Gay Patriot Header Image

And Another One…

Posted by V the K at 9:17 am - February 13, 2017.
Filed under: Gay Conservatives (Homocons)

An urban homosexual leaves the left for the center-right and discovers there is more… much more… acceptance of gays in conservative circles than there is of conservatives in gay circles.

The impetus for his decision was writing a fair and objective article about Milo Yiannopoulos… the current Emmanuel Goldstein of the stupid, violent left. His longtime liberal “friends” turned on him, called him a Nazi, and in the manner of spoiled middle school girls everywhere, began ostracizing him from their clique.

It used to be that if you were a gay, educated atheist living in New York, you had no choice but to be liberal. But as I met more Trump supporters with whom I was able to have engaging, civil discussions about issues that impact us all, I realized that I like these people — even if I have some issues with Trump himself. For example, I don’t like his travel ban or the Cabinet choices he’s made.

But I finally had to admit to myself that I am closer to the right than where the left is today. And, yes, just three months ago, I voted for Hillary Clinton.

I often wonder, does the gay Democrat left really believe in all the socialist and social justice bullcrap their party embraces? Are they onboard with Bernie Sanders’s 94% tax rate? Do they really support the mass importation of Islamic Supremacists? Do they want to be disarmed? Or are they just ignorant and content to be thrown a bone every once in a while? Happy to exchange freedom, prosperity, and safety for a piece of paper from the Government that somehow is necessary to legitimize their relationships?

Share

22 Comments

  1. It’s the power of identity politics. It doesn’t require a lot of thinking, so those who actually do think eventually realize that they have more in common with those that think that in the one issue Democrats are trying to hold onto them with.

    Comment by Craig Smith — February 13, 2017 @ 9:45 am - February 13, 2017

  2. Homosexuals seem to think only about gay issues and nothing else.

    Comment by davinci38 — February 13, 2017 @ 10:38 am - February 13, 2017

  3. I read this as well. It isn’t funny how group think of a leftist herd functions, but for many gay persons to use the word think gives the behavior more than is actually the case for these people. For myself, being older, I remember the old queen of days gone by. Largely filled with disgust for being gay, but filled yet even more for acting out this disgust against some one else. I think we have seen the return of this in too many cases for the leftist gay of today. Like the queen of the past, the queer of today doesn’t think much at all about the issues – the queer ‘knows’ and act accordingly. And the performance is ugly.

    Comment by Martel's son — February 13, 2017 @ 11:00 am - February 13, 2017

  4. The only gay people who are liberals are those who cling to their victimhood.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — February 13, 2017 @ 11:06 am - February 13, 2017

  5. Back in the days when I was a rightward-leaning atheist, I found that the Conservatives were far, far, far more tolerant of my atheism than the atheists were tolerant of my Conservatism.

    And now that I’ve returned to the faith I was born into – Judaism – I’ve found a similar thing. There are far more people on the right who have ZERO issue with my Judaism than Jews who are tolerant of my being a Conservative.

    Anecdote: Some years ago I was down in the town of Pampa TX on business. I had to stay over the weekend. I wear a yarmulke. The ONLY comment I got was at a restaurant where a kid, behind me, asked “Mommy, what’s that funny hat that man is wearing?” and the mother answered “That’s how he shows he loves G-d; now shut up before he hears you.”

    And in Louisiana, another red-state, NOTHING but friendliness and, admittedly, some curiosity… especially when I committed what is high treason down there: not eating shrimp because they’re not kosher. 😀 Once I explained, however, there was no issue.

    Comment by David Hunt — February 13, 2017 @ 12:07 pm - February 13, 2017

  6. The only gay people who are liberals are those who cling to their victimhood.

    Well there’s still a helluva lot of them, apparently. The HRC National Dinner gala [read: high-dollar fundraiser] on Saturday had no shortage of attendees and had, as headliner, Meryl Streep preaching to the long-converted on the indignities of being three weeks into a Not-My-President Trump Administration. But good on the dude from NYC for truly becoming “woke”. Hopefully there will be more in the coming days.

    Comment by RSG — February 13, 2017 @ 12:10 pm - February 13, 2017

  7. Full disclosure: I can not address the gay view, but I can speak about the liberal mindset.

    The current “liberal” has morphed into the petulant brat who slaps his ears while chanting: “I can’t hear you!!! I can’t hear you!!!”

    Thus, it is not possible to have any conversation with a liberal which helps to answer this question:

    I often wonder, does the gay Democrat left really believe in all the socialist and social justice bullcrap their party embraces?

    You may drop the “gay” modifier, because the issue is really about the fundamentals of passes for “liberalism” today.

    In 1789, the conservative was “willing” for the President to be a king. The liberal was deeply concerned about an arrogant national government imposing dominant power while usurping individual liberties and also usurping the powers of local and state governments.

    In 2017, the conservative has become the liberal of 1789 and the liberal is bound and determined to increase the power of the national government to the point that it micromanages the environment, education, trade, labor, food, healthcare, transportation, speech, privacy, communications, religion, economy, and ….. the control of free will.

    2017 “libertarians” essentially desire the liberty “to do what I want.” 2017 liberals want the collective power of statism to control liberty so that people do what the statists wants them to do.

    Here is Obama from 2001:

    But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. (…) It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way — that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

    Obama claims that the Constitution is full of “negative liberties” which = things the government can not do to (control) the people. “Positive liberties” are the collective powers of the government to sniff around and manipulate the “inequities” it discovers in the name of “social justice.”

    So, the 2017 liberal is fundamentally a statist who wants the national government to control social and economic liberty.

    Limited government vs. state control is the chasm which “divides” the country. For the 2017 liberal, everyone must “believe” as they “believe” or they are deplorably unreasonable or irrational or insane.

    Do the 2017 liberals “really believe in all the socialist and social justice bullcrap their party embraces?” Yes, as long as they clap hands over their ears and chant “I can’t hear you!!! I can’t hear you!!!.”

    So, how do you solve a problem like 2017 liberalism? A fibberijibbet! A will-o’-the wisp! A clown! Many a thing you know you’d like to tell him / Many a thing he ought to understand / But how do you make him stay / And listen to all you say / How do you keep a wave upon the sand?

    The old witticism said: “Run for the roundhouse, Nelly, they can’t corner you there! The 2017 liberal’s mind is a roundhouse echo chamber and any effort to pin it down is an exercise in unscrambling eggs or nailing Jello to the wall.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 13, 2017 @ 12:57 pm - February 13, 2017

  8. @8 in 1789 the conservative was not willing to let the president be a king. that is the revisionist history akin to the Nazis were right wingers. the conservative doesn’t believe in a government powerful enough to become a dictatorship. that was as true in 1789 as it is today. Hamilton was not a conservative. he supported Madison’s original constitution, the conservatives, james Monroe, Patrick henry, et. al, gave us the bill of rights to keep the politicians from having the power to tyrannize us. the reason liberals have, do and always will believe in strong, central government control is not because the politicians know best, but so they can have a weapon to make everyone do what they want.

    Comment by salg — February 13, 2017 @ 3:17 pm - February 13, 2017

  9. Where does the Alt Right fit into that 1789-2017 paradigm?

    Comment by James — February 13, 2017 @ 3:30 pm - February 13, 2017

  10. The hysterical anti-Trump antics since the election, and especially since the inauguration, amount mostly to virtue-signalling among fellow liberal progressives. This includes the Pussy Hat Marches and the anti-Milo riots. These people are not making Trump voters regret their vote and wish they had voted for Hillary instead. If anything, they are further shoring up Trump’s support, and even alienating some of the more reasonable Hillary voters, including the subject of this post. If this keeps up, Democrats will lose even more seats in Congress in 2018, and Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

    Comment by Conservative guy — February 13, 2017 @ 3:53 pm - February 13, 2017

  11. If this keeps up, Democrats will lose even more seats in Congress in 2018, and Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

    I generally agree with this, but the part that’s concerning is the propensity for the current POTUS to eff things up all by himself. He still seems to step on his d*ck at least once a day and say, tweet, or do something which either detracts from his message or actions. If that can be reduced, then there’s a better chance that fewer fatal mistakes will be made.

    At the very least, there will need to be clear and narrowly-defined directives coming from the Executive Branch, since a tactic of the left will be to tie everything up in litigation. It won’t matter how many judges he’s able to appoint and get confirmed, just gumming up the process by all the filings will be enough to slow things to a crawl and potentially frustrate even his more ardent supporters.

    Comment by RSG — February 13, 2017 @ 5:54 pm - February 13, 2017

  12. Somehow I didn’t realize until just this moment that the President’s tendency to, as you say, “step on his d*ck” may actually serve to drive efforts on both sides to reign in the power of the executive branch and reestablish a balance of powers more like what we’re supposed to have. This presidency is getting more transformative all the time!

    Comment by Jamie — February 13, 2017 @ 6:08 pm - February 13, 2017

  13. And yet the media can report that Trump effed things up, and I read more and then I disagree. Case in point, the headlines expressing shock and horror and outrage that Trump’s holocaust remembrance statement was “tragically incomplete” and replete with “anti-Semitism” for not specifically mentioning Jews, of which some 6 million were killed. But there were also 5 million non-Jewish holocaust victims, including gays, gypsies, the mentally ill, the disabled, priests, Slavs, and political prisoners. See Trump’s actual statement below. Yes, Jews were the largest single group, but I think Trump’s statement pays tribute to the Jewish victims as well as the other victims, and is fully inclusive by not listing groups the Nazis targeted.

    “It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

    “Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.‎ As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.

    “In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”

    Comment by Conservative guy — February 13, 2017 @ 6:48 pm - February 13, 2017

  14. Welcome aboard, Mr. Moore.

    Most of the people I associate with are right-wingers (a few may be more right-wing than I am).

    I’m an invisible gay man: if asked, I confirm my orientation but I don’t advertise it. I suspect this is due to my age group. My hubby is the same (and he came of age in LA!).

    Anyway, even the more “homophobic” people I run across don’t harbor any major ill-will towards gays as individuals; their objection is having it force-fed. They don’t want gay proselytizing in schools; they don’t want more affirmative action; and they think gov’t should not force private persons and groups to, say, bake cakes. In other words, live and let live – the only way a pluralist society can survive.

    Comment by KCRob — February 13, 2017 @ 7:08 pm - February 13, 2017

  15. I don’t see that this administration or the president is shooting itself in the foot more than any previous administrations. Obongo Obama had more than a few in his first 100 days & Bring It On Bush fell flat on his face many times. It’s only been a few weeks, the administration is still coalescing. I try to be fair. I didn’t jump on the Trump train until last June, so I wasn’t an original whatever from the get go. Then I worked hard doing my bit for the best pick. Supported Cruz until he started doing the southern tent preacher routine with his daddy claiming he was anointed by god. His tweets are what they are & if you look at them without commentary by Libs & Establishment GOPers you’ll that they’re all substantive &/or pushback. Everyone bitched that Obongo didn’t know what a blackberry was until he was president & that he wasn’t that adept at electronics. We have a modern president that communicates with everyone via Twitter, watches TV & knows what a website is & people are bitching that he uses electronics. Let me see. As I remember, Romney didn’t fight back. What happened to him? George didn’t fight back. What happened to him? As far as Trump’s immigration restriction there was no way for the Admin to know or even suspect that a lower court would presume to place a stay on powers reserved only for a president, whether he’s screaming about Muslims or not. Where is the stumble? Trump didn’t even have to comply with the stay, but chose to allow his agencies to comply. Sounds to me like he’s staying within the limitations of his office. I’m seeing a lot of stealth insertions of people commenting on blogs & other media. Pretending to be people on the Right, but they’re not. They’re inserting poison pills, trying to sow dissension & I’m not talking about Nevertrumpers. I get them. They’re either sucking it up, going with the flow or fading into obscurity. I’m talking about 4th rate psyop Libs, paid or not, inserting negatives among people on the Right, even though we now have the Congress & the White House. Be careful of these snakes.

    Comment by Hanover — February 13, 2017 @ 7:37 pm - February 13, 2017

  16. Duuuuh. My conservative friends are accepting of me, and some of the liberals at times are confused why I am not a left wing clone of themselves.

    Comment by davinci38 — February 13, 2017 @ 7:51 pm - February 13, 2017

  17. Where is the stumble?

    One of the major ones can be said to be the way the Executive Order regarding travel restrictions was argued before the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs and the judges were arguing on the merits of the order, which wasn’t the issue. The issue was merely the ability of the Executive Branch to issue an EO regarding immigration in the interests of national security in the first place, which, according the 1952 cited statute, is certainly within the purview of the office of the President. But the DOJ solicitor didn’t argue that, he took the bait of the judges and wandered far down the rabbit trail, even confirming that he was aware of statements made by the candidate for president—which has zero to do with the propriety of the EO.

    I heard explanations by the more rabid of the Trumpians on FNC that it was due to the people left at the DOJ as being the litigation JV squad of third-rate holdovers from the Obama Admin and career department personnel who normally read over materials for typos. True or not, I don’t know; but it would seem someone from the Trump Administration would take whoever is going to be defending the cases into a war room at the RFK building and roleplay the situation out, at least to the extent of asking “How are you planning to defend this?”

    According to Ben Stein on Justice with Judge Jeanine this weekend, one of the concepts he was taught at Yale Law was that judges play to their base, which is to say the people whom they associate with on and off the bench. That, according to him, is far more important in how cases are decided than arcane legal concepts or lofty interpretations of the law. It is exactly how the injunction hearing played out in the Ninth Circuit. This was a tactical error on the part of the current administration. Such errors can’t keep happening.

    Be careful of these snakes.

    And this is why blunders, stumbles, and errors can’t keep happening. For probably the first time in modern history, there are calls for impeachment in the first month of a presidency. This didn’t even occur in the “stolen presidency” of Not-My-President George W. Bush. Lunacy? Irrational? Vast overreaction? Yes, all that and more. But there can never be allowed a foothold of that idea to implant itself in the national psyche, lest a national form of confirmation bias set in.

    Yet there are plenty of people who don’t care about truth, or facts, or rationality—they are out for blood and will do anything to ensure that the Trump Administration is only slightly longer than the William Henry Harrison Administration. If that means promoting impeachable offenses (even when they are not) or suggesting that the POTUS is mentally or emotionally ill, then all’s fair in love, war, and politics. It is even more important that they are denied the opportunity to prove their case whenever possible. The first line of defense on that matter is to not shoot oneself in the foot—even if it’s only with rubber bullets.

    Comment by RSG — February 13, 2017 @ 8:52 pm - February 13, 2017

  18. Hello saig @ #9,

    You are completely correct about Hamilton and his John Adams view of disparity among the Founding Fathers.

    To the right of the Founding Fathers were a sizable number of Colonial plutocrats who had not signed on to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” After the Treaty of Paris, about 15% of the “Loyalists” fled to Canada and beyond. Left behind was a very loose “confederation” which had no executive, no national court system, and a combination of high debt and economic chaos.

    When the “Constitutional Convention” was being arranged, there was no accommodation made for the “powerful executive” crowd to be represented. That does not mean that powerful (read: wealthy) interests both north and south were without influence. As a result, the Founding Fathers passed over a “weak” configuration of the executive and created a powerful, unitary executive branch controlled by the president. (Some scholars continue to argue over the “Take Care Clause” of Article II, but nearly everyone agrees that an amendment to the Constitution would be required to weaken the power of the presidency.

    The 1789 liberals created this strong presidency over the objections of the small government conservatives who favored a weaker executive. I believe Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts is representative of the Founding Fathers who understood the compromises needed between an “efficient (national) government” and a “despotic” central government. He frequently sided with the Nationalists at the Convention, but he adopted and adapted many Federalist views. He stopped the Nationalists from giving the chief executive absolute veto power or granting to the national government the power to negate state laws.

    Hamiton argued in Federalist 68 for the “electoral college system for electing the president as a way of keeping the office out of the hands of the common man.

    The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. – Federalist 68

    Hamilton was, after all, a Federalist. In Federalist 67 he excoriated the critics of the Constitution and particularly those who tried to paint the President as a monarch. All that said, Hamilton was more a proponent for the strong president model than others among the Founding Fathers.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 13, 2017 @ 8:58 pm - February 13, 2017

  19. These may explain the Left.
    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=260
    http://fencingbearatprayer.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-church-of-left.html

    Comment by Juan — February 13, 2017 @ 9:00 pm - February 13, 2017

  20. Thank you, RSG. I respect your perspective & info. I hope you don’t think I was calling you a snake. I wasn’t. I’ve been watching several sites & seeing an uptick of clever nonsense. I overlap sometimes while scanning everything.
    I agree that any mistakes must be kept at a minimum, given the current climate.
    Last summer there was a week when Trump was stumbling badly. I panicked & sent of a couple of emails to whoever with “Quit making mistakes” as the subject line. Whether or not they were read or considered during absolute havoc, I don’t know [maybe not] but he recouped his losses & regained his aggression. I am well aware that mistakes can be fatal.
    A lot of people are in sync & a substantial amount of people on the Right are not. Which is fine & dandy as long as we’re all same page against Leftist swine.
    My first instinct, because of my first career incarnation, is to never admit a mistake. Perhaps Trump should have kept Cruz closer directly after the Inauguration.

    Comment by Hanover — February 13, 2017 @ 9:58 pm - February 13, 2017

  21. More evidence, if any was needed, that Gay Patriot has some of the more intelligent readers on the Web.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — February 13, 2017 @ 11:49 pm - February 13, 2017

  22. I hope you don’t think I was calling you a snake.

    Oh absolutely not. I’m pretty sure I know of those you are referring to. 🙂

    My first instinct, because of my first career incarnation, is to never admit a mistake.

    Of course the Obama Administration were masters of this, more recently via the repeated exhortation right down to the dying days that it was free of “major scandals”. There’s something to be said for such an approach, lest your opponents smell blood in the water and use it as a vehicle to promote incompetency. But the Obama devotees appeared to believe their own failure to admit mistakes as evidence none were ever made in the first place.

    The other approach is to do what President Reagan did and come clean about involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, which didn’t win points with his detractors but cemented his place in history as someone who put credibility above his own desire for an untarnished legacy. The downside is that the occasions on which one can do this are quite limited, lest an “Oops, we effed up again!” perception become instilled in the common psyche.

    Comment by RSG — February 14, 2017 @ 12:34 am - February 14, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.