The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a staggering $1.8 trillion today.

I just RSVPed to dine with the pundit I call Athena (Peggy Noonan) when she’ll be at the Reagan Library on May 21.  Click here to learn more about the event.  Maybe we can get a group of readers together to meet this great lady and pay tribute to her one-time boss.

Drop me a note if you’ll be joining us.

Not in the mood for large crowds this weekend, I was pretty much a homebody, reading a lot and watching the latest movies to arrive from Netflix.  All three I had seen before, one holding up better than the other two, perhaps, in part, because it was shorter, but largely because it provided a window into how much things have improved for gay people in American society.

I first saw the original Planet of the Apes; did not engage me as much as it did when I regularly caught it on TV as a child.  Spartacus, the film I just saw, seemed to require a bigger screen for the second viewing.  While many scenes were really quite stirring, the story seemed less compelling given that I had recently a book detailing the actual story of that eponymous slave’s fight for freedom as best as military historian Barry Strauss could reconstruct it.

Like Mel Gibson with Braveheart, Stanley Kubrick turned a historical hero into a martyr for liberty.

But, the movie which kept me thinking — and not just about its subject matter — was Alfred Hitchcock‘s 1948 classic Rope.

Here, the protagonists are a gay couple (though not called as much), one, a pretentious, self-important snob (John Dall‘s Brandon) and the other, a neurotic drama queen (Farley Granger‘s Phillip).  They decide to murder a friend because they consider themselves intellectually superior.  Yet, once they’ve done the deed, Brandon becomes vainglorious while Phillip begins to feel remorse.  Yet, his conscience doesn’t make him reflective so much as overwrought.  Neither is portrayed sympathetically.  Nor should they be, considering what they’ve done.

Sixty years ago, that was how Hollywood portrayed homosexuals.  To be sure, there are gay people like Brandon, arrogant, full of themselves, thinking they are better than their fellows.  And we do have our share of drama queens–of many sorts.  But, while we are far more than those caricatures, such images were all we saw on the silver screen.

Now, sixty years later, we see images gay people portrayed as more than just cocksure killers.  We see them as the loyal friend to the protagonist, the supportive brother of a man trying to become a better father and the lover devoted by his partner’s passing.

We’re no longer relegated to the role of the degenerate reprobate. (more…)

Back in the 1990s, when gay bashing was de rigeur among certain segments of the right, a good number of Americans not favorably disposed to people like us became more sympathetic.  We Americans don’t have much stomach for scapegoating, at least not in the past forty years.

I have seen Republican candidates lose support from Republican voters in Northern Virginia when they made an issue of a candidate’s sexuality or referenced “homosexuals” overmuch in their campaigns.

By the same token, I’m beginning to see people even here in Hollywood become increasingly sympathetic to Carrie Prejean, not because they like her bleach-blonde hair or her views on gay marriage, but because they’ve  had enough with the media making mockery of her and her convictions.  Just like those Northern Virginia Republicans becoming annoyed at their fellow partisans fault the gays, they’d just rather people leave her alone.

And now, I wonder if the Administration’s attempt to destroy Rush Limbaugh will backfire and increase his standing not just with his conservative audience, but also with Americans not favorable disposed to his viewpoint  . . . or his persona.  At the White House Correspondent dinner on Saturday, Wanda Sykes laid only kid gloves on the President, while reserving her rancor for Republicans and their allies in the media, particularly Limbaugh.

She compared the talk show host, not present at the dinner, to Osama bin Laden:  ”Because I think maybe he was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on Oxycontin that he missed his flight.”  Even she realized she went overboard.  Still, she later expressed the hope that his kidneys might fail.

Even self-professed liberal Democrat Nikki Finke thought “her overall performance was inappropriate for the room.”  (H/t:  Glenn.)

Like Perez Hilton insulting Carrie Prejean, Wanda Sykes, normally quite funny, assumed (quite correctly) that she could get away with replacing gentle jabs with nasty jugular thrusts.  Despite her abuse, Rush Limbaugh will do just fine.  I’m sure his opening monologue today will be one to remember.

(more…)

Because the elected legislature of Maine passed and the elected Governor signed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages in the Pine Tree Street, I unequivocally oppose putting a “Citizens’ Veto” on the state’s ballot to overturn this new law.   If I lived in that scenic state, I would not sign the petition and would urge my fellow citizens to do the same.

I would tell those pushing such an initiative that they already have recourse at the ballot box.  They can vote against legislators who supported the legislation.

That said, the Maine Constitution does allow for such vetoes.  As it appears concerned Mainers are pursuing this path, their fellow citizens should show them the same respect they would show anyone pursuing our constitutionally guaranteed right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Some, however, don’t want to extend them that respect.  Reminding us of the behavior of gay marriage advocates who targeted those who financially supported California’s Proposition 8, our reader AndreasLights offers a warning which sounds more like a threat:

. . .  according to the Secretary of State in Maine, the names and home addresses of each person signing the veto petitions will be available for publication under the Freedom of Information Act.

Potential signers of the veto petition should be aware that this is not an anonymous process. Contributors to Proposition 8 in California were horrified to learn that their names and home addresses were made public.

In fairness, Maine voters should be aware of this in deciding whether or not to stand up publicly against marriage equality (sic) and must be willing to accept any ramifications as a result of their act of petition.

In a republic, people who petition the government for a redress of grievances should not expect “ramifications” similar to those experienced by financial backers of the “Yes on 8″ campaign.  Such ramifications define how totalitarian and authoritarian regimes respond to opponents.

In nations ruled by such regimes, intimidation replaces debate as a means to resolve political differences.  Here, we should respond to such differences in a civil manner.

To be true to the American spirits, gay marriage supporters who wish to ensure that this “Citizens’ Veto” is itself vetoed should themselves be prepared to rationally make the case for gay marriage and to respectfully take issue with those who favor such a constitutionally-sanctioned veto.   (more…)

Thanks to Glenn, I just discovered another gay blogger who holds views on Carrie Prejean nearly identical to my own.  It seems that we gay folks who favor civil discourse on gay marriage are a minority among outspoken gays.  Most of our peers alas remain silent as vocal gay activists and celebrities slur gay marriage opponents instead of rationally responding to their opposition.

Australia’s Garth Godsman looks at how various gay people and their allies in the left-wing media have responded to Miss Prejean’s simple answer that “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman” and asks:

What happened to being able to firstly argue a case intelligently and rationally and then, secondly, be prepared to agree to disagree while respecting another person’s honestly held opinion?

He’s much less sparing in his criticism than I might be (closer in style to my co-blogger  :-)  ).  He too sees the hypocrisy of the left in their hysterical reaction to Miss Prejean while excusing her fellow gay marriage opponent who sits in the White House:

But, let’s face it, Prejean is a much smaller and easier target for the hatred of Hilton and others.

The organisers of the Miss California pageant fell over themselves to piously declare that “religious beliefs have no place in politics in the Miss California family.”

Does anyone imagine they’d have said the same if she’s espoused support for gay marriage because of her religious beliefs?

But as has been observed repeatedly about the left, tolerance for them is very much a one-way street.

Why haven’t more gay people join Garth, Japhy Grant and myself in standing up to those who would attack Miss Prejean personally instead of take issue with her rationally?   Instead the publicity she generated by stating her opinion simply and civilly to explain why states should recognize same-sex civil marriages, they’re using it to make themselves look mean.  And petty.  

They’d rather insult their adversaries than make their case.

But, I’ve said this before.  I look forward to the day when I no longer have to repeat this point.  But, that would mean that all too many on the left would have to change their very manner of relating to their ideological and philosophical adversaries.

A fool’s hope perhaps, but a hope nonetheless.

Today is the first Mother’s Day when both my sisters as well as all three of my sisters-in-law are Moms. And it’s weird when I think about each of them as mothers, not because they’re not suited to the role. Quite the contrary; they’re all quite good at it.

What makes it kind of weird is watching my nieces and nephews relate to them, as if these women I knew as girls and (brothers’) girlfriends have never been anything but mothers. I mean, it didn’t occur to me until I was well into my adolescence, maybe even when I was in college, that there was a time when my Mom was new at mothering, yet she was a pretty darn good mother.

To us, she was an expert Mom. That’s how we knew her. And that’s how my nieces and nephews know their Mommies. 

Back in February when I visited my new nephew and watched my baby sister take care of that child, her son, she seemed as natural at it as did our Mom. Maybe it was helping our sister with our nieces and nephews and watching our sisters-in-law take care of their kids. Or maybe it was something else.

Whatever it is, my baby sister who couldn’t stop crying the first time I held her, seems to have a way of quieting her son’s tears, whether it’s by feeding him or just comforting him with soothing words and a maternal touch.

Seeing my nephew in my sister’s arms, I recalled our mother holding her when she was that small. With the birth of her first child many years ago, our mother, like her youngest child this past year, became a mother for the first time. She did a pretty good job; that little baby grew up to be a successful neurosurgeon, happily married now to the same woman for over twenty years, with four amazing sons, including a very talented young blogger.

Given the nurturing his Mommy is providing him, my youngest nephew is certain to do as well as, if not better than, his oldest maternal uncle.

I’m spending a week in Key West on vacation. The first person who can find me in person, you get $50.00.

To see what I look like, checkout my Twitter posts today. GayPatriot at Twitter.

$100 bucks to the first person who finds me and tells me that our old dog’s name was ROMPER.

Have fun!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Commenting to the first post on my visit to the Reagan Ranch, Mark Noonan recalled his own visit to that beautiful but simple place:

When I visited a couple years back I was impressed by the ordinariness of the place. Clearly just where Ron and Nancy Reagan liked to go and be themselves. The tool bench in the garage could belong to any middle class American do-it-yourselfer…

It struck me as well.   Our tour guide told us that one of the Gipper’s favorite gifts was a chainsaw, something he used to clear brush, particularly for riding trails.   (Apparently, his son Michael, now a talk radio host, used to give his Dad one every year on his birthday.)

To know that he worked with his hands on his down time suggests a man connected to the real world and not lost in a haze of ideas and abstractions.  It truly humanizes him.  Apparently, W, as well, when he was at Crawford, worked on his ranch.

So, let share with you a few pictures from the Gipper’s garage, images similar to those seen in the Walter Kowalski’s (Clint Eastwood) garage in Gran Torino or in the work sheds or garages of countless men across this great nation — and even abroad:

While lumbering through traffic in West Hollywood and Westwood earlier today, I pondered my (then-)most recent post, wondering if Democrats would suffer any political fallout from their failure to push repeal of the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy banning gays from serving openly in the military.  And I realized that they wouldn’t.  They have nothing to gain politically by repealing this silly policy.

Republicans also have little to gain politically by repealing it.  Can you imagine gay activists and organizations rushing to support Republicans because they acted in the interest of our nation’s military by overturning a policy which allows for the discharge of competent service members?  C’mon, these are people who refused to praise then-Vice President Cheney for providing an example of how all parents should treat their gay children.  Only one gay leader (that I am aware of) commended him for including his daughter’s female partner in public events.

Just as many gay organizations won’t support a gay-friendly Republican, almost none of them would abandon a prominent Democrat who doesn’t help them on a key issue, even one who backs a law they strongly oppose.  The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.

They didn’t abandon President Clinton then.  And they won’t abandon President Obama now.  For the Democrats, there’s no political cost for inaction on DADT.

When gay groups march in lockstep with the Democratic Party, they limit their leverage over its leaders.  Democrats know that the gay groups activists aren’t going anywhere.  They’re far too politicized.  Unlike libertarian-leaning GOP activists, they won’t sit home on Election Day if they feel betrayed by their party.

It’s the gay groups’ slavish advocacy for the DNC which delays a move on DADT.  Just as with gay marriage, national Democrats have nothing to gain, but a lot to lose if they move to repeal DADT or recognize same-sex mariage

(more…)

As I was driving west across Kansas during one of my cross country drives, I watched with amazement as a man driving a rusting maroon (maybe it once had been red) sports car zipped back and forth from lane to lane, passing this car and that, but never cutting anyone off. I’d rarely seen someone drive so skillfully.

Such a guy deserves a better car, I thought.

This man came to mind today as I was blocked behind a Bentley lumbering through West Hollywood. Why would someone spend so much money on a car, I wondered, and drive so slowly. This wasn’t the first time I had seen someone with such a nice car drive with such little respect for those on the road and with such apparently little enjoyment of the “art.”

I’ve been snuck behind slow-moving Mercedes in Laurel Canyon and seen sports cars slowing traffic on Santa Monica Boulevard.

Here in LA where cars are status symbols, as soon as you earn enough to afford a BMW or Mercedes or Lexus, you buy one even if it doesn’t serve your needs any better than a VW or Honda.  I knew a single mother who lived in a studio apartment with her son, but drove a BMV. I’ve had other friends and acquaintances live in similarly humble surroundings, but drive luxury cars.

(more…)

“Media Still Covering Up The $400 Billion Fannie And Freddie Scandal.” Given the mean-spirited Massachusetts Democrat’s cozy relationship with the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), the less we know about their problems, the more he can get away with shifting the blame to Republican and refusing to take responsibility for his effort to block reform.

You see, the unhappy Mr. Frank, did much to reassure us over the year that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and didn’t did need further regulation as Republicans proposed.

While it’s clear that there’s a national security cost to the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) ban on gays serving opening it the military, I’m not sure I agree with the folks at the Palm Center (which has done a lot of good work exposing the folly of this policy) that there is also a political cost to repealing this Clinton-era law.

Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior researcher at the Palm Center and author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, believes President Obama

 . . . apparently took the wrong lessons from the 1990s fallout with gays in the military, believing that Bill Clinton’s error was moving too quickly.  In fact, it was not Clinton’s speed, but his delay, and the appearance of a weakened resolve, that allowed his opponents to rally and defeat him. . . . With the firing of First Lieutenant Dan Choi, the costs of the gay ban delay are beginning to register with the public and the media.

While I agree that the firing of Lt. Choi hurts the military, I don’t yet see a public fallout over his dismissal.  Maybe if more people were aware of his skills and his record, they might see the folly of DADT.  To that end, I comment MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for inviting  Choi on her program last night.  It would be nice if other media would similarly feature this honorable American.

The more people see this man and hear his story, the more they will question the wisdom of DADT and the easier they will make it for their representatives and the President to act to repeal the ban.

That said, I disagree with Frank’s contention that there is a political cost to delaying repeal of DADT.  I just don’t think this issue registers with all that many voters.  And that is unfortunate.  Those who support repeal and lean left won’t desert the Democrats for not acting.

The main issue is to give politicians cover for acting. And to do that, we need show why the ban is not in the national security interest of the United States.   (more…)

Over at the Rhetorican, Jehuda wonders “you can be a ‘fierce advocate’ of gay rights and still oppose gay marriage.”  It’s called being a Democrat.  Having that (D) after your name often renders you immune from criticism from gay activists for stands which would warrant attack for those with the mark of Cain an (R) after their names.

You see the President calls himself a “fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans” and he’s a Democrat so gay activists and bloggers swoon at the mere mention of his name.  And yet he holds the exact stand on gay marriage which has made Carrie Prejean the latest target of the politically correct.  She just didn’t learn that what she needs do to avoid such calumny is declare herself a Democrat, committed to social justice and full equality (whatever that latter expression means).

Now, with the President favoring the traditional definition of marriage and doing nothing to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, we’re beginning to hear some grumbling from gay activists.  He will try to quite this discontent by signing the Hate Crimes bill into law, possibly placating the leaders of various national gay organizations by inviting them to the White House for a signing ceremony.

My sense is they’ll take the bait, given the Go Along/Get Along approach to Democratic politicians.  Obama may be under pressure to engage on gay issues, but if he doesn’t, well, that won’t dampen the enthusiasm of all but the most principled gay activists for this Democrat.  You see, he’s a Democrat.  And for all too many gay leaders, activists and bloggers (with notable and honorable exceptions, including some on the far far left), that’s all that matters.

RELATED:  How about some change on these two fronts, President Obama?

When it comes to Carrie Prejean, sometimes I feel like Al Pacino in the Godfather Part III, “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.” I had thought I was done blogging about her, but then, someone on the left will just try to extend this woman’s fifteen minutes of fame. And I’ll feel I’ve just got to chime in, even if to repeat a point I’ve already made.

They’re just not taking my advice to ignore her.

Now, we’ve got the some web-site snooping around in her parents’ divorce record to uncover the origins of her homophobia. While I’ve read more than I care to about this controversy, I have yet to find one statement she has made showing a fear (“phobia”) of homosexuals or showing any animosity whatsoever against gay people. All I’ve heard her is express the viewpoint of a majority of Americans, including the Democratic President of the United States about the meaning of marriage.

Sorry, fellas, that’s just not homophobia.

So, now this website’s staff has rooted around in her parents’ divorce records, learned of some strange accusations lobbed between the parties to ask whether “Carrie believe gays broke up her parents’ marriage.” They’ve truly become obsessed with this woman.

Yet, the more they investigate her, the more they malign her, the stronger will grow her support among social conservatives. She will become their poster child to showcase the left’s intolerance of people favoring the traditional definition of marriage.

Should Miss Prejean lose her title over her “nudie” pictures (as appears possible), she won’t lose her fame. Few will know the name of her replacement as Miss California. Indeed, few will know the name of the woman who bested her for the Miss USA crown. But, they will know who Carrie Prejean is.

The uproar of her adversaries has secured her fame.

(more…)

After Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran who is fluent in Arabic has announced on national TV that he is gay, he is about to be dismissed from the military.

Over at the Huffington Post, Aaron Belkin,Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Palm Center at University of California at Santa Barbara, contends that President Obama can block this good man from losing his job in our armed forces:

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members’ sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.

He’s right.  The more we see gay people serving openly, the easier it’ll be to repeal the ban.  And from what I read about Choi, he does seem to be the kind of guy we would want to have in the military.  

If this study is accurate, then let’s hope White House Counsel Greg Craig reads it, so he can use it to help draft the rationale for an executive order suspending implementation of DADT.  Someone, I think, people will challenge their interpretation of statute and may sue to ensure Choi’s dismissal (and so provide another piece of evidence of the folly of DADT).

Let’s just persuade Congress to repeal this silly law so our military doesn’t waste resources removing good men and women from our armed forces.

(H/t:  Glenn.)

If I had become a film buff in my youth instead of my adulthood and pursued an educational and career trajectory similar to that of my film-loving peers in this town, I might have learned to become more critical about the films I see and far more cynical about the industry than I actually am.

Long before I became a film buff, if I saw a movie with a friend and he criticized the plot, theme or dialogue of a flick I found entertaining, I’d say something like, “It’s just a movie.  It was entertaining; that’s what matters.”  I reserved my critical judgment for literature.  So, now, while my cinematic critical capacity has increased, I still retain another important capacity, to enjoy a well-made movie with a weak (or contrived) story, provided it keeps me entertained.

Of course, if I see such a movie a second time, particularly on a small screen, I may start groaning as soon as the opening credits stop rolling.  Such, I dare say, would I react to the Star Trek movie I just saw, particularly if I saw it again on the small screen.

A friend got me in to see a pre-release screening at Paramount.   I thoroughly enjoyed the movie even if the story as as whole just plain didn’t make sense and some of it seemed to contradict what I knew about the original TV series, of which I have seen many an episode, know the names of the crew, but have little knowledge of the trivia and even less of the various characters’ backgrounds. 

All that said, this is a big screen movie.  And see it on the biggest screen possible.  It’s a perfect potato chip movie, as LA Times film critic Kenneth Turan might put it.  It’s tasty when it goes down, but lacks nutritional value.  It’s what I might call a “movie movie,” pure entertainment. It’s a lot of fun.

As my friend put it when we left, there “wasn’t a boring moment” in the entire flick.  It had near perfect pacing.  So, head on down to your local multiplex, buy a bucket of popcorn, suspend disbelief and enjoy.

And if you’re a Star Trek fan, e-mail me after you’ve seen it and let me know if it was true to the various characters’ background as portrayed in the TV series.  And let me know if you agree with my assessment of the casting of  Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk.  He seems to have acting skills similar to those of William Shatner, the man who pioneered the role.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Earlier this week, Glenn blogged about how “some people seem to want to talk politics instead of work, or to turn workplaces into political cliques“.  More often than not, these “some people” are left-wingers, haranguing their co-workers and harassing anyone who dares offer a dissenting view to the workplace’s liberal orthodoxy.

My friend Charles Winecoff, whom when I first met him just a few months ago, seemed pretty tight-lipped about his experiences in a hostile Hollywood workplace, has since opened up, is now sharing those experiences with a wider audience on the increasingly indispensable BigHollywood blog:

And one thing I’ve noticed in the stifling PC smog of LA: the Obama generation doesn’t think twice about openly ridiculing folks who don’t follow in lockstep.  They’re still acting like there’s a Texan in the White House.  They can’t let go.  They don’t want to.  Because, like the believers of a certain 7th century ideology that’s made a big comeback in recent years, their objective is not, despite claims to the contrary, to coexist.  To quote Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, it’s “to rule.”

Instead of gossiping at the water cooler, today’s privileged jugend hover in packs around TV monitors to mock the usual suspects - poor old Sarah Palin, the Tea Partiers, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Miss California (chivalry is deader than dead).  Together, they telegraph their warning to anyone who might disagree:don’t. 

Why, I wonder (and ask yet again) why do these people make it incumbent upon themselves to pipe up whenever they can to express their hostility of everything right-of-center?

They readily describe Republicans as evil without quite understanding what Republicans believe or what “evil” is, as if everything that do not understand must necessarily be evil.  They’ll turn the slightest exchange into a political harangue, eager to attack or otherwise malign those with a different point than they.

Charles offers a more witty and descriptive observation of this phenomenon than I ever could, so just read the whole thing, but his piece which I have since read through twice, having reviewed some portion multiple times, makes me wonder about the mind-set of the narrow-minded.  And not just on the left.

What makes someone so obsessed about the objects he reviles, that he would bring it up at the slightest provocation? (more…)

I always believe in adjusting my tip based on the quality of service.  A friendly and efficient waiter will earn more than 20% while am impolite and/or inefficient server will get a flat 15% . . . if that.

Well, today I decided to treat myself to a nice lunch at Monsier Marcel, a nice French place in Farmers Market.  I’m quite partial to their three cheese and fruit plate.

After all the stress I had yesterday with my computer crashing and the minor aggravations associated with the server switch, that plate seemed just the ticket.  Well, they no longer included my favorite cheese, Humboldt Fog, on their menu, but still stocked it in the adjoining Gourmet Store.  The waitress, recalling my last visit, shared my frustration that I could not order it.

I chose my cheeses, regretting I could not get my favorite.  Well, before she brought out the plate, she promised me a “surprise.”   When she did serve it, there was a big chunk of Humboldt Fog.  We chatted about cheeses.  That she was friendly and went the extra mile made a huge difference to me.  Any frustration from my computer and our server woes was easily erased.

And she got a 33% tip . . . in cash.  (I had paid the regular tab with my credit card.)

A reminder to those who who work in the service industry that some of us appreciate you efforts.  And a reminder to those of us who eat out from time to time.  Maybe if we started paying a little more to reward good service, we might see more of it.

Just a thought.  And a hope.

Bravo.

GOProud Unequivocally Opposes “Outing”
Statement of Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director

(Washington, D.C.) – In light of the latest debate regarding “outing,” sparked by the release of the film “Outrage,” Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, issued the following statement:

“GOProud is the only national gay organization that is unequivocally opposed to outing. We stand for the proposition that an individual’s personal life isn’t relevant to policy – period.

“We want the government – as well as liberal activists – out of people’s bedrooms. The sex police is just as distasteful coming from the far left as it is coming from the far right.”

This blog was originally formed to combat the intrusion of liberal activists in the personal lives of gay Republican Congressional staffers. Log Cabin (Republicans) has a history of selectively opposing “outing”. It is time that we take a stand on personal liberty and oppose these gay fascist tactics. And we can’t be afraid to call it out as such. These are bully, brownshirt tactics meant to suppress free speech and individual decision-making.

Here is a very good CNN segment about the new film.

Notice how Charles Moran of Log Cabin is steamrolled by both Don Lemon and Michelangelo Signorile. I would note that I once appeared on Signorile’s SIRIUS radio program. He was one of the most angry, hateful individuals I have ever encountered. So I’m not surprised he plays bully in this CNN segment. He is a bully 24/7. Very typical of the rest of the self-righteous Gay Left activists.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)