Gay Patriot Header Image

The Bundy Case Gets Tossed

A Federal judge yesterday tossed out the Federal Government’s case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy with prejudice; meaning the Feds don’t get another shot at putting him in prison. The reason the judge did this was because the Federal Prosecutors overzealously charged the Bundy’s, lied in their legal filings, and denied the Defense team access to potentially exculpatory evidence. Among other things, the prosecutors lied about how many armed (with military weapons and body armor) personnel the Feds sent to the ranch; they claimed it was only twenty, it was actually 197.

IOW, Cliven Bundy and his supporters claimed the Federal Government was corrupt and malevolent … and then the Department of Justice legal team proved them right.

What the Bundy case is really about is the Federal Government’s direct control of a third of the American landmass and more than half of the land in the big squared off states in the west. This is done in the arrogant belief — shared by Democrats and Republicans alike — that bureaucrats in a city on the east coast can better manage western lands than the people who live in those states. These people honestly believe that without thousands of DC bureaucrats holding them back, the people of Utah, Idaho, and the other western states would just turn Federal lands into giant toxic waste dumps where hillbillies on four-wheelers who fire 50-calibre assault weapons at jackalopes. There’s a pervasive belief in the political class that everyone in DC is wise and good and everyone between the coasts is a barbarian.

And then there’s this gem of a quote from a member of some George Soros funded environmental activist group.

Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center on Biological Diversity, blamed the Justice Department for bumbling the prosecution. “Federal prosecutors clearly bungled this case and let the Bundys get away with breaking the law,” said Mr. Suckling in a statement. “The Bundys rallied a militia to mount an armed insurrection against the government. The failure of this case will only embolden this violent and racist anti-government movement that wants to take over our public lands.”

Now what the heck does race have to do with this case? Beyond that leftists think literally (not figuratively) everything is about race. They obsess over race the way Victorian women obsessed over showing a little bit of ankle.

Liberals Are So Gay

The TL;DR version of this article is that “liberals” (in the Progressive-Left sense, not in the Classical Sense)  consider their progressivism to be a defining feature of their social identity.

This phenomenon is exacerbated by two related factors. First, liberals are generally dysfunctional, vice-ridden people who embrace what we call liberalism because its underlying relativism and nihilism help them justify their sins. (They become the arbiters of their own “values.” “Everything is gray, a matter of perspective. I have my own ‘truth.'”) Simultaneously, liberalism allows these virtue-bereft people to virtue-signal by paying homage to the day’s fashionable values. In other words, liberals are generally morally “unaccomplished” people who often have nothing to cling to but the illusion of intellectual, and often moral, superiority.

You know who else derives their identity from group affiliation and obsess over fitting in with their clique? Teenage girls and a whole lot of gay men.  We talk about gay people who let being ghey define everything about them; the clothes they wear, the neighborhoods they live in, the movies and TV they watch. “Liberals” are like that, too. The group defines their tastes and attitudes for them, and they accept it in exchange for membership in the group.

The Democrat Media Complex is very much aware not only that their followers treat their progressivism as a personal identity, but also that because they do, it effectively immunizes the party against the failures of its policies. The identification of Democrats with liberalism is so strong they will deny the failure rather than compromise their identity. (Consider the leftists claiming that Venezuela, Cuba, and Zimbabwe are not failures of socialism; they failed because their leaders weren’t pure enough. Consider the leftists who blame Chicago’s gun violence on Republicans in Indiana.)  It also is why they have constantly and childishly denigrate the right; both to maintain their fragile sense of superiority and to discourage their weak-minded followers from considering alternatives.

Part of the left’s psychological warfare is to ostracize and vilify women like Laura Ingraham, Sarah Huckabee, and Dana Loesch as well as gay men like Chad Felix Greene as an example to others who might step out of line. Likewise, “liberals” must constantly vilify all those who are not “of the body” in order to validate their membership in the “popular group.”

Hence anything that questions, criticizes, or presents an alternative to leftist policies is seen not as a different perspective, but as a personal attack. Declining to bake a wedding cake is thus an intolerable act of “violence” against an LGBT’s sense of self-esteem and must be punished severely.

We look at conservatism as a set of pragmatic policies that have been proven to work over time. It’s not our identity, it’s a set of things we believe. In that same vein, we don’t look at same-sex attraction as our sole defining social characteristic nor derive our identities from it. Left-wing gays do, and because they have not been reasoned into this belief, it is impossible to reason them out of it.