Gay Patriot Header Image

GAYPATRIOT EXCLUSIVE:
Log Cabin Insider Discloses Shocking Details
of Gay GOP’s Tim Gill Connection

***GAYPATRIOT EXCLUSIVE***

In the wake of the Washington Blade story yesterday suggesting strong ties between Log Cabin Republicans and left-wing liberal activist Tim Gill, I was contacted by a long-time Log Cabin insider.  He is aware of my long-time hunt to connect the money trail between Gill & the “gay Republican” organization. 

This individual has been a source for many of my Log Cabin-related postings since 2004 and continues to have unprecedented access to the affairs, both past and present, of the national gay Republican organization.  I shall refer to my source as “Lance”, in order to protect his identity.

Lance confirmed the Log Cabin financial dependency on Tim Gill raised in the Washington Blade story.  He personally witnessed money being exchanged between Log Cabin’s National Office and Tim Gill’s political organization in Colorado:

I can tell you that [in early 2004],  I personally saw transfers and checks for $350,000 from Gill Action to LCR.  

Lance also confirms suspicions that I have made repeatedly here at GP.org, that the anti-Bush TV ads in 2004 run by Log Cabin were significantly financed by Tim Gill’s money.

Some was sent in and went directly out to the TV stations the other money went to pay the bills and staff. 

(Yeah, I feel like saying “I told you so”… but I won’t.)  Sometimes you do live long enough to see yourself vindicated!

Lance also raises questions about the past financial dealings at Log Cabin in 2004-05:

Bill Davenport [another donor] was in for about another $100k (now he won’t give anything) but other monies were sent to a “new” account opened in Virginia — there was at least one of those.  Craig Engle, the counsel for Log Cabin at the time, was determined to hide the flow and never knew I had been aware [of the other account]. 

I am sure well over HALF the LCR budget came from Gill that year (2004) and the next.  Including many, many more funds that went to Liberty Education Forum [a Log Cabin affiliated group]. 

The troubles at Log Cabin have only just begun, according to Lance.  And they involve former LCR President Patrick Guerriero’s expenses, which I questioned last year:

The melt down over the board is another hurricane brewing.  Someone, not sure who, finally looked at the Patrick Guerriero expense logs and it is a real goat f**k.  Including billing Log Cabin for a trip to Iowa that he (PG) submitted identical billing to the school that invited him to speak!

WHEW.  I appreciate Lance’s candor and courage.  Shouldn’t someone — besides those trying to cover each other’s asses on the Log Cabin board – investigate these allegations since LCR is a membership-driven organization.

Oh, did I mention that Log Cabin Republicans and the Gill Action Fund are both 501(c)(4), non-profit, tax-exempt organizations under the IRS code?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

52 Comments

  1. I think someone needs to investigate this matter which I find difficult to believe. If Log Cabin, an organization I have supported in the past, is taking money from someone with credentials equal to that (almost) of George Soro’s then shouldn’t the membership push the Board for full disclosure. Also, I believe the expenses being referred to were those of Mr. Sammon who stepped down as President this year.

    Comment by Jim Matindale — February 27, 2009 @ 8:51 am - February 27, 2009

  2. “Long time”? As in… three months and four posts (including this one)? Um… okay. Regardless, I’ll concede that even as a moderate (“liberal” in these parts), I’m disappointed to see the connection between a true liberal and what should be a moderately conservative organization.

    Comment by CR — February 27, 2009 @ 9:15 am - February 27, 2009

  3. CR, it’s impossible to logically relate your comment to anything. Bruce has been tracking down the Gill funding of LCR since at least 2006 – kindly see Bruce’s own links that he thoughtfully provided, that you evidently didn’t bother to see – and Gill’s funding of LCR would go back at least to 2004 – kindly see the content of Bruce’s post. That’s 2 to 4 years. How did you arrive at a 3-month figure?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 9:51 am - February 27, 2009

  4. Get me some popcorn, raisinets and a coke, cause I’m gonna enjoy watching this one.

    Candor and courage?? If he was truly courageous, he’d admit this openly, and not a anonymously to blog site that’s been whacking LCR for years. If they clearly have problems with financial disclosures, why isn’t he going to IRS?

    Comment by Kevin — February 27, 2009 @ 10:14 am - February 27, 2009

  5. Get me some popcorn, raisinets and a coke, cause I’m gonna enjoy watching this one.

    Why, you just summarized the approach of all sane and rational people to the Obama administration.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 10:34 am - February 27, 2009

  6. ILC, that’d be exactly my attitude… except I’m just as much stuck with the consequences of the Savior’s election as his supporters are.

    What’s teh difference between tragedy and comedy? Time and distance.

    Comment by DaveP. — February 27, 2009 @ 10:37 am - February 27, 2009

  7. As I understand, the LCR-Board isn’t responsible to anyone. It’s hard enough to find out who they even are…or who’s agendae they represent. They’re just a list of names on the website; no contact informantion or persoanl; details…and they’re NOT elected nor answerable to the general membership.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 27, 2009 @ 11:42 am - February 27, 2009

  8. polly, thank you. Newt is an excellent thinker and should be one of the architects of the future. Whether the GOP’s thinking is excellent enough to recognize that our current dilemma is tailor-made for him remains to be seen. 1994 was either watershed or Waterloo, depending upon your point of view, but Newt’s Contract was unsustainable. We need fundamental changes, primarily in the attitude toward image as exemplified by this thread.

    I recommend several things. As you’ve implied, catch rising stars and promote them. Governor Pawlenty, Congressman Ryan, Senator DeMint come to mind. Engage in the constant refinement of our party platform, meaning keep our core principles intact but massage the message by keeping an ear to ground zero of popular culture. Conduct media training seminars for current and future candidates, preparing them with mock interviews and complete with gotcha questions and grooming tips. (And yes, Republican women are babes.) Distribute talking points proudly and unashamedly. In fact, if the media and Democrats get hold of them, write them so that in their criticism and analyses, those media figures do our advertising for us. (But strategy should be relatively secret.) Work to build the party at the state level, tapping the executive experiences of our fine Republican governors together with conservative/libertarian think tanks. Start an advertising campaign that emphasizes common sense and uses positive but pointed criticism; make time work in our favor such as the end of the Obama honeymoon, the first 100 days, the 2-year “Do Everything” Congress led by Pelosi and Reid, etc. Start building bridges to communities poorly served by the GOP in the past. I dimly recall a candidate for mayor of Oakland, California — an African-American who really had a good message. The GOP didn’t give him a dime because they needed the money for “more important races elsewhere”. We’ll never build a future party with that kind of attitude.

    There are lots of things we can do to improve. Let’s channel our collective outrage, clear out the cobwebs in our thinking, and seize the day.

    Comment by Ignatius — February 27, 2009 @ 12:19 pm - February 27, 2009

  9. Filtered again! Curses!

    Comment by Ignatius — February 27, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - February 27, 2009

  10. The entire Log Cabin Board of Directors should resign. They need to be held accountable for this.

    Comment by anon — February 27, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - February 27, 2009

  11. what a snoozefest

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 27, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - February 27, 2009

  12. From what I’ve read about this, it does indeed sound like LCR’s board needs to resign. They misrepresented their organization. It is one thing to have a Republican group advocating issues that may not agree with the Party’s platform, it is quite another to act as a front group for the other party. The same goes for the DNC and their activist groups.

    I should mention, however, that while their motives are now suspect I still agree with the Romney ads they ran last year. Fiscally he was more in line with the GOP ideals but not when it came to social issues. I consider social conservatives to be just as much Big Government for their pet issues as liberals are on theirs.

    Comment by John — February 27, 2009 @ 1:13 pm - February 27, 2009

  13. what a snoozefest

    LOL :-) If you really felt that way, bob, *you wouldn’t be here*. (hint)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2009 @ 1:55 pm - February 27, 2009

  14. Republicans shouldn’t even HAVE these factions everywhere with their own separate agendas. If anything, it makes it harder for these groups to advance their agenda within the party. And now we find out its just a front group for the DNC. This is a perfect opportunity to remind ourselves that we should be Americans FIRST.

    Comment by Captain Ramen — February 27, 2009 @ 2:21 pm - February 27, 2009

  15. Bruce, nice job! Thanks for reporting “the rest of the story”. Great use of the blog.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - February 27, 2009

  16. Since more conservatives in “the community” are starting to network things like this can be exposed and a conservative voice heard… so GP and other REAL conservatives do not have to be lone wolves anymore, and we can take the wool off of our eyes and stop falling prey to the left agenda.

    Comment by Colocelt — February 27, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - February 27, 2009

  17. Shouldn’t someone — besides those trying to cover each other’s asses on the Log Cabin board – investigate these allegations since LCR is a membership-driven organization.

    Is that “asses” or “assets”???

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 27, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - February 27, 2009

  18. The real problem is that LCR-Natl isn’t membership-driven. It’s totally insular from within…there isn’t even any oversight nor leverage available even to the Chapter leaders. They don’t report to the membership at the annual meeting, nor are they elected by the membership or even the Chapters. There isn’t even a general-membership business meeting at the annual convention, it’s all back-room-n-cigar-smoke!!

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 27, 2009 @ 2:58 pm - February 27, 2009

  19. “I consider social conservatives to be just as much Big Government for their pet issues as liberals are on theirs.

    Comment by John”

    Shouldn’t this depend on whether they are in fact attempting to use goverment? Opposing hate crime laws is not an example of using government to push an agenda, it is defending against those who use government to push their agenda.

    Comment by MJ — February 27, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - February 27, 2009

  20. how about proposing to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, mj? is that using government? how about trying to force public schools to teach their religion alongside actual science in science class? how about trying to ban abortion? those all sound like using the government to me, regardless of what your opinion is on the actual issues.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 27, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - February 27, 2009

  21. When I first moved to DC, I participated in a number of Log Cabin events, but became disenchanted by how much the group was dominated by liberal Republicans (what I call the Julie Finley set) and a cult of personality surrounding Rich Tafel – though to give Rich credit, he did a reasonably good job of running the organization, albeit high-handedly. The domination by the liberal wing has only gotten stronger, and the exposure of Tim Gill’s control over the organization demonstrates that Log Cabin has no good reason to continue. Gay Republicans these days are largely conservative and are not necessarily into gay identity politics and often disagree, to a greater or lesser degree, much of the political agenda set forth by gay political organizations. IOW, gay Republicans think and vote much like most other Republicans, even if they abominate the Family Research Council and organized anti-gay activism. If the political vantage point of a gay Republican organization doesn’t square with Republican voters as a whole, why would any gay Republican have anything to do with it? I haven’t…for over a decade. And this is true even if there are not enough gay Republicans out there who are willing to support with time and $$$ a gay authentically Republican organization. Although it would be very sad to see organized gay Republicans die on the vine, I would prefer, as a conservative gay Republican, being irrelevant and the subject of scornful contempt by the Usual Suspects than to be co-opted and duped.

    Comment by Anonymous For Now — February 27, 2009 @ 3:16 pm - February 27, 2009

  22. Bob,

    Try to pay attention. I said social conservatism does not necessarily attempt to use government. I didn’t say they never do.

    Comment by MJ — February 27, 2009 @ 4:49 pm - February 27, 2009

  23. the point, mj, is that social conservatism often uses the government.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 27, 2009 @ 5:04 pm - February 27, 2009

  24. how about trying to force public schools to teach their religion alongside actual science in science class?

    Last I checked, it was liberals forcing schools to teach global warmism.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 27, 2009 @ 5:07 pm - February 27, 2009

  25. how about proposing to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage, mj? is that using government?

    An amendment, of course, which wasn’t necessary until the judiciary decided to create “rights” that are nowhere spelled out in said constitution.

    how about trying to ban abortion?

    Also something which was unnecessary until the leftist judiciary decided that the Constitution stated that human babies weren’t people.

    Learn the process, boob. Persuade the people, as was done with the amendments repealing slavery and the like, and you’ll get somewhere. Go court-shopping for leftist judges and you’ll end up with nothing but trouble.

    how about trying to force public schools to teach their religion alongside actual science in science class?

    Public schools already teach the theories of scientists like Richard Dawkins that say evolution disproves God as actual science and in science class. Obviously, it’s not religion that’s the problem for boob; it’s the fact that things that are not antireligious are being taught in science class.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - February 27, 2009

  26. Bob,

    There’s a difference between sometimes and virtually always. A big difference.

    And there is another major factor. Liberals attempt to use government in both social and economic circumstances, and they are fairly successful at it. Conservatives use it much less often, and ineffectively as well.

    Neither group suits my beliefs particularly well. But still the choice is clear. One group is moving us into serfdom as fast as it possibly can. The other? Well, I find it difficult to believe you were less free at the end of Bush’s term than you were at the end of Clinton’s.

    Comment by MJ — February 27, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - February 27, 2009

  27. Great job Gay Patriots! Attack Gay organizations, offer no alternative GAY organizations, and then cheerlead anti-Gay bigots like Bobby Jindal (and yes – he qualifies).

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — February 27, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - February 27, 2009

  28. Go court-shopping for leftist judges and you’ll end up with nothing but trouble.

    6 of the 7 the judges in California who ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional were hardly “leftist”. In fact, they were Republicans.

    Comment by Attmay — February 27, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - February 27, 2009

  29. The primary moral of this store is simple — there aren’t enough politically active gay Republicans (or like minded sympathizers) to finance a major lobbying organization. It’s just not a big enough financial pool to draw from.

    Comment by Erik — February 27, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - February 27, 2009

  30. point to me, MJ, where i said “always”.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 27, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - February 27, 2009

  31. “Well, I find it difficult to believe you were less free at the end of Bush’s term than you were at the end of Clinton’s.”

    so i guess you don’t have a problem with warrantless wiretapping?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 27, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - February 27, 2009

  32. Obviously, boob, you’re not aware of Executive Orders 12139 and <a href=”http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm12949.

    Notice this statement in the latter:

    Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
    Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

    Funny, the Obama Party has no trouble with warrantless wiretapping, or any other warrantless search, if they’re the one doing it. Of course, boob will now whine that Clinton and Carter needed to do this for the security of the country — but then have his head explode when we ask why he and his Obama Party screamed that it wasn’t necessary when Bush was in charge.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2009 @ 9:29 pm - February 27, 2009

  33. Attack Gay organizations, offer no alternative GAY organizations, and then cheerlead anti-Gay bigots like Bobby Jindal (and yes – he qualifies).

    Ah, but you see, Tom, given that you consider those who openly promote Federal bans on gay marriage to be “pro-gay and gay-supportive”, why on earth should we believe your characterization of Jindal? You’ve made it obvious that you are a bigot who is prejudiced against Republicans and cannot judge them fairly — which is also an excellent argument from excluding liberal gays like yourself from holding any sort of job or public office, given that your sexual orientation causes you to discriminate against people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2009 @ 9:41 pm - February 27, 2009

  34. NDT – you should believe that B. Jindal is anti-gay because you can read what he says and observe the policies he promotes. And then there’s the great Gay Patriot hope, Michael Steele. Funny how he’s been expunged from the site since he opened his mouth.

    Comment by nevermore — February 27, 2009 @ 11:00 pm - February 27, 2009

  35. 19: Because all of this freedom agenda that Republicans espouse is simply hogwash. When I recently read both the National and Texas Republican platforms, it reminded me of the hypocrisy of the Republicans – both written platforms are awash with with statements that come down to social control. Statements are made that have no proof (ie homosexuality is incompatible with the military). In addition, the Republican agenda in the last several years (beginning with Reagan) has been crafted to create a greater divide between the poor and the wealthy in this country and eradicate the middle class. Look at the economic crisis we’re in today; all thanks to the groundwork laid in the 80s by St. Ronnie. The naked greed we had for years has brought us to where we are now, brought to you by the conservatives.

    Comment by Kevin — February 28, 2009 @ 7:59 am - February 28, 2009

  36. “The primary moral of this store is simple — there aren’t enough politically active gay Republicans (or like minded sympathizers) to finance a major lobbying organization. It’s just not a big enough financial pool to draw from.
    ….”

    It’s not that the financial pool isn’t big enough, it’s that the it can’t motivate enough like-minded people to financially support it. The key word in that sentence is motivate. There’s plenty of money out there. Hell, you could probably buy the whole Republican Party for what’s dropped down the g-strings of the pay-for-gay strippers the Gay community supports in one year. Or, for what you extra-generously tip that cute bartender in the hopes he’ll “like” you. That’s what the Religious Right did, they tapped into the collection plate-reflex of their parishoners. And so do the unions who get a cut from every member’s paycheck.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 28, 2009 @ 10:40 am - February 28, 2009

  37. Ah yes, NDT bringing up sh*t from 12 years ago. For the record:

    1) I supported Anh Cao (and yes with MONEY) against anti-Gay Bill Jefferson.

    2) I will be financially supporting a movement to undervote against likely Dem nominee Artur Davis in Alabama. He’s hideously anti-Gay.

    3) I personally told (face to face) to Nick Lampson when he asked me if I was supporting him again, that I couldn’t give him anything because he started voting really anti-Gay.

    Don’t think that I wont support a Republican or vote against a Democrat. NDT, who was the last Democrat you voted for or gave moeny too? I think you’re just a partisan guy who would vote for Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum rather than a Democrat who supports Gay rights.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — February 28, 2009 @ 12:51 pm - February 28, 2009

  38. NDT, another thing

    I didn’t do a damn thing to help out Harold Ford. But that doesn’t mean that Bob Corker is any better on Gay issues. So I stayed out of that one. In a Congress with a large Dem majority, I have the luxury of punishing Dems while not significantly helping the (usually) much more anti-Gay Republicans.

    I’m not a member of HRC. They’re way to willing to take the ‘slowly, slowly’ approach on Gay rights. Besides after they appeared to be ‘greenlighting’ the delay of DADT repeal, I’ve started telling the frequent requests for me to join them that I will consider it when DADT is repealed.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m usually a Democrat. But I support Gay rights.

    I believe you to be a partisan who doesn’t like Gay rights. How about letting us know your opinion on ENDA and your old buddies up in Collin County TX firing a Gay republican from County government simply because he was Gay? The Matt Shepard Act? Bans on Adoption by Gays? The Permanent Partner Immigration Act? The repeal of Don’t ask Don’t tell?

    If you oppose all of those things, then keep voting and supporting Republicans, regardless of how anti-Gay they are. If you want any of those things done, how are you HELPING get these things passed? By voting for Rick Perry/George Bush/Pete Sessions? I really don’t understand your strategy.

    Ok Bill Clinton signed DOMA 13 YEARS ago. Harold Ford isn’t in government. Can you please update your few examples of anti-Gay Democrats.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — February 28, 2009 @ 2:00 pm - February 28, 2009

  39. ILC, tell me when you lay off the snark and I’ll let you know. Given that you happily admit a favorite pasttime is “laughing at liberals”, I highly doubt anything I say, including the second part where I shared Bruce’s concern, will be noticed by you no matter how many links I follow.

    Comment by CR — February 28, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - February 28, 2009

  40. NDT – you should believe that B. Jindal is anti-gay because you can read what he says and observe the policies he promotes.

    Ah, but you see, nevermore, you and your fellow gay leftists have publicly stated that bans on gay marriage, workplace discrimination, and the like are pro-gay and gay-supportive when carried out by Obama Party members.

    Hence, what should be obvious is that actions, words, and policies have nothing to do with being antigay in the eyes of bigots like yourself; it’s all about political affiliation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 12:20 am - March 1, 2009

  41. I think you’re just a partisan guy who would vote for Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, or Rick Santorum rather than a Democrat who supports Gay rights.

    Of course I would, because all of those men have demonstrated that they support my values, my beliefs, and my opinions about the role of our government, taxes, business, and the innumerable other things that affect my life far more than my sexual orientation ever has or will.

    Meanwhile, as for the innumerable attempts you make to prove how persecuted you are, realize this: straight people do not have laws protecting them from being discriminated against, straight people do not have laws that demand higher penalties when crimes are committed against them, straight people can be barred from adoption, straight people do not get to import their sex partners without following immigration practice, and straight people do not get to serve in the same quarters as people to whom they’re sexually attracted in the military.

    You want all of these, even though straight people don’t have them, based on your sexual orientation. That exposes you nicely as a spoiled brat who wants preferential treatment because of your sexual orientation, and who, when he gets it, will go off and abuse it.

    I am a gay man who functions just fine in society without this special treatment. The fact that you can’t is not anyone’s problem but your own.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 12:33 am - March 1, 2009

  42. NDT if Santorum represents your “values” then you are more evil than I thought you were. It has NOTHING to do with special treatment or putting one’s sexual orientation above other aspects of life. Filthy lies are filthy lies no matter who is saying them You respect those who do NOTHING but spout filthy lies when it comes gay folk. Because someone claims to be “pro-family” or has opinions that you agree with on other
    things does NOT excuse them from their inhuman words about LGBT people. A person can be against SSM and other gay issues but express themselves in civilized and respectful ways. Those you parrot are incapable of anything but hate. You are not functioning “just fine” in society, you represent exactly what DESTROYS society.

    “straight people do not have laws protecting them from being discriminated against,” shouldn’t be any need for anti-discrimination laws, but people like you single out specific groups for hate. So, until people like you stop that there’s a need for such laws and deny it all you want sexual orientation is one thing that basher like you justify discriminating against and many str8s fall into one catagory or another that invites hate.

    “straight people do not have laws that demand higher penalties when crimes are committed against them,” same as above

    “straight people can be barred from adoption,” some should be, but sexual orientation is NOT an indication of unfit to raise a child, that fact that those you worship believe would rather see children rot in the system or live in harmful conditions rather than being part of a loving gay family exposes yet again how anti-family you really are.

    “straight people do not get to import their sex partners without following immigration practice” straight people aren’t told that their relationships aren’t real or are disqualified simply because of who the partner is (terrorists etc excluded from that statement of course)

    “straight people do not get to serve in the same quarters as people to whom they’re sexually attracted in the military” If str8 people cannot control their sexual urges enough to be around those who they are attracted to that is not our problem. Should we also make it illegal for gays to use locker rooms, bathrooms, stay in dormitories or any other group situation where their might be a sexually attractive person?

    abusing their postion? right because every gay person would and no str8 person ever wood.

    Everything that oozes from your toxic brain is based on anti-gay hate. You deserve someone like Santorum

    Comment by a different Dave — March 1, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - March 1, 2009

  43. You respect those who do NOTHING but spout filthy lies when it comes gay folk.

    Or more precisely, who tell the truth about what gay liberal folk like you fully support and endorse.

    When you blast gay folk who take children to sex fairs and who demand that five-year-olds be taught gay sex, you can speak. But until then, all you’ve demonstrated is that you consider any criticism of that to be “homophobic”, which makes obvious the kind of “filth” that you and your fellow gay liberals consider to be a normal part of gay behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 12:25 pm - March 1, 2009

  44. that fact that those you worship believe would rather see children rot in the system or live in harmful conditions

    A system created by pathetic liberals like yourself, adDave. Remember, you’re the ones who insisted that children should be taken away from their parents and put in the government’s care. The fact that your system is pathetically broken is your fault, not ours. Indeed, is the reason you make foster care and other programs so bad so that you can justify “redistributing” children from their parents to gay liberals like yourself who need dress-up dolls to take to sex fairs to show off?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 12:27 pm - March 1, 2009

  45. And here’s the best example of leftist liberal foaming at the mouth I’ve ever seen:

    So, until people like you stop that there’s a need for such laws and deny it all you want sexual orientation is one thing that basher like you justify discriminating against and many str8s fall into one catagory or another that invites hate.

    Does that sentence make any sense to anyone?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 1, 2009

  46. NDT

    Your comments do tremendous damage to the gaypatriot community.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — March 1, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - March 1, 2009

  47. Your comments do tremendous damage to the gaypatriot community.

    How so, Tom? Because they upset bigots like you, who get your jollies out of targeting gay Republicans and threatening their families?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 2:56 pm - March 1, 2009

  48. ad Dave

    Give an example of some filthy lies, particularly as told by Former Senator Santorum. Straight people as a group are not discriminated against but there are groups of straight who are discriminated against, for example, people of faith. Then of course there are smokers (both straight and gay). A woman in a California community was fined for smoking inside her apartment.

    I vote my pocket book over my sexuality

    Comment by Roberto — March 1, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - March 1, 2009

  49. 46, Me thinks you are projecting. Someone needs a nap.

    47, Santorum compared being gay to screwing animals. Then was livid when Texas’ sodomy laws were overturned. You vote selfish. Don’t whine when others in the Gay community exclude you for voting against our community for people who advocate you being a criminal (and being ineligible to be lawyer, a doctor, hold a professional degree, etc.) because you are an illegallity.

    Today is most of the USA it is LEGAL for a Christian to fire someone simply because they are Gay, but ILLEGAL for someone who is Gay to fire someone simply because they are Christian. You want to talk about people of faith being discriminated against. Oh and by the way, if a group discriminates, it isn’t discrimination to say NO taxpayer subsidies for you.

    Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — March 1, 2009 @ 4:53 pm - March 1, 2009

  50. LOL…I love how Tom whines about “our community” even as he flings hate and vitriol at those in it who don’t think or act exactly as he does and threaten to “exclude” them.

    What makes this funny, Tom, is that you can’t “exclude” people from a community based on sexual orientation just because of the way they think — unless, of course, you are stating that one’s sexual orientation exercises complete determination over thoughts and opinions. Your attempts to do so make it clear that you consider sexual orientation to be so dominating, so overwhelming to a person’s psyche that they should always think exactly the way you do, have the same opinions you do, and vote the way you do.

    Your whines of “selfish” and “self-loathing” are no different than black liberals who call black conservatives and Republicans “Uncle Toms” and “oreos”. It is little more than a control mechanism to get rid of people who challenge your worldview and might force you to think about things rather than simply writing all your opinions and goals off to your sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - March 1, 2009

  51. Tom, I don´t know where Lazybrook is so it is possible that there you could be illegality. But I have several friends who are both gay amd attorneys. Also, I personally know a judge who is gay. By the way they are all conservatives.

    You never commented on the discrimination of smokers. The problem with the left is that their liberalism isn´t really liberal it is about control. Controlling what people can think, say or do.

    Comment by Roberto — March 1, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - March 1, 2009

  52. [...] Ed. Note: I believe it is fair to also apply Rich’s criticism to my original reporting last Friday which further detailed the financial connections between Gill and …. I fully accept the criticism of my use of an anonymous sources, and understand the frustration [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » GAYPATRIOT EXCLUSIVE:Former Log Cabin Prez Reacts To Gill-LCR News — March 2, 2009 @ 1:51 pm - March 2, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.