Gay Patriot Header Image

The Big Question:

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 9:51 pm - January 24, 2006.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Prelude: There’ll be plenty of opportunities to discuss DADT in the future, and in fact I’ve engaged here many times previously as a commenter on other posts. Undoubtedly many will turn what follows into a debate over the policy, but my goal here simply is to help the reader understand from where I come when that discussion does occur. With that disclaimer, please indulge me in a common situation in which I again recently found myself:

I was talking with a business associate yesterday who, when the topic arose, inquired, “You joined the military? Why’d you do that? You know, as a gay man?” This may seem like a sensible question, and believe me, I’ve heard it countless times during my career. In spite of the frequency with which I am presented this catechism, I’m still surprised by the presumptuous nature of it. How could anybody bring himself to that? they seem to be asking. What gay man would ever do such a thing?

For the longest time my response to this question had historically been a truthful and reflective, “Well, I didn’t know I was when I joined.” However, as time went on and I passed up more and more opportunities to get out of the service (and in fact as a result of certain career choices, I incurred more years of commitment), I came to realize this wasn’t the whole story.

In fact, what I realized was that I love the service and the fact that I am a gay man has no bearing on it whatsoever. When I look at all the sacrifices I’ve made (and I’m not trying to martyr myself to tell you there have been many) to continue my service, I’d have to say that being in the closet (at work, that is), has hardly been the most cumbersome. For some that is asking too much. For others, not smoking pot is asking too much. For some, even having to wear a uniform and have a particular haircut is asking too much. Regardless, the truth is that military service isn’t for everybody, and it’s not simply a career choice, but a calling. It’s a thankless job and what’s equally frustrating is those who don’t understand it who are trying to “advocate” for you and those who don’t understand it who are adversarial to you for having made the commitment in the first place.

Over the years as I reflected more on what the military means to me and what my fellow soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines mean to me, it became much more clear to me what the more accurate answer is to my friend’s question. For the sake of letting you know a little bit more about me, I’ll share with you what my answer is nowadays:

“I love my country and want to serve in her defense.”
And as an old mentor of mine used to say, There’s a period at the end of that statement.

Cheers, All.

Another anti-Bush Government Voted Out

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:24 am - January 24, 2006.
Filed under: Politics abroad

It seems that just like their neighbors to the South, even the Canadians don’t pay much attention to Michael Moore. Despite the last minute desperate appeal from this anti-American propagandist, Canadian voters yesterday rejected the Liberal government of Paul Martin. Those in the Great White North were not swayed by the Liberals’ fear-mongering that a pro-American government would be bad for their nation.

With 123 seats in the Canadian House of Commons, Stephen Harper’s Tories may not have mustered a majority, so will likely form a coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois.

Just like the Germans last fall, Canadians voted out a government whose leaders made clear their opposition to President Bush’s policies. While the Bush’s critics continually claim that people in other lands share their distaste for our Commander-in-Chief, it seems that when it comes time to vote, those abroad are not as obsessed with bashing the President of the United States as are some of their leaders — and their cheerleaders in the American media and blogosphere.

During his campaign, Canadian Prime Minister-designate Harper has made clear that once in office he will improve relations with the United States. As President Bush works with his new Canadian counterpart to further the longstanding ties between our two great nations, the Left will have an even tougher time proving their ludicrous claim that his policies have isolated our nation.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit reports that Portugal elected its first center-right president since a 1974 “military coup toppled a repressive right-wing dictatorship” (via Instapundit). Two countries rejected Socialism yesterday. Seems like it was a good day for conservatives around the world. I wonder if the MSM will notice.

UP-UPDATE (on 01-29): Reader Mer (comment #104) informs me that “the idea that Harper will form a coalition with anyone given the composition of this Parliament is giggle-worthy.” Apparently, I misinterpreted an article suggesting the Bloc Quebecois may cooperate with the Tories on some issues as meaning they would form a coalition with the Tories. She links this Canadian article on the election returns.

Bush-haters: Perpetually Stuck in LA Traffic?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:08 am - January 23, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred

Sometimes when I feel a little low, I recall a moment from when I lived in Paris where I was teaching English and trying to write a novel. Returning home from a private lesson with student who wasn’t doing her assignments (and so was making almost no progress), I felt particularly depressed. As I waited — and waited — in the ugly Métro station near her apartment building, it seemed that the train would never come and I would be perpetually stuck in an ugly place, going nowhere. But, the train did come and I returned to my tiny apartment where I began to feel better.

That long wait in that dreary station provided an image which has from time to time helped me deal with bleak moments in my life. In those moments when the world seems as empty as that Métro station, we have to believe that a train will come and take us to a better place.

On Friday, I wondered whether my feelings of anger against a woman not responsible for the frustrations of the day (but who had something in common with a woman who had previously made my driving difficult) were akin to the angry left’s feelings against the President, I thought back to that Métro station. And compared that moment to the aggravations of being stuck in LA traffic. Perhaps had I not been alone in that Métro station, I might have coped by venting my anxiety onto an enemy common to my companion and myself. Since we both hated that person, we could blame it on him (or her).

In many ways, the angry left resembles someone stuck in LA traffic — or waiting in an ugly subway station. They feel like they’re going nowhere and instead of taking a deep breath and dealing with the situation (or trying to come up with a short cut), they project their frustration onto something that, for whatever reason, they don’t like.

When some on the left feel frustrated with their lives in general or with something going wrong at that moment, they find a “hook” (on which to “hang” their frustrations) in something they don’t like about the president. Perhaps it’s his background. Perhaps it’s his faith. Perhaps it’s his politics. Or maybe it’s the awkward way he expresses himself. Most likely it’s a combination of all these things.

Given the nastiness of the attacks by some on the left (reflected in comments to this blog — and even as Lorie Byrd notes in linking this column in the Washington Post to those who “stray from moonbat talking points“), it seems these people are stuck somewhere. Perhaps, they might raise their level of discourse if they believed that despite the traffic they will reach their destination. And if they remembered that the subway serves even the bleakest of stations.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

Freedom to Speak Offensively

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 6:27 pm - January 22, 2006.
Filed under: Free Speech,Gay PC Silliness,General

Recently on a gay message board I post at on occasion, I came across many responses to statements by Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain. Most of these were from those of a more liberal persuasion, highly critical to the point of seeking to force Sir Iqbal into silence with the power of the State. As reported in BBC News, Sir Iqbal is quoted as saying:

Asked if he believed homosexuality was harmful to society, he said: “Certainly it is a practice that in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society – it is. It is not acceptable.”

“Each of our faiths tells us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practised there is a greater concern in that area.”

I can understand someone objecting to his reported views, I myself have some difficulty with them, but not to the point of branding him a criminal. He made no statements advocating violence against homosexuals but simply expressed his opinions which stem from his religious beliefs. That Sir Iqbal is being investigated by police in the UK for his comments is chilling. It is always amazing to me how some liberals are so quick to sacrifice freedom of speech because they dislike the fact that someone has a differing view from their own. Since when do a person’s “feelings” trump our fundamental rights? Nowhere in the Constitution or in any semblance of common sense is there any ‘right’ to not be offended. Putting subjective qualities like “feelings” above the freedom of speech only opens Pandora’s box and is a short route to tyranny. One is free to voice their objections to Sir Iqbal’s expressed opinions, but the moment they seek to use the law to punish him for protected speech they will find themselves at the mercy of the State as well. When it comes to protecting one or the other I’ll take freedom of speech any day because that saves my butt and yours from being harassed by a majority that finds our views on any subject offensive and disagreeable.

We have seen this corrosive mentality on the part of some liberals in university and college campuses where speech codes are selectively enforced to silence those with a differing viewpoint. Freedom of speech is a right all of us have and benefits society, mostly by allowing the expression of ideas even from a minority that may or may not have some influence on the population at large. If someone expressed an opinion that they believe homosexuality is morally wrong, or “harmful to society” as this fellow did, I may not like what they say but I defend their right to say it. When speech is censored through force of law, as many on this message board were advocating, then that erodes the very freedoms they claim to be protecting. Have gay liberals forgotten that many of the freedoms we enjoy today were once out of the mainstream, in the minority of views? The very idea of a gay publication, parade, or even something like this website was impossible at one time. The same freedom of speech which gives Sir Iqbal the right to criticize homosexuality allows them and any of us to state otherwise.

When it comes to protecting our freedoms, even those of people we disagree with or are offended by, I am reminded of this scene from one of my favorite movies A Man for All Seasons which perhaps those in Her Majesty’s Government would benefit from watching again:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

When you allow the State to fully decide what speech is protected and what is not, good luck maintaining freedom. If these liberals keep it up, it won’t be long until the very chains they think they are avoiding will encase us all tighter than Marley’s ghost. The shadow of Thought Police is not something any free society can survive for long.

Democratic Governor Favors Gay Marriage Ban; Gay Groups Silent

Whenever a Republican Governor indicates his opposition to gay marriage — or vetoes a bill establishing gay marriage in his state — gay groups raise a ruckus and level all kinds of insults against him. Even when those Republicans make clear their support for state recognition of same-sex unions (albeit called something other than marriage). Last week, in his first post for this blog, AverageGayJoe followed the progress of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Virginia, pointing out how a number of Old Dominion Democrats, inluding the commonwealth’s new Democratic Governor Tim Kaine supported it.

This morning, Eva Young e-mailed me to share Tim Hulsey’s excellent post noting how that Democrat is about to pulled a Clinton and make good on his pledge to sign that marriage amendment now that it has passed the Virginia General Assembly. The governor’s signature will allow the proposal to appear on the Old Dominion’s November ballot.

Tim reminds us that the gay Democratic organization Virginia Partisans touted Kaine’s win as a “terrific victory.” Looks like Kaine’s following in the footsteps of another Democrat whose election gay people supported, but who proved faithless once in office. Before the election, Bill Clinton made nice to the gay community, asking for our money and our votes, only to betray us within a few days of taking office. Shortly after his first inaugural thirteen years ago, that Democrat sought to repeal the ban on gays in the military, but when he was unprepared for the opposition to his plan (which he then could have accomplished with an Executive Order), he backtracked and signed on to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” thus codifying the ban and making it more difficult to repeal.

If anyone still believes that gay groups are truly nonpartisan, their reaction to Governor Kaine’s pledge should convince them otherwise. While this Democrat has indicated support for the measure at least since January 13, neither the Human Rights Campaign nor the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has seen fit to issue a press release faulting this Democrat for his pledge. Quite a contrast to their reaction to similar actions by Republicans, nearly all of whom, unlike Kaine, had not been backed by gay rights’ groups.


“Wacko” Blogs on Left Get More Traffic than do “Wackos” on Right

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:32 pm - January 21, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Bush-hatred,Liberals

You know what the difference between the wacko blogs on the Right and the wacko blogs on the Left is? The wacko blogs on the right don’t draw high traffic from conservative readers. Liberal blog readers, however, have driven their wacko blogs to the top of the traffic rankings. Many of the top ranked right-leaning blogs could be described as edgy, but none come close to the wacko factor of DailyKos.

Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd. (Emphasis added)

Check out Lorie’s post to learn how it’s left-wing blogs as well as left-leaning news reporters are suggesting the President (and/or his aides) is somehow involved in the timing of the release of the latest Osama tape.

The Party of Ideas vs. the Party of Obstruction

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 11:03 pm - January 20, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,Ronald Reagan

As the day on which we celebrate the quarter-century anniversary of the Gipper’s inaugural draws to a close, I reflect on a speech Hugh posts that Presidential Advisor Karl Rove delivered to the Winter Meeting of the Republican National Committee (RNC). That good and sage man noted how the GOP has, within the last 40 years, “gone from a minority party with little influence to one that is broad and inclusive, self-assured and optimistic, forward-leaning and dominant.

It is entirely fitting that Rove delivered this speech on this day for he focused on the notion that GOP “success springs from our ideas.” For it was under Gipper’s leadership, that ours became the party of ideas. Disparaged by his critics (many of whom similarly disparage the incumbent Republican president) as an intellectual lightweight, Ronald Reagan was a man of ideas who read widely. He studied political philosophy and economics and filled his early speeches, many of which he wrote on his own, with references to our founders and other great thinkers, men who had a vision of the role of government and the institutions needed to protect our freedom and promote our national security.

Let us hope that as we recall Ronald Reagan’s inaugural, we bear in mind that his ideas — and his leadership — helped bring our party back to life after nearly five decades in the minority. And to make sure we don’t return to our minority statuts, our party’s current leaders need to hold to Reagan’s vision and so recover from recent setbacks. If House Republicans took heed of that vision, a vision which helped inspire the Contract with America, the series of policy proposals which helped bring them to power now nearly twelve years ago, they might not now be facing the troubles they are facing. It is a good sign that at least two of those up for House Majority Leader have referenced ideas near and dear to Reagan’s heart in their campaigns. They, like Rove, recognize that ours is a party of ideas.

Contrast Ronald Reagan’s vision, as Rove does, with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s boast last month to a partisan audience. His party, he claimed, had “killed the Patriot Act.” That is, he did not boast of new programs Senate Democrats were promoting, but of one they had obstructed. (And one which has helped make our country more secure.) While he joined other leaders of his party Wednesday in proposing an ethics reform package to address recent lobbying scandals in the nation’s capital, he rebuffed the efforts of a Democratic Senator who put forward “proposal on “‘ethics reform’” . . . that could be bi-partisan:”

Reid told this person that this was the wrong time to be engaged in construtive (sic) “reform” proposals with the other side. He said that this was the time to draw a line and to show how “our side” differed dramatically from “their side.”

Unlike Ronald Reagan who always sought common ground with his ideological adversaries, Harry Reid wishes to focus on differences. As Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd (one of my sources for this link) puts it: “The Democrat leadership is more concerned with making Bush look bad than in finding solutions.”


Understanding Bush-Hatred While Driving in LA?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:09 pm - January 20, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,LA Stories

I don’t like to blog when I’m in a bad mood for I fear that once I start venting in this public forum, it will put me on a slippery slope to projecting my own inner demons — or daily frustrations — onto the world. And while my life is, on the whole good, since last evening, it seems that so many things keep going wrong.

Last night, I left early to see the flick, Transamerica which a number of film-loving friends have recommended highly to me. It’s playing nearby at Laemmle’s Sunset 5 — one of the best places to see independent flicks in LA. But, that great place to see good movies also has perhaps the worst parking lot in the area. And last night, I couldn’t find any parking. (Despite the crowd, they kept the lowest level closed.) After driving around for fifteen minutes or so and realizing that the movie had already started, I headed for the exit where the attendant attempted to charge me for driving around and missing my movie — after I had informed him there was no parking.

Today, driving to the gym, all of a sudden this woman in front of me just stops. Fortunately, I was able to brake in time. She didn’t move and just waited. Finally, despite her failure to put on her turn signal, I realized she wanted to back into the parking spot on the street next to me. But, she couldn’t do it unless I backed up (which I couldn’t do) or changed lanes (which I couldn’t do at that moment). Finally, I was able to maneuver into the left lane. As I a passed this lady, I realized why she had failed to activate her turn signal. With one hand on the wheel and the other holding her cell phone, she had no free limb left to click it.


Why I’m Skeptical of the New York Times

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:54 pm - January 20, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Bush-hatred,Media Bias

Instead of addressing the points in my posts, one critic of this blog frequently demands that I address the latest New York Times story critical of the Bush Administration, almost always one based on leaks from left-leaning government bureaucrats with an ideological axe to grand. Sometimes they think this blog doesn’t exist for us to make our points and then for readers to use the comments section to discuss and debate, but for Republican-hating readers to bait us into discussing the issues which interest them.

To be sure, I welcome debate and discussion of many issues, not limited to those I post on. (As I have shown in various e-mail (& IM) exchanges with readers). I’m not, however, going to answer challenges from critics who reply to our posts by badmouthing the president or insulting us and then demand that we discuss an article unrelated to the post they have either refused to consider or whose points they have misrepresented in their comments.

Not only that. Given the increased bias the New York Times, I am becoming less and less likely to take seriously some of its reporting, particularly that critical of the Bush Administration. While some of its reporting remains excellent and oftentimes unrivaled by other newspapers, many of its pieces read as if they were written not by journalists but by left-wing editorialists.

These reporters showed their cards in a piece on the Barrett investigation (into wrongdoing in the Clinton Administration) in Wednesday’s paper. Just like its series of articles on the President’s national security policy, this one was also based on a leak, but not a leak from someone whose agenda is favored by the Times. In the article, the reporters felt it incumbent upon themselves to make known that (and the editor saw fit to include): “A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known.” The Times thus implied, as Powerline’s John Hinderaker puts it “leaker was no whistle-blower and no patriot; just a partisan with an axe to grind.” John notes further:

But after the Times has printed dozens (hundreds, probably) of stories critical of the Bush administration based on leaks by Democratic bureaucrats, we’re still waiting for the paper to write: “A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Democrats’ position who wanted his criticism of the Bush administration to be known.” The day that explanation appears, Beelzebub will be sending out for mittens and a fur coat.

So, if my critics want to know why I’m skeptical of New York Times articles critical of the Bush Administration (based on leaks), it’s because its reporters don’t seem to realize that the leakers may also have an axe to grind. Until the paper starts to show the same skepticism of anti-Bush leakers as it has shown to those critical of the Clinton Administration, I will remain skeptical of the Gray Lady’s evenhandedness. And less likely to trust its reporting of the Bush Administration — and the conservative movement.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest):

To celebrate his blogiversary, Jawa Helps Nab a Would-Be Terrorist

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:48 pm - January 20, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,War On Terror

Fellow Pajamas Media blogger Dr. Rusty Shackleford of the Jawa Report celebrates his second blogiversary today with a post detailing how he helped nab a would-be terrorist. One of his past posts about a man’s quest for information on nuclear bombs and chemical weapons drew federal investigators attention to a Jordanian who had “fraudently immigrated” to the U.S. and was using a computer at a public library in Ohio to “seek out fellow jihadis.” Help celebrate Jawa’s blogiversary by reading his post and congratulating him for a job well done. And to marvel at what the blogosphere can accomplish.

Marking The Reagan Revolution — January 20, 1981

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 9:39 am - January 20, 2006.
Filed under: American History,Ronald Reagan

It was 25 years ago today that the history of the United States and the world changed forever. It would have been remembered as an historic day even without the swearing in of the 40th President of the United States. The American Hostages were being released after 444 days of captivity in Iran. Of course no one would realize, or appreciate at the time, that the Iran hostage crisis was just the beginning of the world wide war against America by Islamofascists.

But the long-term impact of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration that day has been felt by millions around the world who were freed from Communist oppression because of his commitment and vision. Here in the United States, Reagan brought the country back from the days of Carter’s malaise to a new level of economic productivity and patriotism. As I told an ABC Radio reporter while I stood in line at the Capitol to pay my respects upon his passing in June 2004, as long as I live Ronald Reagan will be the person I will consider as “my President.”

I found this decent column in the LA Times marking the 25th Anniversary of Reagan’s inauguration.

What Reagan Knew – Richard Reeves,

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ago today, on Jan. 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th president of the United States. The former governor of California faced west, away from the front of the Capitol, and gave a most extraordinary inaugural address.

He touched on four simple themes, the ones he had been repeating for years, first as spokesman for the General Electric Co., then as governor of California and as the post-Goldwater icon of the conservative wing of the Republican Party: reducing taxes and budget deficits and thus reducing the power and size of the government; rebuilding the American military; confronting communism around the world; and renewing American pride and patriotism.

Reagan, a stubborn and determined old man not greatly interested in learning anything new, instinctively understood the presidency in important ways that were derided and mocked by many of his contemporaries. He knew the job was not managing the government, it was leading the nation. He knew words could be more important than deeds — and he was not ashamed of that. He knew the presidency was about trust and judgment, the way the man at the top handled the two or three big ones that came his way, usually unexpectedly. No one remembers Abraham Lincoln’s agricultural policy.

He was politically alone those last two years. Congress and the press treated him as a fool or a crook. Conservatives abandoned him, consigning him to Lenin’s category of “useful idiots.” But he knew one big thing, and always had: Communism would fall of its own weight and contradictions. And he had found the key to victory in the Cold War: a Soviet leader who also understood that old-fashioned communism was collapsing.

The official notes of the Reagan/Mikhail S. Gorbachev meetings, finally released in this century, show convincingly that Reagan, trying to save his ideology and his presidency, prevailed over Gorbachev, the Russian trying to save his ideology and his country.

There was no one at his inauguration in January 1981 who would have predicted that within 10 years the Soviet Union would be dissolved and Russia would begin applying for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Well, maybe Ronald Reagan did. But no one took him seriously — then.

As a foot soldier of the Reagan Revolution, I salute my Commander-In-Chief on this day. God Bless Ronald Reagan.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Hillary’s True Colors

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:13 pm - January 19, 2006.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Liberals

Shortly after writing my last post on New York’s Junior Senator, I chanced upon yesterday’s first “Quote of the Day” in OpinionJournal’s Political Diary (available by subscription) where New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin reported that Mrs. Clinton had not planned on calling the House of Representatives a plantation:

I don’t think Clinton planned to use the word plantation because she didn’t say it in her prepared remarks, according to my colleague David Saltonstall.

Instead, I think she panicked after a tough questioner said Democrats had been spineless and cited her record as an example. She was looking for an escape hatch and the race card was handy. She played it not because she remotely believes House rules are akin to slavery, but because she knew the word plantation would manipulate the black crowd and let her avoid explaining her support for the Iraq war.

While Hillary tries to cultivate the image as a sensible moderate, when she’s not reading from a speech carefully prepared by her media-savvy handlers, she lashes out at Republicans and shows her own vicious partisan nature. Assessing his New York colleague’s “ridiculous comment” Republican Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, who’s had his own share of troubles from speaking off the cuff offers a similar assessment of Hillary’s two faces :

When she speaks to the Senate, she uses very moderate terms and very low modulation and is very good. When she goes to events like this one and starts hollering and using this sort of, just vicious kind of language, I think it really is a … you know, you wind up having to apologize for it.

(I discovered this quotation via a link in Michelle‘s excellent roundup on Hillary’s demagoguery.) Unlike Mr. Lott who apologized for his remarks, Hillary is unapologetic. It seems that only Republicans can make statements about blacks — or our racial situation — so offensive that they need apologize. At least according to the MSM.

It’s that and more. Mrs. Clinton is unapologetic because this is what she truly believes. In the Senate, she puts on the face of bipartisanship, but in front left-wing audiences, she feels right at home and lets go, revealing her true colors, as a narrow-minded Democratic partisan who has such a negative image of Republicans that she doesn’t let facts in the way of her opinions.


This is Moving On?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 12:08 pm - January 19, 2006.
Filed under: National Politics,Random Thoughts

Have you ever suddenly been taken aback by something that’s been around for a while and just never really paid it that much attention before?

Yesterday I was on my way to the gym and must have seen about 5 or 6 “Kerry-Edwards” bumper-stickers. That may not seem like many, but when you consider that it was 443 days ago that Bush trounced Kerry (442 days since Kerry figured it out) with the largest number of popular votes ever by a presidential candidate in American history, you start to wonder: Aren’t these the people who made popular the phrase “Move On“?

Kind of makes me want to do an informal survey: How long did it take you to remove your Bush/Quayle ’92 and/or Dole/Kemp ’96 stickers after they lost?

I’ll go first: It was the next day. For that matter, I removed the Bush/Cheney stickers the next day in ’00 (in spite of the so-called “Constitutional Crisis!“) and again in ’04. You see, in a democracy, you have an election, then you have a president. Do Kerry supporters understand that?

Human Rights Watch Criticizes U.S. More than Iran, North Korea and Other Tyrannies

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:50 pm - January 18, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,Media Bias

Today on its front newspage, with the title, “Rights group report calls U.S. abuse deliberate,” Yahoo highlighted an article on a Human Rights Watch (HRW) World Report 2006 which claimed that, “In 2005 it became disturbingly clear that the abuse of detainees had become a deliberate, central part of the Bush administration’s strategy of interrogating terrorist suspects.” This AP article seemed more interested in presenting the spin of this group than in telling the truth as it called water-boarding, an interogation technique used by CIA investigations to get information from captured terrorists as “an age-old torture technique.” Other MSM outlets will pick up this group’s report and will continue to promote a distorted view of U.S. policy–given the inherent anti-American bias of HRW.

It is not a report based on solid evidence, but on bias. And its conclusion that the alleged abuse was deliberate is at odds with more serious investigations.

Not only did the report misrepresent the Bush Administration’s record on torture, repeating discredited allegations featured on left-wing web-sites and in the MSM, it also seethed with contempt for policies of a past Republican administration. It reads more like an anti-Republican screed from some left-wing blog than a dispassionate account of a non-partisan human rights watchdog.

Thus, it did not surprise me when I did a google search of Executive Director Kenneth Roth to learn that he had written for the left-wing magazine The Nation, was featured as a speaker on Alternative Radio’s web-site (which, on its right side-bar includes an archive of programs by America-hater Noam Chomsky) and had been named a Pravda Personality of the Week.

While his group does look into some of the serious violations of human rights around the word, notably in the Sudanese province of Darfur, it dwells on those committed in the U.S. Even after the Schlesinger report found that abuses at Abu Ghraib “were not part of authorized interrogations nor were they even directed at intelligence targets“, HRW, like Andrew Sullivan, is obsessed with what happened on one night at that prison.

Indeed, the sexual degradation glimpsed in the Abu Ghraib photos was so outlandish that it made it easier for the Bush administration to deny having had anything to do with it�to pretend that the abuse erupted spontaneously at the lowest levels of the military chain of command and could be corrected with the prosecution of a handful of privates and sergeants. 

Um, the abuse there did “erupt spontaneously” as the trials and convictions of those involved prove.

But, non-partisan invtestigations and trials of the perpetrators of those abuses haven’t stopped HRW from condemning the Bush Administration. Indeed, it even blames the U.S. for terrorists groups which target civilians, noting that they “took place in the context of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the ensuing military occupation that resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and sparked the emergence of insurgent groups.” This is absurd. Suggesting the U.S. is responsible for the conduct of its enemies. One would hope that these words would cause most serious reporters to dismiss HRW as a crank outfit. Instead, AP uses the quote in its article.

The U.S. didn’t cause the so-called “insurgent” groups to murder the people for whom they are ostensibly fighting. They themselves chose to target civilians. Most insurgent groups limit themselves to attacking the troops of the “occupying” power. And yet, HRW blames America suggesting that our supposedly nefarious actions somehow excuse terrorists for murdering children.


70’s Teen Idol Arrested

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 1:58 pm - January 18, 2006.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

I debated teasing y’all and putting the photo after a jump to make you guess which teen idol it is. But that would be too cruel, eh?

Former teen idol Leif Garrett in LA jail – Reuters

Former teen idol Leif Garrett spent the weekend in a Los Angeles jail after being arrested for failing to pay his subway fare and being under the influence of drugs, police said on Wednesday.

How much you wanna bet we will see ol’ Leif on an upcoming episode of “The Surreal Life“?

But what is really cruel is this 90’s-era photo of Mr. Garrett.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The Democrats’ “Contagious Optimism”

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:21 am - January 18, 2006.
Filed under: Liberals,War On Terror

There’s quite a damning piece up at by David Limbaugh regarding the SurrenderCrats’ two latest “Unhinged Liberals.”

Unlike our president, who spent Martin Luther King Day paying respectful tribute to MLK and Abraham Lincoln, Democratic Party notables, Hillary Clinton and Albert Gore, used the holiday as another opportunity to character-assassinate President George W. Bush.

If one could momentarily suspend his powers of discernment, he could almost sympathize with a woman saddled with the dilemma of trying to sound reasonable without permanently alienating that cabal of reliably unreasonable malcontents. But alas, Hillary obviously has no real beef with her base on principle, and from time to time, it insists she demonstrate her loyalty by paying homage to its cynicism and hysteria.

But as regrettable as Hillary’s remarks were, they were anemic compared to the rantings of that poster boy for instability Albert Gore, who, you may recall with horror, came within one state’s electoral vote of being president.

After accusing President Bush of virtual tyranny and depicting America as on the brink of ruin, Gore closed by protesting, “I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age … ”

Old Albert could have fooled me. He sounds more like George Bernard Shaw’s description of a pessimist — one who “thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it.”

Either way, I just hope Albert and Hillary continue to spread their contagious optimism between now and November 2008.

Despite the wails of protest I received with this posting a couple weeks ago…. I would like to pose this question yet again: When does protesting and complaining turn into sedition, treason and emboldening our enemies?

Seems to me Al Gore would be in jail today under any other President in a time of war. I don’t know about you, but I’m happy to sacrifice Al Gore’s civil liberties to protect the Republic and the Constitution as a whole.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Let the NSA Collect the Dots!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:19 am - January 18, 2006.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America,War On Terror

The video is self-explanatory (hat tip: JunkYard Blog)

(Click here for QuickTime version)
(Click here for WindowsMedia version)

As Instapundit would say…. watch the whole thing!

Our greatest weapon against al-Qaeda is our information technology capability; don’t let the Gore/HClinton/Kerry/Dean/Boxer/Kennedy Democrats and their buddies at the ACLU disarm America in wartime!

Remember folks, the Constitution is not a suicide pact!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

My Bet Was On SpiderMan….

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:06 am - January 18, 2006.
Filed under: Blogging,Post 9-11 America

…..except for that fear of heights thing. I guess I trust the cape more than my fingers to keep me above street level…

Your results:

You are Superman

Green Lantern
Iron Man
The Flash
Wonder Woman
You are mild-mannered, good,
strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the “Which Superhero am I?” quiz…

(Hat tip: NakedBoyChronicles)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Bridget on Media-Manipulating Mass Murderers

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:20 am - January 18, 2006.
Filed under: Annoying Celebrities,Liberals

Bridget Johnson (AKA GOP Vixen) has a thoughtful piece in today’s OpinionJournal on how certain murderers, including the late Stanley “Tookie” Williams, manipulate celebrity activists and other death penalty opponents. She notes how despite claims of Williams’ redemption, he had done nothing to help “authorities clean up the Crips network.” He, like other murderers before him who gained media favor, was a “master manipulator.”

Bridget contends that the same skills that helped Tookie to achieve success on the streets also helped him convince Hollywood that he had changed: “He was a gang leader, which requires a certain arm-twisting ability not only to keep operations running, but to recruit and build ranks.” As usual, Bridget has a great column. And this one includes a chilling anecdote about Ted Bundy. Since she does a much better job of relating that story — and making her point — than I ever could, just read the whole thing!

Virginia House Approves Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

Posted by Average Gay Joe at 7:49 pm - January 17, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Hello everyone. Dan and Bruce were kind enough to invite me to guest-blog here at GayPatriot, an invitation I was pleased to accept. A little bit about me, I’m in my 30s, hail from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, I am Catholic, generally conservative and former active-duty military (from a military family). I also run the Average Gay Joe weblog. Beyond all this I’ll save other personal information for later.

Since my time is somewhat limited this week and the story in this article is currently “Big News” in my home state, I decided for my first posting here to use something I put on my own weblog the other day. (GP Ed. Note: Dan and I are happy to welcome AGJ to GayPatriot!!)


From The Washington Blade:

The Virginia House voted 73 to 22 to approve a constitutional amendment banning equal marriage rights for gays. The proposal must be voted on by the Senate and signed by Gov.-elect Tim Kaine (D) before it can go to voters in November.

Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said that the governor-elect will sign the bill to call for a referendum. Kaine supports the amendment and opposes civil unions, she said. She added that he is interested in discussing measures — to make sure people can still be able to contract with each other.

My prediction: the Senate will likewise approve this proposed amendment, the new Governor will sign it (as his spokesman indicated), and the electorate will endorse it with nearly 60% or more in favor making Virginia the 19th state to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage. It looks like we will be at the half-way mark in support under Article V of the US Constitution for the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Sad but I believe accurate.

There is one item worth noting: a Democrat governor is going to sign this to put it on the ballot and Virginia, like the other states which adopted such amendments, will find it being passed with majority support from the rank-and-file in both parties (along with independents). I haven’t forgotten that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress which in 1993 passed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and a Democrat president which signed it into law, thus codifying the ban on homosexuals openly serving in the Armed Forces. I seem to recall that the Defense of Marriage Act attracted majority support among Democrats in the Senate, along with a sizable number in the House, and was signed into law by a Democrat president in 1996.

Tell me again just why I should sacrifice my core beliefs for the crumbs the DNC tosses out now and then, all while selling out whomever it takes for it’s insatiable lust for power?

– AverageGayJoe

UPDATE (from GPW): I doubt that gay groups will treat this Democratic governor as harshly as they treated my Republican Governor (Schwarzenegger) who, unlike his Virginia Democratic counterpart, favors civil unions.