Here we go again.  Someone else is trotting out the tired trope of the left about the hypocrisy of closeted politicians.  “Oscar nominated filmmaker Kirby Dick is turning the spotlight on closeted American politicians in his latest documentary, ‘Outrage.’”  And given the current sensibilities of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, he stands a good chance of snagging yet another nomination and possibly a golden statuette.

He’s got a winning formula: point out the “hypocrisy” of certain Republicans.  (Wonder if he’ll followup with a film on the hypocrisy of a man running for the presidency promising a “net spending cut” yet, once in office delivering a severe spending explosion.)

Dick’s

film examines the double lives of a number of current political figures, mostly Republican men, who have masked their homosexuality through marriage to women and by actively working against the gay community. It explores the stories of politicians who, through their policies and voting records, actively bash gay people in order to prove they themselves are not gay. And it details a media establishment that keeps their secrets. The lives of former elected officals (and even some mainstream media figures) are also examined as the film explores the dual lives of public people who have chosen to live in the closet.

How will he define “working against the gay community”?  Probably means something like working against the agenda of the Human Rights Campaign and opposing liberal legislation.  Dick interviewed Larry Kramer and radio personality Michelangelo Signorile as well as openly gay Democratic Congressmen Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin for his project.

Doesn’t look like he talked to any opponents of “outing.”  I wonder if he asked ol’ Barney about his own hypocrisy, you know, grandstanding for a company acting in accordance with a legislation he voted for.

Don’t bet it.  Only Republican hypocrisy is newsworthy, provided they (those on the left and in Hollywood) get to define what hypocrisy is.

Finally, here’s an interesting nugget, “IndieWIRE [my source for this story] recently watched an unfinished cut of the film and we have agreed to refrain from detailing certain aspects of the film, and some of those who may depicted (sic) in it“.  Looks like they’re trying to make news about whom they’ll be “outing.”

Maybe I’m wrong and maybe this will provide a nuanced view of “outing” with interviews of those opposed to the practice as well as some with serious reservations.  If so, it could serve to promote a serious discussion of the choices people make.

But, given the agreement the reporters made to see the film, it’s pretty clear he’s not looking to start a conversation, but only to get some attention.  This is Hollywood after all.  And when it comes to politics, the best way to get favorable publicity in this town is portray Republicans in a bad light.

Call me cyncial if unlike, but for some reason, I think that’s his real intention.  Kriby Dick wouldn’t be the first to ride that formula to Tinseltown success.

UPDATE:  Jenn Q. Public offers:

Publicly exposing the sexual orientation of gay Republican congressmen is, of course, a poor strategy for achieving pretty much anything other than schadenfreude.  Most conservatives are indifferent to what goes on in the private bedrooms of public officials so long as all participants are consenting adults.

A representative from Magnolia Pictures, the distributor for Outrage, told indieWIRE the film “could be a ‘game changer’ for same sex civil rights.”  They would be hard pressed to come up with a more shallow, tone deaf analysis than that.

Read the whlole thing.

Someone please help me answer this:  If Obama cannot stand up to Somali pirates who capture a US vessel and kidnap its captain… how confident am I that he will protect the USA from much more serious enemies who have already declared war on America and Western values and who want to murder Americans by the thousands?

Answer: Scared to death.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I believe it was Glenn Reynolds who last week linked Janet Daley’s wonderful defense of capitalism in the wake of the G20 protests advocating the overthrow of the free-market system.

In this essay in Britain’s Telegraph, Ms. Daley offers one of the best nutshell defenses of capitalism I have read in recent days:

It is in the interests of the Left to talk as if capitalism and socialism were precisely analogous because then they can be seen as competitors and in bad times, the command economy as opposed to the market-based one can win the popularity contest. But this fallacious argument into which, I am sorry to say, a great many well-intentioned people are allowing themselves to be drawn is very dangerous: capitalism isn’t really an “ism” which is why the term “free market economics” is so much more apt.

When we make the case for capitalism, we are defending the political principle of freedom, not arguing for one kind of rigid economic organisation over another.

. . . .
The operative word in the phrase “free market economics” is ‘free‘.

We need remind people over and over again that capitalism is about freedom and that freedom includes not merely economic freedom, but political and artistic freedom as well.  Under capitalism, the artist can create whatever product he wants and is protected in his endeavors just as is the entrepreneur in his economic activity or the “dissident” and writer in their speech.

Janet Daley reminds us that when we talk about capitalism, we’re talking about freedom.  And those who seek to overthrow the system seek to replace a system which allows them the freedom to protest.

So, let’s remember that when we defend repeated encroachments on our liberty.  And learn to defend that noble idea as did the founders of our great repubic.

If you want to know why I oppose laws banning private employers from discriminating against gay people, all you need do is read an article in today’s Washington Post.  In “Faith Groups Increasingly Lose Gay Rights Fights,” Jacqueline L. Salmon finds:

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing.

Um, Jacqueline, can you please tell me where you found that “right” to be free from discrimination.  I’ve checked the constitution and sure didn’t find it there.  Now, in reviewing that august document, I did see this in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added).   (And through the Fourteenth Amendment, that also applies to the states.)

Ms. Salmon cites a number of examples where individuals, organizations and entrepreneurs were fired for, fimed for or barred from refusing service to or inclusion of gay people.  Now, I personally think these groups are wrong to so exclude gays, but they’re not requiring me to buy their product or participate in their activities.

At the same time, if a gay group wanted to exclude Christians from its membership, it should be free to do so.  Their right to do that would come from the First Amendment’s clause on “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and also possibly the Ninth Amendment.

But, these constitutional protections don’t seem to be a barrier to gay groups in their zeal to reduce the freedom of private individuals and organizations.  They are prevailing in courts according to Ms. Salmon “because an individual’s religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays’ right to equal treatment under the law.”

Say what?  That’s not equal treatment under the law.  That’s using the law to limit individuals’ freedom, just as it would be if Christians used the law to mandate that gay organizations include ex-gays or that gay businesses serve the Christian Coalition.

(more…)

I am thrilled to help announce the birth of a new national gay conservative organization, GOProud.  As long-time readers know I have been very critical of the national Log Cabin Republicans for many years.

Their left-of-center positions on important issues have bothered me as LCR has continually sucked the teet of the Gay Leftist agenda.  LCR’s silence and unwillingness to stand up and be vocal on true gay conservative issues (outing of Republican staffers, increasing threat of gays being selectively aborted, peril gays face by Islamic extremists) has been mind-boggling.   And LCR’s continued obsession in trashing Republicans, yet letting Democrats get a pass on their gay-related hypocrisies, has been infruriating.

Many of you, friends and critics alike, have told me if I wasn’t happy with LCR to do something about it.  I have tried shining light on the organization from GayPatriot.org.  But many of us felt more had to be done.

So I’m proud to announce my involvement as a board member of this new organization.  Many more details will follow and I will be sure to let you know how to get involved.   For now, please go to GOProud.org and sign up.

Ben Smith at the Politico has the scoop on our new gay conservative group:

A dissident faction of gay conservatives is launching a rival group to the traditional voice of gay Republicans, the Log Cabin Republicans.

GOPROUD, the new 527 group, will launch next week, according to a media advisory. The contact given for the group is Christopher Barron, a former Log Cabin political director who broke with the group.

“Essentially, there’s no voice for gay Republicans or gay conservatives in particular in D.C. right now.  Log Cabin has been completely and totally absent here in D.C. for months and months,” Barron said.    “It has simply moved way too far from the left and is basically indistinguishable from any other gay left organization.”

The ideological battle has been playing out in the gay media and on some blogs for a while, spurred in part by the Blade’s revelation that the Log Cabin Republicans’ biggest backer is a prominent Democrat, Tim Gill. Their complaint, in general, is that Log Cabin has grown indistinguishable from left-leaning gay rights groups.

The blog GayPatriot has been making the case for a split, and arguing that gay rights groups should make the case for same-sex marriage to a broader political spectrum.

[RELATED: Washington Blade picks up the story, too.]

Being gay doesn’t make you a liberal, being conservative doesn’t make you a bigot.

Sign up at www.goproud.org!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Something struck me shortly after I learned that Endora-award winning blogress Tammy Bruce, while an Angelena, will not be at the Santa Monica Tea Party, but will instead be participating in the protest in Manhattan Beach, just a few miles down the coast.  Two protests so close together!  These things are multiplying faster than anyone could have imagined when people first started protesting the president’s spendthrift policies barely two months ago.

The sheer number of scheduled rallies already shows the success of this truly grassroots endeavor.  Unlike the Obama campaign, which was built around an individual, we don’t have a central organization in Washington, New York, Los Angeles or Chicago.  Our energy comes primarily from the citizens organizing in the various cities, not from the candidate around whom his supporters rallied.

To be sure, there is a website, but it provides information and advice, not direction.  It is individuals across the country organizing the various protests.  Moreover, we haven’t needed the apparatus of a political party.  Indeed, instead of the organizers going to the party asking for assistance, it’s party leaders coming to the organizers asking to participate.

And it takes effort to plan such a gathering.  That we see such effort from coast to coast is testament to the concern of citizens about the ever-increasing size of the federal government.  Another sign of the rallies’ success is further is the eagerness of some on the left to sabotage and/or smear our protests.  They can’t fathom that conservatives, libertarians and even moderates would engage in the type of activity in which they delight.

To be sure, protest, to borrow an expression, is not really our cup of tea.  We would really rather not rally; most of those upset by the proposed spending increases and certain tax hikes have real jobs.  And we don’t have much nostalgia for the demonstrations of the 1960s–as do some on the left.

This is truly a grassroots effort if ever there was one.  It shows that Americans’ love for freedom remains unabated, 236 years after our forebears protested British encroachments on our liberties.

So, join me in standing up for that idea which has defined our nation since its origins–freedom–and for a principle for which some of our greatest patriots fought–smaller government–next Wednesday, April 15 from 3 to 7 PM on the Santa Monica Pier.

We gay patriots will rally together, then retreat to Santa Monica watering hole to celebate our freedom and drink to its preservation.

It seemed a strange serendipity of circumstances that barely twenty-four hours after blogging about a journalism school honoring Katie Couric for biased coverage of Sarah Palin, I would discover the media ignoring the latest Joe Biden fabrication.

As I wrote last fall:

Joe Biden makes more gaffes the average week than Sarah Palin made in the entire campaign.  Take out . . . Palin’s interview with Katie Couric, and you could say that Biden made more gaffes per speech than the Alaska Governor made in the entire campaign.  And he had thirty-six years of “experience.”

While, during the campaign, the media made much of Biden’s experience, they ignored that of his rival for the Vice Presidency

Let me post a video I had posted last fall where former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comments on the biased coverage of the Alaska Governor and speculates that “to the best of [his] knowledge there has been a single question by an elite television journalist about [Palin's] actual career in Alaska”

Just as the media ignored Sarah Palin’s accomplishments, they ignore Biden’s fabrications.

They root into every detail of Palin’s private family life, even into the peccadilloes of her daughter’s ex-fiancé’s mother.  And while they not only rightfully ignore gossip about Biden’s family, they fail and fail yet again to highlight his own misunderstandings of issues and misrepresentations of fact.

The media did not cover Sarah Palin as they normally would cover an accomplished politician, but instead as an attractive celebrity.  And Biden, well, Biden, they treat as a fading celebrity whose reputation they are trying to protect.  They just don’t find his gaffes newsworthy.  It might upset the image of the wise senior statesman.

Yet, the more they ignore his miscues, the more evidence we accumulate of their bias.  They head to Wasilla to root around for dirt on Palin, yet when “dirt” on Biden emerges by the mere fact of him opening his mouth in front of a camera, they don’t even bother to check the tape.

Just by reviewing such tapes, they’d have an endless stream of stories.  And they wouldn’t need pay for airfare to the Last Frontier or weather the inconvenience of a long journey clear across the continent.

UPDATE:  Well Yahoo! did pick the story up (from Politico), but note how they frame it:  Rove: Biden a ‘blowhard’ and ‘liar’.  They make it as much about who’s calling the Vice President a liar as they do about the Democrat’s latest misrepresentation.  Given how regularly Biden makes things up, you’d think such “news” outlets at Yahoo! would actually investigate this rather than report it as the contention of a conservative pundit/political strategist.