Gay Patriot Header Image

Spanish Gay Group Strives for International Leftist Solidarity

While my friend Jamie Kirchick may have won the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Journalist of the Year Award in 2007, he has not yet gained the fame of his contemporary Ezra Klein.  (Klein was born in 1984, Kirchick in ’83)  Perhaps it has something to do with sexuality (Ezra is straight, Jamie is gay) or maybe it’s politics (Ezra is a leftie loyalist, Jamie leans right, but, unlike his contemporary, does not toe the party line).

And this notion of the younger man’s celebrity came to mind this morning as I was continuing the process of cleaning out my e-mail boxes.  I read a Wall Street Journal piece Jamie had sent his friends earlier this month on the decision of a Spanish gay organization to exclude a float from the municipality of Tel Aviv in Madrid’s gay pride parade:

By joining the international campaign to delegitimize Israel, Spain’s leading gay organization undermined its purported mission: the furtherance of gay rights. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that even has gay pride parades, never mind respects the dignity of homosexuals. Saudi Arabia beheads gays. Syria arrests them in sting operations. Iran hangs them from cranes in public squares. (Speaking at Columbia University in 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that there are no homosexuals in his country, an absurd assertion nonetheless portentous for its murderous aspirations). As for Gaza, one of Hamas’s leaders has referred to gays as “a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick.”

Like so many other democratic values, when it comes to gay rights Israel is an oasis in a sea of state-sanctioned repression, a “little patch,” to use Mr. Poveda’s words, that he and his comrades ought to defend. Gays serve openly in the Israeli military. While gay marriages can’t be legally performed in Israel, the government grants gay couples many of the same rights as heterosexual ones and recognizes same-sex unions performed abroad. Many Palestinian gays seek asylum in Israel. (more…)

“Log Cabin Republicans vs. USA: One [Headline] Says It All”?

Save for the bracketed word in the title, every word in quotation marks in the title above comes from an e-mail Log Cabin sent out to its list earlier this week.  Did they even consider how that sounded?

In the e-mail primarily a fundraising appeal, the organization discusses the court challenge it brought against Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), “Log Cabin Republicans is proud to have brought this case, and is committed to fighting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on all three fronts – on Capitol Hill, within the executive branch, and through the courts.”

While I share their goals of overturning DADT, I don’t share their commitment to fighting this in all three branches of the federal government.  I’m concerned about the precedent this would set of having a federal court interfere in military policy, something the Constitution clearly delegates to the executive.  Recall that it was President Harry S Truman who desegregated the military.   And when President Bill Clinton punted on keeping his campaign promise in 1993, he agreed to legislative intervention.  Until he signed that bill, the president could have, with the stroke of a pen, repealed the ban.

Instead of bringing this suit in a court of law, Log Cabin should deploy its resources to lobbying wavering Republican Senators and to working with Service Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN) to push the Senate to move forward on repeal.

Will Recovery Pick Up Steam . . . or Peter Out?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:18 pm - July 31, 2010.
Filed under: Economy

Over at the Wall Street Journal, the editors finds Americans “underwhelmed by the economic recovery“.  Growth, at 2.4%, is just not where it normally is this soon after a recession:

A robust recovery would be building momentum, especially with historically easy monetary policy continuing. Instead this one is plodding along at a rate that won’t create enough new jobs to sharply reduce the 9.5% unemployment rate. The Obama Administration, in its Keynesian confusion, is simultaneously saying the economy is so weak it needs more spending “stimulus” but also strong enough to absorb a huge tax increase.

The message of 2.4% second quarter growth is closer to the opposite: The epic government stimulus has failed to produce the robust expansion the White House promised, and the prospect of higher taxes and more regulation is inhibiting the private animal spirits needed for growth to accelerate. Americans may have to wait for November for Washington to get that message.

If anything, the “stimulus” has slowed down — or delayed — the traditional pattern of recovery.  Instead of looking to policies that failed as they seek to address this problem, White House officials should consider just why private employers aren’t hiring new employees and expanding their operations.

UPDATE:  Via Jennifer Rubin:

The Obama economy isn’t getting better anytime soon: (more…)

Big Brother From The Ground Up?


I’ve been thinking a lot about the prospects of the much feared age of “Big Brother” — where the Government knows all and uses that information to suppress.  And as dedicated readers know, my view of America and our past and future was radically altered after I read the book “The Fourth Turning.”

Clearly there are a lot of elements to Orwell’s vision that have arrived — too many to list, but originating with the Bush-era Department of Homeland Security.  But recently, I’ve thought about a new phenomenon that turns “1984” upside down. 

The Internet, blogosphere, New Media, and everyone owning a video camera device has made the “Army of Davids” also an check and balance on the “Big Brother” State.  In fact, one could argue that We, The People are the true Big Brother (in a good way) by constantly monitoring and calling out the never ending moves toward tyranny by the Federal Government.  Exhibit A: Congressman Bob Etheridge (Ruling Class – NC).  Exhibit B: Congressman Brad Sherman (Ruling Class – CA) Exhibit C: Congressman Ciro Rodriguez (Ruling Class – TX)  Exhibit D:  Any Town Hall meeting in 2009 & 2010 (Ruling Class vs. We, The People)

I’ve also been pondering (under the influence of “The Fourth Turning”) whether or not the United States is in a “low grade civil war” (here and here) and whether it will become a “hot” one.  Yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily has an editorial that combines all of these ideas and lays it on the line.

Will Washington’s Failures Lead to Second American Revolution? – (h/t – Instapundit)

The Internet is a large-scale version of the “Committees of Correspondence” that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington’s failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, “Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?”

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There’s no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.  Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.  He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.


A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

It is interesting to see a number of people now thinking the way I have been since August 2009.  I certainly am not advocating armed revolution.  But I also know that we have the right to it under the Declaration of Indepedence (Read up on it, please. It is important.). 

Step one is holding Members accountable with the power of technology (someone should write a book about that!)  The second step is voting.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Will CBS Add any Gay Conservative Characters?

In response to pressure from GLAAD, CBS plans on adding some gay characters to its “scripted programs“.  Now, I have no objection to this inclusion, indeed, think it’s a good thing, but wonder if the gay characters they introduce will adhere to the stereotypes of gay people as defined by the various gay organizations (you know, activists militating for “equality”) — or will they be as complex and diverse as are real-world gay men a lesbians?

I mean, if they add at least three characters, then one of them (to reflect gay demographics) should be a Republican.  Should they introduce such a character, will he be a caricature (as was the gay Republican in a recent movie) or will he be an interesting and independent thinker, regularly exposing the prejudices of his supposedly broad-minded peers?

And while we’re at it, I’m sure conservatives are also underrepresented on CBS shows.  I’m sure the Tifanny Network is moving ahead with all deliberate speed to right that wrong.

(H/t:  Reader Peter Hughes.)

Obamacare: Democrats’ “bridge too far”

Cleaning out my e-mail box, I discovered and elegant and insightful column that Michael Barone pennedd during the health care debate.  He reached a conclusion somewhat similar a notion I had wanted to blog on how the health-care debate was a lose-lose situation for the Democrats.  If it passed (as it did), Democrats would suffer at the ballot box for their failure to listen to the American people.  If they failed to press the unpopular legislation, they would depress their base.

And while the passage may have energized some rank-and-file liberal voters — as well as the various special interests who stand to gain from its passage, Barone contends the Democrats’

. . . mistake was making government-directed health care a priority in the first place. They assumed that economic distress would make Americans more amenable to big government programs. They felt history calling: Harry Truman called for national health insurance in 1945 and Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare in 1965; now it was time to go farther.

So powerful was their commitment to pushing this long-standing big-government dream that they ignored the popular mood.  At the time, Barone thought Pelosi’s Democrats would fail to pass the Senate bill, calling “the goal of health care legislation was a bridge too far.”

But, in building that bridge, Democrats overextended themselves and revealed themselves to prefer the dreams of liberal ideologues to the concerns of their constituents.

If global warming science is settled, why resort to ad hominem?

Sonicfrog wonders why global warmists respond to their critic not with argument but with ad hominem:

When you can’t defend you actions, attack your enemies. When you can’t defend your scientific practices, attack your enemies. And of course, the pathetic lazy main stream media is all too happy to follow along.

I mean, if they had the science on their side, wouldn’t it be easy to debunk their critics — and skeptics?  Guess than once the science is settled, you resort to attack.

Small Business Employees Don’t Like Their Health Care Plans?

Just caught this while cleaning out my in-box:

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.

Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.

The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document.

Two-thirds of small-employer plans will be declared null and void by Obamacare?  That’ll help small business.

Guess, that means than an overwhelmingly number of employees are dissatisfied with their health plans — or at least, the Obama Administration believes them to be so dissatisfied.

I mean, didn’t White House health care flak Linda Douglas debunk “the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors.”  So, therefore, employees of small business must have really disliked their plans.  Wonder what that number didn’t show up in polls.

Once again, Ma’am, Where Are the Jobs?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:54 pm - July 30, 2010.
Filed under: 2010 Elections,California politics,Economy

Today, California’s outgoing junior Senator Barbara Boxer shows just exactly why she has tried her hand at writing fiction.  She lives in a land of her own imagination.  The 28-year Washington veteran is touring the Bay Area, talking about job creation.  Only problem is that there haven’t been many  jobs created in California since her party gained control of all the levers of power in our nation’s capital last January.

In June, the last month for which statistics are available, California “continued to have the most metro areas with the highest unemployment, taking 10 of the top 12 slots of jobless rates over 15%“:

El Centro in Imperial County had an unemployment rate of 27.6% in June, the highest among the nation’s 372 metro areas. Yuma, Ariz., was second at 26.4%.

Other California communities on the worst rates list included Yuba City in northern California with 19.4% unemployment and Merced in the San Joaquin Valley at 18.1%.

Orange County’s 9.5% June unemployment was in the middle of the pack among the 32 largest metropolitan divisions. A year ago, local unemployment was at 9.4%.

The Washington, D.C. area with its government-related employment base, had the lowest jobless rate among big metros.The Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick metro division was lowest at 5.8%.

Guess spending so much time in the nation’s capitol has caused the Bay Area Democrat to forger the state she represents.  More than 2 million Californians are out of work, with an unemployment rate among the highest in the nation — at 12.3%.  By contrast, when Mrs. Boxer was first elected to the Senate (in the midst of a recession), unemployment in the state stood at 9.8%. (more…)

Hate Crimes, Gays & Guns

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:24 pm - July 30, 2010.
Filed under: Freedom,Gay America

Shortly, after posting my piece this morning (PST) where I noted that every time a gun-crime generates headline, we hear the usual suspects repeat their mantra about the need for gun control, I wondered why we hear a similar mantra every time some hateful nut assaults a gay person about the need for hate crimes legislation.

Yet, their support for hate crimes legislation comes not from any evidence that such laws prevent crime, but from their devotion to identity politics.  (Should I see convincing evidence that such laws actually reduce violent crime, then I might reconsider my opposition.)  At the same time, we have a whole raft of evidence showing that crime rates go down when states adopt concealed-carry laws.

So, I ask, why don’t we hear a clamor for concealed-carry laws every time some crazy kook assaults a gay person?  Shouldn’t laws that work — and protect gay people — be at the top of the agenda of the groups supposedly militating for our rights?

An illustration of why we need Andrew Breitbart

Michael Barone lays it out:

Our friends at the Washington Post gave front-page treatment this morning to SEC charges that Texas billionaires Sam Wyly and Charles Wyly gained $550 million in fraudulent stock trades. It also noted prominently that they are big contributors to Republican politicians.

Contrast with how the

Post handled the conviction and sentencing to 12 years in jail earlier this month of Democratic fundraiser Hassan Nemazee for defrauding banks of $292 million earlier this month? Answer: it ran as part of a three-item story labeled CRIMINAL JUSTICE on page A3 a five-paragraph Associated Press story headlined “Former Democratic Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, Kerry Gets 12 Years for Fraud.” . . . .

The Post did make clear Nemazee’s ties to leading Democratic politicians, if only briefly, at the top of its July 16 story. But it didn’t give nearly as great prominence to them as it did to the Wylys’ ties to leading Republican politicians in its July 30 story.

Front page coverage to charges against an (allegedly) crooked Republican fundraiser.  Burying coverage of a convicted Democratic fundraiser.  No, there’s no bias in the mainstream media, none at all.

UPDATE:  Glenn Reynolds quips, “Acting like a loyal party organ. Which organ is left to the reader’s imagination.

Leave Lindsay Lohan Alone (and Chelsea too)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:43 pm - July 30, 2010.
Filed under: Media Bias,Movies/Film & TV

It seems you can’t look up at a television monitor in Los Angeles and avoid images of and speculation about Lindsay Lohan’s recent incarceration.  The home pages of various ISPs (e.g., Yahoo! and AOL) lead with stories about the twentysomething pop star.  Can’t people leave well enough alone?

Yeah, I guess it’s news when a celebrity is driving under the influence (multiple times), but do we need saturation coverage?  So, report her arrest, then move on.

And then there’s Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.  Her father may be a successful politician who longs for the limelight and her mother the Secretary of State, ambitious for recognition, but their daughter is only a “celebrity” by dint of her famous parents.  She has, on the whole, conducted herself with class when put on the public stage.

Now, those celebrated parents may be throwing a big bash for her nuptials this weekend, but it’s her wedding not theirs.  Let her enjoy it without the constant intrusion of cameras or the excited coverage of reporters excited to be within earshot of her famous father.  This should be an occasion for her to celebrate with her friends and family and not for the media to speculate about who was or wasn’t invited and why.  Oh yeah, and I think the Clintons aren’t perfectly justified in having vendors sign confidentiality agreements.  This isn’t a matter of state.

And anyway, did Jenna Bush’s wedding generate this amount of coverage?  And her Dad was president at the time of her nuptials.

Do crazy, hate-filled thugs fear well-armed gays?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:00 pm - July 30, 2010.
Filed under: Freedom,Media Bias,Random Thoughts

Whenever some kook generates headlines by committing a crime with a firearm, the talking heads in the mainstream media respond by rote (and in unison), “Gun control, gun control, gun control.”  Tim Daniels addresses this in a post at the Daily Caller, but adds a twist, er, an anecdote that doesn’t fit the narrative:

It’s a song and dance that we on the right have grown to be accustomed with concerning second amendment rights and the press. Virulent anti-gun groups and mainstream press outlets essentially spout the same talking points. We expect this, we accept this.

But with the recent grizzly bear attack near Yellowstone National Park that killed one and left two injured, one may wonder if the typical progressive, anti-gun canard still holds water?

Read the whole thing.

Wonder if more stories like this would generate headlines if there were more in the media intent on serious conversation on guns.  And not just when humans could have protected themselves against wild animals, but also wild members of our own species.

You know, why is there never any speculation about how, when some kook attacks gay people, a concealed carry law might have caused that nut to think twice before he acted on his animus.  Why not the narrative:  Crazy hate-filled thugs fear well-armed gays.

CNN’s “teachable moment” in their coverage of Breitbart

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:51 am - July 30, 2010.
Filed under: Media Bias,New Media,Random Thoughts

There was a time, say about a quarter-century ago (and more), when CNN was the new media. Today (or was it yesterday), when I was pushing myself on the Stairmaster (or Elliptical Trainer), I looked up to see the “news” network running a piece on Shirley Sherrod, portraying her, as it were, as a martyr against the sloppy reporting of right-wing bloggers.

Now, I didn’t see the whole segment — it may not even have been a segment, may just have been a promo — so I write only to make an observation not to arrive at a conclusion. But, from what I’ve observed on CNN since this story broke is an attempt to jump on Andrew Breitbart (as a representative of the new conservative media) and apologize for traditional media.

And yet, in their rush to demonize Breitbart, the folks at CNN as well as their cohorts in the MSM, lose sight of the incredible complexity of this story.

Indeed, a story of this complexity leads to a difference of views between my co-blogger and myself.  From the very breaking of this story and throughout its “trajectory”, we have not seen eye to eye on this matter.  I do think he was right to apologize, but cut him more slack than he did.

I would rather he hadn’t taken back his apology (but I do appreciate the traffic that post generated 🙂 ), just wish he had walked it back a bit or at least qualified it instead of withdrawing it all together).  Still, on one key issue, he’s right.  This is a complex story.

And Andrew Breitbart, while clearly not guilty of malfeasance, did blunder in his initial release of the video; he should have (as per the Anchoress) said he would like to see the rest of the video before rendering a final judgment on Ms. Sherrod.

Now, while I agree that Breitbart had blundered in not so qualifying the initial posting. I believe those in the media who are attacking him are using the occasion not to address the error per se, but to try to bring him down because his work has threatened their enterprise — and the power they once enjoyed to set the national agenda. (more…)

Considering Obama’s Record on Gay Issues

Back when I met lefty lesbian blogress Pam Spaulding on my cross country journey, we talked about doing regular Point-Counterpoint blog posts where one of us would address a topic of the day and another would respond.

Well, even though the editors of the Hill had little knowledge of our conversations, they did ask each of us to weigh in on whether or not “gay-rights issues are being adequately addressed by the Obama administration and this Congress.” Neither Pam nor I had seen each other’s pieces before they were posted.

Here is the beginning of my post (written in haste last Friday):

Unlike most gay activists, when it comes to politics, I have a very small “gay agenda.”  I believe Congress needs to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) and allow the Administration time (say no more than six months) to find a means to implement repeal without compromising unit cohesion or military effectiveness.  And I believe the federal and state governments should recognize same-sex civil unions (or domestic partnerships or marriages or whatever they’re called) while granting same-sex partners of government employees the same benefits that different-sex spouses in traditional marriages currently receive.

Other than that, the government should leave us alone to live our lives as we please.

With this as background, let me address the question of the day:  is the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress adequately addressing gay rights issue?

And the answer is well, sort of.

You can read the rest, including Pam’s piece, here.

Why not cut salaries of federal employees to reduce deficit?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:50 am - July 30, 2010.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Blogging

I apologize for my sporadic blogging these past few days, but a lot has been passing through my mind lately, little related to politics.  When I realized last Friday (another slow blogging day) that my e-mail box for this blog contained over 500 e-mails, I knew it was about time to start going through it.  I cleared out over 200 that day — and found the process most draining.

Well, today (Thursday), I’m back at it and have reduced the number to under 200 (despite an never-ending stream of new missives) and keep chancing up e-mails I opened, then “kept as new” as they linked newsworthy articles.  I haven’t decided yet how to address all of them, but may do a series of posts where I link articles which I still find timely.

I just encountered one from last December that remains salient:  Government salaries soar in bad times:

This recession has been such a boom time for the tax-supported bureaucracy that “federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.” USA Today was especially struck by the fact that there was only one career federal worker making an annual salary of $170,000 or more at the U.S. Department of Transportation when the current recession began. Today, 18 months later, there are more than 1,600 career employees making that much at Transportation. We can only hope that none of those additional 1,600-plus high-paid workers was responsible for the $2 billion Cash for Clunkers debacle run by the Transportation Department.

If the president were serious about cutting the federal deficit and having our government living within its means (as he hinted he would do during the third debate), he’d cut federal salaries across the board as many private employers are doing.

His failure to do so indicates either an unwillingness to stand up to the public employee unions or a lack of seriousness about our nation’s fiscal problems.  Or both.

RELATED:  Recession chugs on, except in government.

UPDATE: Time to rein in government pay.

UP-UPDATE:  Even Democratic-appointees are concerned about costs of federal employees:

David Walker, the U.S. comptroller appointed by President Bill Clinton who continued in the role under George Bush, on Friday gave a bracing indictment of the pension and salary benefits being rewarded to government workers at the federal, state and local level. Walker said that public sector workers are growing prosperous on the back of private sector workers.

Read the whole thing.  H/t:  Glenn Reynolds.

**BUMPED UP** Runaway Slave — Movie Teaser

This is such a good trailer…. I wanted to bump it up so more folks could see it. 

And as my response to stupid comments from people like David.

Wow. A nice contrast to the Obama-Sherrod vision of America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Was Obama Channeling Robert Byrd on The View?

I am sick to my stomach and furious that our so-called “post-racial” President uttered these words on national TV today:

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: “We are sort of a mongrel people.”

I initially was going to resist posting on this because I really despise racial politics.  But since we are getting some new readership from the Left (and they have no clue about American history), I thought it was important. 

Does President Obama have any idea what he just put out there on the table?  Perhaps the most incendiary language in American history

From the article ‘D. W. Griffith and “The Birth of A Monster‘:  [Reference: Who Is D. W. Griffith?]

D.W. Griffith’s 1915 motion picture The Birth of a Nation — originally titled The Clansman — a film which presented a re-writing of the actual history of post Civil War Reconstruction by the same Confederate traitors aginst whom the war had to be fought. It portrayed African-Americans in the post-Civil War South as depraved, lascivious beasts whose rampant lawlessness and alleged domination of the South — through military force and control of the state legislatures — threatened to destroy “Southern civilization” and “mongrelize the races”. The film asserts that this could only be stopped by the glorified lynchings and reign of terror carried out by the “honorable” new, secret order of the “chivalrous” Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.


In most of the Northern cities where the The Birth of a Nation was scheduled to be shown, political fights exploded, and some small riots did occur in Philadelphia and elsewhere where the film was shown. The NAACP and others attempted to seek either a banning of the film completely, or to force the editing-out of the most egregious racist scenes. For the most part, those attempts were futile. Endless hearings were held before mayors, state legislatures, city councils, and state and city censorship boards across the country. The Illinois legislature voted 111-2 to ban the showing in that state, but eventually lost on judicial appeals filed by the film’s promoters.

Those hearings became platforms for the pro-Griffith lobby to pronounce the alleged virtues of eugenics. In New York City, Griffith’s lawyer Martin W. Littleton told Mayor Mitchell that the film was a “protest against the mongrel mixture of black and white.”

It is disgusting and putrid that a President of the United States bring this kind of filth language into the public discourse when our nation has moved so far past it.  Laura Ingraham is correct, Obama is not “post-racial” — he is the most racial and divisive President we have ever had.  Two top Democrat operatives agreed with that conclusion as well this week.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.


The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Obama’s use of the expression “mongrel people” on The View is further evidence that this President wants to stab America at its heart and divide our people in a way that no other President has.

I have always questioned Obama’s knowledge and comprehension of the American Experience and the American Character.  Now I truly do not believe he has any clue about either.  This is a dangerous man we have elected.

[RELATED: Mongrel. Sexism. Just Another Healing Day for the POTUS – Liberty Pundits]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)


Posted by Bruce Carroll at 2:37 pm - July 29, 2010.
Filed under: GOProud,Queen Conservative Diva - TAMMY BRUCE


“Don’t Tread on Us” Reception

Saturday, July 31, 2010
5 pm – 7 pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel
San Diego, California


Tammy Bruce

National Radio Talk Show Host,

Best-Selling Author &

FOX News Political Analyst

GOProud’s Advisory Council Chair

If you would like to attend, please click HERE.

I’m told the event is going to be full of fun surprises, so you won’t want to miss it.  How could you NOT want to spend an evening with the Queen Conservative Diva herself?!?

I can’t go, but I reaaaaaaaaaaaaallllly wanted to.  🙁

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Will Ol’ Barney lose his seat this fall?

At the beginning of May, the CampaignSpot‘s Jim Geraghty listed the 99 House seats most likely to change parties in the fall elections.  He only saw only one incumbent Massachusetts Representative (they’re all Democrats), the Ninth’s Stephen Lynch, as vulnerable to defeat.  Now, since Scott Brown’s victory in January, I’ve been wondering if there might be some sleeper races in the Bay State.

Highest on my list is that currently held by the unhappy Barney Frank.  This notion comes to mind again this week with all the press the temper tantrum the self-righteous pol, liberal with other people’s money, threw when he couldn’t get a $1 senior discount on a ferry ride.  The mean-spirited man from Massachusetts “made such a drama over the senior rate that” one witness “contemplated offering him the dollar to cool down the situation.”

Imagine if it had been You-tubed.  Can you say “macaca”?

Still, reporters from the mainstream media can no longer protect this pompous politician the way they once could.  News of this will seep out.  And people in Massachusetts’ Fourth Congressional District will wonder at the man who has been representing them in Congress for the past three decades.

“Power,” Tim Daniels wrote, reflecting on the Massachusetts Democrat’s behavior, “begets corruption, corruption begets more lust for power, and powerful congressmen berate trivial, everyday life issues.”  (Read the whole thing, via Instapundit.)

And this is not the first time, the Democrat has raised a ruckus, behaving boorishly when he was not treated in the manner which he believes appropriate for a man of his wisdom and prominence.  He has been taking his constituents for granted, treating his seat like a sinecure to which he is entitled rather than an honor to be earned.  He owes them a higher standard of behavior.  Instead, he has behaved like a crybaby who finds that the moment someone challenges his positions (or to question his desires), he responds by attacking the individuals asking the question instead of responding to their query.

The more the people of Massachusetts’ Fourth Congressional District witness the behavior of their representative in Washington, the less likely they are to cast their ballots for him this fall.  So, let’s be grateful for the new media and wonder why the old media hasn’t been doing its job in covering this elected official’s childish antics.