. . . he would have used more coercive tactics to stop the New York Times (as well as its West Coast counterpart for the latter story) from publishing details about the NSA program to monitor the international calls of terrorist suspects and last week’s story about the SWIFT program to track terrorist financing.

In comments to this blog, some of our critics borrowing unsubstantiated (except by their own rhetoric) notions from other left-leaning blogs claim that the president wants dictatorial powers. Andrew Sullivan calls him a “quasi-monarchical president.”

But, if the president were really attempting to exercise such powers, he would have not have used gentle suasion with the editors of the New York Times. Instead of trying to talk them out of publishing the story, he would have threatened the paper or sent armed thugs to rub them out.

President Bush has perhaps endured more mean-spirited and inaccurate attacks since taking office than any of his predecessors. But, as we know from recent experience, he has not been alone in suffering such slights. Indeed, newspapers and political opponents have been making nasty, unwarranted accusations against presidents going back to Thomas Jefferson at least — and perhaps even to George Washington.

To suffer that some people will level such unwarranted and dishonest attacks is the price we pay for the freedoms guaranteed to these hatemongers by the First Amendment. As hateful as their speech is, to prevent their speaking out would be wrong for a great variety of reasons. Not only would it deny them their freedom to speak out, but it would also lead to a slippery slope where even honest disagreement could be punished. And then there’s the key question of who would decide.

While I strongly believe that our our media and the Chief Executive’s political adversaries should criticize the president when they disagree with his actions or proposals, in an ideal world, no leader would have to suffer the unsubstantiated allegations leveled by an arrogant press and vindictive opponents as has President Bush. But, that’s part of a free society. No dictator, however, would tolerate such opposition.

That President Bush has done nothing to silence the mean-spirited accusations of his opponents proves that he is anything but a dictator. That his critics continue to so attack him shows that they recognize as much. Their very rhetoric belies their arguments.

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

For the past five years, I have volunteered at Outfest, Los Angeles’ annual gay & lesbian film festival. This year, the festival begins next Thursday, July 6 with a festive Opening Night screening of Puccini for Beginners at the Orpheum in Downtown LA. It continues for the next nine days with a variety of shorts, features, documentaries and panels — and even a West Side Story singalong on July 12 at the Ford Amphitheatre in the Hollywood Hills.

One reason I continue to volunteer for Outfest is that the folks at the festival have shown genuine appreciation for those of us who help out — much more so than for the other gay groups where I have volunteered in the past. Not only does the staff thank the volunteers in words, but they show their appreciation by hosting barbecues for us and allowing dedicated volunteers to see festival films for free (on a space available basis). In short, one thing which distinguishes Outfest from these other organizations (at least in my experience) is the way the paid staff treats its volunteers.

If you have some free time between July 6 and 17, please join me in volunteering for this fun festival. Not only will you help promote gay and lesbian cinema in Los Angeles, but you’re sure to have a great time as well — and meet other interesting gay people who enjoy movies. (And if you play your cards right, you may even get to meet me as well.) Click here to sign up to volunteer or here to learn more about the festival.

If you don’t feel like volunteering this summer, but enjoy gay movies, the staff and the volunteers, particularly the Theater Managers like myself, treat the patrons as well as the staff treats the volunteers, so click here to find out what’s showing and to get tickets!

See y’all at Outfest!

(GP Editor’s note:  This is the first of a three part series on Gay Adoption & Parenting by frequent GP commenters “V The K” and “Michigan Matt.”) 

Maybe you saw Glenn Reynolds’s article on TCS from about a month ago, which was subsequently reprinted on OpinionJournal (The Parent Trap: How safety fanatics help drive down birthrates). Reynolds’ thesis is that having children in our litigious society carries too much risk, too much cost, and not enough benefit.

“(P)arenting has become more expensive in non-financial as well as financial terms. It takes up more time and emotional energy than it used to, and there’s less reward in terms of social approbation. This is like a big social tax on parenting and, as we all know, when things are taxed we get less of them. Yes, people still have children, and some people even have big families. But at the margin, which is where change occurs, people are less likely to do things as they grow more expensive and less rewarded. “

Over the last century, social mores have shifted. In the past, raising families was not just encouraged, but expected. In the present era, especially among secularized elites, the predominant social pressure is against having children, or even marrying at all. Many married couples eschew parenthood. In stark contrast, gay and lesbian couples and singles are incurring even greated economic, social, and emotional costs to build families, sometimes in the face of powerful opposition.

Michigan-Matt and his partner completed the adoption of their son after an expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars, and after gut-wrenching disappointments. Their first attempt at adoption failed when the unwed birthparents opted to cancel after their son had already lived with Michigan-Matt and his partner for 17 weeks.

“There was no warning. No notice; the decision was entirely theirs and the grandparents –who we later heard, despite what they said earlier, opposed ‘giving up their first grandkid to some fruits’. They went into court, the judge granted them custody and it was over,” Michigan-Matt recalls. “It took us three years to get over that deep pain, ultimate failure of trust, and the violation we felt at the reversal.”

The second adoption attempt was successful. Michigan-Matt and partner were even allowed in the delivery room and received their newborn son into their arms from the womb. Michigan-Matt says, “It doesn’t get any better than that. Talk about bonding! The birthmom said she heard about us through the social worker and wanted to help us heal.”

Their next child will be provided by a surrogate mother. They’ve carefully picked the birthmom, hired her to carry their son or daughter to term. The impregnation has occurred and the due date is Nov 11th, Michigan-Matt’s birthday. So far, everything is going well.

Their 3 year old son is looking forward to the first of “ten or fiftwennie brothers and sisters.” Michigan-Matt still isn’t sure what number translates into “fiftwennie” but is interested in continuing to grow as a family. (Take that Reynolds!) The estimated cost of this adoption: $71,000-97,000.

Four years ago, V the K, set out to adopt his foster son in South Carolina. The county adoption agency threw every imaginable hurdle in front of him. To cite the worst example, the county’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL) office replaced the original GAL assigned his case with a notoriously homophobic South Carolina state senator; a man who in every legisilative session has tried to push bills outlawing gay adoption and foster parenting, who, strangely enough, had no prior experience as a GAL.

The GAL is responsible for making recommendations regarding the child’s adoptive placement. Before long, this senator and the head of the county GAL office were pulling VtK’s foster son out of school two and three times a week for “interviews,” during which they pressured him to make abuse allegations. The senator also tried to bribe another family to adopt the boy, and threatened them with obstructing another adoption they were pursuing when they refused to go along.

When he filed his report to the adoption office, it was filled with misinformation and made allegations of neglect. (Whereas all the reports filed by the GAL he replaced had been outstanding.) It is VtK’s belief that this jackass politician was trying to drum up an abuse incident so he could stoke public outrage and get his anti-gay adoption bill passed.

The county adoption agency fought the adoption even up to the final hearing, and insisted on a lot more requirements than a married couple would have gone through. Eventually, with enough lawyering, determination, and faith, VtK and his adoptive son prevailed. VtK has since adopted another son (relatively smoothly) and intends, God-willing, to adopt again.

A case could be made that subjecting gay couples and single parents to more scrutiny than traditional married couples is legitimate. After all, as we’ll discuss in the next essay, parenting outside the traditional nuclear family carries its own unique challenges. But the point is, we go through a lot more than most married couple do just to have children.

- V The K and Michigan-Matt

Richard Valeriani, who covered The White House and State Department for the Peacock in the 1970s and 80s, blasts the treasonous acts of the New York Times.

Don’t Follow The Money Story – Huffington Post  (hey, do they pay over there for blogging??)

I find the decision of The New York Times and other newspapers to publish the story about the Administration’s money-tracing program to be really irresponsible.

The fault does not lie with the reporters.  The fault lies with the editors who put what they perceive as their own self-interest or the interest of their newspaper ahead of the national interest.

 

Where was the so-called “public interest?” There was no compelling need for the public to know about this. The story itself acknowledged there was nothing illegal going on—only an anonymous acknowledgement that there was a “potential” for abuse.

This was show-off journalism, pure and simple. Look at us. Look at what we found out. Look at how good we are uncovering secrets.

Running the story about the money-tracing program is a version of giving Anne Frank’s address to the Nazis.

Amen.  But is he channeling GayPatriot?

I also got a kick out of the last line of Valeriani’s bio at Huffington.

He was also the Washington correspondent for the Today show when news was news.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

First… I’m going to ramble a bit. I’ve had a tiring company meeting in Florida and I haven’t been home in over a week.

I would first say “Kudos” to Dan for ignoring the Log Cabin self-love fest with Arnold. LCR’s hard Left turn is complete as I saw a teaser for the Arnold dinner on CNN in the airport this afternoon. *rolling eyes* Log Cabin won’t get a red cent of my hard-earned money until they realize that they are not a solely-owned and funded subsidiary of the anti-American Gay Left. Log Cabin has a role to play….they have just relinquished it. Instead they are simply one of the tired old voices in the losing chorus of Leftist Anger. But more on my “Log Cabin Principles For The Future” another time…

Now let’s discuss matters of real importance — the safety of Americans in the ongoing War on Terror. Today the Supreme Court dealt a victory to al-Qaeda and their American sympathizers by siding with the enemy combatants at Club Gitmo.

Best of the Web has a good summary of the idiotic Hamdan ruling.

For now at least, the court has not mandated that terrorist detainees be granted the rights of either ordinary criminal defendants (who cannot be held indefinitely unless charged and convicted) or prisoners of war (who, among other things, cannot be interrogated).

The chief result of this ruling will be to delay the trials of Guantanamo detainees until Congress or the Pentagon establishes a regime of military commissions that meets the court’s approval. For those concerned with the duration of terrorists’ captivity–a perverse thing to worry about anyway–there’s little to cheer here.

On the one hand, Oakleaf at Polipundit summed up my initial reaction. This sucks.

These individuals have no idea what they have done. I wasted 12 months of my life in Afgahnistan for this. Support by the military in the GWOT is going to collapse. This opinion will go from a ripple to a wave throughout the uniformed military. We were slapped by John McCain last December. Today, we are slapped by the Supreme Court.

And I do agree. Does the Court now believe al-Qaeda will uphold the Geneva Convention?

But in a Karl Rovian twist, I began to realize how bad this is for Democrats as we head into the fall Congressional elections. Remember 2002? The Democrats chose their union buddies over the security of you and I in the battle to pass legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. The Hamdan ruling creates a new but similar dilemma for liberals running for Congress. We will now have a pre-election Congressional session dominated by enabling legislation for military tribunals.

The November election will come down to this: Do Democrats choose to protect American security? Or do they side with the ACLU and choose to protect the civil liberties of known terrorists that are have pledged to destroy our nation and that are beheading, maiming and killing our citizens around the world?

There is NO middle ground.

It appears Nancy Pelosi has already chosen who she will stand up for. (Hint: it is not American citizens)

When Nancy Pelosi says, “Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system,” what exactly does she mean? I understand that honorable people can disagree on the Hamdan decision, but surely “all” aren’t entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system.

A major battle in the WOT may have been lost today at SCOTUS, but this also may be a political turning point that results in a stiffer resolve by the American public. We shall see.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Andrew Cochran at Counterterorrism blog appears to agree with Bruce, finding the decision “a huge political gift to President Bush.” As Glenn (to whom I tip my hat on this one) would say, read the whole thing!

For a while, I considered attending the Log Cabin fundraiser tonight featuring the good governor of the Golden State, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not only would it be a chance to meet the governor and hobnob with gay Republicans, but also a sign that I was hopeful that as it picks a new leader, this ostensibly Republican organization would focus more on building bridges to the GOP than on kowtowing to the left-leaning gay leadership.

And while outgoing Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero has done a few things in the past year to distinguish himself from the gay groups, as he prepares to take his leave from Log Cabin, he has (as I have noted repeatedly before) been bending over backwards not to offend those groups. Perhaps, by appearing with Governor Schwarzenegger tonight, Patrick will learn that no matter how positive an record a Republican has on gay issues, unless he toes the gay groups’ line (without the slightest deviaiton), he will earn their scorn. Although the governor signed a great variety of pro-gay bills — and made clear his support for the state’s pioneering domestic partnership program, gay activists hold him in contempt for vetoing a bill recognizing gay marriage in the Golden State.

And even that veto likely did more good than harm.

After the legislature passed the bill, social conservatives were gathering signatures for a state referendum which would not only ban gay marriage, but would aso overturn the state’s domestic partnership program. Given that Proposition 22 (a state referendum defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman) passed overwhelmingly in 2000, had that proposal made the Golden State’s ballot, it stood a good chance of passing.

When the Governor vetoed the gay marriage bill, he deprived the social conservatives of the impetus they needed to rally the public to their cause. No longer could they make the case to voters that the state was bypassing the people by recognizing gay marriage. As a result, they failed gather enough signatures for their gratuitous referendum; it will not be on the ballot this year.

Given all the good the Governor has done, I wanted to show my support for him tonight even though the money from tonight’s event goes not to the Governor’s campaign coffers, but to Log Cabin’s depleted treasury. And when I learned that Patrick was stepping down as head of Log Cabin, I had considered going to the dinner.

It was, however, the tone of Patrick’s response to the president’s speech earlier this month reiterating his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage that caused me to change my mind. Instead of responding with in a responsible manner, taking issue with the president’s points (which he would have been right to do), Patrick adopted the angry tone of the national gay leaders and released a nasty, confrontational missive, eschewing civility and insulting the president.

Let me repeat: Patrick was right to crticize the president for his support of this amendment. He was wrong to adopt the tone he used in his letter. I simply cannot support an ostensibly Republican organization whose leader so shuns civil discourse, particularly when addressing the president from his own party — on an issue of such importance.

Under Patrick Guerriero’s leadership, Log Cabin has seemed more eager to attack the Republican President of the United States than to distinguish itself from the left-wing gay groups. No matter how much I like the Governor — and appreciate his leadership — I cannot then in good conscience, give money to the organization while Patrick Guerriero is still at its helm.

Given how gay groups have reacted to Governor Schwarzenegger, the leaders of this ostensibly gay Republican group should realize that these groups are more interested in attacking Republicans than in reaching any kind of consensus on gay issues. Log Cabin should be doing what it can to distinguish itself from the angry, partisan rhetoric of the national gay organizations. Instead, with a few notable exceptions, it has joined them in mean-spirited attacks on the president and has pretty much held its fire when Democrats take stands on gay issues for which the national gay leadership lambastes Republicans.

I am hopeful that the next leader of Log Cabin will be more eager to build bridges to the GOP and willing to distinguish him- (or her-) self from the national gay groups. Should Log Cabin’s board pick such an individual, I will be delighted to support the organization, rhetorically as well as financially.

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

Sometimes, I think my road to romance is paved with odd experiences. Last night, after returning from class, I went to BoiFromTroy‘s Welcome-to-LA party for GayOrbit‘s Michael Demmons. At said event, I met a fetching young man (even a conservative!) who, like me, has an interest in ancient history. Not only that he was delighted to hear me declaim Beowulf in the original. (And I learned later that he also loves Madeline Kahn.)

He invited me to go to a party at the Palms, a lesbian watering hole in central WeHo. When we arrived, we could not find his friends celebrating, but instead garnered a few glances from the gals gathering there. When he InstantMessaged (on his trusty Blackberry) the organizer of the shindig, informing him of our arrival, he learned that the party was slated for Friday. With laughter on our lips, we took our leave.

Much as I like lesbians, I’ll have to say it was an odd experience, wandering into a lesbian bar on the wrong night. For the five, maybe ten, minutes that we were there, while we did get a few looks, no one was rude to us, indeed, most of the women there were quite friendly (as far as i can tell).

Of course, the whole experience made me wonder (yet again) if maybe I really am a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

That said, all in all it was a fun night. At Boi’s party for Michael, I met another lesbian, a nice gal from Long Beach, a good conversationalist who reads this blog. (She had driven up just to meet Michael!) I had the chance to hobnob with a few other bloggers, including Boi himself, Matt Szabo and Andrew of Here In Van Nuys. The guest of honor (Michael Demmons) was himself also a good conversationalist — and a nice guy.

Who would think that at a gay bar I could meet another gay conservative who is fascinated with Roman History, who appreciates Old English and loves one of the greatest film comediennes of all time!

My Aussie colleague, Romeo Mike, has a regular feature known as “Moonbattery on a Pole.”  (*waves to Romeo Mike in Sydney*)

Anyway, I’m trying to clean out the very clogged GayPatriot InBox (gaypatriot2004@aol.com), and I recalled that I had saved my very own “Moonbattery In My InBox.”   Here goes.

Hi, I read your article where you compare or mention both Cindy Sheehan and Fred Phelps. Now, I’m guessing since your e-mail address is, “gaypatriot” I can assume you’re a homosexual.

First off, I’ll just say that I’m 100% for gay marriage and I see nothing wrong with homosexuals for being who they are.

I do, however, think it’s wrong to take one person’s ideas and compare them to another person’s ideas when their core beliefs are radically different.

A radical liberal would be against war because he or she wouldn’t want all the bloody violence. On the other hand, a severe conservative may be anti-war because he or she supports terrorists for their hatred of homosexuals.

I myself am an anarchist and I don’t feel that oppression in anyway is a good thing at all. I also think that true Christianity is an evil thing and the Bible is full of hatred. I would never support Christianity or any of those hateful lines that tell Christians that everyone else will burn in Hell.

First of all, I’m not sure I have ever received such an anti-Christian bigoted email in my life.  But second, has anyone ever heard of a conservative opposing the War on Terror due to their hatred of homosexuals?  Conservatives, by contrast, are piling on Fred Phelps and there was even an act of Congress passed to move the freak show away from military funerals.

So perhaps this email is less “moonbattery” and more “parody”?   I know I laughed.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

With the release today of Superman Returns, I thought I’d give y’all a chance to chime in with your favorite superhero movie. As a child I was partial to Superman and Spider-Man comics and (Saturday morning) cartoons while enjoying the Batman TV show.

Perhaps it’s because I was so partial to Spider-Man as a child that I thoroughly enjoyed the Spider-Man movies, particularly the second one — which I blogged about here. And while I think very highly of the first two X-Men movies, particularly the second, I would have to say Spider-Man 2 is my favorite superhero movie.

Even as I say this, so many wonderful superhero movies come to mind, including the first two Christopher Reeve-Superman movies and last year’s Batman Begins. Now, it’s your turn. What’s your favorite superhero movie?

UPDATE: In comment #7, Lynda suggests that “the more interesting question is worst superhero movie ever made.” Hmm. . . So, if you want to chime in with your least favorite superhero flick, please feel free to do that as well.

Dan alluded to this study in a post a couple days ago, and now the BBC is reporting a more complete picture.   I have to admit that when I first read Dan’s post, I assumed it was a sociological connection, not a biological one (even though Dan does quote the doctor saying it is biologic).  But this BBC report is much more clear about the biological implications behind how a man becomes gay.

Womb Environment Makes Men Gay – BBC (h/t – Polipundit)

Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.  But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely down to biological rather than social factors.  The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either “biological” brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or “non-biological” brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.

He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.  The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.

Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: “If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men’s sexual orientation, but they do not.

“These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men.”

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a “maternal memory” in the womb for male births.   A woman’s body may see a male fetus as “foreign”, he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child. The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

Hey, this is pretty fascinating stuff… if only still a theory since there was no biological study done here. But it sure does make sense.

Now… and here’s the fun part… how does the Gay Left now reconcile its historic, increasingly vocal and unavowed support of “abortion-on-demand rights” as also being intertwined with “Gay Rights”? 

Speaking as someone from the Gay Left would (or should if they had principles):  If a mother knew there were a biological increase in her baby being born gay…why not have the right to abort that baby?  Or treat the suggested “antibodies” with a pre-natal genetic therapy to “cure” the gayness before it is born?

That seems to be the only intellectually honest position the Gay Left could have.  Otherwise the Gay Rights movement should become stridently Pro Life in order to stop the soon-to-be Gay Abortions-On-Demand.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

While other bloggers — and conservative pundits — are calling for the prosecution o the New York Times for for publishing information about a classified program to track terrorist financing, I think it may be premature to indict anyone. I believe we should follow the precedent established with the latest CIA “leak” case and first launch an investigation into which government officials, entrusted with secrets essential to our national security, leaked this classified information.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez should do, as his predecessor John Ashcroft did, now nearly three years ago in the Plame matter and appoint a dedicated prosecutor with a reputation for diligence to investigate this matter. This prosecutor, like Patrick Fitzgerald, must be willing to jail reporters for contempt if they, like Judith Miller, refuse to reveal their sources. He (or she) should be empowered to determine (1) who was responsible for the leak and; (2) whether any laws were broken. (It seems clear that the answer to the second question will be in the affirmative.)

When the Attorney General announces the investigation, he should be sure to refer to the New York Times‘ zeal to investigate the Plame matter, using that paper’s arguments to help defend his decision. He should of course base that decision on existing statute as the responsibly individuals are likely to be tried in courts of law. But, in the court of public opinion, he must take advantage of the precedent the Times helped establish.

If the Times reporters know they could face jail time for failing to reveal their sources, it’s not only they who would think twice before publishing classified information. Career bureaucrats at the CIA and State Department who have animus against the Administration would be less inclined to blab to reporters with similar ideological inclinations (as well as those especially eager to win industry accolades), knowing that their indiscretion could cost them their jobs — and possibly subject them to prosecution.

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

ADDENDUM: As I’ll be busy the next few days, I may not get as much chance to blog as I would like. Michael Barone has an excellent column today where he wonders why The New York Times hates us. Hugh Hewitt favors House and Senate pass resolutions “expressing outrage at the endangering of national security via the publication of sensitive national security information that obviously assists terrorists in eluding capture or killing.”

Hugh recommends Heather MacDonald’s excellent Weekly Standard article where she writes:

BY NOW IT’S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.

Powerline has a lot of good stuff on this matter, including a link to another former subscriber to the Los Angeles Times Patterico who writes that the editors of our hometown daily:

took it upon themselves to decide what classified information the public (and our enemies) should know about. Bizarrely, he claims that the critical factors in his decision were whether the program was legal and had adequate safeguards — even though, as I document in a related post, it was indeed legal and had extensive safeguards in place. Thus, his excuses are an apparent cover for some other motivation, as yet unrevealed.

Read the whole thing! And don’t forget to check out Instapundit and Michelle Malkin as well where you should be sure to keep scrolling!

In a number of my writings, a gay character is the youngest of several boys. And while, in family I’m the second son, having two younger brothers, if a Canadian study is accurate, it seems these characters of my imagination have some basis in reality.

In a study appearing in Tuesday’s issues of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada, reports “that having several biological older brothers increased the chance of a man being gay.” In a telephone interview with AP, Bogaert said that this is “an effect that can be detected with one older brother and becomes stronger with three or four or more.”

This is not the first time I have read of a study suggesting that birth order could influence sexual orientation.

He believes this confirms a biological basis for homosexuality as he found that when raised “with several older step- or adopted brothers,” men “do not have an increased chance of being gay.” Thus, he finds that the environment in which someone is raised doesn’t make “much difference.”

This is fascinating in light of something I uncovered last week in my research on the berdache tradition of the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere. Among the Laches tribe (of what is now Colombia), if a family only had boys, they were allowed to raise one of the youngest as a girl. Perhaps, it’s because they knew that such a child were more likely to be (what we today would call) gay?

Food for thought.

Jack Kelly writes a spot-on piece at RealClearPolitics about the Leftist propaganda war in Vietnam and now in Iraq. (Read the whole thing!!) (h/t – PajamasMedia)

The one great similarity between Vietnam and Iraq is that our enemies, despairing of victory on the battlefield, sought to win with a propaganda campaign. In Vietnam, this strategy succeeded. If it fails in Iraq, it will be chiefly because of the emergence of the new media.

The Tet Offensive proved catastrophic to our plans,” said Truong Nhu Tang, minister of justice in the Viet Cong’s provisional government, in a 1982 interview. “Our losses were so immense we were unable to replace them with new recruits.”The news media reported this overwhelming American victory as a catastrophic defeat.

“Donning helmet, Mr. Cronkite declared the war lost,” recounted UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave. “It was this now famous television news piece that persuaded President Lyndon Johnson…not to run for re-election.”

Shaken by Tet, he planned to seek terms for a conditional surrender, the North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, wrote in his memoirs. But our news media’s complete misrepresentation of what had actually happened “convinced him America’s resolve was weakening and complete victory was within Hanoi’s grasp,” Mr. de Borchgrave said.

Journalists are repeating in Iraq the errors (or worse) they made in Vietnam. Earlier this month, the Army sponsored a conference for retired general officers at Fort Carson, Colorado. They were addressed by recent returnees from Iraq, including Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

“All returnees agreed we are clearly winning the fight against the insurgents but are losing the public relations battle,” said a retired admiral in an email to friends.

The relentless drumbeat of negativity has had its effect on support for the war in Iraq. But it’s been nothing like the change in public opinion brought about by the massive media mendacity that followed Tet. That’s because in those days journalists could lie with impunity. This is no longer the case. 

It really makes you question — do American Liberals and their co-conspirators in the American news media want us to lose in Iraq?  And if we do, are they prepared to face the consequences of that loss by a resurgent al-Qaeda that will strike our allies and our nation?

Imagine if FDR had to fight World War Two with the entire American news media and the opposition party in Congress cheering against him and instead providing our secret war plans to the enemy (Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan).

That is precisely what is going on now in our War on Terror.  What I’d like to know is why no one in the Bush Administration has the guts to start charging folks at the New York Times and in certain Democrat Senate offices with treason and sedition?

It is time to take the gloves off and allow our troops to win the war and not allow the Democrats and the news media to lose the war deliberately….again.

**UPDATE** – Of all people, Andrew Sullivan agrees with my conclusion in this post!

But if we do pull out too soon, and Maliki is too weak to survive, we will have to deal with the Jihadist-riddled failed state that may emerge (and already has emerged in an embryonic form) in Iraq. Those forces will not decide to leave us alone because we have left. if anything, the reverse is true. They will claim victory and press the war further onto our shores and elsewhere. The one thing we have to keep in mind is that, however screwed up the Iraq policy has become, the enemy has not gone away. Withdrawal from Iraq would not mean that this existential struggle is over. It would mean that the enemy has been strengthened and ready to take the war against the West (and “heretical” Islam) to a more lethal stage.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin) 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When Mary Cheney was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, she echoed a point she made in her most excellent book, Now It’s My Turn : A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life that while she disagreed with the president on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the War on Terror was a more important issue. She so articulated the essence of my support for President Bush. Upset that he had announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment on February 24, 2004, I refused to vote for him in the California Republican primary the following week; I wrote in Rudy Giuliani instead.

But, as the campaign progressed and John Kerry failed to convince me that he had a plan to win the War on Terror and as I was reminded of the president’s steadfast leadership in that endeavor, I returned to my original support of President George W. Bush. The New York Times publication of another clandestine surveillance program offered further proof of the wisdom of my choice.

Within 10 days after the attacks of 9/11, the president had already put a plan into place to trace the financial transactions of terrorists. This shows that while he may have been initially stunned by the attacks, within days of this unforeseen catastrophe, he and his team were already developing plans to track down those villains who would do us harm before they could realize their terrible plans. This particular program helped capture the most wanted Al Qaeda operative in Southeast Asia.

As the program reveals how quickly — and responsibly — the president (and his team) acted, I believe that the publication of this information is close to treasonous. Watching “Special Report” on FoxNews tonight, I learned that in addition to the president, both the chair and the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission (i.e., a Republican as well as a Democrat) asked the paper not to publish the article because it could jeopardize this important tool in the War on Terror (confirming what Trace Phelps had said in a comment to my previous post on the topic).

In light of such revelations, Mort Kondracke said the decision of the paper’s editors showed the “totally adversarial attitude of the New York Times to its own government,” adding that it had to be “based in Bush-hatred.”

I write this post, in part, because I fear that some may have misunderstood the intended sarcasm of my previous post. I wrote in haste and don’t think I succeeded.

Let me conclude by repeating my two basic points ont this story; (1) it shows that the president is fully committed to the War On Terror, acting to catch terrorists before they harm us and so protect Americans, (2) the New York Times is more interested in attacking George W. Bush than in the promoting the security of the United States.

That paper has shown so little respect for the government which protects its freedom to criticize it.

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

By now, I believe that the news of the discovery of 500 fully loaded chemical weapons shells by coalition forces has broken through to the American people.  That despite desperate attempts to shield the truth from the American people about anything positive in the post-liberation Iraqi Theatre in the War On Terror.  And the attempts to cast Senator Santorum and Representative Peter Hoekstra as some kind of kooks.

I have withheld my judgment on this story since I felt we have “been there before” in the discovery of WMDs that didn’t turn out to be.  I now believe that this news is very significant.  And the fact that it is NOT causing the major TV broadcast networks to issue “Special Reports” is probably proof enough to show how significant the information is.  After all, it violates their pre-written newscast scripts:  “Bush Lied, People Died”.

Gateway Pundit reported earlier this week that “it only took Saddam 15-20″ of similiar chemical shells to “murder thousands of Kurds” in 1988.  Santorum and Hoekstra reported 500 shells were found.

Since the media quickly moved the debate to: “Well, yeah but those shells were old and they weren’t really a danger”, the anti-American bureaucrats at the CIA and Defense jumped fully on board.  In the vein of Joe Wilson and Mary McCarthy, an “intelligence source” quickly jumped into the media discussion to announce these weren’t real WMDs.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

“This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.”

But Defense Secretary Rumsfeld make an excellent point.

Rumsfeld, in a news briefing Thursday, said Santorum’s comments were correct.

“Certainly.  What has been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them, and sarin is dangerous.  And it’s dangerous to our forces, and it’s a concern.”

“They are weapons of mass destruction. They’re harmful to human beings. And they have been found,” Rumsfeld said. “And they had not been reported by Saddam Hussein as he inaccurately alleged that he had reported all of his weapons. And they are still being found and discovered.”

That is a key point.  Saddam violated UN resolution after UN resolution.  And while he claimed to at least report all of his WMDs, Santorum and Hoekstra have proven that is a lie.

Remember how worked up the media got us when a couple of envelopes of anthrax dust showed up at NBC and the Senate office buildings?  How we were told just a few spores could kill 100,000 people?  Everyone started buying duct tape and plastic wrap to cover their windows!

Well guess what folks.  Imagine what a dirty bomb loaded with even “degenerated” sarin gas could do if it exploded in Times Square!  A weapon of mass destruction.

The WMD in Iraq (as defined by Congress in its resolution of War Against Iraq) were found.  The real question is — what other truths in the War on Terror are being kept from us because it doesn’t “fit the script”?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I’m busy writing a paper, I won’t have much time today to comment on the decision of the New York Times “to disclose last night another classified surveillance program aimed at gathering information about terrorist plots.” Bill Keller, the paper’s executive editor, claims that, despite Administration’s pleas not to keep this legal program secret, he decided to publish the story anyway as “a matter of public interest.“

I wonder if Keller and others at the Times want to help the president by this. Given the president’s lackluster polls of late, the paper’s editors likely disclosed this secret program to show what a thorough job President Bush is doing to win the War on Terror. Without media disclosure of this clandestine program, Americans would not otherwise know what efforts the Administration has been taking to catch terrorists before they attack us.

Alas that in their zeal to show the president’s commitment to catching terrorists, the Times may have compromised this program which helped us track down and arrest at least one such villain. If the terrorists know about it, they may find different means to transfer money.

Not only that. On the same day the paper shows one of the many ways the Administration has been trying to track down terrorists, we learn of another success in the War on Terror. The Justice Department announced that it has broken up a terror ring in Florida.

Given that the Times devoted its front page to revelations of the clandestine program, it had to bury this good news deeper in the paper.

(Hat tips: Instapundit and Pajamas who have excellent roundups.)

UPDATE: Please note I have revised this piece since first posting it. While the president’s critics are engaging in their usual bellyaching about an Administration anti-terror initiative, it appears they’re rushing to judgment. As the Vice President (and others in the Administration) said today, it passes constitutional muster.

Other bloggers have pretty much said most of what I have to say about this program. Make sure to check the roundups not only on Instapundit and Pajamas, but also on Michelle Malkin’s blog. Like Calarato in comment #1 below, I’m pretty much with the Powerline guys on this one.

I believe there are two points to make about this story:

(1) It shows that the president is committed to the War on Terror, pursuing all legal means to track down terrorists seeking to attack Americans (hence my somewhat sarcastic spin in the headline above).

(2) The New York Times is more interested in “getting” the president than in respecting his the Chief Executive’s role in promoting the security of the American people. No wonder Vice President Cheney refused to give the Times special access to him during the campaign. As his daughter puts it in her most excellent book, Now It’s My Turn : A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life, “He knew the odds of getting a fair story out of the New York Times, in particular, were pretty much nonexistent.”

In Chapter 16, Mary details how in the final days of the 2004 campaign, the Times ran sixteen stories and columns on Al Qaqaa, a storage facility in Iraq from which 380 tons of explosives supposedly disappeared in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Iraq. And then, as Mary puts its, a “search of the Times‘ own archives shows than in the four months after the 2004 election, there was exactly one mention of Al Qaqaa” in the paper. Seems the story was only important if it could hurt the president’s chances of reelection.

(Another reason, if you haven’t already to buy Mary’s book.)

UP-UPDATE: It looks like my attempt at sarcasm failed as one reader wrote in to ask if I were being sarcastic. No, I don’t think the NYT was trying to make the president look good. Its revelation will clearly hurt the Administration’s efforts to hunt those who would do us harm. But, it does show that the president is committed to using all legal means to catch those creeps.

UP-UP-UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) writes, “When big companies dump toxic waste into rivers to enrich themselves, they’re criticized by the press. But this is the same kind of thing — self-serving profiteering at the public’s expense.” I agree.

I’m happy to say that I first learned about this column while reading the latest issue of Log Cabin’s “Inclusion Wins” newsletter.  I’m only sorry I didn’t see it sooner! 

No Need To Deface US Constitution Over Gay Marriage – Charles Krauthammer

The Constitution was never intended to set social policy. Its purpose is to establish the rules of governance and secure for the individual citizen rights against the power of the state. It defaces the Constitution to turn it into a super-legislative policy document.

In the short run, judicial arrogance is to be fought democratically with the means still available. Rewording and repassing the constitutional amendment in Georgia, for example. Appealing the Nebraska decision right up to the Supreme Court, which, given its current composition, is extremely likely to terminate with prejudice this outrageous example of judicial interposition. 

Do not misunderstand, Krauthammer is no fan of gay marriage at all.  But he strongly believes that this is a clear issue about Federalism working and not being railroaded by a Constitutional amendment.  Fight it out at the state level.   Hoorah! 

By the way, if Peggy Noonan is Dan’s “Athena”, Charles is my… um…. male equivalent to Athena.  [Apollo, perhaps? suggests Dan who also loves Krauthammer.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Some recent photos of the Patriot Household.  It is going to be a hot one this weekend!  (Global warming, of course!)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Um….Dad…. I’m really sorry about the whole nose injury thing on Saturday.  You know I just get excited when you play with me.  I don’t get to see you a lot…..so I just get all jumpy and love to bite on your face.

Anyway, I hope you are doing okay in California.  OtherDad took me to the doggie daycare today.  I can’t wait to see you both again next weekend.  OtherDad told me Grandma is coming.  That means more food for me!

Well, this has taken me a while to write since it is hard to type with my paws.  So I think I’ll just relax now and look for some food scraps on the floor.  Or maybe I’ll just go to sleep.

I miss you Dad!

-Saxby (PatriotPooch)