Gay Patriot Header Image

Who Cares About the Homeless?

Posted by V the K at 10:05 am - May 1, 2018.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Interesting article (a few months old) about how urban planners are designing cities to be uncomfortable for the homeless.  Benches that can’t be slept on. Metal studs in places where the homeless like to sleep. It’s kind of a passive-aggressive way of dealing with the homeless when no one in city government has the balls to arrest them or put them in the psych ward.

I’ve seen the article passed around in anti-social media. It attracts the requisite leftie virtue-signaling about how cruel this is to homeless people. My bet is that 99% of the people expressing indignation have done nothing, personally, to deal with homelessness. And the majority of them really don’t understand where homelessness comes from. They buy into the media-promoted sob stories about people down on their luck, or women who claim to have ended up homeless after leaving “abusive situations.” There are a few cases like that, but most of the time, it’s because of mental illness and drugs.

And some lefties get easy jobs with ‘Homeless Advocacy’ groups and get paid money to virtue signal. Like this guy:

“People need to educate, organize, and protect human rights,” Jonathan says. “When you see somebody trying to throw human rights to the floor, you need to stand up and speak up. They say they don’t want homeless people in my town, tell them, ‘Get out of here—the city’s for everyone, not just the people you want.’”

The homeless problem can not be solved by “educating and organizing.” Those are just the kind of things lefties like to do. And, of course, they want to be paid and rewarded for doing the educating and organizing. That approach won’t actually solve the problem, it isn’t meant to. It will create perpetual easy jobs for professional activists, though. And sometimes it involves marching around in front of TV cameras holding signs and shouting. Beats having a real job.

Homelessness never be totally solved because for a certain number of homeless, it is a lifestyle choice. And dealing with the rest of them would involve solutions that are very expensive and would be politically unpopular; building expensive facilities, paying their staffs, and confining people to them until they are fit to live on their own. So, they aren’t going to happen. The virtue-signaling about the homeless, however, will always be with us.

Moore to the Point

Posted by V the K at 8:33 pm - November 10, 2017.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Roy Moore is toast. I don’t know the truth of the allegations, and neither do any of you. But the truth hardly ever matters in politics. What matters is that Alabama voters will not want to vote for a creep. They are not like Massachusetts Democrats who re-elected Gerry Studds ten times after he molested a Congressional page and named a Marine Sanctuary after him. No, Moore’s candidacy for the senate is dead and with it any hope of tax reform, border security, or Obamacare repeal. Which will be fine with Mitch McConnell and the Republican Establishment because they didn’t really want to do any of those things anyway.

Republicans have been rushing to throw Moore to the wolves, knowing full well that under Alabama law he can’t withdraw from the race and so he would be essentially forfeiting the seat to a Democrat. but I don’t think they realize that this is not a one-shot deal. Going forward, every Republican candidate for anything is going to be dogged, like clockwork, one month before the allegations, by allegations of sexual misconduct. And like I said, the allegations don’t have to be true, they only have to be timed properly.

One more thing, I noticed that CNN all day has been using the construction that a woman has accused Moore of “Initiating a Sexual Encounter.” It’s an interesting and very deliberate way to describe what what happened because, even according to the accuser, there was no sex. If what the woman claims happened happened, then it was still gross and skeevy, but it wasn’t sex. But by phrasing it that way, CNN sure makes it sound like Moore had sex with an underage girl, which is what they want you to think. It’s the opposite of when they characterize Anthony Weiner as “sending inappropriate texts” or Hillary of “mishandling emails” in order to downplay what they actually did. This is not a defense of Moore, just an observation about the media.

Call Me Cynical, If You Must

Posted by V the K at 8:36 am - October 26, 2017.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Which is more likely? 93-year-old, wheelchair-bound former Republican-Lite president George HW Bush sexually assaulted a C-List Hollywood actress, or a C-List Hollywood actress (and a D-List New York actress) is trying to score some attention by claiming she was sexually assaulted by 93-year-old, wheelchair-bound former Republican-Lite president George HW Bush.

Granted, under the regime of Toxic Shock Feminism, any physical contact with, or even looking at, talking to, or thinking about a woman can be labeled sexual assault. Also, under the rules of Toxic Shock Feminism, any man accused of sexual assault (unless his last name is Clinton) is guilty even if proven innocent.

Remember when this happened? Or this? Not a peep from the Feminist Left.

Also, it’s totally OK when a famous Hollywood lesbian does it.

I have no love for GHWB; I think he and his son were terrible presidents, and the Bushes generally are kind of skeevy. At the same time, though, I believe that GHWB groped women in the middle of a crowded photoshoot with multiple witnesses the same way I believe Donald Trump called the widow of a soldier just to sneer at her, the same way I believe Katy Perry’s bazooms are real, and (the far superior) Taeyeon is a natural blond. (Did she really steal that guy’s car? I think she stole that guy’s car.)

Moving On, Biting My Tongue, Avoiding the Obvious Observation

Posted by V the K at 11:04 pm - August 29, 2017.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Here we see Bill Clinton’s wife taking a casual stroll with the wife of a Democrat Congressman who enjoys sending d*ck pics to underage girls.

It’s About Power, Not Piety

The left has no interest in building new things; only in taking over and destroying the beautiful things that others have built. Case in point: Left-Wing reformers demanded, and got, mixed gender prayer space at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. They don’t even go there to pray. Not even on Holy Days.

A person arriving this morning, Tuesday, for 17th of Tammuz prayers at the Western Wall’s “Ezrat Yisrael,” the agreed-upon mixed gender area, discovered that the space was completely empty.

“The question has to be asked: Whether you really wanted a place to pray, or if it’s all just hypocrisy? I had to come here, so that this area would have at least a few prayers going up to Heaven. Because as far as you’re concerned, it’s all politics.”

They never wanted to pray anyway, the left is overwhelmingly secular and atheist. But they did want to show that raw political power could force others to bend to their will. Power is what the left is all about, all the nonsense talk about gender equality, diversity, environmentalism, social justice and so forth is just a means to that end.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Let’s take the hypothetical cases of Billy, Alex, and Fatima. All of them are pre-teen children living in blue-state America.

Billy has just started puberty and thinks he may be attracted to other boys. Billy’s parents are deeply religious and concerned about this both for religious reasons and because they don’t want to see him ending up as the featured sling-bottom at a bareback chemsex party, and they would like him to talk to a therapist about changing his orientation or behavior. Current social status: Billy’s parents are worse than Hitler and what they want to do is illegal.

Alex has begun painting his nails, dyeing his hair pink, and told his mom he wants to be a girl. Alex’s mom immediately found a doctor who’ll be happy to begin flooding his body with artificial hormones to thwart the natural process of puberty so that when he turns eighteen, he can have breast implants and his genitalia mutilated into a crude facsimile of a cervix. Current social status: Alex’s mom is the toast of her wine and book club ever since she announced, “Alex is becoming Alexa, and we are being totally supportive.” She pitched an article to the Huffington Post, but they said, “No thanks, we’ve fulfilled our quota of ‘Supportive Parents of Transgender Youth’ for this month.”

Fatima’s Mohammedan Somali-Immigrant parents want to have her genitalia ritualistically mutilated so that she can never enjoy sexual pleasure. Current social status: Approved and defended by the ACLU and feminist groups, because to oppose such a thing would be Islamophobic and racist.

And that’s where we are in the Culture Wars in America. Good night.

Shout Out to Aaron and Stevie

Posted by V the K at 8:33 am - April 20, 2017.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Steve “The Facebook Killer” Stephens offs himself before cops can arrest him; saving the taxpayers millions in trial and incarceration expenses.

A few days later, violent football thug Aaron Hernandez hangs himself in his jail cell after being acquitted of two murders, but convicted of another.

Well done, fellows. You did to yourselves what society no longer has the cobbles to do… exterminate vermin.

In fact, the trend has been just the opposite, as President Obama and the State of California have released thousands of violent criminals from prisons because it makes rich liberals in gated communities feel better to release predators into poor, crime-ridden communities.

So, credit where credit is due.

Democrat Tries Trump-Voter Cosplay; Still Loses

Posted by V the K at 11:35 pm - April 12, 2017.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Republicans won a special election in Kansas on Thursday for an open house seat; but the Democrats were eager to hand “Trump’s Party” a defeat and spent a lot of time and effort on the race. (See also,  Georgia’s 6th district, where the Democrats have a much better shot because the Republican vote will be split among a vanload of challengers).

One thing that strikes me is how carefully they crafted the image of their challenger. In campaign photos, he is depicted as unshaven, casually dressed with a baseball cap. You can see the consultants choosing this look … “So those Joe Sixpack, bitter clinger types will think he’s one of their own.” But still, the choice of eyewear communicates to Democrats, “It’s OK to vote for him, because he’s smart.”

Plans For Inauguration Day?

Posted by V the K at 9:05 am - January 18, 2017.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

I think this guy… this guy right here… is going to bring the alt-right Neo-Nazi bitter clinger deplorables to their knees.


DMC’s New Hero Seems to Be a Liar and a Con Man

Posted by V the K at 8:31 am - December 16, 2016.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

The Democrat-Media Complex (with help from Van Jones’s left-wing PR firm, which represents him) is making a hero out of Texas Elector Chris Suprun; because of his “courageous” position to refuse to cast his vote for Donald Trump because his conscience won’t allow him to vote for someone who is “unqualified for the office.”

But apparently, his conscience hasn’t stopped him from lying about being a First Responder on 9-11-2001, or other things.

“He claimed to be a first responder with the Manassas Park [Virginia] Fire Department on September 11, 2001 and personally told us stories ‘I was fighting fire that day at the Pentagon.’ No, I was on a medic unit that day at the Pentagon and you make a phone call to Manassas Park and you find out that he wasn’t even employed there until October 2001,” said a first responder who knows Suprun and only agreed to speak about him if his identity was concealed.

The City of Manassas Park confirmed to WFAA that it hired Suprun on October 10, 2001, one month after the 9/11 attacks.

The fire chief there added that his department never even responded to the Pentagon or any of the 9/11 sites.

Suprun also claims to currently be a paramedic with Freedom EMS in Dallas. But records from the Texas Department of State Health Services indicate there’s no such company. A firm with that name used to exist in Houston, but it went out of business in 2008, according to DSHS.

Turns out, federal court records show Suprun has spent the last five years in bankruptcy while his résumé says he was working. He even collected unemployment during part of it, court records show. Suprun was just released from bankruptcy supervision this month.

So, this guy lied about his credentials, set up a charity that may be a scam, and is casting himself as a Simon pure and interested only in the common good of society. No wonder he’s thrown in with the Democrats.

They key to being an effective con-man is understanding your mark. His mark, in this case, was the MFM. Knowing that the Democrat-Media Complex hated Trump, all he had to do was pitch a story that played to their prejudice and the narrative that “Good people are appalled by Donald Trump.” Boom! Instant, lucrative celebrity status.


Awkward Presidential Portraits

Posted by V the K at 2:41 pm - March 23, 2015.
Filed under: Call Me Cynical But...

Hey, Young Ted Cruz, does Herb Tarlek know you stole his jacket?


Herb Tarlek

The seventies were a bad, bad time.

Teaching People Not to be Victims Is Insensitive, Apparently

So, here’s what happened.

A Central California mayor’s remarks that bullying victims should toughen up and defend themselves has sparked anger among some city officials and gay rights advocates.

At a recent City Council meeting, Porterville Mayor Cameron Hamilton said he opposes bullying but thinks it is too often blamed for the world’s problems. Hamilton said some people need to “grow a pair.”

Of course, this didn’t sit well with the Party of Perpetual Grievance and Victimhood. And, naturally, the loudest whining came from the LGBT quarter.

Melissa McMurrey of Gay Porterville told KFSN-TV that she felt attacked by the mayor’s comments. She said bullies often target young gay people.

That’s where we are in Hyper-Feminized Obamerica… telling someone who feels bullied that they should stand up for themselves and be strong is considered an “attack.”

The very idea of teaching people to be strong and independent is anathema to the left. Victims are a key Democrat constituency, and children need to be indoctrinated from a young age not to be independent, but that the protective arms of the state will provide a ‘Safe Zone’ for them.

And, can we be honest about what the left’s obsession with “bullying” is really about? It’s about silencing opinions the left doesn’t want to hear. Just as Zero Tolerance policies have led to kids getting suspended and arrested for shooting finger guns or having a stray Tylenol tablet in their back-packs, Zero Tolerance bullying policies are intended to allow school officials (who tend to be hard-left fascist idiots) to shut down any speech or opinion that might hurt someone’s feelers by labeling it “bullying.”

So let me get this right:

The administration—whose latest foray into unobstructed, unlegislated, we’ve-got-this, go-it-aloneism was the fabulously ‘effed up roll-out of—is going to make 2014 the year of the Executive Branch takes on the world without the messiness of involving the People’s Branch of the federal government?

This’ll be something to see…

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)

What ARE the aims of Obama’s foreign policy?

Victor Davis Hanson published a memorable piece in the National Review last week entitled “America as Pill Bug.”  The pill bug or the roly-poly bug is one that turns itself into a ball when it feels threatened.  Hanson writes:

That roly-poly bug can serve as a fair symbol of present-day U.S. foreign policy, especially in our understandable weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the scandals that are overwhelming the Obama administration.

On August 4, U.S. embassies across the Middle East simply closed on the basis of intelligence reports of planned al-Qaeda violence. The shutdown of 21 diplomatic facilities was the most extensive in recent American history.

Yet we still have over a month to go before the twelfth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, an iconic date for radical Islamists.

Such preemptive measures are no doubt sober and judicious. Yet if we shut down our entire public profile in the Middle East on the threat of terrorism, what will we do when more anti-American violence arises? Should we close more embassies for more days, or return home altogether?

Hanson makes an excellent point about the way the Obama administration’s closure of embassies is likely to be viewed in the Arab world and around the globe.  Although, as Jeff pointed out in a post last week, the administration may have ulterior motives–by trying to create a distraction–by closing the embassies in this manner, the reality is that the interpretation of the administration’s actions by our international foes is likely to proceed in a manner similar to that Hanson envisions in his article.

Hanson looks at the example of Libya and Syria to illustrate that the administration’s “lead from behind” strategy is not working, and that it appears to be counterproductive:

Instead, the terrorists are getting their second wind, as they interpret our loud magnanimity as weakness — or, more likely, simple confusion. They increasingly do not seem to fear U.S. retaliation for any planned assaults. Instead, al-Qaeda franchises expect Americans to adopt their new pill-bug mode of curling up until danger passes.

Our enemies have grounds for such cockiness. President Obama promised swift punishment for those who attacked U.S. installations in Benghazi and killed four Americans. So far the killers roam free. Rumors abound that they have been seen publicly in Libya.

Instead of blaming radical Islamist killers for that attack, the Obama reelection campaign team fobbed the assault off as the reaction to a supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic videomaker. That yarn was untrue and was greeted as politically correct appeasement in the Middle East.

All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress?

No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.” Yet the administration has done just that to the Bashar al-Assad regime over the last two years.

Hanson sees the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a disastrous replay of the Carter doctrine, once again illustrating Glenn Reynolds’ frequent observation that a replay of Jimmy Carter is simply the “best-case scenario” for Obama.

While I believe Hanson is right in his characterization of the big picture and the likely consequences of Obama foreign policy, I’d differ from him in seeing Obama as being as feckless and weak as Carter.  I’d maintain that Carter’s foreign policy was guided by a number of naive precepts about the nature of the world.  At least during the years of his presidency, I’d contend that Carter “meant well” in the way the phrase is commonly used to describe a hopelessly incompetent bumbler who seems incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings.  Likewise, early in the Obama administration, Tammy Bruce started referring to Obama as Urkel, the nerdy, awkward, inept kid from the TV show “Family Matters” who had an uncanny ability to mess up almost everything he touched.  That certainly is one narrative for what Obama is doing in the world of foreign policy, but I’m not sure it is the right one.

As I contemplate Obama foreign policy, though, particularly in the Middle East, I find myself thinking more and more that although incompetence might be the simplest explanation, it might not be the best or the right one.  I see no good intentions in the administration’s domestic policy, so why should its foreign policy be exempt from charges that it is motivated more by malevolence to the United States and its role in history than by a supposed set of “liberal” ideals?

This is an administration that seems bent on alienating all of our historical allies as quickly as possible, while taking it easy on our geopolitical foes.  Obama seems to want our allies to view us as unreliable and untrustworthy while making sure our enemies view us as weak, indecisive, and either unable or unwilling to use force to protect our interests or to enforce our stated policy goals.  If there is a better explanation of the administration’s ultimate foreign policy goals, I’d sure like to know what it might be.


The Zimmerman Verdict and Obama

Over at PJMedia, Roger L. Simon has a piece with the catchy title “Obama Big Loser in Zimmerman Trial.”  Simon writes:

By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a onetime law lecturer, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.

 It is also the work of a narcissist who thinks of himself first, of his image, not of black, white or any other kind of people. It’s no accident that race relations in our country have gone backwards during his stewardship.

It’s a clever premise, and in ideal world, it should be true, but in the world we live in, the one where Obama got re-elected, I suspect it doesn’t hurt Obama one bit.

These are just a few quick thoughts on my part, so they won’t be fully fleshed-out, but as I see it, Obama got most of what he wanted from the Zimmerman trial.   Zimmerman wasn’t convicted, but as far as Obama and Holder are concerned, that only would have been the icing on their toxic cake.

As suggested in this great article by Karen McQuillan at American Thinker, Obama and Holder are masters at using race and division to advance their agenda.  And when this incident occurred, Obama was showing some softening of support among black voters who were not faring well in the Obama economy.  McQuillan writes:

Once the president of the United States weighed in, Zimmerman had a target on his back.  An ounce of election advantage to our privileged, Ivy League president versus the ruination of a Hispanic man’s life — it was an easy choice for Obama.  Obama’s great appeal to voters in 2008 was his self-presentation as a black man without animus or grievance, eager to move the country beyond divisions of all sorts — black and white, red and blue.  In reality, Obama is obsessed with divisions — race, class, gender — and is expert at fueling war between us, to his political advantage.

Obama has used accusations of racism before, to rally his troops and attack his political opponents.  Opposition to ObamaCare?  Racist.  Opposition to big government?  Racist.  His core liberal supporters like this stuff, and the other voters give him a pass on this, as on everything.  The election analysts were predicting that even black turnout could dip in 2012.  Obama moved from racial slurs on opposition groups to attacking a particular individual citizen.  Zimmerman was sacrificed.

In other words, by weighing in on the Zimmerman case, Obama shored up support among his base and among the black activist class, and thereby helped pave the way to his re-election by those groups.  Not only did he help win support among those voting blocs, he further poisoned the well for race relations in this country, and he added still more fuel to the fire behind his anti-gun agenda.
Now you may think I’m being too clever by half by imputing those kinds of motives to Obama and Holder, but simply look at his statement about the verdict:
The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.
Now while on the surface it looks like he is calling for “calm,” and for respect for the rule of law, he’s doing so in the context of his (and Holder’s) earlier statements about race and “gun violence,” effectively giving one message to his supporters and sympathizers, and another message to everyone else.  It is classic leftist misdirection.
At the link above, there’s also a statement from Holder’s Justice Department saying that the FBI and federal prosecutors are weighing options for federal charges against Zimmerman.  Translation: this isn’t over, as long as Obama and Holder believe they can continue to profit from racial demagoguery.
In one of the comments on my last post, our regular commenter Heliotrope provided a skillful analysis of Al Sharpton’s statement about the verdict, relating it back to Alinsky’s rules.  Heliotrope observes:
Libtards lust for power in order to control the sheeple according to their current, faddish view of “correctness.” They are prideful and lash out with the politics of personal destruction against those who stand in their way. Their wrath is both verbalized and implanted by way of insidious actions meant to undermine their opposition. They have lying tongues. They scheme and devise wicked plots. They sow discord. They plant festering mischief. They twist the context to fit their version of the truth and justify their lies. They refuse to practice circumspection and correct their errors in any sense of obedience to promoting a better solution.
I’ve seen a lot of those behaviors in the reactions to the verdict I’ve been reading by various Obama supporters today.  There are lots of calls, a la Obama, for “calm reflection,” but, in the minds of the Obama supporters weighing in on this case, none of those reflections are to start from the premise that Angela Corey and the prosecutors in Florida had a weak case to begin with–and that they lost because they failed miserably in presenting the case in a way that made any of the charges stick.  None of those reflections are to start from the premise that perhaps Zimmerman had a right to have a weapon with him and to use it to fight back when he was knocked down and attacked.

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.

Still believe the president’s shift on same-sex marriage is sincere?

Hugh Hewitt’s observation this morning about possible “trouble in Obamaville” provides another data point suggesting otherwise.  “The president’s cash haul in April”, he observes “was down from that in March, and The Hill’s report has this note of anxiety within it:

The Obama campaign is making a concerted effort to boost the number of small donations, as its affiliated super-PACs have not been able to compete with the big donations from wealthy individuals contributing to super-PAC’s affiliated with presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

As I wrote last June, “Face it, gay Democrats, he’s just after you for your money

When they had a majority, House Democrats never voted on repealing DOMA, yet now they’re campaigning on Obama’s support of same-sex marriage

On its website, The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) bills itself as “the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House.”  And last night via a friend’s Facebook link, I learned that this outfit was garnering signatures in support of the president’s new stand on gay marriage:

That takes some cheek. Since a Republican Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, Democrats have controlled the House for four years, from January 3, 2007 until January 5, 2011.  Not once did then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) hold a vote on repealing that legislation.  Not once did she hold a vote on giving benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees.

These Democrats now praise Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, yet, when they had a chance to act on the issue they did nothing.

Something tells me that once the DCCC gets your name, they’re going to be hitting you up for campaign contributions.  Maybe this thing is all about fundraising after all.

Some Perspective:

So let’s see:

House Republicans have so far put forward and passed THREE specific plans waiting now to become law.

What follows are the full texts of ALL of the plans put forward and passed by Obama and the Senate Democrats: .

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Congress Moves At Speed of Light on DADT Repeal

**UPDATE – 10:18PM – House passes DADT repeal amendment – 234-194.  Newest Congressman Djou (R-HI), endorsed by GOProud, voted in favor of repeal.  GOP votes in favor were Cao, Djou, Biggert, Ros-Lehtinen, Paul.  26 Democrats voted against repeal.  The roll call of the vote will (eventually) appear at THIS LINK. (h/t – AllahPundit)

Damn!  As I said on Twitter…..

 … if the Congress would only secure our borders as quick as they are moving on #DADT.

…  imagine if Obama found the ability not to lie as quickly as Congress is moving on #DADT !!!

Just sayin…

Anyway, I’m glad this Clinton-era, legislated discrimination is on the pathway to repeal.  Earlier this afternoon, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 to move toward repeal of DADT.

Senators took the first step toward allowing gays to serve openly in the military Thursday evening, with a panel voting 16-12 to approve an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would repeal the don’t ask don’t tell policy.

“Today’s action by the Senate Armed Services Committee is an important step to end this discriminatory policy,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) the panel’s chairman, who described debate on the amendment as “lively.”

The amendment was the most-watched part of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s mark up of its annual defense bill, which also passed Thursday evening.

The bill was soundly opposed by the Republicans on the committee and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who explained in a statement that he didn’t want to repeal the ban while the Pentagon is in the midst of reviewing how it should implement the change.

The White House and the Pentagon both approved a compromise contained in the amendment that allowed Congress to act, while granting the President, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate authority to implement repeal when they were satisfied that the military’s readiness, recruiting, retention and morale would not be adversely impacted by the shift in policy.

And now, suddenly Speaker Pelosi (who voted for the Clinton-signed DADT law originally) is hammering a vote through the House tonight with nearly no time for debate.  Tyranny rocks!  That Constitution is such an old, worn out thing — ain’t it, Nancy?

In all seriousness, I am pleased at this momentum — though there is much more to go before a repeal is complete.

But also in all seriousness — have you EVER seen Washington move this quickly on ANYTHING?  There must be a lot of Homolobbying going on behind closed doors!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)