Gay Patriot Header Image

DC City Hall Tells Supreme Court: F.U.

Now, my friends… when the liberals violate the law as they are so wont to do (illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, election fraud, ROTC in schools, etc., etc., etc., etc.)… why the hell doesn’t the Executive Branch (the one that ENFORCES the law) step in and do something about it.

In this case, the DC city government is telling the US Supreme Court to stick it.  (h/t – The Corner)

District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

I’m not really sure it was Obama’s genitals that Jesse Jackson was aiming for.   In fact, it is precisely Jackson’s brand of liberalism has effectively neutered all sense of right-vs-wrong, lawfulness-vs-lawlessness in the past 30 years.  Every thing is morally and legally equivalent in the Libs’ World View.

C’mon Justice Department….. stand up for MY rights for once.  You know, the rights actually WRITTEN IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and not the ones made up by the ACLU.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Another Sign of Gay Progress in George W. Bush’s America

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:58 pm - July 17, 2008.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay Culture,Literature & Ideas

Lesbian Named U.S. Poet Laureate.

Obama vs. Obama On Iraq

I really can’t add much to this….

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

HIV Travel Ban & Bill Clinton’s Legacy

In a bipartisan move yesterday, the U.S. Senate “approve[d] a global AIDS relief bill that includes language calling for the repeal of a law that bans foreign visitors and immigrants with HIV from entering the U.S.”, reports The Washington Blade. The House is expected to likewise pass this bill shortly, which President Bush has promised to sign into law. This in itself is newsworthy, but I was most intrigued by the closing paragraph of the Blade’s article:

Congress enacted the HIV visitor and immigrant ban into law in 1993 at a time when supporters of the ban argued that foreign visitors and immigrants with HIV would flock to the U.S. to seek treatment for AIDS, overloading U.S. health facilities. President Bill Clinton expressed opposition to the ban but chose to sign the bill enacting the ban, which was approved by the then Democratic-controlled Congress, drawing criticism from gay and AIDS activists.

A “Democratic-controlled Congress” passed this ban while a Democrat president signed it into law. For all the talk I hear from the Left about how gay-friendly Bill Clinton was as president, with George W. Bush being the epitome of all that is evil, we once again see that the rhetoric just doesn’t add up. This is not to say that Clinton wasn’t gay-friendly at times or that Bush hasn’t been anti-gay at times as well, and vice versa, but this does put things a bit more into perspective. Let’s see, Clinton signed into law DADT, DOMA, and this HIV travel ban that activists have decried. Given the complete lack of spine and principles the man demonstrated while in office, why exactly should gays consider the former president to be a hero? Seems to me that he was all talk and very little action, well, except for all the wrong actions I guess you could say.

— John (Average Gay Joe)

In Liberal-Speak, is Some Gay Marriage Advocacy Wingnuttery?

On Monday, left-wing blogger Joe.My.God labeled it “wingnuttery” when the Campaign for Children and Families urged its supports to boycott McDonald’s because of the corporation’s “support of homosexual ‘marriages’.”

Let’s see a group with a political agenda urges its supporters to boycott a corporation which supports a cause it opposes. Is that wingnuttery or the free market at work?   In our economy, consumers weigh a number of factors before choosing to purchase a product from a particular supplier. These social conservatives are just exercising their freedom.

But, to Joe, it’s wingnuttery when people reject a corporation for the political stands it takes. So, I assume he’ll be taking Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate to task given his group’s call:

for a boycott of two prominent San Diego hotels because their owner, Doug Manchester, contributed more than $100,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8, the ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Here, we have the same pattern at work, a group with a political agenda urging its supporters to boycott a corporation whose owner supports a cause it opposes.

They’re both right. If a corporation (or its owner) takes a stand on a controversial political issue, then consumers remain free to consider that support when they choose whether to buy the corporation’s product. That’s called freedom. And ain’t it grand?

But, alas, some liberals call it wingnuttery when conservatives exercise theirs.

Me, I’ll make sure to double my order of Chicken McNuggets next time I’m in McDonald’s.