn’t involve digging into someone’s personal life and exploiting it.

Now… drum roll please…. while I think the obsession with this story is overblown, especially to the slander committed by Eason Jordan against our troops in a time of war (maybe Jordan wants to run for Prez in 30 years? It worked for Kerry)….

I hereby say that allowing Gannon access to the White House Press Room was stupid, sloppy and dangerous. Who knows who is responsible, or was asleep at the wheel. If all the blame lies with the Secret Service or other fail-safe measures, I’d like to know.

If in fact this was some Republican media plant in the White House, then this is very stupid and reckless and someone in the Bush White House should be held accountable.

There, I’m done for a while until we find out Gannon had connections to an al-Qaeda prostitution ring… then I’ll have a stroke.

-GayPatriot: gaypatriot2004@aol.com