Gay Patriot Header Image

The Violent Anti-Christian Leftists In America and Abroad

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 2:05 pm - February 27, 2006.
Filed under: Conservative Discrimination,War On Terror

Is there a connection between the 2004 political speech crimes against Republicans, the rise of anti-Semitism in France and Europe, the riots by radical and moderate Muslims alike over cartoons, the Secular Left’s “War on Christmas”, and the recent spate of anti-Christian violent acts in the United States that I note below?

Officials Say They’re Close to Cracking Arson Case – Associated Press

Ten Baptist churches in rural parts of the state have been burned by arsonists this month. Nine of the fires – five on Feb. 3 in Bibb County and four on Feb. 7 in west Alabama – have been linked. Another church fire on Feb. 11 in Lamar County has been ruled arson, but investigators have not determined if it is connected to the others.

Man Kills, Wounds Mother and Child in Church – FOX News

DETROIT — A man opened fire inside a church Sunday, killing an 18-year-old woman and wounding her child before shooting another man outside, according to police and broadcast reports.

I submit there is. Despite their hysterical rantings about the massive reduction in civil rights under BushAshcroftGonzales, the facts are that the violent acts against free speech and freedom of religion in America are directed against and not by American conservatives and people of faith (mainly Christians and Jews).

Why was there 24-hour coverage on CNN of the Mohammed cartoon uproar (where they shielded our eyes of the cartoon by blurring it), but no equal coverage of the church fires and the murder of the young Jewish man in France?

I report and connect the dots…. you decide.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

DADT: A Gay Servicemember’s Perspective. Part IV: A Winning Argument?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 12:30 am - February 27, 2006.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Blogger’s Note:
Thanks for indulging me once again. This is Part IV in a 6-Part piece on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the US Military’s policy barring openly homosexual servicemembers. See here for Part I, Part II, and Part III.

We’ve discussed previously why some arguments for repealing the ban on open homosexuals in the US Armed Forces have fallen so far on deaf ears (see previous posts). So how can we get the policy changed? I’ve argued we need to frame the debate in such a way that those who are dedicated to the mission of the military will sit up and take notice. Which is to say, how can we show that the policy of actively barring open homosexuals from serving puts the military’s mission in jeopardy?

I have a couple ideas:

First of all, there’s no such thing anymore as compelled service. I don’t just mean the draft, of course. I also mean that anybody currently serving can walk into his commander’s office, declare his homosexuality (whether it’s true or not), and if the commander is convinced his troop is telling the truth, he gets to stroll out, ditch his commitment, and nary a sly word is spoken. This argument needs further development, but the idea is there to present a position about how wantonly allowing people out of their commitments to the military is definitely harmful to the mission. We’d also need some strong numbers.

Another, much more formidable argument comes from seeds of thought planted by Grandpa Patrick, who commented on an earlier post, and it goes like this (please have patience with me, I’ve tried to set this up in a logical fashion):

National Security will be enhanced through a stronger Armed Forces and America will be safer by allowing openly homosexual members to serve because the current policy unnecessarily and unreasonably puts Classified Intelligence at risk. Here’s why:


Oscar Audience to Decline

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:17 am - February 27, 2006.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV

Although the TV show Commander in Chief did quite well in his first weeks on the air, I predicted that its ratings would soon drop and it would be canceled after no more than one season. Alas, that I did not make this prediction public. ABC put the show on hiatus last month because its ratings were “in a free fall.” So, today, barely a week before the telecast of the Oscars, I will make public my prediction that the Oscar audience will decline this year, though it may register an increase in gay households.

I’m not really going out on a limb in saying this. A number of people have been predicting as much. In the February 3 edition of OpinionJournal’s Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund wrote:

The TV ratings for next month’s Oscar award ceremonies in Hollywood will show a continued slide, and one very large reason is that few Americans will have even seen the five movies nominated for best picture this week by a show-business community increasingly obsessed with left-wing causes rather than movie making.

As Liberty Film Festival co-director Jason Apuzzo put it, the Academy Awards have devolved into just another marketing tool for ‘indie’ films nobody’s seen.” To be sure, every year, there are a number of first-rate independent films, many as good as, if not better than the best of the Hollywood flicks. But, those quality independent features tend to explore universal themes (often in a quirky manner) and appeal to a broad audience. Not so with this year’s nominees. Only two of the films nominated for Best Picture (Brokeback Mountain and Crash) earned more than $50 million at the box office (and the latter just barely). This past weekend, just one week before the ceremony, Munich brought in a pathetic $1,501 per theater.

It’s not just the Oscar nominees that aren’t making money, last year the movie business experienced a huge slump in ticket sales. Filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney believes fewer people went to the movies last year because Hollywood has focused more on the tastes of the Tinseltown’s denizens than those in the American heartland:

Hollywood is making films that Hollywood wants to consume, not necessarily what the rest of America does. Hollywood needs to decide whether it wants to be a political party or whether it wants to entertain.

(H/t: Instapundit.) And by tapping Jon Stewart, a man known for his political and media satire rather than his love of movies, as the host of the Oscar ceremony, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seems more interested in promoting social commentary (of a leftish sort) than quality filmmaking.