Gay Patriot Header Image

Natl. Gay & Lesbian Task Force Strongly Condemns Gay Outing Witchhunt

Bravo.  Once again, this blog frequently disagrees with the philosophy and tactics of the NGLTF…. which makes it all the more refreshing that they are doing the right thing by condemning the Gay GOP staffer witchhunt.  

I received this statement from the NGLTF last evening.

“We are unequivocally opposed to the compilation or release of such a list and it doesn’t matter to us who is doing it: It’s wrong.” — Matt Foreman, executive director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Yes it is wrong!  In fact, to try to root people out of their jobs because you disagree with their political beliefs is the most vile, anti-American tactic one can imagine.

Thank you Matt for having the courage to stand up to those in our community that are consumed with blind hatred of diversity of opinion.

Now if the ultra-left NGLTF can issue this very strongly-worded statement condemning the Outing Campaign begun by Gay Liberal Activists, can someone please explain what the hell is wrong with Log Cabin Republicans and the Human Rights Campaign?

First, here has been Log Cabin’s response so far to “The List” being compiled and used against gay Republican Congressional staffers…

”                                                                                                           .”

Nada.  Tell me how the national gay Republican organization can remain silent while their own friends and members are being picked off in a political witchhunt?   It boggles the mind.

And now here is the best the HRC could do….

No one at HRC has this infamous “list” and furthermore, no one at HRC is aiding and abetting in sending out this “list”.

But no condemnation of “The List” and nothing calling on anyone to actually cease this Gay Inquisition.   If anyone of you out there with moderate-to-right political leanings gives another penny to the Hypocrite Rights Campaign, I will personally smack you upside the head.

First they came for the gay conservatives and no one said anything because they weren’t one….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

24 Comments

  1. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address remains the same.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 7, 2006 @ 9:52 am - October 7, 2006

  2. “to try to root people out of their jobs because you disagree with their political beliefs is the most vile, anti-American tactic one can imagine.”

    So my working to “root [JD Hayworth] out of [his] job because [I] disagree with his political beliefs is the most vile, anti-American tactic one can imagine?” And by working against him, aren’t I in effect working to put all his staffers out of their jobs too?

    In any event, as Duhbya would say, “I hear there’s rumors on the Internets” that more high level Repubs than Foley may have been involved in the page scandal. Plus, if you think the scandal over the coverup of Foleygate is winding down, you’d better read this http://tinyurl.com/hpz5u Goodness, I’m going to run out of popcorn!

    Comment by Ian — October 7, 2006 @ 10:03 am - October 7, 2006

  3. (Snort) “Hi, I’m Ian, not raj. And to prove it, I’m going to make gratutious references to Arizona in every comment I leave. Because no one who doesn’t really live in Arizona could ever possibly know things like the names of the Arizona congressional delegation. This proves I am not a sock puppet of raj. Later, I think I will drive my automobile on I-10 to Mesa, where I will have lunch with Janet Napolitano at Whattaburger while gazing at the Superstition mountains. See, I’m really in Arizona. Not on the East Coast.”

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2006 @ 11:03 am - October 7, 2006

  4. We need more like Hayworth.

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 7, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - October 7, 2006

  5. A few years ago Log Cabin Republicans were trying to organize a CT chapter (before Nov 2004). They sent me an invite to attend an organizing event.

    My response was to ask them if their organization is for gays & lesbians or GLBTQ (as is so popular these days). And if the group includes TQ’s do they expect the military to accept them too?

    Well, they never responded, which I guess is a response. I think they too are afraid to take a strong stand on any non-pc issues (as in not endorsing Bush in 2004).

    Comment by sandy — October 7, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - October 7, 2006

  6. #3: “Later, I think I will drive my automobile on I-10 to Mesa”

    That would be rather difficult since I-10 doesn’t go to Mesa. Actually, Hayworth is not my Representative, Ed Pastor is. But Pastor’s seat is safe so he doesn’t need my help.

    BTW, I just got my pamphlet on ballot propositions and judicial performance review – 240 pages and 19 ballot propositions. I’ll have to also spend some effort to defeat Prop 107, the ban on SSM, domestic partnerships, civil unions and would prohibit recognition of any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that conveyed by marriage. This is the prop strongly supported by the entire GOP Congressional delegation (except for Kolbe who’s not seeking re-election.) Both Senators Kyl and McCain have come out strongly in support of it. Interestingly, one of the pamphlet statements in support of prop 107 was written by the “moderate” Don Goldwater who lost the GOP gubernatorial nomination to fringe wingnut Len Munsil. And you wonder why an Arizonan like me is perfectly content to see the GOP – along with its closeted enablers – hoist on its own petard of homohatred?

    Comment by Ian — October 7, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - October 7, 2006

  7. It looks like more is coming out starting Monday. Seems like blackmail to me.

    Starting Monday… Investigate these closeted staffers

    (snip)

    Beginning Monday, and every weekday thereafter, I will be identifying the name of a closeted senior staffer in Congress with the hopes that those investigating this matter will make sure to include them in their questioning. And I hope the press looks for them as well. It’s time to rid the government of those that would harm us.

    http://www.blogactive.com/2006/10/starting-monday-investigate-these.html

    Comment by Lee — October 7, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - October 7, 2006

  8. #7: “Seems like blackmail to me.”

    How can it be blackmail if there’s no demand for money (or other benefit) from those being outed? That said, I think this is rather stupid on Rogers part since it will give more ammunition to the GOP who are desperate to make this about something other than their own coddling of a sexual predator.

    Comment by Ian — October 7, 2006 @ 3:16 pm - October 7, 2006

  9. There is only one gay person in this mess that you should be smacking upside the head: Mark Foley.

    Comment by Donny — October 7, 2006 @ 4:56 pm - October 7, 2006

  10. I’ve been reading back issues of this blog to try and find insight into the gay republican mindset and found it odd this exact same tale being rehashed exactly 365 days ago. Its like there is this gay conservative book of common prayer and October 6 & 7 are dedicated to St. Closeted the Martyr. I guess those shadowy outers get thwarted each year in this little passion play.

    Comment by Sydney Talon — October 7, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - October 7, 2006

  11. How can it be blackmail if there’s no demand for money (or other benefit) from those being outed?

    Because, puppet IanRaj, that’s not how Rogers usually works.

    You see, he puts out his threats, and then he waits for people to call him — and he won’t out them if they do as he says. That’s why he keeps dropping hints over and over and over again.

    However, there are clear cases in which he blackmails people, such as his threat against a United States Senator if they didn’t vote as he wanted in regards to the Alito confirmation.

    But of course, you support blackmailing Senators, right, IanRaj? That’s why you’re trying to defend Rogers and his antics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 7, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - October 7, 2006

  12. So my working to “root [JD Hayworth] out of [his] job because [I] disagree with his political beliefs is the most vile, anti-American tactic one can imagine?”

    That depends. Are you presenting an issue-based reason, or are you digging through his trash trying to find some personal information that you can exploit?

    My guess is that, given your support for Rogers, it’s the latter.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 7, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - October 7, 2006

  13. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address remains the same.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 7, 2006 @ 10:08 pm - October 7, 2006

  14. Rogers is a would-be blackmailer, but simply exposing people out of spite isn’t blackmail. Probably, these are the same names that he regurgitates every so-often.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — October 8, 2006 @ 10:15 am - October 8, 2006

  15. Don’t believe them! They are LibLeft groups. They talk out verious sides of their mouths and eat Christianist babies.

    Comment by jimmy — October 8, 2006 @ 11:33 pm - October 8, 2006

  16. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address remains the same.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 8, 2006 @ 11:43 pm - October 8, 2006

  17. You, Anonymous, are sadly underinformed.

    The reason Kolbe advised the page to speak to Mr. Trandahl is because, as Clerk of the House, Trandahl was the key individual responsible for the administration and operation of the page program.

    Now, you answer the question: when Nancy Pelosi learned of these emails and instant messages months ago, why did SHE not immediately go to the authorities or the page board, but allowed Foley to continue, as she put it, “molesting children”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 1:50 am - October 9, 2006

  18. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned under a variety of names.  His IP address remains the same.]

    Comment by Anonymous — October 9, 2006 @ 9:30 am - October 9, 2006

  19. #17: “when Nancy Pelosi learned of these emails and instant messages months ago”

    Another Limbaugh Lie. What we DO know of course is that senior GOP House members were aware of Foley’s page-chasing for at least six years and did nothing to stop it. After all, why risk a safe GOP seat in Florida just to keep a few teen pages from being stalked by a sexual predator? Ah yes, those Republican “family values.”

    Comment by Ian — October 9, 2006 @ 10:29 am - October 9, 2006

  20. “There is only one gay person in this mess that you should be smacking upside the head: Mark Foley.”

    [Comment edited.]

    We need rid of all homosexuals in the Republican party… but if the RP doesn’t see fit to do this, it is time for a new party to make it’s splash.

    Comment by TowNail — October 9, 2006 @ 10:41 am - October 9, 2006

  21. Another Limbaugh Lie. What we DO know of course is that senior GOP House members were aware of Foley’s page-chasing for at least six years and did nothing to stop it. After all, why risk a safe GOP seat in Florida just to keep a few teen pages from being stalked by a sexual predator? Ah yes, those Republican “family values.”

    The farther back you go, IanRaj, the more you erode your illogical belief that Democrats knew nothing — since pages work for BOTH Democrats and Republicans, and it is improbable that pages didn’t tell Democrats.

    Again, why is Nancy Pelosi refusing to testify under oath about this? Does she have something to hide, like the fact that she and her fellow Democrats were aware of Foley’s page-chasing and did nothing themselves? This is the problem with being a party that supports sex with minors and considers laws against it to be “imposing religious dogma”; no doubt she was afraid of people like yourself who see nothing wrong with pedophilia when Democrats practice it.

    Instead of covering up for her, IanRaj, you could take the honorable way out by pointing out that FORMER pages, which seem to be the ones with which Foley had contact, could hardly be expected to tell Dems anything, since they were no longer working in the House.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - October 9, 2006

  22. Can we agree that it’s wrong to out someone who wants to stay in the closet, and that it’s a pretty scummy choice for a gay man to deny who he is for political gain?

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 9, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - October 9, 2006

  23. Sure. But it’s his choice, and we should respect that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - October 9, 2006

  24. Well, I am glad you agree with that, anyhow. I agree with you, if by “repect that,” you mean “not thwart that.” It’s not a decision I respect in any other sense.

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 9, 2006 @ 9:27 pm - October 9, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.