Gay Patriot Header Image

I stand with Stacy. And Aaron. And Patterico

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:21 am - May 25, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Liberalism Run Amok

Today, I join my fellow conservative bloggers in standing with bloggers Stacy McCain, Aaron Walker and Patterico, uniting as Michelle Malkin puts it, “for Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin” Day.  She asks us

to check Patterico’s blog for more revelations about his plight. Also bookmark Aaron Walker’s blogStacy McCain’s, and Liberty Chick Mandy Nagy’s Twitter feed. Read the comprehensive investigative piece Mandy wrote at that set all the insanity in motion.

I first blogged about this on Wednesday.  Michelle summarizes the story:

Over the past year, Aaron Walker (who blogged as “Aaron Worthing”),PattericoLiberty Chick, and now Stacy McCain have been targeted by convicted Speedway bomber Brett Kimberlin because they dared to mention his criminal past or assisted others who did. The late Andrew Breitbart warned about Kimberlin and company.

Read the whole thing.  Greg at Rhymes with Right, recalls having heard, during his high school days, about the case of Kimberlin, the “the Speedway Bomber back in the 1970s in Indiana“, offers more links and a video about the man’s crimes.  He encourages us “to read the full sordid story about how Kimberlin has used the courts to harass Aaron and gotten both he and his wife fired by making their employment a security risk for their employer.”

Michelle says that “Patterico’s plight will send chills up your spine when he is ready to tell it.”  [UPDATE:  He tells it here.  Read the whole thing; but, be prepared, your blood is going to start boiling.]

Terresa Monroe Hamilton has more.  SnoopytheGoon offering his two cents here, quipping that “This is the reason the American left puts up with this character: he is useful to them – for now.”

More as the day progresses.

RELATED:   (more…)

GOP becoming increasingly accepting of gay Republicans

Reader MV passed along a McClatchy article on a “quiet transformation is taking place in the Republican Party, which has begun to embrace openly gay candidates – and among gay Republicans, who now feel more comfortable speaking out in a party that may have accepted them but didn’t always show it.

The article reports how the party is rallying behind one openly gay candidate,

Richard Tisei, a former Massachusetts state senator, who’s campaigning on what he describes as the number one issue for gay voters and everyone else in the state’s 6th Congressional District, north of Boston.

“In general, the campaign I’m running on is based on the economy,” he said.

Tisei does support same-sex marriage, and he said party leaders knew that from the beginning of his campaign for Congress.

“I don’t agree with the party platform, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a good Republican,” Tisei said.

Hmmm. . .  where did I hear that recently?

Tisei’s sexuality notwithstanding,

The National Republican Congressional Committee has designated Tisei as a “Young Gun,” meaning he’s on the national party’s radar and can expect to get more resources for his campaign. Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas said Tisei “has met organizational and fundraising benchmarks and has established himself as a strong contender.”

Does seem like some folks might need to change their narratives.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Chris H offers:

I’ve been saying this for years.. but once the “gay” thing goes away, the Democrats are going to have a really hard time maintaining their grasp on to the LGBT alphabet community.

My gay friends sure hate those Republicans … but when I discuss Liberterian/Republican concepts with out identifying them as “Republican” I generally get agreement.

Read the whole thing.

Second term agenda? What second term agenda?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:44 am - May 25, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Obama Incompetence

Last October, I asked What could Obama accomplish in a second term? Two months later, I wonder if he had anything planned should he win reelection.  Even, as I blogged last month, a liberal pundit is wondering what’s on the Democrat’s agent after November 6.

Asking what Obama’s second term would look like, Commentary’s Alana Goodman quipped, “At this point, the American people have no idea, and Obama doesn’t seem to either.”  To back up her point, she cites Zeke Miller’s BuzzFeed post with this observation from Democratic pollster Doug Schoen:

[The Obama Democrats] have no clear message or overarching theme other than class warfare and attack politics. . . . They don’t have a vision for the second term. No clear sense as to what the Administration is offering for a second term. There is widespread dissatisfaction with both parties and both candidates in primary results [Tuesday] — and no clear idea how Obama is going to unite the county and lead us forward.”

Schoen’s words conclude Miller’s piece on the Obama campaign’s loss of confidence.  Perhaps, the disappearance of their arrogance will cause the Democrats to fight harder.

That, however, wasn’t what happened when the Obama team suffered similar anxiety in the 2008 presidential campaign.  They may have a tougher time fighting back this time around.  Market meltdowns tend to work against the party in power.

Was anyone arrested for criticizing W?

Recall that North Carolina teacher, now suspended without pay, who upbraided a student for daring to, as she put it, “disrespect” the President of the United States in her classroom.  She had told her class that it was “criminal to slander a president”:

“Do you realize that people were arrested for saying things bad about Bush?” she says of former President Bush. “Do you realize you are not supposed to slander the president?”

Oh, really, where does it say that in the Constitution?

Nobody, points out blogger Rhymes with Right, himself a teacher,

. . . was arrested for saying bad things about George W. Bush. In fact those who did so became cultural heroes — don’t you remember that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and that Cindy Sheehan was treated as some sort of demigod by those opposed to Bush and his policies?

Yes, even in the dark days when that supposed fascist reigned in Washington, people remained free to criticize the president and were often celebrated for doing so.

I wonder how many of those same people will criticize the North Carolina teacher for criticizing a student who engaged, to borrow an expression they might like, in “the highest form of patriotism.”

WeHo’s The Abbey bans “bachelorette” parties

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:40 pm - May 24, 2012.
Filed under: Freedom,Gay Marriage,LA Stories

Over the past decade, the Abbey has grown into one of the premiere gay watering holes in West Hollywood (if not all of Southern California).  When passing through the Southland, many of my gay friends insist on stopping by.  And as the establishment’s profile has increased, it has drawn an increasingly mixed crowd, including a good number of straight women.

This has not sat well with a good number of gay people.

Perhaps aware of the growing discontent of its core clientele or perhaps because of the reasons it offers, “The Abbey“, reports Simone Wilson of the LA Weekly

. . . is making a statement of its own: Until marriage is an option for everyone everywhere, ignorant straight chicks in penis hats are exiled from the building.

This will be the first all-out ban on bachelorette parties in the Los Angeles area. But WeHo patriots might be surprised to learn that in Chicago’s premiere gayborhood, bachelorette parties have been blacklisted for a few years now. Always one step ahead of us, that Boystown!

Given the complaints I have heard, I wonder if the management of the Abbey has decided to dress up their decision in politically correct rhetoric.  But, its reasons shouldn’t matter.  The Abbey is a private establishment and should be free to determine its clientele — and the types of celebrations it hosts.

And if straight women don’t like this decision, well, then, no one’s requiring them to patronize the Abbey.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Richard Bell sums it up, “Freedom of association is the American way.”  I might quibble a bit with his expression adding “one aspect of” between “is” and “the”.

On Pastor Worley, Crackpot Ministers & the Media

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:04 pm - May 24, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias,Religion (General)

Over the past week or so, I have seen numerous postings on Facebook and a number of stories on CNN about a North Carolina pastor who somehow seems to have forgotten about the biblical injunction to love your neighbor:

I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers, but I couldn’t get it past the Congress,” Pastor Charles L. Worley can be seen telling his Providence Road Baptist Church congregation in the video, which had more than 250,000 YouTube views by Tuesday.

“Build a great big, large fence – 50 or a 100 miles long – and put all the lesbians in there,” Worley went on to say in his May 13 sermon at his Maiden, North Carolina, church. “Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed them. And you know in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.”

Does this guy really believe that only homosexuals can produce homosexual children?  (That would be news to my heterosexual Mom and Dad.)  Even those trusting in the efficacy of “reparative therapy” don’t favor herding gay people into concentration camps.

As CNN and our Facebook friends focus on — and rightly condemn — Mr. Worley, I wonder where these folks were when other crackpots were preaching hate from their pulpits.

It is sick that members of Worley’s flock would stand by their pastor, preferring his word to the biblical command to love your neighbor.  His congregation though is only one of many.  But, he’s not the only pastor preaching hate.  It would be nice to see CNN expose those on the Christian left who seem incapable of accepting that some of their neighbors merit affection.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Lori builds on my point:

The anti gay preacher is a loon and so is Wright. The media are all over this very inconsequential preacher (that conservatives sure think is flakey and hateful), but they were mum about Wright, who preached hating whites and hating America. It’s not just anti gay hate that needs to stop, it all needs to stop.

Not proud of Obama’s shift on gay marriage

Yesterday, I wrote that I’d “have to agree to disagree” with Richard Grenell’s expression of “pride in the president’s patently political statement” announcing his shift on gay marriage.  Like two-thirds of Americans in a recent poll, I believe the Democrat flipped on gay marriage “mostly for political reasons“.  Not even one quarter of Americans surveyed thought he made the decision because he believed it to be the right thing.

Perhaps had he better articulated his support for gay marriage, making the case why expanding the definition of this ancient institution would be a good thing both for the individuals who elect its benefits as well as for the society which recognizes same-sex couples as married.

Given the president’s failure to adequately articulate the reasons for his sudden change of heart “evolution” and the survey cited above, his statement which may cause numerous gay activists (nearly all previously favorably disposed to the Democrat) to feel good about themselves, will do little to further state recognition of same-sex unions.

Perhaps had the president, instead of announcing his switch in an interview with a friendly reporter, made a speech, putting forward ideas in favor of marriage similar to those offered by Jonathan Rauch, I might take him more seriously.  But, given the alacrity of his campaign — and Democratic affiliates — to use his new position for political/fundraising purposes, it seems that his switch was more related to the needs of his campaign than to an appreciation of the social benefits of matrimony.

Richard Grenell, gay conservatives & the GOP

in 2004, in the decision that would (indirectly) launch my blogging career, Log Cabin passed up an opportunity that Richard Grenell yesterday seized with relish–the chance to articulate the role for gay conservatives within a party whose entire agenda we do not support.

By failing to endorse George W. Bush (and making a spectacle of their non-endorsement), they failed to show their commitment to the broad principles of the GOP, particularly those relating to national security.  The organization’s leaders could have said although we disagree with President Bush on the Federal Marriage Amendment, we support his leadership in the War on Terror and share Ronald Reagan’s view that “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

“Like many voters,” Grenell wrote yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, “I rarely agree with a candidate’s every position. I can support Mr. Romney for president but not agree with all of his stated policies.”  In 2004, Log Cabin could have well served gay conservatives by offering a similarly succinct statement supporting the reelection of George W. Bush.  In so doing, they would have made it a lot easier for skeptical (and non-doctrinaire) social conservatives to help us find welcome within the party’s ranks.

The good news is that the current executive director of Log Cabin, R. Clarke Cooper, (as did his immediate past predecessor) appears to share that view.  His rhetoric (alas!) may from time to time ape that of the gay left, but his commitment does seem to be finding a place for gay Republicans in the GOP.  (He has even used to his Facebook page to praise the man his organization once maligned — George W. Bush.)

It’s nice to see Log Cabin on the same page with Richard Grenell who, despite the Romney campaign’s awkward handling of his appointment, has shown a strong commitment to an imperfect GOP.  And has given greater voice to a notion we have been pushing at GayPatriot at least since Bruce launched the blog — and that I have promoting since I first joined Log Cabin in 1995.

Big Labor pouring money down drain in Wisconsin?

“The Left, labor, Democrats, which planned to embarrass” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Mike Allen of Politico on MSNBC this morning (as quoted by Jim Geraghty), “instead have made him a national figure with a very bright future,”  adding “It was money poured down the drain by Democrats and the Left in a presidential election year.”


Wonder if we’ll ever see a tally of the total amount of money the various and sundry public employee unions poured into the Badger State, first to lobby the legislature and organize rallies against Walker’s reforms, then to launch petition drives to recall the state Senators targeted for replacement in 2011, to do the same this year to recall Walker, his Lieutenant Governor and another batch of state Senators, then to campaign for their chosen candidate in this month’s primary and now to campaign against the governor himself in the actual recall election upcoming.

Money spent in those endeavors is money they won’t be able to spend to help hold the Wisconsin Senate seat for the Democrats or to help in other political contests this year.

Meanwhile, in attempting to demonize and destroy Mr. Walker, the unions have made that reformer a Republican hero.  As Ann Althouse writes:

The recall has put Walker in the position where he must advertise and promote himself, which might have been awkward before — and it was never his thing. TV viewers are getting barraged with Walker ads — and almost nothing for his cash-strapped opponent, and we’re tolerating it because he was forced into having to defend himself. What a nice opportunity for him!

Via Instapundit.

UPDATE:   “The bigger problem for unions”, writes 2010 CPAC Blogger of the Year, Ed Morrissey, “is the display of impotence“:

They have poured millions of dollars into Wisconsin, pushed people into rallies and protests, and wasted valuable man-hours organizing for recall elections and a special election for the state Supreme Court, only to come up empty thus far.  Until now, people feared the impact of unions in elections, and in special elections such as these even more, as they are more easily mastered by superior organization.  However, Walker supporters cast more ballots in the recall primaries than the combined votes of the top two Democrats, just as they did in the race that pitted Supreme Court Justice David Prosser against Joanne Kloppenburg, and in almost every recall race thus far.

Even though Obama flipped on gay marriage, Richard Grenell remains faithful to Mitt Romney’s White House bid

When I first posted on Richard Grenell’s stepping down from the Romney campaign, I wrote that it was

. . . absurd to think that, as one social conservative quoted in Rubin’s piece suggests, that Grenell might “decamp from Romney to Obama” should that latter come out in favor of federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Does he really think gay people are so shallow that we’d back a candidate just because he has a better record on gay issues even when we disagree with him on nearly every other issue?

That social conservative, a Mr. Matthew J. Franck, reports Jennifer Rubin, had written:

Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?

Well, Mr. Obama didn’t wait until the Democratic National Convention. And in his appeal earlier this month for gay campaign cash, the Democrat did just what Mr. Franck imagined he might do.

And Mr. Grenell? Well, the headline for CNN’s report on his editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal says it all, Former Romney spox Grenell: Don’t vote on gay marriage:

He said that Romney’s position on same-sex marriage – which Grenell disagrees with – was not enough to write him off as a candidate.

“Like many voters, I rarely agree with a candidate’s every position,” Grenell wrote. “I can support Mr. Romney for president but not agree with all of his stated policies. (more…)

Back in 1978, Harvey Milk celebrated Gay Freedom Day

Earlier this week at the LA Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald blogged about Tuesday’s celebration of “Harvey Milk Day in honor of the slain San Francisco supervisor who was one of the first gay elected officials in the United States”:

Milk was assassinated by former San Francisco supervisor Dan White in 1978. A few months before his death, he gave a stirring speech at the Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco.

Emphasis added.  Gay Freedom Day?  Freedom?  You mean, back then the watchword wasn’t equality?  Wonder when it changed — and why.

Freedom means the state leaves us alone to live our lives as we choose.  All too often, equality, under its current connotation, means the state attempts to equalize the results.  Modern conservatives much prefer the former notion.

Perhaps, the early gay movement had more in common with the conservative movement than today’s gay activists care to acknowledge.

Skeptical that Obama’s statement on gay marriage changed minds

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:10 pm - May 23, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gay Marriage

The Washington Post finds signs that the President’s recent plea for gay contributions to his campaign may have changed a few minds on gay marriage:

Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

Color me skeptical; the poll oversampled Democrats, giving the Democrats a ten-point advantage.  Their March sample only gave the president’s party a 4-point advantage and then 52 percent of Americans backed same-sex marriage.  If the poll had used a sample similar to the one they used two months ago, it is entirely likely that it would have registered a drop in support of same-sex marriage as did the recent Gallup poll.

If it’s true, as the poll indicates (and as Allahpundit reports) “that 54 percent of blacks supported O’s announcement versus 37 percent who disapproved”, one wonders the president didn’t make his annoucement before the North Carolina vote on Amendment One when he might have been able to change a few minds on that unfortunate proposition.

Standing with Stacy McCain

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:09 pm - May 23, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Liberalism Run Amok

“In the 11 years” that she’s been blogging, Terresa Monroe-Hamilton has had “numerous death threats. But they are nothing compared to what Stacey McCain at The Other McCain is going through.”  Stacy reports that

Convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin on Monday continued his effort to silence those who write about his criminal past by contacting my wife’s employer, claiming that I was “harassing” him. The resulting security concern required immediate relocation if I was to be able to continue writing about the case of Kimberlin, a violent felon, perjurer and admitted tax cheat who is employed as the director of a 501(c)3 non-profit that has collected $1.8 million in contributions since 2005.

Kimberlin was convicted of multiple federal felonies in 1981 and sentenced to 50 years in prison after he terrorized a small Indiana town in a brutal crime weeklong bombing spree.

Like Ed Morrissey, I too have disagreed with Stacy from time to time, but count the blogger “as a friend” and agree that “no one should have to leave their home in fear simply for engaging in political debate.”  And Stacy is not the only right-of-center blogger targeted by Kimberline for, as Michelle Malkin put it, daring “to mention his criminal past or assist[ing] others who did.”   This is, she adds

. . . a convoluted, ongoing nightmare that combines abuse of the court system, workplace intimidation, serial invasions of privacy, perjury, and harassment of family members. McCain was forced to move with his family out of his house this week, and has just gotten a small taste of what Aaron [Walker (who blogged as “Aaron Worthing”) @ Patterico] and [blogger] Patterico [himself] have been enduring over the past year. Aaron and his wife were fired from their jobs after their employer feared the office would be targeted next. Convicted bomber Kimberlin has filed bogus “peace orders” against Aaron, when it is the Walkerswho are the victims, not the perpetrators.

A highly notable issue,” reports Bruce Kesler at Maggie’s Farm

. . . aside from that the legacy media has failed to take up the matter, is that the funding for this campaign comes from some of the most-darling of liberal-left foundations (more…)

Richard Grenell Speaks

More on this anon.

Obama’s shiny objects may draw CNN reporters
(but don’t generate much of an audience for CNN)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:36 am - May 23, 2012.
Filed under: Media Bias

CNN’s ratings problems just keep getting worse“:

The network had its lowest-rated month in over a decade in April. That prompted stern warnings from the top that CNN has to improve its numbers.

Yet Tuesday brought the dispiriting news that CNN had its lowest-rated week in primetime in a staggering 20 years last week. Just 395,000 people tuned in to watch Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan. The total day numbers were not much better: CNN had its third-worst week since 1997.

About CNN & those shiny objects.

Stupid to consider Mitt Romney a Patriot?

Remember back to the days of the George W. Bush administration when comparing the President of the United States to Hitler was considered an expression of patriotism while questioning someone’s patriotism was considered the mother of all sins?

A Facebook friend who joined 180 others in sharing this picture didn’t just question the presumptive Republican nominee’s patriotism, but implied that people were stupid for believing that accomplished executive to be a patriot.

The man who created this image engages in the same type of behavior his ideological allies accused (mostly inaccurately) Republicans of engaging in in the Bush era.

Not just that, he shows a terrible ignorance of the Mormon faith.  Mitt Romney didn’t flee to France to avoid military service; his church required him to engage in missionary work. He was fulfilling a religious duty.*

This man may not speak for the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee, but his work is just a taste of the type of attacks those folks will be making against the former Massachusetts governor.

*UPDATE: Shared this post with a Mormon friend who wrote about the missionary work:


Watcher of Weasels — “Lusty Month of May” Edition

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:58 am - May 23, 2012.
Filed under: Blogging,Conservative Ideas

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions (more…)

Southern Democrats looking for non-Obama

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:50 am - May 23, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election

Every now and again, a blog reader, a friend or a family member puts forward a political theory that tantalizes, but, well, you just don’t believe.  A few days ago, one such individual offered that Democrats were working behind the scenes to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket.  No, not to replace Joe Biden (as some have advocated), but to replace Barack Obama.

My interlocutor looked the then-upcoming Arkansas primary and wondered about the background of John Wolfe Jr. who was then nipping at Obama’s heels in the polls.  Was he connected to the Clintons?  Well, Mr. Wolfe didn’t defeat the president in Bill Clinton’s home state, but he did give him a run for his money, carrying a number of counties (those shaded blue below):

The Natural State is not the only one where a no-name opponent has garnered over 40% of the vote. Heck, yesterday in Kentucky, uncommitted won 42.15% of the vote. In the counties colored with the lighter shade of green, more Democrats preferred no candidate at all to the incumbent President of the United States: (more…)

CNN readily responding to shiny objects dangled by Obama campaign?

Given the small size of CNN’s primetime audience, I wondered last week whether we should fret too much about the “news” network’s bias.  Still, it does make good sport to take note of their bias.

Last night and again this afternoon, while catching CNN during the cardio portion of my workout, I once again found the network exploring an issue raised by the Obama campaign (though, this time, with surprising even-handedness).  Still, they were covering the specific topic the Democrats wanted to discuss, Mitt Romney’s record at Bain, rather than the broader inquiry we should be making — into Obama’s record in Washington.

Last week, I recall seeing lengthy discussion at CNN of Mitt Romney’s adolescent antics.  And that week, the Romney campaign wanted to talk about the debt the federal government has racked up since Obama took office.  Did CNN cover that story with any depth?

This got me wondering whether or not CNN chooses (more readily) to cover those issues the Obama campaign wishes to discuss and downplay those issues pushed by his likely Republican opponent.

I will not have time today to investigate this hypothesis as I’m about to rush out to hear one of the few grownups in Washington speak at the sacred shrine of freedom in Simi Valley.  As time allows this week, I will try to check the CNN website to see if their programs tend to follow Obama administration talking points.

Time to investigate the legacy media investigators?

Over at, John Nolte wonders what conservatives should do given the readiness of the legacy media to investigate the private lives of certain individuals who put Obama’s record in the spotlight or support his opponent:

So desperate is the media to Palace Guard for their Precious One that everyday Americans who dare ask Obama a question he flubsappear in a Romney campaign ad, or donate to a pro-Romney super PAC, are now considered fair game.

But if this is the new MSM standard, what are those of us in New Media to do? In a perfect world we wouldn’t be faced with this question because in a perfect world the media has integrity and would never even consider attacking and intimidating private citizens.

Read the whole thing.

Should conservatives now start investigating the private lives of these journalists?

No, not their personal lives, but should at least inquire into their ideological affiliation.  They do seem to be working in tandem with the Obama campaign.

We should at leas be asking them to indicate whether or not they have communicated and/or collaborated with that campaign, the Democratic party, its various auxiliaries and allies — and should investigate to the best of our abilities their ties to such outfits.