Gay Patriot Header Image

Log Cabin Gets Free Speech Wrong

In Log Cabin’s release calling on Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern to resign because of her recent remarks, its president Patrick Sammon said, “Free speech doesn’t mean the right to compare law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to terrorists.”

Um, Patrick, actually, it does. That’s why it’s called free speech. People are free to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid. And alas, no matter how hateful.

Free speech protects the rights of misguided, narrow-minded individuals like Ms. Kern to say whatever she wants even if it makes as little sense as her latest remarks. Just as it protects your right to call on her to resign. Or Rev. Wright’s freedom to spew hateful bile about white Americans.

It even protects Andrew Sullivan’s right to call himself a conservative as he verbally swoons over the most liberal member of the United States Senate and backs his candidacy for president of the United States.

I agree with Patrick that “Oklahoma deserves better” than Sally Kern. But, once we start saying that free speech doesn’t protect her nonsensical ramblings, what other kind of speech will we find is not protected by free speech?

UPDATE: I e-mailed this post to Patrick Sammon and he wrote back, clarifying his remarks cited above. To read them click here (more…)

Obama: Hillary taking the low road

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 11:14 pm - March 18, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Media Bias

So reports the other Roger Simon in the Politico.

Um, Senator, doesn’t she always?

According to David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, the Clintons “would do anything to win, and that means anything. . . . There is a frenetic energy around them to commandeer this election in any way they can.”

Or to commandeer any election in which they participate. Haven’t Republicans been saying this for about sixteen years or so? I guess it takes a Clinton having a spirited contest with a Democrat for the media to take notice.

President Fails (yet again) to challenge Media Misrepresentations on Iraq

For a few months now, I’ve been sketching out some ideas for a series of posts on how President Bush squandered the political capital he earned in his 2004 election victory and lost the support he enjoyed with a majority of the American people. As I’ve been thinking about this issue, some general themes have emerged, largely related to the problems I have identified in past posts, the president’s excessive loyalty to his aides and his failure to respond more readily to critics.

Yesterday, I read a Weekly Standard piece by Bill Kristol who, in reporting on the Administration’s failure to respond to a Defense Department report on Saddam Husssein’s ties to Al Qaeda, gets at the essence of one of the latter problem, the Administration’s failure to set the record straight when the MSM spins the news to fit their narratives.

Perhaps, the Bush team wished to avoid being perceived as was that of president’s predecessor for spinning the news and believed that the truth would out. Well, if that were the case, why does Joe Wilson remain so prominent after he has long been discredited?

Indeed, it was the Administration’s failure to address directly that Democrat’s distortions which caused people to start becoming increasingly skeptical of the decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny.

Once again, as Kristol notes, the Administration is “silent” when MSM spins a report to suit their narrative. ABC News reports the study finds “no evidence Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda.” But, in fact, that very report, as Kristol’s colleague Stephen Hayes shows, found extensive ties between Hussein and “groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda . . . or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”

The media has shown little interest in presenting the Republican side of the debate over Iraq. (Note the footnote to my previous post where I note a “senior writer” for the Philadelphia Inquirer describes Joe Wilson without referencing that the op-ed the writer cited had been discredited.) If the president wants to get his side out, he needs to us the bully pulpit of the presidency to make his case. Or at least dispatch his aides out to set the record straight.

He can’t expect the media to do it for him. Even when he’s right.

Had he done this more readly over the past five years, he might enjoy higher approval ratings than he does today. And might still enjoy the credibility he had on Iraq at the time he pushed to liberate that nation from a tyrant who, this recent report shows, supported groups allied with Al Qaeda and which worked to advance its agenda.

Clinton’s Team of Liars

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:58 pm - March 18, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics

While watching the news as I put away my groceries earlier this afternoon, I looked up and thought I saw Joe Wilson, the diplomat who lied in a New York Times editorial about his trip to Niger to determine if Saddam Hussein’s Iraq were trying to acquire yellowcake from that African nation, standing alongside Hillary Clinton as she spoke today in Philadelphia.

A quick google search confirmed my observation. The former First Lady, who, like her husband, has long had trouble telling the truth, was indeed joined by that dishonest Democrat in her Philadelphia appearance.* Amazing that this man still enjoys such prominence. In 2004, John Kerry dropped him from his presidential campaign when the Senate Intelligence Committee found that he misrepresented the findings of his trip (and how it was received) in the aforementioned editorial and in public statements.

Given Hillary’s (and her husband’s) reputation for dishonesty, it’s amazing she would associate with a man exposed as a liar on the one issue which catapulted him to national fame. A Gallup poll released today showed that 53% of Americans find Hillary to be neither honest nor trustworthy while only 44% find those qualities apply to her. (By contrast, two-third of Americans find John McCain to be honest and trustworthy while 63% believe those qualities apply to Barack Obama.)

Perhaps, Ms. Hillary appeared with Wilson to reach out to the far left who holds that dishonest man in high esteem.

Wilson is not the only liar to be close to Ms. Hillary or her husband. Indeed, it seems that many Clinton advisors and officials have trouble with the truth. Sandy Berger misrepresented how top-secret documents from the National Archives found their way into his socks. Henry Cisneros, a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton Administration “pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI.

Perhaps, Doris Kearns Goodwin should write a book on the Clintons: Team of Liars: The Political Record of the Clinton Family.


*That article describes Mr. Wilson as having penned an op-ed which “undercut part of the Bush administration’s rationale for the war in Iraq.” It would have undercut that rationale if it had any basis in fact. Alas, that the journalist failed to report that that piece has long since been discredited. Instead of reporting the news, this reporter is offering a liberal spin on the news.

My Five Questions For Barack Obama

In my mind, Senator Obama needs to address five key questions, and not dance around them, in order to PROVE he doesn’t at all agree with the radical anti-American positions of Rev. Wright:

1 – How do you feel America is different than al-Qaeda?

2 – Do you believe the US Government created the HIV virus to kill people of color?

3 – Do you believe the 9/11 attacks were at all related to past American foreign policy?

4 – Why did you consider Rev. Wright a spiritual leader and mentor in the past, but not now?

5 – What topics did Rev. Wright preach about on those days you were in the pews?

My bonus sixth question is this:  Senator Obama, can you name the times in your life that you were proud of America? 

Hopefully he will either answer these in his speech today… or someone in the Obama-lovestruck media will have the balls to ask them.

Magic 8-Ball Says: “Highly doubtful prospects for either scenario.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Rev. Wright’s Bigotry More Significant than Rep. Kern’s

This weekend when I realized that since Bill Clinton and Gary Condit, the sex scandals attracting major media attention have all involved gay sex or solicitations for such sex (McGreevey, Foley, Craig), I quickly typed up an observation, perhaps my shortest post ever.

A reader, upset that I hadn’t addressed an issue I had then heard nothing about, wondered why I hadn’t said anything about the “venomous anti-gay hate speech by Oklahoma Sate Rep. Sally Kern” (his words), I replied noting that Ms. Kern is hardly anyone in “the national spotlight.”

It seems the media has dragged this misguided woman into the national spotlight, probably because of her partisan affiliation (alas, she’s a Republican). Her contention that homosexuality is a greater threat to America than terrorism is just plain silly. Ed Morrissey said it best when he wrote, “Republicans at some point have to distance themselves from those whose paranoid impulses lead them to these extremes.” (Thanks to a reader for the link.)

Lots of local officials say some really ridiculous things. The national media picks a comment a Republican made while ignoring those made by Democrats.  How long had they ignored the hate-speech of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who served the spiritual advisor to an up-and-coming Democratic member of the Illinois Senate and later served in the United States Senate?

They only took an interest in his angry remarks when that Democrat emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

This hate speech becomes a national issue because Senator Obama is a candidate for national office. Does Ms. Kern have such influence? Does she advise Senator Inhofe? Senator Coburn? And heck, those two Republicans aren’t even running for President.