Gay Patriot Header Image

This is our choice?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 11:39 am - July 23, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

So here we are.

This is the choice we’re given this year:

An egomaniacal New York Democrat who represents the terrible nexus between powerful moneyed interests and overbearing governmental influence in our lives.
A candidate whose entire family’s wealth in fact is a direct result of underhanded, criminal at times, manipulation of power that puts the ‘little guy’ under the thumb of those in undeserved positions of power and authority.
A candidate with actual legal travails in fact hanging like the Sword of Damocles as we move into the general election season.
A staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood, universal healthcare, and the expansion of governmental power, with a blindly protectionist view of free trade, who (although a supporter of it at the time) contends that George W Bush lied us into war in Iraq.
A candidate who cozies up to (and profits from relationships with) foreign strongmen.
A candidate who expresses an excitement and yearning desire to gut the First Amendment, primarily with the goal of targeting political enemies.
A candidate who colluded with party leaders to squelch any expression of inner-party dissent and explicitly and in the most personal and insulting ways conceivable to deny fellow-party adversaries any legitimacy even if it meant dragging them through the mud.
A candidate who chooses to offset such obvious personal (and universally accepted) flaws with a boring and milquetoast running mate with the hopes the general electorate will not take notice of such clear unfitness for the job.
A crooked, deceitful, duplicitous lout with an unquenchable desire for power and a seemingly physical inability to tell the truth.
The most unliked major-party nominee for president in the history of the United States.

So what, then? Are we supposed to vote for his opponent instead?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Stay Classy, American Left

Posted by V the K at 9:22 pm - July 19, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

It’s okay, it was “satire.” He said so in his fauxpology.


The media’s day-long obsession with Trump Trophy Wife III — Melanoma, or whatever her name is — giving a speech with a few lines that were similar to the speech Obama’s beard gave at her convention is really a new low. We are a very stupid country. Sometimes, I think we deserve Hillary.

Update: More reports of classy behavior outside the convention.

Update: Speaking of fauxpologies. I am pretty sure this one is also the product of a speechwriter.

Update: After the jump, the left lets the misogyny fly

Update: The always classy Bill Maher chimes in, too.


Trump’s Rumored VP

I  don’t know much about Mike Pence, but he was pretty good in ‘Mad Men.’


With Enemies Like These, Who Needs Friends?

Posted by V the K at 10:09 am - June 3, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

An editor Democrat Media Operative at the popular left-wing website is urging his fellow leftists to show up at Donald Trump rallies and commit mob violence.

Anti-trump protesters in San Jose, California followed his advice, assaulting attendees at a Trump rally (physically, as in punches thrown), throwing bottles, eggs, and tomatoes at them, also smashing cars in a nearby parking garage. It’s OK, though, because according to another journalist Democrat Media Operative, Trump supporters deserve to be violently assaulted.

Trump’s opponents on the left do a much better job making him appear sympathetic than his supporters do. Those San Jose rioters and lefty journos did more PR good for Trump than a whole week of Sean Hannity’s and FoxNews’s cheerleading.

Funny thing though, a few weeks back, the same Emmett Resin who is now calling for mob violence was preening about how opposed he was to politically violence of all kinds.

The question isn’t “Is Hillary Worse Than Trump,” the question is, “How Much Worse?”

Posted by V the K at 10:02 am - May 31, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Kurt Schlichter

Trump may be kind of thuggish, but he’ll leave me alone. Hillary’s going to come looking for me, and she’s foolish and clueless enough to push and push until we normals get tired of it and start to push back. I, for one, prefer my country not to be sucked into a second civil war because some former president’s angry wife is playing out a freakish psychodrama revenge fantasy against all the guys who have rejected her, from her father to Bill to those of us male-identifying men who laugh at her cankles.

Gamma Male Hipsters for Hillary, Bernie’s Cirque du Dysphoria

Posted by V the K at 1:01 pm - May 26, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

This is (apparently and as far as I know) a real, genuine Hillary campaign pitch; not a parody of what a desperately corrupt and out of touch elderly politician long-past-her-sell-by date would do to reach out to what her advisors tell her is a key voting demographic.


Is it just me, or is there a weird disconnect between the hipster neckbeard and hipster top-mullet? Like they were photoshopped from two different people. And shouldn’t he have a man-bun?

Meanwhile, in Bernie-Land

Sanders was introduced by a blind Filipino delegate and a gay actress who spoke passionately in favor of transgender rights and compared Sanders to a unicorn, because “he seems too good to be true.” Sanders, leaning on his lectern with both hands, recounted a moving encounter with a barista whose eyes filled with tears of gratitude for Sanders’s campaign. A man waved a homemade Sanders muppet in the air.

Yeah, I’m overusing the word dysphoria a lot.  It means hating life. It’s very useful in describing the left.

Update: Hillary’s staff should have been more careful in their use of stock images.

Updated Update: Hillary’s campaign is disavowing the ad. So, if you trust Hillary to own up to an embarrassing mistake, feel free to believe her denial.

I Won’t Be a Part of It

Posted by V the K at 12:26 am - May 23, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Papa Giorgio asks:

V… I have a question for you. I am not a fan of Trump, to say the least. And for the first time since voting Bush Sr. (my first vote) have voted GOP. This will most likely be the first year I do not. And even started a site to work against Trump, “The Constitutional Federalists of America,” buying many URL variation of it. Anyhew… I started to think and came up with three points that would make me consider my vote drifting back towards the GOP, they are these three:

✦ He would have to announce plans to be in office for one term;
✦ He would have to announce a conservative leaning VP;
✦ He would have to foreshadow his choices he is considering for the Supreme Court.

It sucks that we have to be soo worried about the Court… these Justices shouldn’t have the power to interpret the Constitution… the Constitution should reign them in. But this is the sad reality we face.

In my most recent upload to my YouTube channel Levin talks to Carrie Severino about what apparently seems to be one of my criteria met.

THE QUESTION IS THIS: If Trump meets the other two, would you consider voting for him? … if not, why not?

And this is my answer:

I can’t imagine Trump limiting himself to one-term, but that really wouldn’t make any difference to me.

I don’t think Trump is going to pick a conservative for the vice president spot, I think he is going to pick John Kasich — a scheming, nasty little weasel of a man with crossover appeal to moderates (who also tend to be weasels). The vice president pick is irrelevant. He may as well pick John Oates, or that other fella from ‘The Pet Shop Boys’ for all the influence his VP will have.

If the SCOTUS appointments are reason enough for you to hold your nose and vote for Trump, that’s a perfectly valid rationale and I won’t argue with it. It’s not persuasive to me because it just isn’t enough. We can probably survive with a few more liberals on the Supreme Court, I’m not so certain we can survive the type of sewer politics Donald Trump represents.

Which is pretty much the answer to “Why not?”


Bathed in the Glow of Utter Servility

Posted by V the K at 10:07 am - May 20, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

He’s like a Golden Retriever gazing at his master next to the servility; or like Rachel Maddow watching Ronda Rousey model lingerie.


Does the Trump Nomination Mean the GOP Has Given up on the Constitution?

Posted by V the K at 5:47 pm - May 5, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Ilya Shapiro presents an interesting thesis: That Donald Trump’s Candidacy is a product of a plurality of Republican voters having become disillusioned with America’s Constitutional form of Government. That the utter failure of the Republican Party to stop any part of Barack Obama’s radical agenda has convinced them that the only way to counter the left is to elect an equally authoritarian “strong man” who will similarly ignore Constitutional Restraints and impose his will on their behalf.

  • The Republican Congress has not only been utterly ineffectual in opposing Obama’s policies, but has consistently voted to fully fund them. The one time the Congress very briefly, very tentatively stood up to Obama (the so-called “Government Shutdown” of 2013 that didn’t actually shut down anything), they not only folded immediately, but abjectly apologized and promised that such insolence would never happen again and those responsible (Ted Cruz, Mike Lee) would be punished.
  • The Supreme Court … led by a supposedly conservative George W. Bush appointee … saved Obamacare twice through Cirque du Soleil quality legal distortions, overturned Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement policies (because they displeased Obama), and created a brand new Constitutional Right to “dignity” in upholding gay marriage laws enacted in many cases against the wishes of the citizenry. Thus, the Roberts Court showed it cared not a whit for the Constitution, but would also… most of the time … roll over for President Obama.
  • Apologists repeating over-and-over “There’s nothing we can do because we don’t have the Presidency,” is a de facto admission that Congress is irrelevant in the era of the Baracktatorship.

This is a very plausible thesis, and I say that from the perspective of having been at one time sympathetic to the idea of a Trump candidacy (before he got down in the gutter). He was not my first, second, third, fourth,  or fifth choice. (FWIW: Paul, Walker, Cruz, Jindal, Perry) But I understood his appeal against a corrupt and ineffectual Republican Establishment, and before I came to the conclusion that his sudden conversion on issues like illegal immigration, trade, abortion, and gun control (the precise opposite of his previous views), was insincere opportunism, I could entertain the idea of a Trump candidacy. It was the sleazy campaign and the mounting evidence of his insincerity that pushed me to #NeverTrump.

But can I understand why someone would turn to Trump after every other instrument of the party had betrayed them? Totally.

YouTube Preview Image

#NeverTrump Because I Just Can’t

Posted by V the K at 12:49 pm - May 3, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Donald Trump is advancing a conspiracy theory that Ted Cruz’s dad was involved in the Kennedy Assassination.

Yeah, just when you think he can’t possibly sink any lower than talking about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle or saying George W. Bush was responsible for 9-11.

And his slobbering followers are lapping it up.

Because they are as mindless and impervious to reason and good sense as Obama’s followers.

I think I’ve officially gone from #NeverTrump to #NeverEverNoFkingWayNotEvenIfYouHeldAGunToMyHeadTrump.

At this point, Hillary could pick Chuck Schumer as her running mate, Gloria Allred as her Supreme Court pick, and Huma Abedin as First Lady and I would still be #NoFkingWayTrump

Trump campaign music after the break.


The Implicit Racism of Hillary and Bernie’s Campaign

One thing that’s been fascinating to watch this election cycle is Hillary and Bernie tacitly repudiating Obama. One would expect — after eight years of a Democratic Presidency that’s been lauded as so successful by the media — that they would be saying, “Obama did a fantastic job, the country has never been more secure or more prosperous.” Instead, both of them are running on a platform, essentially, that “America sucks.” The economy is terrible. Income inequality is terrible. Race relations are the worst they’ve been since the 1950′s. This is what you would expect an opposition candidate to be saying, not the incumbent party. When Bill Clinton references “the awful legacy of the last 8 years …” that’s pretty disrespectful to the Man in the White House.

At the same time, they are not repudiating Obama’s actual policies, but promising to accelerate and expand them across the board. Therefore, the implication is not that Obama’s policies are wrong-headed but that Obama has not implemented them properly. So what they are saying, in effect is, “Democratic Socialism will work, but only if old white people like us are in charge of it.” And they point to some of the whitest countries on Earth… Sweden and Denmark… as their “proof.”

Also, the Democrat policy prescriptions they embrace are all pretty much the kind of Government Paternalism that was once called “The White Man’s Burden;” the notion that minorities and the poor are simply incapable of looking after themselves. Therefore, they must have welfare programs, they must have housing programs, they must be given preferential treatment. Not only that, but the Government must even micromanage their diets, mircomanage their health care, and constantly talk up how wonderful these communities are because they are like sensitive, dysfunctional children whose feelings must not be aroused lest they start screaming and breaking things.

The condescension with which Democrats treat minorities is fascinating; the fact that minority communities seem to lap it up and reward them with votes is even more fascinating.

Do you ever wonder if the incessant media/elite focus on “social justice” — hissy fits over transgender bathrooms, accusations that anything and everything is racist — primarily serves to keep their ill-educated, resentful base preoccupied from questioning why the people who claim to care so much about income inequality have proven to be really good at keeping and even growing their own wealth while the rest of society declines?

As the “GapKids” item from earlier this week indicates, the left can literally find racism anywhere they look. Hillary and Bernie’s campaign seem to be a bit more obvious in the disrespect they show to America’s First Black* President, but they seem to be pretending not to notice.

A Word to the Wiseau

Posted by V the K at 1:33 pm - March 30, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Donald Trump issued a response today to Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, who has charged his campaign manager with battery.  I believe it went something like this.

YouTube Preview Image

Democrats Against Democracy

This weekend in Arizona (where I used to live), some Progressive Leftwing Fascists (Hillary and Bernie Sanders supporters) tried to stop Trump supporters from exercising their Constitutional Right to Peacefully Assemble.


Makes me wish this were a real thing.


The Anti-Trump Fascists were chanting about “Racist Police” and such all. At that same Trump rally, a left-wing agitator dressed up in KKK drag and got punched out by an African-American Trump supporter. I wish our national politics had not devolved to “Idiocracy,” but… hey, that’s where the Progressive Left has brought us.

You Don’t Have to Like Trump to Love This Ad

Posted by V the K at 8:24 am - March 17, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

YouTube Preview Image

GOP leaders fear a President Hillary more than their own obsolescence

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 11:01 am - March 11, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

If you watch what some Republican higher-ups are finally saying about Stopping Trump!, their main fear seems to be a Hillary presidency. Their logic seems to go like this: We have to Stop Trump! because if he’s the Republican nominee, Hillary is sure to win. She’ll mop the floor with him.

Two thoughts on that:

First, who’s to say? It’s curious to me that the reason they’re finally taking Trump seriously and (hopefully, but futilely it seems) trying to thwart his candidacy is based on the exact same thing that’s allowed this clown to come this far already: A tremendously low estimation of his ability to garner support. They’re convinced of a Hillary presidency if it’s her versus Trump. But why no fear of a Trump presidency?

Secondly, check out its reason for panic:

Not because the party may be about to nominate someone who full-throatedly supports and defends Planned Parenthood at two consecutive Republican presidential debates!; Not because the party may be about to nominate someone who wants to remain “neutral” between Israel and the Palestinians; Not because the party may be about to nominate someone who personifies the whore-like relationship between big government and special interests; Not because the party may be about to nominate someone who would start a trade war based mostly on his lack of knowledge, it seems, about how trade even works; Not because the party may be about to nominate someone who’d make Obama’s Imperial Presidency look restrained; Not because the party may be about to nominate a habitual liar and shyster.

No, they’re afraid that a guy like that might not win in November. Huh? I thought the whole point of the Republican party was to ensure the losses of such candidates…

The leaders of the Republican party are not panicking now because nominating Trump would erase any distinction between their party and the Democrats (and nobody will ever out-Democrat the Democrats) and render the GOP obsolete. No, they’re concerned that their Democrat would lose to the Democrats’ Democrat.

“Their guy” winning is ultimately more important than “their guy” destroying everything that they’re supposed to represent. It’s odd that the prospect of a Trump presidency didn’t motivate them to rally against him, but the thought of a Hillary presidency does. Forget that the basis for such a fear is based on the same sort of unsupported logic (‘he could never win’) that’s led to their underestimations of him so far. It’s curious that they’re not motivated by fear of his becoming president.

In the end, perhaps it doesn’t matter. One thing at least, it seems the current operational goals of the ‘establishment’ finally seem to be aligned with those of conservatives and Constitutionalists. And if it works, America will be better off to not have a President Trump (or another President Clinton, for that matter). But how long do you suppose the cooperation would last if Cruz (for example) wins the nomination? Or the White House?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Two Personality Cults; No Winners

Posted by V the K at 9:43 pm - March 10, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Hillary Clinton commits multiple felonies, lies about Benghazi, and engages in pretty much straight up influence peddling. Her followers don’t care.

Donald Trump’s goons rough up a young woman reporter from a Trump-friendly media outlet. His followers don’t care.

So, the question is, whose followers are worse in their blind loyalty? Or do they both just suck?

Trump Derangement Syndrome Gets Even Stupider

Posted by V the K at 11:15 am - March 10, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Getting deranged because of a politician can lead one to do very silly things.

An Ohio married couple with two young daughters has launched a movement called “Vote Trump Get Dumped,” which calls on people to refuse to have sex with Donald’s supporters. “I don’t want a sexist, racist, war-crime-threatening man leading my country,” wife, mother, and Vote Trump Get Dumped co-founder Chandler Smith told National Review Online on Wednesday. “So, we’re doing something about it,” she added.

Yes, technically, doing something juvenile and stupid is, nonetheless, “doing something.”

Did these people, at any point, say to themselves, “This is actually rather silly?”

If this is the sort vitriol people who don’t like Mr. Trump are driven to, I may have to give his candidacy another look. Doing the opposite of what crazy people do is often sound advice. Then again, the pro-Trump and anti-Trump people in my Facebook feed both seem equally nuts to me.

Hillary deceives, too few notice.

Surely we’ve all known since the 1990s that when a Clinton speaks, one must parse the precise words assiduously and meticulously.

Two days ago, the former Secretary of State appeared on CBS’s “Face The Nation” where host John Dickerson interviewed her about a range of issues. At about the 13-minute mark (sorry, in my browser, the time-scroll thingy doesn’t show where you are, so you may have to suffer through some asshole going on about how great he is for the first part), Dickerson asks about Brian Pagliano which introduces the email topic. At about 13:30, in response to his question about the classification of emails on her server, in toto she says the following (my emphasis added):

I also know that there were reports today about the hundreds of officials and the thousands of emails that they were sending back and forth that have been been looked at and classified retroactively. This really raises serious questions about this whole process I think. Colin Powell summed it up well when he was told that some of his emails from more than 10 years ago were going to be retroactively classified; he called it an absurdity. So I’m hoping that we’ll get through this and then everybody can take a hard look at the inter-agency disputes and the arguments over retroactive classification. Remember I’m the one who asked that all of my emails be made public. I’ve been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life. But it’s also true that when something is made public everybody from across the government gets to weigh in, and that’s what’s happening here, and we need to get it sorted out and then take action from there.

Dickerson then moves on to Libya and doesn’t return to the topic of the emails.

Notice what she’s not saying. She’s not saying that the information was retroactively classified, but that the emails were retroactively classified. If you’re paying close attention, you’ll note that this is a meaningless tautology. Of course the emails weren’t classified until after the fact… Who would have classified them when they were sent?

As background, when sending email via the secured systems used to house classified information (at least in the DoD, with which I’m familiar, but I’m betting State has a similar system), every time you hit send, you’re prompted to select a classification for the email. Is it Top Secret? Secret? Confidential? Is it SCI? Or is it Unclass? If so, is it FOUO? Does it contain PII (personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers, etc.)? Depending on which box you tick (and you can’t send without ticking a box… the message will remain in your Outbox), markings are automatically affixed to the message, i.e., ‘the email gets marked classified‘. Naturally if you’re sending emails from an unsecured system, these procedure doesn’t exist, and at that time, the email isn’t designated as ‘classified’.

If, say, four years later, as a result of a FOIA request, someone who knows about classification goes through and reads this “unclassified” email, guess what he’s going to do: “Holy shit! This email should be classified!” Suddenly, he’s ‘retroactively’ classifying emails. Emails containing information, by the way, that was quite likely classified at the time it was sent, but that wasn’t marked as such because the careless individual who chose to send it via unclassified (and therefore unregulated) means didn’t slap a classification on it Herself. But then, why would she do that, and raise the obvious issues at the time?

To suggest that all this was just someone going back (overzealously, and likely with malice of course) and slapping classified markings over stuff that was completely innocuous at the time it was sent is completely insincere and meant (as so much Madame Secretary and her husband says) to throw the credulous off her track.

It’s like Bill Cosby saying, ‘Yea sure. She complains now that she’s woken up. But she didn’t say anything about it at the time!’

Parse the words… remember, we were told that none of the info was classified.. Then it wasn’t marked classified. This is just the next step in the evolution.

The arrogance is astounding, but only persists because there’s a history of getting away with it.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Caitlyn Jenner for Ted Cruz

Posted by V the K at 8:25 am - March 4, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

This is going to confuse and enrage the Democrat Plantation owners.

Caitlyn Jenner said her favorite presidential candidate is Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and is willing to be a “trans ambassador” for the conservative politician who once dismissed the idea of gender-open bathrooms as “lunacy.”

“I like Ted Cruz,” Jenner told the Advocate in an interview marking the start of the second season of her reality show “I Am Cait” on the E! network.

I am with Ted on the bathroom thing; I don’t see why it’s such a horrific violation of your human rights that you should have to use the bathroom that aligns with your plumbing.

YouTube Preview Image


Real Quick Here, Just Give Me A Moment

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 10:55 pm - March 3, 2016.
Filed under: 2016 Presidential Election

Watching the debate… Donald Trump just said, in reply to Rubio’s (fair) criticism of his suggestion that he’s such a good leader that we (military officers) would follow his illegal order to deliberately target innocent family members of supposed terrorists that, “they’ll do as I tell them.”


As an active Reservist officer, Mr. Trump, my oath is to the Constitution of the United States and (thank God!), I am authorized and obligated to disobey illegal orders such as “take out their families.

Please, America. Please, Republican Party. Save us from this person.
Short of that, please explain how this charlatan has fooled so many Republicans, of all people.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)