Gay Patriot Header Image

Or, maybe, it’s because of the hostility?

Glenn observes, “SARAH PALIN’S BOOK remains #1 on Amazon. Quite impressive, given the media hostility.”

Maybe hearing all the nasty things left-wingers are saying about this good women, a lot of her supporters (and just plain folks who can’t stand the nastiness) become more motivated to buy the book.

Who was it who said, there’s no such thing as bad publicity?   Trying to trash Mrs. Palin’s book, her critics (and haters) remind people it’s about to be published, so they look for it online.

Kevin Jennings: Not a Public Figure who Promotes a Favorable Image of Gay People

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:00 pm - October 1, 2009.
Filed under: Gay America

At the end of my post yesterday on Kevin Jennings the openly Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, I indicated that I would reconsider my call for his resignation should evidence emerge that he had previously acknowledged his “wrongdoing,” by which I meant his failure to report a teenager’s sexual relationship with an adult.  There is no evidence to suggest he ever even discouraged the boy from continuing his sexual relationship with the older man. 

Even in a piece at left-leaning (but even-handed) Queerty critical of how conservative media has treated Jennings, they are concerned by the Obama appointee’s silence:

 If Jennings “technically” had a legal obligation to report the incident, he should have. His CV is impressive, and sounds like it qualifies him for the “safe school czar” job under Obama. But it’s an insufficient answer to why, as a teacher to young people, he did not attempt to intervene to stop an underage boy from continuing an unhealthy sexual relationship — and keep that boy from becoming a victim.

While I do believe Jennings acted inappropriately in 1988 when the student approached him, I did want to cut the guy some slack for something he did early in his career.  Had he expressed some regret long before he became politically active, it would add a different dimension to his past conduct.  It would show this action as an aberration in an otherwise distinguished career.

But, now information has come forward suggesting that Jennings’s conduct was not an aberration, but part of a career suggesting a greater concern for the sexual liberation ideology of one segment of the gay movement than for the welfare of students.  That ideology has led to reluctance of many gay activists, apparently including Jennings, to never discourage any form of sexual expression, even that involving minors. (more…)

And you wonder why Americans hold media in contempt

In a short post over at Commentary Contentions, Peter Wehner addresses the media’s relatively blasé response to l’affaire Grayson, and points out how the Florida Democrat’s rhetoric is remarkably consistent with that of his fellow partisans:

For the record, and for those keeping count, Democrats have now accused critics of ObamaCare of perpetrating “lies” (President Obama), of being “evil-mongers” (Harry Reid), of using “un-American” tactics (Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer), of being members of “the mob” (DNC video), and have likened them to the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh (Brian Baird). But of course it is the “fringe right” that is responsible for incivility in American politics today. Just ask Tom Friedman and the rest of the MSM. They react with fury when Republicans and conservatives cross certain lines yet react with relative indifference when Democrats and liberals do the same. Republican incivility borders on a criminal offense; Democratic incivility falls under the category “Boys will be boys.”

And our critics want us to apologize for the nasty rhetoric emanating from the right-wing fringe.  I wonder if they’ll apologize from the name-calling, vitriol and bile from their party’s congressional caucus.

Iranian people our best ally against their bellicose regime

While some have compared the rise of Islamofasctic Iran in the current decade to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, there is one major difference.  Within eighteen months of taking power, Hitler had succeeding in snuffing out all opposition (quite literally because it was the murderous “Night of the Long Knives” at the end of June and beginning of July, 1934 that marked his total consolidation of power).

While Hitler never allowed a free and fair general election after he had taken power (though some might call the March 1933 elections free), he likely would have survived any plebiscite held in Germany in all twelve years of his “Reich.”  Not so with the Iranian mullahs.   Were it not for fraud, they would have lost the elections this past June.  And with the subsequent protests, the tyrants feared something which barely concerned Hitler after he had dispatched Ernst Röhm on July 2, 1934, the undermining of his regime from within:

The fraudulent presidential election in June and the subsequent mass demonstrations produced the biggest regime crisis in years. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei must have been panicked at the prospect of losing control — and with reason.

Thus, Robert Kagan, who penned those words above, contends since the election, the regime’s “overriding goal since the election . . . has been to buy time and try to reestablish and consolidate control without any foreign interference in its internal affairs.”  He suggests then the President focus “on the regime’s instability,” ignoring “the nukes”, while pushing “crippling” sanctions which “could help the Iranian opposition topple these still-vulnerable rulers”:

The government’s behavior during and after the election has opened an irreparable breach between the regime and large elements of Iranian society, and even within the clerical ranks. The government may succeed in clamping down on the opposition and driving it underground. But the notion that the Iranian opposition will suddenly rally around Ahmadinejad and Khamenei if the West imposes sanctions is absurd.

With protests continuing more than three months after the fraudulent elections, it’s clear that the regime’s repressive measures have failed to dampen the spirit of the people.  Yet, the Obama Administration has acted as if their movement for change were a distraction from its foreign policy goals.   (more…)

Americans see health insurance as individual responsibility

Jennifer Rubin blogs about a fascinating poll at Gallup, showing that Americans overwhelmingly believe individuals “rather than the government — have the primary responsibility for ensuring that they have health insurance.”  Rubin breaks down the numbers for us:

By a huge 62 to 35 percent margin, Democrats say it’s the government’s. Republicans believe the opposite—by an 89 to 10 percent margin, they say it is up to individuals. What’s remarkable is that independents are far closer to Republicans: by 64 to 34 percent, they maintain that the responsibility lies with individuals. By a 61 to 37 percent margin, Americans overall also say it is the individual’s responsibility, not the government’s.

Another Gallup question yielded a seemingly contradictory result, “54% of Americans” believe “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage”.  While that number is the lowest in “Gallup trends,” it still is a majority.

I note the absence of the word, “insurance” in that second question.  Perhaps, it’s that Americans want to make sure that there is a social safety net, that we do care for the less fortunate.  It is striking that the number has significantly declined (by 10 full points) since Obama’s election.  Maybe now that the national debate has turned to health care, people realize that the cost of that coverage is increased government regulation.  As a result, they are less certain it is the government’s responsibility.

Perhaps the solution is something that I don’t see much discussed in the current debate, health insurance vouchers.  The problem here is how to pay for them with a government already severely in debt.

Still, the first poll shows why, despite poll numbers showing decreasing support for Obamacare, the Democrats are still pushing a statist approach–it’s what their constituents demand.

The disturbing and dangerous ignorance of Democratic hate speech

We’ve got a Democratic Congressman saying on the floor of the United States House of Representatives (of all places) that Republicans want sick people to die and a prominent New York Times columnist lamenting the hateful tactics of a few extreme right-wingers while talking heads on CNN nod their heads in solemn agreement.

This is the Orwellian universe in which we find ourselves when left-wing bloggers and their echo chamber in the mainstream media decry in high dudgeon the extremists of the far right as if they represent the conservative opposition to President Obama and the Democrats’ policies.  I wonder if Mr. Friedman ever assumed such a tone — or used such language — to decry the hateful rhetoric coming from the left side of the political aisle during the better part of the George W. Bush era.  (If he did, I would take his column a lot more seriously today.)

Rep. Alan Grayson claims he has looked at the GOP health care plans and found it has three planks, (1) Don’t Get Sick, (2) and if you do get sick, (3) Die quickly.  Yeah, he actually said, “the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”  Here’s the video if you don’t believe me.

I wonder if the leader of his party in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has concerns about the language Mr. Grayson used, you know, suggesting his partisan opponents want people to die.   And I wonder if he’s read any of the 30 or so Republican bills introduced in the House alone.  While Rep. John Larson (D-CT), “chairman of the House Democratic Caucus is calling on” Grayson to apologize, the soon-to-be former Congressman refused to do so, offering to “apologize to the dead“.

I’m sure Mr. Friedman’s next column will focus on Grayson’s disturbing and dangerous rhetoric.