Gay Patriot Header Image

Planted Clinton Staffer Tells CNN: “I’m a Log Cabin Republican”

SAY WHAT?!?

Following the debate, CNN learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, “We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he’s done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.

Okay… now things are getting interesting for me on this story. How can say you have “done no work” for the Clinton campaign when this press release announces your involvement? What exactly is Gen. Kerr’s definition of “work”, I wonder?

But the real outrage to me is that there is a Log Cabin Republicans member working on a Clinton campaign gay and lesbian steering committee! Are you effing kidding me?

Hey folks… this is supposed to be a GAY REPUBLICAN organization. There are enough gay Democrat organizations to open up a store and sell them off the shelves, for crying out loud.

Patrick Sammon…. you have some explaining to do.

[Related Story:  Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants – Michelle Malkin]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): I expect to have more to say about this later. Kudos to Bruce for covering this.

Let’s hope (for Log Cabin’s sake) that this guy who claims to be a member of the organization is pulling a Clinton not telling the truth. It would, however, not surprise me if he were, given that when I was last at a Log Cabin meeting, several members suggested they might voe for Ms. Hillary if certain Republicans won the nomination.

As to CNN, well, once again, no wonder that some believe that the network’s acronym stands for “Clinton News Network” as I noted in this post.

UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): This looks to be developing into quite an embarrassment for CNN. Non-partisan web-sites have picked this up, with the Politico headlining its piece: ‘Gay question’ general linked to Clinton. Not good for Mrs. Clinton, even worse for her family’s eponymous “news” network.

UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Hugh Hewitt calls CNN: The Most Busted Names In News.

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): With each passing hour, bloggers discover more Democratic plants at last night’s debate. Scott of Powerline notes that one questioner works for Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin while another works for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson.

UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Finding yet another Democratic “plant,” blogger Jason Coleman asks: “Exit question for CNN (although I’ll never get an answer): Did you endeavor to select ANY questions from real Republicans other than Grover’s?” (Via Michelle Malkin).

And the left accuses Fox of being biased. Well, as I said when the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Convention in San Diego, CNN is far more biased to the left than is Fox to the right. The way the network conducted this debate proves my point.

UPDATE (JohnAGJ): I like how Hot Air summed this up:

Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.

Share

100 Comments

  1. It goes without saying that liberals, gay or otherwise, hate the military. So why the hell do they care about whether DADT exists or not?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2007 @ 9:51 pm - November 29, 2007

  2. So if he were racist or anti-Catholic I should just ignore that?

    Now you’re being silly.

    So again, why should I vote Republican if as party they cannot stand people like us?

    I refer you to the 06 elections. If not, you wind up with miserable failures running the joint.

    It’s beginning to occur to me that this is not a gay blog at all and that many of you are possibly nothing more than plants yourself

    If by “gay” you mean chronic victims pissing, moaning, loaded down with hate, rage, arrogance, condecension and suckling on Uncle Sugar’s tit constantly, then no, I guess not.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2007 @ 9:55 pm - November 29, 2007

  3. (Some of us don’t think that’s a myth.)

    There’s one way to end that myth. Stop speding like they do and quite resorting to raising taxes as the answer to every problem. Until then….

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 29, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - November 29, 2007

  4. why should I vote Republican if as party they cannot stand people like us?

    Because they stand for a strong defense of America, freedom, capitalism, individual rights, Western Civilization. Which is the only civilizational system truly tolerant/supportive of gay people.

    To paraphrase Act Up: Caving in to Islam or other ‘traditional’ cultures, equals Death.

    did you hear that ILC! I said hot. Uber hot. Irish. Put that away for later use)

    ???????????????????? Whoo, left field! 🙂 NO idea what hit you are trying to score there, MM. None.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 29, 2007 @ 10:28 pm - November 29, 2007

  5. Republicans should boycott CNN in the future.

    One other comment: If Giuliani, McCain, or Thompson does not get the nomination, I will vote Libertarian or for another third party candidate for Pres. I am sick and tired of Bush and his not so conservative agenda.

    Comment by Vienna Conservative — November 29, 2007 @ 11:43 pm - November 29, 2007

  6. I have read all 54 comments and have reached one conclusion about them. I have learned that no one who is a Democrat or has voted for a Democrat in the past, should be allowed to ask a question of any Republican candidate for president. Then it must stand to reason that no Republican should ask any question of a Democrat candidate for President. And that’s supposed to make me a more intelligent voter when I enter the voting booth?

    Comment by Cecil — November 30, 2007 @ 12:02 am - November 30, 2007

  7. Oh, not at all, Cecil.

    All that should happen is that questioners should identify the fact that they work for an opposing candidate’s campaign prior to asking the question.

    But had Kerr done that, it would have been obvious that the whole point of his “question” was to promote his own partisan, anti-Republican agenda.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 12:30 am - November 30, 2007

  8. Republicans are too chicken-shit to give honest answers any questions that isn’t carefully run through the right-wing vetting machine.

    Are republicans skeered of questions from democrats?

    Comment by Elais — November 30, 2007 @ 1:05 am - November 30, 2007

  9. Not at all.

    But they happen to think that Democrats who work for a rival campaign and who have openly stated their hostility towards Republicans be required to mention that first prior to asking the question — especially when said Democrats are misrepresenting themselves as Republicans.

    And here’s a question for you and Kerr, Elais; why do you believe that gays should never criticize other gays, and that gay ethics require you to ignore lies and misdeeds perpetrated by other gays?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 2:02 am - November 30, 2007

  10. I am sick and tired of Bush and his not so conservative agenda.

    Ummmmmmm………Bush isn’t running.

    I have learned that no one who is a Democrat or has voted for a Democrat in the past, should be allowed to ask a question of any Republican candidate for president…And that’s supposed to make me a more intelligent voter when I enter the voting booth?
    Comment by Cecil

    And then:

    Republicans are too chicken-shit to give honest answers any questions that isn’t carefully run through the right-wing vetting machine.

    Are republicans skeered of questions from democrats?

    Comment by Elais

    The thing you two apparently need to be educated on is the fact that these debates are unofficial. They have more to do with the primaries. As you will find in Wikipedia, it’s an opportunity for Republican voters to see their candidates and for democrat voters to see their candidates “side by side”.

    That tells me, at least, that it’s not for Republicans to ask questions of the democrat candidates and vice versa. That comes later. As far as your asinine comment about Republicans being “skeered of questions from democrats”, by your logic, one would have to conclude that the democrats are “skeered” of questions from Republicans. However, an educated person would know that, due to the format, neither is the case. At least not as far as these debates go.

    Although, it’s become evident that Hillary is “skeered” of answering ANY questions.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 3:40 am - November 30, 2007

  11. Oh, yum-yum. I suspected that Northie would come back with the Census data (which is why I hinted at it for him – yes, look above). Not even the professionals at the Census Bureau believe that piece of data – it (like virtually every gay population estimate ever developed) is based on SELF-REPORTED gay status, with statistical extrapolations from there to estimates of larger pops – e.g., total U.S. As a result, researchers and statisticians blanch at estimates like the one Northie is so sure of. Why? Even when the sampling methodology is probability-based (and thus, at least on the face of it, subject to the laws of statistical probability), these surveys are fatally flawed by an assumption that people everywhere will easily tell strangers that they are gay. Imagine that, and you’ll know how solid is the statistical ground on which Northie has plopped himself/herself. Professor Northie, I know you like to present yourself as a Master of all disciplines (NPI), but you’re no Stalwart Statistician – just as you’re no Eminent Economist, as you were pretending to be the other day. I’m not even sure you’re Genuinely Gay, given the extent to which you berate “fellow” gays, deride their political choices, and hell, even possibly diminish their very incidence within the Universe (though that one, as detailed above, is certainly open to question).

    When you sit in a tiny cubicle each day and pretend-play “gay patriot expert of all things”, you need to at least make sure you’re Googling properly and getting some valid backup. So, start here, little one, and we’ll come back later to determine if “our children IS learning”. Starting point A: http://www.census.gov. See if you can get past the home page.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 7:26 am - November 30, 2007

  12. I refer you to the 06 elections. If not, you wind up with miserable failures running the joint.

    And what lesson am I supposed to draw from 06? That one set of miserable failures lost out to another?

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:31 am - November 30, 2007

  13. Once you keep all that in mind, the position of the majority of Republicans becomes far more understandable; that is, gay issues are among the lowest of priorities, because they carry no reward.

    Then it sounds as if we are going to make any progress on things like repealing DADT we should vote Democrat and once those matters are off the table revert back to the GOP. Are you sure you want to send that message?

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:35 am - November 30, 2007

  14. Gays have openly stated that they will never vote for Republicans….and Republicans take them at their word and don’t bother.

    American Jews regularly vote at least 2/3’s Democrat, just like gays, yet the GOP is strongly pro-Israel. Then again the beauty of this dichotomy is that God’s Own Party can refer to the Bible for both its views!

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:40 am - November 30, 2007

  15. If you have no other things of higher importance than DADT…. then by all means, please… be a Democrat. It suits them and their unserious platform.

    Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to languish with the inept Repubicans.

    Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 7:44 am - November 30, 2007

  16. Not even the professionals at the Census Bureau believe that piece of data – it (like virtually every gay population estimate ever developed) is based on SELF-REPORTED gay status, with statistical extrapolations from there to estimates of larger pops – e.g., total U.S.

    At least NDT has some reliable data to show the figures he’s citing, while you’ve presented nothing at all.

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:47 am - November 30, 2007

  17. If you have no other things of higher importance than DADT…. then by all means, please… be a Democrat. It suits them and their unserious platform.

    I believe in this day and age with Independents outnumbering either party, it’s not a matter of “being” one or the other but instead picking one and then the other depending upon what issues matter the most at that time. The GOP is closer to my political leanings than the DNC overall, yet from what I’m hearing the latter is the one to go to for any progress on other issues I care about. Pity. If we weren’t in a war and Hillary wasn’t the presumptive Dem nominee, I’d give it serious consideration.

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 7:50 am - November 30, 2007

  18. John, I respect your views, so please re-read the post above before resting on the reliablity of Northie’s regurgitation of something he read in the Washington Blade.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 9:13 am - November 30, 2007

  19. I guess Republicans only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when he’s a prostitute.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 9:47 am - November 30, 2007

  20. Ouch.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 10:09 am - November 30, 2007

  21. John, I respect your views, so please re-read the post above before resting on the reliablity of Northie’s regurgitation of something he read in the Washington Blade.

    The Census data may be incomplete, but it is based on real numbers. Stuff based upon the discredited Kinsey study claiming 10% figures are seriously flawed and inaccurate. Numbers and percentages are not a big issue to me, which is why I say that NDT’s use of this is irrelevant, but if you are going to hang your hat on it you’d better come up with something of substance.

    Comment by John — November 30, 2007 @ 1:07 pm - November 30, 2007

  22. Furthermore, John, the reason I cited the Census data is simple; it’s what KY was most frightened of seeing, as his attempts to stop me from posting it show.

    Why?

    Because it shows that he hasn’t a leg on which to stand. The Census data is by far the most accepted, quantifiable, and rigorous measurement out there; KY can whine and scream about how awful he claims it is, but he provides not one shred of proof or contrary evidence.

    That’s becuase if he did, his own analysis would be subject to the rules he attempted to invoke to smear the Census data, and it would collapse.

    It’s much easier to criticize than to offer proof to the contrary, and as is to be expected, all he is capable of is the easy route.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - November 30, 2007

  23. I guess Republicans only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when he’s a prostitute.

    And I guess Democrats are complete hypocrites, because they claim it’s wrong to plant someone to ask questions unless they’re the ones doing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - November 30, 2007

  24. I guess Republicans only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when he’s a prostitute.

    I guess liberals only think it’s okay to plant someone to ask questions when they’re a Hillary prostitute. That and apparently it’s okay to threaten Wolfe Blitzer to make damn sure she doesn’t get any tough questions.

    There you go. I fixed it for ya, HT.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 30, 2007 @ 4:18 pm - November 30, 2007

  25. John, ALL Census data and projections are based on relatively small samples of real people, but with extrapolation to larger population estimates — so yes, the numbers are as real as one can get, but in this case they are they’re woefully incomplete (because of the fear of outing oneself to the wrong person) and anyone hanging their hat on those data is, well, there’s no better word — stupid.

    And Northie, much as I suspected based on your past behavior here and your own website, you obviously have no training in sampling, statistical measurement, or any of the multivariate methods used to reach conclusions about populations. Knowledge of human resources forms and filings will only take you so far, kid. However, what you do have plenty of is both naivete and poseur bravado — naivete in accepting ANYONE’s claims about the proportion of gay people (as long as that proportion is suitably low enough for you to use it to diminish gay people) and poseur bravado in making what are outrageous claims with a link to a silly newspaper. Clue to you, little guy: notice that I never make a claim of x% gay? Not because I’m “frightened” of you or anything you might misstate as fact, but because the % gay is, at this point in human development, one of those very unknowable things. But, per usual, that doesn’t stop you from playing an expert on this, along with virtually every other topic ever discussed at gay patriot. Yours is truly fraudulent behavior — and if your partisan pals here accept that without question, then fine with me.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - November 30, 2007

  26. As I said before, I didn’t like it when Hilary had a plant asking her questions either. Plenty of liberal bloggers (Aravosis, et al.) were also appalled when this happened. Don’t act like we don’t care when it was much discussed.

    I’m finding a disturbing trend this week of right-wingers claiming that Democrats or liberals don’t care about a topic that was/is much discussed negatively all over the net. Do you actually do any research before making these grand pronouncements or do you just get your info from Hannity and O’Reilly? These aren’t opinions that you are stating, they are outright lies.

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 4:52 pm - November 30, 2007

  27. It is true that no one knows exactly what percentage of the population is gay or bisexual. Not that it matters. Human rights should not be based on percentages. Should we be entitled to equality once we pass a certain percentage of the population and otherwise not? What kind of morality would that be?

    Comment by Houndentenor — November 30, 2007 @ 4:54 pm - November 30, 2007

  28. JNo, youre the idiot.

    There’s a country in the Middle East called Israel. That state has a military force.

    Judeo-Christian is a religious/value system derived from the Bible.

    That you would compare them shows how dysfunctional you are.

    Hmmm.

    Vince,
    Jews read the Old Testament too. In fact, Jews wrote the Bible. And that guy Jesus Christ? Bigtime Jew.

    So separating core Jewish principles from Christian values… kinda hard to do.

    If Christianity is the house, Judaism is its foundation.

    Comment by Chase — November 30, 2007 @ 4:55 pm - November 30, 2007

  29. So basically, Vince, you agree with Rep. Hunter that if we were a nation of Jews, we could have a military that would include gays, but since we are predominantly Christian, we can’t?

    What then are the British? LOL
    I didn’t know the Anglican Church had parted ways with Christianity.

    Comment by Chase — November 30, 2007 @ 5:04 pm - November 30, 2007

  30. So basically, Vince, you agree with Rep. Hunter that if we were a nation of Jews, we could have a military that would include gays. But since we are predominantly Christian, we can’t?

    What then are the British? LOL
    I didn’t know the Anglican Church had parted ways with Christianity.

    Comment by Chase — November 30, 2007 @ 5:05 pm - November 30, 2007

  31. Chase , you’re so moronically boring, i’m not wasting my time.

    LOL

    Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 6:19 pm - November 30, 2007

  32. This is a tempest in a teapot. Embarrasing for CNN, to be sure, but it was a good question

    I’m more concerned by the fact that no GOP candidate can allow those who put their lives on the line to defend ‘freedom’ to have the basic freedom of honesty.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — November 30, 2007 @ 7:23 pm - November 30, 2007

  33. And BTW, I think Hunter’s comments on this issue were insulting to our military. He seemed to imply that they are so afraid of being near openly Gay people that they would run away from the military like little sissies. Even though inappropriate conduct in the barracks, on duty, etc. would still be grounds for disipline.

    Romney appears to be going with the ‘I’m going to go 100% anti-Gay’ route. I’m glad LCR ran the ad against him. I hope they do it again. He looked like a flip-flopping, pandering fool that didn’t have a basic grasp of the issue in question.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — November 30, 2007 @ 7:28 pm - November 30, 2007

  34. Hound’, in 76 — so true. Only Northie doesn’t seem to know it.

    Tom, in 83 — Romney, yes. Total pandering fool. He’s night and day different from anything we ever knew of him before. Yet, he does provide a wonderful complement to the clown car that is the GOP field for ’08. No wonder the GPs and other GOP partisans have been going nuts since their debate — they realize they’re stuck with this bunch the rest of the way.

    Comment by KYKid — November 30, 2007 @ 7:42 pm - November 30, 2007

  35. Mrs. White: Are you a cop?
    Mr. Green: No, I’m a plant.
    Miss Scarlet: A plant? I thought men like you were usually called a fruit.
    Mr. Green: Very funny.

    Comment by Vince P — November 30, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - November 30, 2007

  36. Clue to you, little guy: notice that I never make a claim of x% gay?

    Yes, you do. You claim that it isn’t the numbers I cited, that it is in the double digits, and that you have scientific proof of it.

    Then you fail to provide it.

    In your world of statistics, KY, people can present a perfectly logical, referenceable, and valid figure, and you can arbitrarily dismiss it as wrong without being able to present a single fact, proof, or piece of evidence of it.

    That’s neither statistically or scientifically correct. Furthermore, your ignorance of statistics and inability to correctly read or interpret them has been demonstrated quite nicely elsewhere.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 11:25 pm - November 30, 2007

  37. Should we be entitled to equality once we pass a certain percentage of the population and otherwise not? What kind of morality would that be?

    Serving in the military is not a right.

    Furthermore, since it isn’t a right, the military’s need to admit everyone is driven by degree of necessity for their services. In the case of Israel, their need for every available body outweighs everything else; furthermore, unlike liberal American gays, Israeli gays have an imperative to put their country’s needs ahead of their sexual needs, i.e. Palestinian terrorists a stone’s throw away who WILL kill them if they let down their guard or allow themselves to be distracted.

    In short, the US armed forces don’t need gays, and there are far too many issues around it to bother.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 11:35 pm - November 30, 2007

  38. And BTW, I think Hunter’s comments on this issue were insulting to our military. He seemed to imply that they are so afraid of being near openly Gay people that they would run away from the military like little sissies.

    Hardly.

    What Hunter was pointing out is that our military certainly deserves the right to not be forced to live with those who find them sexually gratifying and give them unwanted sexual attention. We don’t force women to live in the men’s barracks with people who find them sexually gratifying and give them unwanted sexual attention; furthermore, it is considered unfair, wrong, and harassment to place them in situations where they are forced to undress in front of those who might find them sexually attractive. Why, then, should straight men be forced to do it?

    I’m more concerned by the fact that no GOP candidate can allow those who put their lives on the line to defend ‘freedom’ to have the basic freedom of honesty.

    If they want that, they don’t have to serve. No one is forced to serve in the armed forces and no one is guaranteed the right to serve in the armed forces under their own conditions.

    What you are arguing, Tom, is that gays should be exempt from following the rules because they’re gay. Since you argue that gays should be able to express themselves however they want and that anything less isn’t “honest”, then having sex in the showers would be permissible as “free expression of sexuality”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 30, 2007 @ 11:44 pm - November 30, 2007

  39. KY says: “Clue to you, little guy: notice that I never make a claim of x% gay?:

    Little guy Northie replies in 86: “Yes, you do. You claim that it isn’t the numbers I cited, that it is in the double digits, and that you have scientific proof of it. Then you fail to provide it.”

    KY: Do you have no honesty at all? “Double digits”? Linky please, or this becomes more proof of your complete dishonesty.

    North-from-his-tiny-cube-over-there: “Furthermore, your ignorance of statistics and inability to correctly read or interpret them has been demonstrated quite nicely elsewhere.” Then, Northie links to his own dishonest comments in a different thread. That’s how he plays this game.

    Comment by KYKid — December 1, 2007 @ 7:38 am - December 1, 2007

  40. NDT,

    You and I will have to disagree. I think our front line soldiers know that they are serving with Gay men and women and can handle it. I still think that Hunter is implying that our troops are sissies that are scared of Gay people.

    NDT, do you support a repeal of DADT now?

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 10:51 am - December 1, 2007

  41. the clown car that is the GOP field for ‘08

    As opposed to a Sorocrat slate composed of…

    1. A power-crazed senator who refuses to release the records from her White House years, plants questions in her Q&A’s, has hundreds of thousands in donations from busboys and waiters with no valid addresses, employs an impeached bribe-taker and influence peddler as her campaign co-chair and hired as a security advisor a guy who stole classified documents by stuffing them in his underwear

    2. An affirmative-action hire who, as a senator who has not finished his first term, would not be taken seriously as a candidate except for the color of his skin and who further advocates sex ed for kindergartens, driver’s licenses for illegals, and military invasions of large, nuclear-armed countries one bullet away from Islamic revolution.

    3. An ambulance-chasing metrosexual who was turned out of office after a single term, who rails against “the rich” while living in the largest home East of the Mississippi and who channels dead babies.

    4. Two doddering socialist senators, long past their sell-by dates.

    5. A clueless southwestern governor.

    6. A communist dwarf who communicates with the space people.

    To each his own clown car…

    Comment by V the K — December 1, 2007 @ 2:16 pm - December 1, 2007

  42. By the way..CNN is biased towards the left? I didn’t get that from watching Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs’ shows on CNN. In prime time no less.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 2:37 pm - December 1, 2007

  43. They meant CNN the news division.. not CNN the personality opinion shows.

    Comment by Vince P — December 1, 2007 @ 2:57 pm - December 1, 2007

  44. KY: Do you have no honesty at all? “Double digits”? Linky please, or this becomes more proof of your complete dishonesty.

    You claimed that it was antigay hate and completely wrong to say that the gay population was only in the single digit percent in the population.

    Therefore, since you claim it’s not in the single digits and that to say so is antigay hate, you’re saying it’s in the double digits.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2007 @ 3:57 pm - December 1, 2007

  45. NDT, while were on the subject. Do you support repealing DADT right now?

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 1, 2007 @ 4:42 pm - December 1, 2007

  46. No, I don’t, Tom.

    For two simple reasons; the military doesn’t want it and there’s no compelling need to do it.

    I figure they do enough for us that they deserve to be able to make their own decisions without being namecalled by gay liberals who don’t want to acknowledge antimilitary bigotry and public sex all being carried out in the name of homosexuality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 1, 2007 @ 10:34 pm - December 1, 2007

  47. Oh, and Tom; gays who aren’t pushing propaganda think the military and the sacrifices of gay veterans are a waste.

    While I was certainly moved by the sacrifice that Alva and others have made in the armed forces, I couldn’t help but shake my head in utter bewilderment at this entire memorial. Twelve thousand people had dedicated a good portion of their lives to a homophobic institution that not only asked them to risk life and limb, but also asked them to perpetuate cycles of violence in an already violent world.

    When I looked at all those stars-and-stripes planted in the ground, I wondered, “What if all these people had been working for world peace instead? What if every one of these unfairly discharged queer persons was planting gardens, feeding the homeless and saving vanishing habitats?”

    And then they spit on those veterans’ service:

    I really resonate with this sentiment. I don’t want anyone braving the madness of war to “fight for my freedom,” when that fight surrounds the colossal lie that is the Iraq war. We all know there wasn’t any reason to start this insanity other than the empire-clutching schemes of a tyrant and his equally despotic cohorts, so don’t feed me the line that you’re trying to protect me.

    And the denouement of gays believe Eric Alva and other gay veterans should have done:

    This is where queer people really needed to be — putting their efforts into changing the culture of tomorrow, not the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters.

    You hear that? Gays say that serving in the armed forces and fighting terrorists is not good or heroic; instead, it’s “the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters”.

    Now you would think that SLDN and its leftist puppets like Kerr would have something to say about someone who was saying that gay veterans were liars who weren’t protecting freedom, who were wasting their time, and who were nothing but brutal “monsters” destroying helpless peoples’ entire cultures.

    That is, if you didn’t know that SLDN and other such “gay veteran” organizations are nothing but smokescreens for gay antimilitary bigotry, as so beautifully expressed herein.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 2, 2007 @ 2:24 am - December 2, 2007

  48. NDT, thank you for your response to my question.

    you said ‘You hear that? Gays say that serving in the armed forces and fighting terrorists is not good or heroic; instead, it’s “the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters”.’

    Where do you go out on the weekends to get opinions like that? To some PETA meeting in Berkeley? I certainly don’t hear that from Gay people I know. Certainly not here in South Texas. And I know some very liberal people. Me thinks you may be cherry picking. And projecting really heavily.

    The people supporting SLDN and their campaign of honesty are patriotic Americans, many of whom have served and continue to serve in our Armed Forces.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 2, 2007 @ 1:02 pm - December 2, 2007

  49. Whoever this Manzullo dude is, he doesn’t appear to be connected to anyone at SLDN and is probably not a part of any mainstream Gay area of thought.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — December 2, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - December 2, 2007

  50. I repeat myself, Tom; you would think that SLDN and its leftist puppets like Kerr would have something to say about someone who was saying that gay veterans were liars who weren’t protecting freedom, who were wasting their time, and who were nothing but brutal “monsters” destroying helpless peoples’ entire cultures.

    That is, if you didn’t know that SLDN and other such “gay veteran” organizations are nothing but smokescreens for gay antimilitary bigotry, as so beautifully expressed herein.

    Real veterans’ organizations do not tolerate this sort of defamation of veterans. The fact that SLDN does demonstrates that they are not one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 3, 2007 @ 1:01 pm - December 3, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.