Me…. not so much. (h/t – Brooks Bayne)

Take the quiz yourself.  I actually found MOST of the questions balanced and MOST of the questions would easily fit in “the CONSERVATIVE quiz” just as well.

By the way, the Center for American Progress cannot possibly think America is now a “center-left” country because of 9.5 points to the left on this quiz, right?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Mea culpa for having taken so long to post this. I’m sure you’re all dying to see how the Shameful Six fared this week at the trough.

Well, the vote on the actual embarrassment budget was technically a voice-vote, so nobody would formally have to go “on record” as having voted for it (ah, the integrity of our elected representatives, matched only by the president who found time to hold a ceremony for the ladies on the same day but ducked away out of sight to put pen to paper to use your tax dollars, but I digress…).

The real vote was on cloture to move the question in the first place. If a Senator wanted to stop this piggish legislation, this is where he’d have done it. And did our half-dozen redeem themselves?

Sen Richard Shelby (R-Alabama): Yea
Sen Kit Bond (R-Missouri): Yea
Sen Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi): Yea
Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): Yea
Sen James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma): Nay
Sen Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): Nay

Senators Shelby, Bond, Cochran, and Murkowski should be ashamed of themselves. If they’re not, their constituents should contact them to let them know how ashamed they are of them.

Oh, but there’s more! Even other embarrassing “Republican” Senators voted for this monster:

Sen Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) (contact here)
Sen Olympia Snowe (Maine) (contact here) (
Sen Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania) (contact here)
Sen Roger Wicker (Mississippi) (contact here)

Fear not, budget hawks! We have the following Democrats on our side (all voting Nay):
Sen Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Sen Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Sen Claire McCaskill (Missouri)

Just think…a couple more Decent Democrats, and we could have had a victory for responsible government. These three deserve our thanks and should be commended for going against Harry Reid and President Obama and their shameful and irresponsible use of our money. The eight “Republicans” who voted Yea should find other work.

Who needs a drink?

-Nick (Colorado Patriot) from HQ

First, I give you the headline:  STUDY: Air Pollution Dimming World’s Skies (as published in the Charlotte Observer’s print edition on 3/13/09)

Now the lead paragraph:

The skies are dimming, for most of the world. Increases in airborne pollution have dimmed the skies by blocking sunlight over the past 30 years, researchers report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.

And now the most ridiculous statement from the Associated Press that I have seen in quite some time (which doesn’t take much).

They reported that dimming is occurring everywhere except Europe, where declines in pollution have resulted in brighter skies.

REALLY?  So declines in pollution have brightened Europe’s skies, but the non-industrialized continent of Africa has higher “global dimming” than Europe??   That stretches the logic of man, weather and physics.

If Europe has been soooo good in reducing their polution, then the skies over Moscow should be experiencing brighter skies.  And what about Africa?  Is non-existent industrialization in Africa resulting in an increase in “global dimming”?   That should shoot to hell the Global Warming fanactics, eh?

The study does note brighter skies in Europe, but the AP is the one that editorializes as to the reason being “Europe’s declining pollution.”

MSM Bias — Always on display.   Global Warming Scaremongering — Never too far behind.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As the producers of HBO’s series Big Love offers Hollywood’s latest “foray into anti-Mormon “exposé,” writer Orson Scott Card, a Mormon himself, observes:

It’s offensive when believers in one religion hold up the sacred rites of another religion to public ridicule. So we’re hurt — but we’re not surprised.

Mormons have always been the exception to America’s policy of religious tolerance. Throughout our history in America, Mormons have been oppressed by government, killed or driven out by mobs, slandered, and libeled — always by fellow Americans who professed to believe in religious tolerance.

Until recently, gay people have suffered similar slights.  Yet, even in the face of yet another media misrepresentation of his faith, Scott observes

. . . that few [Mormons] have any desire to act as the worst of our opponents have acted. After someone has boycotted a friend’s business, it makes it a bit harder for you to want to call for a boycott.

By and large, while we’d prefer that everybody handle differences of opinion peacefully, we’d rather be persecuted than be the persecutors. The few times in our history when we have departed from that principle, the results have shamed us for generations. Tolerance works better.

And this is where gay activists can learn from Mormons.  Show some tolerance for those who currently espouse the traditional definition of marriage.  In contrast to those angry activists who protested the passage of Proposition 8 by attacking Mormons, a large number of the initiative’s backers (but alas not all) have not expressed animosity toward gay people.

Perhaps by showing some tolerance for their [i.e., opponents of gay marriage] concerns, gay activists might succeed in addressing them and persuading those backers to change their mind.  So, let’s handle our differences of opinion peacefully, lest we learn, as did the Mormons, that angry responses serve only to shame us.

With Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele taking heat from social conservatives for his comments on abortion and “individual choice,” we see the difficulties that good man is having trying to balance the concerns of social conservatives who make up the base of our party while reaching out to more socially liberal suburbanites who are sympathetic to our party’s economic message (particularly in the era of the spendthrift Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democrats).  And whose votes we need to win back our majorities.

If he makes a pro-life argument a central plank of the Republican agenda, he risks alienating those suburbanites (and some urbanites).  If he ignores the issue, he risks losing the support of some of the party’s most committed activists.

What the GOP chair need do is take a stand on a social issue dear to the hearts of those activists yet which resonates with (or at least doesn’t offend) more socially liberal voters.

When a reader alerted me to this story about a North Carolina judge ordering a woman to switch her children from home schooling to public schooling because of her lessons’ “religious slant,” it occurred to me that home schooling could be just such an issue.  To be sure, this particular case may not be a perfect illustration of my point as it is part of a divorce proceeding.  The father, while acknowledging that his kids have “thrived with home school,” would like them to attend public school where they will be “exposed to mainstream science.”

I can’t say I disagree with him on that score.

What this story does show is that there is a good deal of animus, particulary among those in the ever-growing government sector, toward home schooling.  If the Republican Party champions home schooling as a freedom issue, the right of parents to educate their own children, they come out as promoting concern central to social conservatives, appealing to this bloc in terms which resonate to more socially liberal parents who often to live where they do because of the neighborhood schools.

It seems that whenever I read an MSM article on the president, they describe the Illinois Democrat as “popular” because his approval ratings are well above those of his predecessor during his second term.

Yet, as I ponder the use of that adjective, I wonder how often (if at all) reporters used it to describe President Bush from September 2001 until the summer of 2003 when his approval begin to dip below the levels where his successor currently finds himself.

Indeed, I wonder if they used the term before September 11, 2001.  In the first few months of his first term, Bush’s approval ratings, while starting below where Obama’s did, did not fall as quickly as have those of his successor.  As pollsters Douglas Schoen and Scott Rasmussen point out in today’s Wall Street Journal,

Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama’s net presidential approval rating — which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve — is just six, his lowest rating to date.

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president’s performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

As Glenn might say, read the whole thing!

Schoen, by the way, was a pollster to President Clinton.  In the 2008 election, Rasmussen’s final tracking poll nearly perfectly anticipated Obama’s popular vote victory.

Sometime early this morning we hit 2.5 Million Unique Visitors here at GayPatriot since debuting on September 4, 2004.  Just waaaay back in September 2008, we hit the Two Million Mark.   So that is quite an uptick in traffic in less than six months.

My sincere thanks to Dan (GayPatriotWest) for his steady hand on the ship’s wheel — especially during the Presidential Campaign last fall.  Thanks also to John (AverageGayJoe) and Nick (ColoradoPatriot) for their continued contributions and insights.

And on behalf of all of the bloggers at GayPatriot, a very big thanks to all of our readers and supporters.  We have become an important voice in the center-right blogosphere.  We are bringing issues and perspectives about gay America to people who never would have listened before because that information was coming from the radical Gay Left who do not respect opposing views.

So thanks again to everyone.  We look forward to many more new visitors and being a vocal part of the Loyal Gay Opposition during the next four years.

HOUSEKEEPING UPDATE:  In the true spirit of being a Libra, I’m a the true procrastinator.  So I FINALLY shipped out the hardcopy originals of “Liberal Fascism” to our TWO MILLION contest winners this week.   Our winners (back in Sept., 08) were Jeremiah D. and Rob S. — two long-time GayPatriot readers.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

As I clean out my e-mail box this afternoon, I realize (yet again) that I need blog more regularly on repealing the ban on gay people serving openly in the military (i.e., Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell or DADT).  This issue, the one clear case of federal discrimination against gays, should be the top priority of gay activists.  And not just because it’s good for gay people.

It’s good for the military as well.  By making it more difficult for gay people to serve, DADT deprives the military of tens of thousands of citizens who would otherwise eagerly serve our country in the armed forces.

And study after study (after study after study) has shown that allowing gay people to serve openly would not compromise unit cohesion or morale, a criticism frequently leveled by those who favor the ban.  Whenever I speak with members of the armed forces (nearly all of them straight), they all tell me they’re aware that some of their colleagues are gays; they don’t see their sexuality as a hindrance to their service.

Earlier this month, Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara which, for the past decade, has focused “on sexual minorities in the military,” began a speaking tour to promote his new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.  In the course of his research, Frank found that military and political architects of the policy acknowledged it was “based on nothing” but “our own prejudices and our own fears.”

So, as activists lobby Congress to overturn the ban, let us hope they focus on what Frank learned in writing his book–that it undermines the military and weakens America.

Not too long ago, I scribbled a note to myself, observing that there was more serious debate on gay marriage on conservative blogs and other right-of-center websites (i.e., those of magazines and think tanks) than on left-of-center websites, even including those operated by gay individuals and institutions.

I’d certainly have to do a few google searches to make my case.  Well, today, just going through the accumulated e-mail in my in-box has made that task a lot easier, at least for the first part of the equation.

The National Review posted Deroy Murdock’s response to Maggie Gallagher’s question, “if the word “marriage” can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like ‘monogamy’ or ‘fidelity’?“  Deroy takes social conservatives to task for their silence on AshleyMadison.com, a web-site  promotind extramarital affairs:

Clearly, straight-marriage fans fret about what two men wearing wedding bands might do to a man and woman with rings on their fingers. Whether this concern is scientific or superstitious, surely they must acknowledge that seeing Bob and Steve together in a porch swing is trivial compared to Adam philandering with his new AshleyMadison.com adulteress as Eve waits at home, watches dinner grow cold, and wonders why on Earth he’s so late.

Maggie contends she didn’t denounce the website as the publicity of her criticism might serve to “help pad their profits.”  Instead, she would

Revive the old alienation-of-affections tort as a new “tort of adultery” directed at third parties who actively encourage and facilitate adultery. (We could limit it to “commercial enterprises.”) Then let the cuckolded husbands and abandoned wives, and children of divorce, recover some of that website’s profits.

In a further post, she offers that “scientific data confirms gay marriage and the ‘progressive’ attitudes towards family structure tend to go hand-in-hand — not only here, but everywhere around the world.”

To respond to Maggie’s second point, serious proponents of gay marriage should offer legislation which at the same time as it calls for state recognition of same-sex marriage strengthens the tort laws she mentions agove.  Not just that, they could promote legislation eliminating no-fault divorce, making divorces more difficult to obtain.

It would be nice to see gay marriage advocates not only pushing for state recognition of same-sex marriage, but also for laws strengthening the institution itself.  It would show that they’re serious about the object of their activism, that they understand marriage to be far more than just another in a series of “rights” designed to further “full equality.”

Perhaps, one reason so many gay activists warmed to the recent Academy-Award winning movie Milk was that it hearkened back to a day when gay people were truly victims.  In the 1970s, those who were open about their sexuality, endured regular ridicule and suffered significant social marginalization.  The police did not investigate gay bashings, even when they were fatal.  More often than not, elected officials, particularly at the local level, did not respond to our concerns.

Times have changed greatly in the thirty years since Harvey Milk’s election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in large part due to the activism he inspired by his example.

Sometimes it seems, gay activists act as if the world hasn’t changed since Milk’s day, as if we remain victims, lacking “rights.”  As the situation improves for us, many of those activists have now become the haters.  And the heads of the gay organizations who eagerly rush (and, in many* cases, rightfully so) to denounce anti-gay bigotry, all but ignore the hatred emerging on their side.

This is not something that is new this year, or even this decade, but something we’ve been witnessing at least since the 1990s, but it has become particularly manifest in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8.

In a piece in the most recent Weekly Standard, painter and cultural commentator Maureen Mullarkey recounts what happened when the San Francisco Chronicle “published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California’s Proposition 8 marriage initiative.”  She was one such donor.

She was called a “vampire,” accused of hatred and denying love, labeled as representing “the most despicable type of artist and human being. I do hope that you feel the financial pain your actions will bring.”

On gay marriage, alas, such rhetoric has more often than not replaced civil discourse.  And all too often, the self-appointed leaders of our community remain silent as the vitriol increases, ignoring how it damages efforts to continue the social progress we have since Harvey Milk first rose to prominence.

No, the heads of the gay organizations are not responsible for this hateful rhetoric, but it is striking that they do not denounce it.  If they did, they would make a stand for more civil discourse on the controversial issue of state recognition of same-sex marriage.  And help continue the progress that begin when bold leaders like Harvey Milk first stepped forward to counter anti-gay attitudes.

———-

*I say, “in many cases,” because sometimes they define as hatred something which is merely a difference of opinion.

While there is much to blog about these past few days, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying we need an even larger “stimulus” (I guess it’s just in her party’s nature to keep spending money we don’t have), her “air rage,” the tea party movement growing apace, the withdrawal of the Chas Freeman appointment (after the MSM paid little attention to his various controversial activities and statements*), the ever-increasing congressional penchant for pork, the increasing number of Democratic scandals, emerging evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy, the president’s rudeness to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the Secretary of State’s fumbles abroad and etc., I need to do some catch-up work on small projects which accumulated when my folks were in town.

As a result, I did not get to blog yesterday and doubt I’ll be able to get back to it today.

I hope to be back to regular blogging by Thursday afternoon PST, but in the meanwhile will not be blogging at near the pace of the past few weeks, if not months.

But, while I’m putting pen to paper, er pixel to screen, I thought I’d ask our readers who have seen the flick Watchmen to weigh in with their thoughts of the film, with friends’ reviews ranging from relevant and compelling (if a bit overlong) to a waste of time and preachy (though visual compelling).  Let me know what you think.

——-

*This may be a sign of the growing power of the “rightosphere” and conservative media.  I mean, this does show that the story will get out and effect Administration actions even if the MSM ignores a story.

It’s kind of late out here in God’s Country, but a thought just came across my mind. Let’s play a What If game:

Game One

If you were a member of Congress, which choice would you make:

1) Vote for a bill that increases the budgets of the 9 outstanding departments by 8%, or
2) Vote against that bill, and instead for a continuing resolution that would freeze these budgets at last year’s level.

Game Two

If you were a newly-inaugurated president with approval ratings around 60% who had campaigned on fiscal responsibility and an end to earmarks, and having promised to go “line-by-line” through the budget eliminating waste, and a Congress, whose approval ratings are well below freezing sent you a bill that increased the budgets of these departments by 8%, which choice would you make:

1) Sign the bill and say that it’s “last year’s business”, or
2) Veto the bill and insist the Congress write a budget more in line with your campaign promises, or better yet, demand they pass a continuing resolution freezing the budget at last year’s level.

Oh, and let’s also say that for either scenario, you’re a “responsible leader” who wouldn’t dream of changing the subject, or deflect the issue that it’s your decision to make, not some weird fault of the last guy (as badly as you may think of him).

Just a little late-night fun.

-Nick (Colorado Patriot) from HQ

A blog reader emailed me a link to his post where he offered some insights into the left’s attacks on Rush.  He contends that “emotionally, leftists are stuck in middle school.“  I’m not sure that I agree with this hypothesis, but believe he may well be onto something.

I grant there is this adolescent nature to their attacks, focusing on Rush’s physical attributes and personal failings rather than the quality and content of his argument.  To this reader, Rush’s critics are like the popular kids picking on the outsider.

Perhaps, I link the post because it called to mind a theory I’d been toying around with about why the left, particularly those who considered themselves intellectuals, so hated (and still continue to hate) the immediate past President of the United States, George W. Bush.

The people who, in that blogger’s parlance, now pick on Rush were themselves not the popular kids.  They were more likely to be the geeky kids whom the popular kids (the cool crowd) picked on.  And they so hated George W. Bush because he reminded them of the guys who seemed to glide through high school socially while they struggled.  And as such guys glided, they taunted those less popular.

Their anger, their wishing failure, humiliation, impeachment and imprisonment on W was for them, a sort of revenge of the nerds.

Again, I’m just throwing this out there, as much for discussion as anything else.   My reader makes a point that, I believe, is definitely worth consideration.  Given the nature of the rage of the left against any outspoken conservative who gains a foothold in American politics or popular culture, I am convinced that their animus has a strong psychological component.

(more…)

I wonder how many of those in the MSM who have been lambasting Rush Limbaugh these past few weeks for saying he wants President Obama to fai “to implement his statist agenda” as he believes “it would mire us in cultural malaise and economic stagnation” took issue with the majority of Democrats who, in 2006, didn’t want his Republican predecessor to succeed?

Paterico requests that we:

Have this poll handy the next time some Democrat gets snooty about Rush wanting Obama to fail. It’s proof that the Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed. They have no standing to claim the moral high ground. None.

I agree.

I know it will make The Detractors squirm, but I’m going to do something that, according to their caricatures of us we’re not supposed to do (that’s twice this weekend): Criticize Republicans.

If you follow this link to the Taxpayers for Common Sense’s spreadsheet of the latest markups to the 2009 Budget, you’ll find a comprehensive list of all earmarks (over 9000 at lastest count). There are tabs broken down by Congressmen, Senators, and by bill (with each department called out).

The count seems to be going through revisions, and they’re now up to Version 3. If you want to be kept up-to-date, keep an eye on the group’s homepage and look for the link to the most recent earmarks post. It’ll be under “Latest News”.

After Byrd (natch), the greatest porker in the Senate is none other than Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, and after him, Republican Kit Bond of Missouri. Then comes DiFi. But then it’s back to Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), and “Leader” Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) also contribute to the embarrassment of a Republican party that still hasn’t learned the lesson by also appearing in the Top 10. WTF?

For those who are not as mathematically adept as I, that’s SIX out of the Top TEN! Together, these Republicans account for $454,404,466 in earmarks (that’s also approximately 60% of earmarks from the same Top 10).

My friends, as Senator McCain would say, this is NO WAY to win back the confidence of the American voter. Sometimes you really have to clean house (or in this case, the other chamber…I haven’t even gotten to the House yet!). If you live in any of these states, (or even if you don’t) I implore you to contact the offices of these Senators and demand they reverse themselves. Without a responsible move, I’m afraid these six Senators WILL HAVE TO GO.

After the jump is the pertinant contact information for the Shameful Six:
(more…)

Presidents Bush and Obama visit the Marines. (h/t – Blogs For Victory)

Wow.  Damning.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Given how biased the New York Times has become these past few years, I vowed I would never again buy a copy of that paper.  If there were a newsworthy article in the paper, well, I could get it online.

On Friday, my Mom asked me if I could pick up a copy of the Times on my way to meeting her at her hotel.

Hey, it was for my Mom.

Lest we be charged with simply bashing the president because of who he is (alas, not that any degree of deference will disuade the true Obamaphiles from making that accusation), two* full-throated cheers to the president for his latest move of sober and responsible action in the War On Terror. You do remember there’s a war on, right?

The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause “exceptional harm to national security” by exposing intelligence sources and methods.

The president deserves credit here. And we, as conservatives who are serious about protecting America from terrorist attacks (especially those that have roots here within our own borders) should be willing to congratulate him on this good move. Ronald Reagan is commonly credited with believing that it’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets credit. Well I for one am glad to give Obama and Holder (shiver) credit here, where it’s due. Thank you, President Obama, for ignoring the hysterics of the radical Left, and doing your job: Protecting America.

*(Only two cheers, because as the Journal suggests, it’s likely Holder released the anti-Bush bait that he did this week specifically to draw the attention of the jackals away from this wise policy. So much for ignoring the hysterics of the radical Left. Nevertheless, maybe he deserves credit for knowing that such a move would be required in order to get away with it. On the other hand, sounds kind of, how do you say? Cynical?)

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HQ

Ruh-roh, Chairman Obama…

Looks like the lines will cross in…. oh about a month, if not sooner.

Dear Leader — what are you doing wrong?  We, The People all know…. it is time for you to figure it out.

Here’s some free advice.  Stop partying on the taxpayer dime while the rest of America is dealing with your declining economy.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

For the past twenty-seven years at least (perhaps longer), Democrats and their allies in the media have been trying to write the obituary for Ronald Reagan’s ideas.  The latest to do so is former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich who claimed that the very unveiling of President Obama’s budget sounds the death knell for Reaganomics:

It is the boldest budget we have seen since the Reagan administration, and drives a nail in the coffin of Reaganomics. We can basically say goodbye to the philosophy espoused by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

I’m not quite sure how the mere introduction of a spendthrift budget kills off Reagan ideas.  It does clearly show that his campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, the current president intends to govern in an entirely different manner than did the Gipper and that he has learned nothing from the Fortieth President’s economic record.

This budget would only mark the end of Reaganism if two things happen.  First, this budget needs to pass Congress and be followed by economic growth similar to that which followed the enactment of the Gipper’s tax cuts and regulatory reforms of the 1980s.  Second, a candidate espousing spending increases of such magnitude (i.e., as in Obama’s budget) needs to win election campaigning on increasing the size of the federal government.

Recall, Obama’s campaign promise of a “net spending cut.”  With such a proposal, the Illinois Democrat didn’t repudiate Reagan’s economic ideas, he seemed instead to embrace them.

Indeed, the last Democrat to win the White House didn’t do so by running against Reagan.  In 1992, Bill Clinton was careful to run against George H. W. Bush who, in rasising taxes and favoring greater spending increases than the Gipper, had all but repudiated the domestic policies of the man he had served so loyally for eight years.

And during his near-successful campaign for the White House in 2004, John Kerry made quite a show of paying homage to the Gipper when he died that June.

The Massachusetts Democrat had learned an important lesson:  every Democrat who ran against Ronald Reagan lost.

(more…)