Gay Patriot Header Image

Are You a ‘Good Gay’

Whatever definition the DNC used to define ‘good gay,’ most of us probably do not qualify.

Also, from the Finance Chair of the DNC. “I love you too. No homo.”

BTW: Have you noted the not-so-subtle shift in media coverage from “What’s in the leaked emails” (Bad for Democrats) to “Who hacked the emails?” (Not as bad for Democrats)?

A Constitutional Conservative Case for Backing Trump in November

Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about.  From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.

Trump was definitely not my first choice:  I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz.  As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.

My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election.  While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting.  While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality.  So what to do?  One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way.  Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.

Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes.  During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power.  I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.

But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues?  One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year.  My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.

Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma.  Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance.  Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.

In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles.  I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.

But let’s examine the situation.  We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative.  We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power.  Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.”  That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates.  She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”

During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin.  When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president.  And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”

So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?  This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:

The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.

Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.

Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.

And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.

You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.

Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.

Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?

I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not.   As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.

And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons.    As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.”  Barnes notes:

Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.

And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal.  The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.

The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.

For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.”  Hillary Clinton must not become president.  If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.

So then, why Donald Trump?  Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.

I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.

Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative.  How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?

For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system.  Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same:  Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.

(more…)

The Democrat Assault on the Constitution

Posted by V the K at 6:20 am - June 15, 2016.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

A Democrat Senator from Pennsylvania wants citizens stripped of their right to bear arms on the mere Government “suspicion” that they might commit a hate crime.

The Official Democrat Party position is that citizens ought to be deprived of their right to bear arms without due process based on a secretive Government Watch List. Democrats opposed Republican efforts to put due process safeguards in place on the Secret Government Watch List.

Democrat Senators and the Obama Administration have adopted the official position that male citizens accused of rape ought to be deprived of their rights without any due process; subjected to kangaroo courts where they are denied legal counsel and denied even being informed of the charges against them.

A cabal of Democrat State Attorneys-General, led by a Democrat candidate for the US Senate from California, want to make it illegal to question the pseudo-scientific dogma of “Man-Caused Global Warming.”

I really don’t even need to add any comment for this; the actions of the Democrat Party speak for themselves.

Priorities

The Democrat Legislature of the People’s Republic of Maryland focuses its attention on the very important issues of the day.

A compromise on a new Maryland state song is moving forward in the General Assembly. The state Senate will begin considering a bill Tuesday that would relegate the current pro-Confederacy lyrics to “Maryland, My Maryland” by James Ryder Randall to the status of “historic state song.”

Yeah, that should solve all the state’s problems.

Obama’s Iconographer Unveils Sanders Campaign Iconography

Posted by V the K at 11:11 am - February 18, 2016.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

Sheperd Fairey continues to establish himself as the Valentina Kulagina of American Socialism, coming with new iconography for the Bernie Sanders campaign.

Socialists, for some reason, really love this kind of stuff, the mating of terrible ideas with stunning graphic design. (Or maybe it’s not that great. When I first saw it, I mistook it for craft-beer label.)

CbgCn2kXEAA3wbN

Yes, He Really Said This

Posted by V the K at 9:11 am - January 12, 2016.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

“Never underestimate the coercive power of the central state!” – California Democrat Governor Jerry Brown.

Just to clarify, he said this is a good thing.

The article goes on to praise Crony Socialism; where the Government picks favored, politically-connected businesses and provides them with taxpayer subsidies.

Interesting, but not Surprising

Posted by V the K at 7:40 am - January 5, 2016.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

So, the Oregon “Right Wing Hillbilly Terror Attack” as the Obama-Left is calling it began when a Federal Prosecutor in Oregon decided to send a couple of ranchers back to prison even though they had served their sentences… for “terrorism” charges. Who is this “Federal Prosecutr?”

Her name is Amanda Marshall. Here are the facts about her.

  • She is an Obama appointee and (it follows naturally) a radical leftist
  • Her appointment as  U.S Attorney for the State of Oregon was a Diversity Hire, she had no Federal prosecutorial experience when appointed. Her only qualifications were a law degree, a radical left pedigree, and internal reproductive organs.
  • She was raised in a commune by Deadheads.
  • She had to resign from office due to mentally unstable behavior that included stalking a married co-worker.

The left had been beating the “Right Wing Hillbilly Terrorist” Drum Circle pretty loudly. All that noise is, I guess, intended to keep us distracted from the fact that his administration is moonbats all the way down.

Democrats Strongly Imply All Mohammedans Are Radical Mohammedans

Democrats have come under criticism for refusing to label the people who killed 40 people in Beirut last Thursday, 130 people in Paris last Friday, and 28 People in Mali this morning as “Radical Islamists” or “Islamic Extremists.”

Put on the defensive, Democrats have responded with a propaganda commercial accusing Republicans of hating Mohammedans.

The problem is that no Republican has accused all Mohammedans of being terrorists. The Democrats couldn’t even find one quote from any Republican to distort in their ad into making this accusation. Republican candidates for president have been extremely careful to draw a distinction between “Radical” Mohammedans and non-violent Mohammedans.

The only people who aren’t making this distinction are the Democrats. Thus, the Democrats imply, through their propaganda ad, that there is no distinction to be made between Islamic Terrorists and All Muslims. Republicans say, “We want to keep terrorists out and defeat Islamic Extremism.” Democrats say, “You just attacked all Muslims.”

Ipso Facto, Democrats have just said that Mohammedans are radicals and terrorists

(more…)

Democrats Against Democracy

Posted by V the K at 1:47 pm - October 9, 2015.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

It is frustrating to the Progressive Left that so many Americans are opposed to their biggest agenda items; European/Chicago Style Gun Control, California-Style Environmental Extremism, Open Borders, and giving politicians, unions, the Democrat news-media and left-leaning special interest groups a monopoly on political speech.

And what some lefties like about Hillary and Obama is their eagerness to bypass the Democratic process and simply impose progressive left rule autocratically.

“Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods,” (Vox Pundit Matt Yglesias) writes. “More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.”

What he calls “Procedural Niceties” the rest of us would call “the Constitutional Separation of Powers.”

And indeed, Hillary’s agenda is open borders, gun control, and creating a left-wing monopoly on political speech.

Clinton has latched on to some of them. She says she’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Citizens United decision that ushered in a new era of soft money in politics and force government contractors to disclose political donations. She says she’ll make sure her Homeland Security secretary is more lenient about deportations, and that she will close the “gun show loophole” by requiring private gun sellers to register as licensed dealers.

 

Left-Wing Democrats Grave-Dancing on Charleston Shooting Victims

Posted by V the K at 5:42 pm - June 18, 2015.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

If you’ve caught any media today, you know that the Democrat Left is absolutely joygasmic over the shooting in Charleston SC last night. This is the shooting they have been waiting for! This is what they had hoped every mass shooting up until now would be: white racist with a gun, black victims. The only way this could have been better is if the victims were gay or Muslim and the shooter was a Republican politician. So much win for The Narrative, if you’re a leftist Democrat.

Politicize all the things! It’s the Democrat way.

One victim, however, took a much classier approach than our Ruling Class.

(more…)

People Unclear on the Concept

Posted by V the K at 10:02 pm - June 1, 2015.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

Barney Frank, the corrupt gay Democrat from Massachusetts who was a prime mover behind the Bush Era real estate bubble and its subsequent crash, opened his piehole and lisped out a profound misunderstanding of the concept of civil rights.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a vocal critic of the Patriot Act for what he says is its “unconstitutional” invasion of citizens’ privacy, was criticized Monday by former Rep. Barney Frank for ignoring some civil liberties.

“I think Rand Paul sincerely believes what he says,” Frank, the former Massachusetts Democrat, told HuffPost Live’s Alyona Minkovski. “On the other hand, my right to marry my husband is not one of the civil liberties that Sen. Paul was prepared to recognize, so I’m not ready to grant him the total crown.”

For the umpteenth millionth time, marriage is a socially constructed institution, not a civil right.

However, the progressive left defines a right as “something we want.” So, gay marriage is a right. And health care is a right. “Free” college is a right. And wifi is a right. Health food is a right. Welfare-funded trips to Disneyland and Vegas are a right. Vacations are a right. Et cetera…

If the Democrats Want to Fund Infrastructure, Let Them Take the Money Out of Other Programs

Posted by V the K at 5:53 pm - May 14, 2015.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

With all the Democrats screaming that when an engineer takes a train around a 50MPH curve at 106MPH and people are killed that it’s Republicans’ fault for only spending billions and billions on AMTRAK instead of billions and billions and billions and billions, it’s important to consider a little lesson about politicians and infrastructure spending.

A week ago, voters in Michigan rejected a massive tax increase earmarked for road improvements, despite the politicians’ (of both parties) insistence that the tax increase was the only way to fund desperately needed infrastructure improvements.

After the referendum failed, all of a sudden, the legislature found a way to fund a billion dollars in road improvements by reallocating money from other programs.

Weird, huh?

Of course, states have to find money if they want to spend it, they don’t have access to printing presses and a limitless debt card. They’re not like the Federal Government that can spend damn near $900 Billion on stimulus, with nothing to show for it except some bankrupt green energy companies and some professors who got grants to teach Africans to wash their pee-pees, and then can insist that the need even MOAR MONEEZ to fix the infrastructure they promised to fix with the first 900 XL.

Democrats Appeal to the Ultimate Authority: 8th Graders

Posted by V the K at 7:31 pm - March 11, 2015.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

You know how I am always saying Democrats have the mentality of the middle school girls?

Yeah, about that.

“All the cool kids believe in anthropogenic climate change. I guess you don’t want to be one of the cool kids.”

Proving My Point

Posted by V the K at 12:14 pm - December 8, 2014.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

As I have said, the value proposition of the Democrat party is, “We will take money from people you don’t like and spend it on you.”

It’s pretty hard to deny the accuracy of this assessment when you see the fliers handed out by supporters of Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu prior to her crushing defeat on Saturday.

32758-by a concerned citizen

Democrats’ “Reality Based” Rationale for Killing the Keystone XL Pipeline

How is it that if Canadian oil is shipped to the southern USA via pipeline it causes Global Warming, but if the same oil is sent to the southern USA by train, or to China by ship… it doesn’t cause Global Warming? Because that is apparently what the radical environmental left and their idiotic Democrat Senators believe.

Tom Harkin on why he’s no on keystone: Says every dollar on fossil fuel is “dollar we spend digging the graves of our grandchildren”

One thoroughly deranged woman took to the Senate floor and declared, ““XL stands for Xtra Lethal and misery follows the tar sands!

Isn’t there a frozen chicken funeral she should be attending?

Hello Kettle? There’s a Mr. Pot on the Line For You

Posted by V the K at 4:20 pm - November 15, 2014.
Filed under: Democratic demagoguery

Howard Dean… the former Chairman and Presidential candidate of a party that seeks to …

claims that the opposition party are authoritarians who don’t believe in Democracy.

HOWARD DEAN: It’s very, very disconcerting. We’re basically rolling ourselves back to the 1920s. This is an authoritarian group of people who fundamentally I don’t think believe in democracy given their views on voting rights, and it’s a very, very frightening time.

Democrat Presidential Hopeful says “WiFi is a human right.”

“We will take money from other people and buy you stuff with it” is what the Democrat Party is all about; so naturally, there is no end of Free [Stuff] from the Government for Democrats to offer the parasites who vote for them. Maryland Governor and Democrat Presidential aspirant Martin O’Malley (who has raised taxes 40 times in the eight years he has been in office) has declared that something that didn’t exist a generation ago is now a basic human right.

Younger people are choosing to live in cities. They realize that connections to each other are making us better. That WiFi is a human right. That proximity is important to entrepreneurship, access to capital and talent and diversity. There is an opportunity there for us as a nation to embrace that new perspective.

Do you know what *isn’t* a human right in MOM’s People’s Republic of Maryland? The right to defend yourself from those who wish to do violence against you.

A penny drops

When someone who is lost in a maelstrom of demented falsehoods (leftism) glimpses even a fragment of truth, even if that person has a long way to go, that little glimpse makes the angels sing.

Today, it’s Cindy Sheehan.

Tuesday on NewsmaxTV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan said in 2005 Nancy Pelosi and top Democrat leaders in the House and Senate said to her face that if she helped them get elected they would end the wars completely, but now they have stopped supporting her…

Sheehan said the left anti war movement is being ignored by the democrats because they are “reverse racists” who are supporting Obama only because he is an African-American.

She said, “I think that there are some people on the so called left, who might say we have to circle our wagons around the first African American president, and to me that is racism in reverse because his policies are actually still the racist policies of empire.”

So… Nancy Pelosi lies to people’s faces and uses them? Obama is what the Left always accused Bush of being? Democrats are racists who only voted for him on skin color? What goes around, comes around?

My, oh my.

Democrat Mayor to Unemployed Blacks: Sucks to be you.

Black teen unemployment rate in Chicago: 92% (Not an exaggeration)

Democrat Mayor of Chicago: “Let’s give city jobs to illegal immigrants.”

Sorry Blacks. Illegals are hot, and you are not.

Democrats Digging at the Bottom of the Marianas Trench

Yeah, the Democrats have gone full r-word on the racism thing. A Democrat candidate for governor in Wisconsin thought it would be a brill PR move to hand out KKK hoods to Republicans.

Democratic candidate for governor Brett Hulsey plans to hand out white Ku Klux Klan hoods to Wisconsin Republicans to highlight what he says are their racist policies.

Hulsey on Thursday came into the state Capitol press room to show off a white hood he says he made with his daughter’s sewing machine using curtain material he purchased for $1.

Hulsey says he will attempt to hand out the KKK hoods to Republicans as they gather Friday for the state party convention in Milwaukee.

If there were any sane people left in the Democrat Party, they would embarrassed and ashamed.

But instead, they just tune into MSDNC to have their insanity validated, by people like Rage Virus Patient Zero Ed Schultz, who says that voting against increasing the minimum wage is … well, just guess.