As if Oberlin‘s 2013 race hoax wasn’t enough, now we have the Vassar bias hoax:

Reports of bias incidents at Vassar College that involved hateful messages left on students’ doors were actually elaborate hoaxes — and the perpetrator is none other than the student member of the Bias Incident Response Team…

This fall semester at the liberal arts college in New York saw a curiously high number of bias incident reports…The task force had one student member…who is transgendered and was also a vice president of the Vassar Student Association (VSA)…

The DC has learned that one of the perpetrators was none other than [that student].

Via Ace, who goes along with Damn Dirty Rino in suggesting that Münchausen syndrome may be at play.

I’ve made my own assumption that the student must be politically “progressive”; if it’s incorrect, let us know in the comments.

The New York Times has noticed that bareback sex is a thing gay people are doing, which is breaking news from about the mid-1990′s when (according to Wikipedia) gay publications like The Advocate first took note of the phenomenon of gay men having unprotected sex and, in some cases, deliberately seeking HIV infection.

Anyway, the Times, perhaps after failing to find a celebrity to comment on the issue, goes to the next best source for information on epidemiology and behavioral psychology… an English professor from SUNY-Buffalo. Who provides this analysis:

What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.

And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.

It also seems that the readers of the NY Times, based on the comments, are in complete denial that this phenomenon exists, and think the author is just making it up to attack the gay community. Liberals choose to blame the recent dramatic increases in HIV infection rates on “the stigma attached to HIV.” Um, excuse me, but don’t stigmas usually make people avoid those things to which stigmas are attached?

In the real world, stigmatizing a behavior results in less of it: Which is why people don’t use the N-word in public any more and smoking has declined as a social activity. When the social stigma is removed … as with HIV infection and teenage pregnancy … you get more of those things.

Bareback sex has major health complications vis-a-vis the transmission of HIV and other STDs that contribute to the high cost of health care. Make you wonder why Bloomberg didn’t try to outlaw it. Hooking up for raw sex with strangers is at least as dangerous as a Big Gulp. Probably.

On November 14, a friend linked this article about a lesbian waitress in New Jersey who had claimed that a patron refused to tip her, scrawling on the credit card receipt that he “not agree with your lifestyle and the way you live your life.”  I replied that I was dubious about the story, given a recently discredited report from a waitress leveling a similar accusation, in that case, alleging that a patron refused to live a tip because of the color of her kin.  (To be sure, I did write, “ If this is true, it is a sad sign of an insecure person.”)

Turns out that my skepticism was warranted.  The story has been debunked, with the patrons providing an actual copy of their credit card receipt, including a generous tip — as well as a copy of their credit card statement showing a charge in an amount #18 higher than the original $93.55 bill.

Commenting on this copy-cat fraud, Elizabeth Scalia laments that she and her husband may have to forego the practice of leaving tips in cash (even when they pay with credit cards), adding that she hopes

. . . that when people appear to be falsely accused of doing awful things (like leaving a gay-hating lecture in place of a gratuity) our friends in the gay community will also speak up, and denounce these fraudulent scenarios that play upon the sympathies of people of good will — whatever their creed, their race, their sexual orientation — and which only end up stoking the fires of resentment and distrust between people, where none should exist.

(Via Instapundit.)  The words scrawled on both receipts are ugly words.  And those who use them to describe people different from themselves are truly insecure and mean-spirited individuals.  And when individuals with different insecurities stage these media-generating stunts, they risk numbing others to real animus.

Scalia is right.  Her friends in the gay community should denounce this.  And this gay man does — as I would daresay do many of our readers, on both sides of the political aisle.

Let us hope we are not alone.  For those who stage such stunts do more to compromise the ever-improving image of gay people in American society.  And they should apologize not just to the individuals they malign, but also to their fellow gay men and lesbians as they draw public attention away from our real concerns and toward their own insecurities.

John Hayward at Human Events reviews all three. Here’s the state of play:

• Persecution of lesbian NJ server still a hoax
• Knockout Game still all too real
• and the World Health Organization (WHO) still muddying the waters about people who self-inflict HIV, as there have indeed been some cases (just nothing like half of all new HIV cases in Greece, as the WHO had originally told people).

As to the Knockout Game, Hayward links Thomas Sowell, who says:

The New York authorities describe a recent series of such attacks and, because Jews have been singled out in these attacks, are considering prosecuting these assaults as “hate crimes.” …this “knockout game” has been played for years by young black gangs in other cities and other states, against people besides Jews — the victims being either whites in general or people of Asian ancestry. Attacks of this sort have been rampant in St. Louis. But they have also occurred in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and elsewhere. In Illinois the game has often been called “Polar Bear Hunting” by the young thugs, presumably because the targets are white…

“White Girl Bleed A Lot”…a book by Colin Flaherty…documents both the racial attacks across the nation and the media attempts to cover them up, as well as the local political and police officials who try to say that race had nothing to do with these attacks. Chapter 2 of the 2013 edition is titled, “The Knockout Game, St. Louis Style.” So this is nothing new, however new it may be to some in New York, thanks to the media’s political correctness.

Sounds like a ‘social phenomenon’, to me. At any rate, many of the attacks are on video (and/or documented in police reports) and, as such, are facts that can’t be wished away.

Hat Tip: Rob TGC

The story of the lesbian waitress who claimed a family denied her a tip and left her a note disapproving of her lifestyle red-lined my BS detector from Day 1. Well, surprising no one, it turns out she most likely made the whole thing up. (Warning: Annoying Autoplay Video.) (No annoying video at this link.)  The diners deny her allegations and have presented evidence that corroborates their story, unlike the “aggrieved” waitress.

The husband and wife, who asked to remain anonymous, showed NBC 4 New York a receipt that appeared to be printed at the same minute, on the same date, for the same $93.55 total, except with an $18 tip.
…
A manager and the restaurant owner insisted they had the original ticket for the $93.55 charge, but would not produce the receipt for NBC 4 New York and could not explain why the family’s credit card was charged for more.

(Emphasis not in original)

They have evidence to refute her story, she doesn’t have evidence to support it. A reasonable mind must conclude she was probably making it up. [Bear in mind, "Lesbian Waitress Gets Rude Note" was a national news story. Multiple "Knock Out Game" Assaults by gangs on innocent victims documented by police reports; apparently just an urban legend according to the MFM.]

Even if her story turns out to have no merit, she’ll get a pass. Lying is SOP for the left to advance its agenda, and playing the victim can be a lucrative con. (Apparently, thousands of people have sent her money to show support. She would not be the first to run this con.) Her story, though apparently made up, advanced a narrative of gay victimization exploited by politicians and left-wing gay rights groups to gain money and power. But if there were real incidents of rampant anti-gay hate to report, the left would not have to make up this stuff.

From New American Media (via Creeping Sharia in Bruce’s Twitter stream):

Arab Americans comprise more than 40 percent of Dearborn’s population, which according to a 2010 U.S. Census report was 98,153.

Two Arabs from Dearborn said in parts of Beirut, Lebanon it can be less difficult for an Arab to be openly gay than it’s here. Lebanon is one of the few Arab countries on the forefront of organizing for LBGT rights…

Ryan ["a 23-year-old gay Arab from Dearborn"] says people who support gay Arabs often fear speaking in support of them publicly because conservative Arabs and Muslims will commit hate crimes, or incite riots against them…

Ramozotti ["the executive director of Al-Gamea"] has been threatened because of his sexual orientation…

The article is mainly about gay Arabs in Dearborn – but Arab or white, I don’t care (plus, I doubt that white gays have extra safety there). By the way, guess what Middle Eastern country is even more gay-progressive than Lebanon? Israel.

UMM, RELATED? Newtown, CT (Sandy Hook) residents have been applying for gun permits in record numbers. How could that be related? Simply this: An armed populace is a polite populace. To let law-abiding people have guns (which wrong-doers are going to have anyway) is to let law-abiding people defend themselves from violence. Newtown or Dearborn doesn’t matter. Neither does straight or gay or lesbian.

From Reuters:

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner on Monday opposed a bill to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, dimming the chances of the White House-backed measure becoming law.

“The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,” Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

Your thoughts on this topic are welcome in the comments. Here are mine. I agree that ENDA should be rejected, for the following reasons.

CA has had an anti-gay discrimination law for decades, which I supported, only then to see it mis-used. Without getting into details, I saw one friend use it to shake down employer after employer every couple of years, as each new one found out that he wasn’t a very good employee (regardless of his being gay). I also saw a good person suffer an anti-gay discrimination lawsuit whose allegations were wholly, boldly invented. (The suit failed in the end, but the lengthy process itself was a form of harm.)

Perhaps there are real cases of discrimination against good employees that these laws help to redress; but I’ve seen more that these laws empower lawyers – and grifters, liars and con artists. The broader point would be that these laws violate rights to property and to free association.

Just as an employee should be free to quit and move on to any employer who may want them, an employer should be free to fire any employee who works for them. The employer-employee relationship should be a private relationship between consenting adults; a relationship that either side can end at will. Laws which burden/restrict that are laws which violate people’s rights, opening the door to injustices of the kind I’ve outlined (and more).

Now, the reasons for opposing anti-discrimination laws (which might better be called “lawyer empowerment laws”) that I’ve just laid out, are not gay-specific. They work against these laws in general. Catching onto that, some people will respond: OK, but we do have these laws covering race, gender, religion, national origin, age, etc…why not add sexual orientation? As a longtime believer in equality-before-the-law for gays and straights, I don’t think that’s a terrible response. I am sympathetic to it.

But I keep coming back to the fact that two wrongs don’t make a right. That we have these laws to begin with, is a wrong; and we won’t escape the wrongness by broadening these laws to cover more and more categories. We should be looking, if anything, to reduce the categories.

RELATED (from Dan):  I had been planning on post on ENDA largely along the lines of the arguments Walter Olson makes here.  Just read the whole thing.

(And from Jeff): The heart of Olson’s argument is his last paragraph:

…At what point do we say no to future demands that protected-group status be accorded to employees based on political and controversial systems of belief, physical appearance (the “looksism” issue), family responsibilities, résumé gaps because of unemployment or other reasons, or use of lawful products or engagement in lawful activities in off hours—to name just a few…? If we say yes to all, we introduce a new presumption—familiar from the prevailing labor law in parts of Europe—that no employer should be free to terminate or take other “adverse action” against an employee without being prepared to show good cause to a judge. That is exactly the goal of some thinkers on the Left, but it should appall believers in a free economy.

Great point. ENDA is, in the end, just the next small step in the Left’s incremental strategy to make a society where no economic actions are private or unfettered; the politicians, judges, lawyers and bureaucrats rule all.

GUEST POST from GP Commenter V the K:

Matthew Shepard was a gay 21 year old college student, who was beaten to death in a terrible hate crime because… homophobia.

Status: False.

Stephen Jiminez – not a right-wing Christian apologist, but a gay investigative journalist who values the truth above ‘The Narrative’ – has published a book: The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard.

Shepard’s tragic and untimely demise may not have been fueled by his sexual orientation, but by drugs. For Shepard had likely agreed to trade methamphetamines for sex. And it killed him.

And for daring to undercut the narrative with inconvenient little things called “facts,” Jiminez has been vilified by those who profit from promoting a narrative of imaginary hate.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog recently accused Jimenez of serving as a lapdog of “right-wing pundits, radio hosts and bloggers.” In Washington, DC, gay activists pestered bookstores to cancel Jimenez’s appearances.

In a world with a properly functioning moral compass, Matt Shepard’s story would be a cautionary tale with the moral: “Don’t leave a bar with strangers to have sex and do drugs.”

But in the twisted world where only ‘The Narrative’ matters, Shepard was a complete innocent whose death is useful in villainizing people who had absolutely nothing to do with it.

GUEST POST from GP Commenter V the K:

I’ll begin by stipulating that the Westboro Baptists are despicable people. I will also stipulate that their stated beliefs are obnoxious and appalling.* But as horrible as the Westboro’s are to all decent people, I grant them one thing: They have never threatened anyone with bodily harm nor wished death on anyone’s children. (If you take them at their word, ‘Turn or Burn’ is merely a warning of the consequences of what they see as sinful behavior.)

Contrast the relative non-violence of the WBC with our friends on the progressive left:

• Gay activist/Democrat Party official Allen Brauer wishes death on the children of a Ted Cruz staffer.
• Gun-hating liberal professor David Guth wishes death on the chidren of NRA members.
• Liberal university administrator wishes death to “nonbelievers” of ObamaCare.
• Gay activist (and complete d-bag) Dan Savage calls for the death of all Republicans.
• Obama mentor Bill “Kill your parents” Ayers called for the death of 25 million people in order to install socialism in America.

There you have it. Progressive Left – Advocates murdering opponents and their children. WBC – has never advocated murder or violence toward anyone. Moral Advantage – WBC.

(Sidebar: For the record, I don’t believe the WBC is sincere, I think they’re trolling on a massively successful scale, but that’s a topic for another time.)

Update BTW, if this tweet is genuine, the Westboro Baptists hate the Tea Party as much as the Progressive Left does. How does it feel to be on the same side?

…or else it’s just a pretense, a lie.

Reporter James Kirchik, known from TNR and The Advocate, was cut off last week on Russia’s RT network for denouncing Vladimir Putin’s anti-gay law. I’m with Kirchik in opposing the law, which puts speech restrictions on Russian gays.

Don’t get me wrong: As RT were ‘paying for his mic’, they had every right to cut off Kirchik. They have no obligation to provide him with a platform. Still, Kirchik deserves our cheers and thanks for publicly thumbing his nose at a State-funded propaganda network and for defending free speech.

Actions to support free speech, yay! But free speech isn’t free speech, unless disagreeable/bad views may also be expressed. The principle is that anyone advocating bad politics is to be answered by more speech; never to be silenced by law.

And that brings us to the case of the Rev. Scott Lively. In a blog thread last week, rusty brought up Lively, who is being sued in Massachusetts at the behest of a Uganda gay group, for his advocacy of the criminalizing of homosexuality in Uganda.

Criminalizing homosexuality is anti-gay (a term that the Gay Left otherwise uses too much) and a violation of individuals’ natural rights. As such, it’s wrong. But natural rights include free speech and conscience. For someone to merely advocate that homosexuality be criminalized is not a violation of human rights; it is an exercise of them.

See the problem? The pro-gay side is out there using the law to restrict opponents’ political speech, in the name of human rights (which ought to include free speech). So wrong!

Sure, Rev. Lively advocates something dumb and bad. But he has the moral right to do it, which means he ought to have the legal right.

That a U.S.-based court presumes to deal with a Ugandan matter seems odd; but that it does so in order to punish anyone’s political advocacy is a disgrace, a sign of how dangerously low our once-great country has fallen.

SMUG (the Ugandan gay group) is wrong to try to silence Lively with a court case. Given that they are, the MA court should have refused to play along, on the grounds that the MA and U.S. Constitutions guarantee Lively his right to free speech in all political issues, even gay issues, even when international law fails to guarantee it and even, or especially, if Lively’s views are objectionable.

It’s the objectionable views – the ones that the government’s Court itself dislikes – that courts are most obligated to protect. By now, we are used to the Gay Left forgetting such basic principles of freedom and justice, but – “et tu, Massachusetts?”

UPDATE: It just occurred to me that the MA court, and others who blame the Rev. Lively for what Ugandan legislators do, might be infected with a racist premise: the premise that the Ugandans are mere children (intellectually and morally), influenced too easily by the white man (Lively), who is thus accountable for their actions. If true, it would support my earlier post on the racism of the Left in 2013.

NB: I had originally said that Lively was being “prosecuted” in MA, when of course I should have said “sued”. Mistake fixed.

All week, I’ve had a nagging feeling that the GP blog should say something on this…but what? And why? After all, it’s just celebrity nonsense.

But I will make this easy observation: If Manning likes men, and always felt herself to be a woman, then she was never actually a gay man whose struggle with homosexuality drove her actions. She was/is just a straight woman who broke her oath.

I broke the news on Twitter a few minutes ago.

SWEEPING GAY RIGHTS MEASURE PASSES IN NORTH CAROLINA http://t.co/zR16Pf7Nz7 #TCOT #LGBT #NCGA #NCPOL

— Bruce Carroll (@GayPatriot) July 24, 2013

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Gay community leader in Chicago is sued for doing to a Christian what this gays are always claiming Christians do to gays.

[A] former employee of the gay establishment Sidetrack the Video Bar is suing owner Art Johnston (the self-styled “Chicago’s Harvey Milk” and inductee into  the local “Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame”) for four counts of sexual harassment  (and hostile work environment), religious discrimination (and hostile work  environment), retaliation, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Sorry, I think this story is awesome.  Man bites dog.

After all… #NOH8 !!!  “Equality” !!!!

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

I’m late in getting to this, but last week on NBC’s Today, Matt Lauer said:

It’s interesting that in 2013, with attitudes towards homosexuality changing so dramatically in this country, there isn’t a single major athlete in a major professional sport playing right now who has come out and said, ‘I’m gay.’ Why is that?…

I have a possible answer, and a new question.

My answer is: For much the same reason that straight athletes don’t come out and say “I’m straight.” It’s irrelevant. Not every activity or field is one where the customers (spectators) need any information about the producers’ (athletes’) personal lives.

Part of what we love about athletes is their focus on something wonderfully beyond themselves: which is the sport, the game, the discipline it takes to be a winning athlete. Call me crazy, but I find it distasteful when any athlete, gay or straight, insists on my knowing whom they ‘like’ or are dating. I only care about their dedication to (and success with) their sport.

Which brings me to my question: why, in 2013, would Lauer think this is important? This isn’t the 1980s, wherein gays had to battle sodomy laws, or the total absence of gay-straight alliances at schools, or certain professional bans. Today we even have States scrambling to support gay marriage. Lauer’s question itself assumes there are lots of gay pro athletes – so, no real job discrimination.

I must admit that I thought like Lauer did in, say, 1993. Some years later, I came into the 21st century. Join me, Matt!

(Hat tip: reader Peter H.)

Imagine opening an issue of Newsweek and reading this:

Hispanic women are today’s version of Uncle Tom. They give their time, money and voices to a political group that aids in oppression. To me, it’s as if, in 2012 you heard of an African American writing a check to support the KKK or of a Jewish person defending the work of skinheads.

There would be outrage, no? This is some of the worst hate-speech you can possibly imagine. It marginalizes and ostracizes people, not unifies and divides.  It continues to Balkanize America, not bring us together to find common ground.

This isn’t a passage from Newsweek, it is from this week’s Advocate Magazine.  And here’s how it really reads.

Do gay Republicans who voted for a party that says marriage is only between a man and woman believe they themselves are not worthy of love? Do gay Republicans who voted for a party that says gay people should not be allowed to adopt children believe they themselves are not worthy of family? And what would gay Republicans, who voted for Mitt Romney’s version of America, do when their beloved jobs that gave them their beloved money were taken away from them because they were gay? Who would they call: Lambda Legal, HRC… Ghostbusters?

I have heard gay Republicans say they vote according to their fiscal needs. So basically a vote is cast for their bank account while they remain spiritually bankrupt. What does it say about someone who puts money and monetary possessions above one’s self, spirit and equal rights?

Gay Republicans are today’s version of Uncle Tom. They give their time, money and voices to a political group that aids in LGBT oppression. To me, it’s as if, in 2012 you heard of an African American writing a check to support the KKK or of a Jewish person defending the work of skinheads.

This type of hate speech against one for one’s political beliefs has got to stop.  “It Gets Better” only if you are a self-loathing American gay liberal who hates his nation and wants to submit to a Government and surrender one’s identity for The Greater Good, or the Savior Obama.  The Gay “Rights” movement is no more than a front for anti-American, left-wing propoganda. 

 The Gay Left and its twisted principles of “tolerance” are summarized perfectly in this vile piece of garbage written by a bigoted, ignorant, closed minded, half-twit actor with no original thoughts of his own.

The Advocate should be ashamed that it is peddling in this garbage — but unfortunately it is merely the megaphone for the Gay Left and it’s angry, never-ending hate toward America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In my last post, I noted how my searches for “Kyle Wood” on HRC & GLAAD’s website came up empty.

During my afternoon blog read, I discovered that Ace was on this story as was Breitbart.

Can someone please explain why HRC castigated Sarah Palin for her silence when her daughter used the word “faggot”, but can’t get around to covering a story about a gay Republican who had been beaten and hospitalized after someone spray-painted “faggot” on his car?

FROM THE COMMENTS:  rusty  reports that “Kyle Wood recants assault charges” and provides this link-http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/176334541.html?ipad=y

Now I’ve seen everything…

Three women identified by their lawyers as lesbians were arraigned yesterday on a hate crime charge for allegedly beating a gay man at the Forest Hills T station in an unusual case that experts say exposes the law’s flawed logic. (emphasis added)

“My guess is that no sane jury would convict them under those circumstances, but what this really demonstrates is the idiocy of the hate-crime legislation,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. “If you beat someone up, you’re guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.”

Prosecutors and the ACLU of Massachusetts said no matter the defendants’ sexual orientation, they can still face the crime of assault and battery with intent to intimidate, which carries up to a 10-year prison sentence, by using hateful language.

Are you KIDDING me?!?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

According to AP, the soldier “accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive items to” WikiLeaks, is using his sexual orientation as a defense:

The young Army intelligence specialist accused of passing government secrets spent his 24th birthday in court Saturday as his lawyers argued his status as a gay soldier before the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” played an important role in his actions.

Lawyers for Pfc. Bradley Manning began laying out a defense to show that his struggles as a gay soldier in an environment hostile to homosexuality contributed to mental and emotional problems that should have barred him from having access to sensitive material.

Gay groups should join us in denouncing this tactic.  It makes gay people out to be not just victims, but individuals lacking any kind of moral fiber, willing to betray their country when the going gets tough.  Tens of thousands of gay man and women served in the military in similarly “hostile” environments and did not break under pressure.  Indeed, many, if not most, of these individuals distinguished themselves in our nation’s armed forces.

We should not stand by when a man uses his homosexuality as an excuse for betraying his country.

Those who want to improve the image of gay people should join us in denouncing Mr. Manning and in faulting his defense team for using his sexuality to excuse his criminal acts.  What he did was wrong.  And just as there have long been bad apples among our number (a Mr. K. Philby comes to mind), so too have long been similarly rotten straight people (see A. Hiss).

Gay people (and those who presume to represent us) should not make excuses for the bad apples among us — particularly when they claim their sexuality made them rotten.  It speaks poorly of people like us if we accept this man’s defense.

And we at GayPatriot do not.

And people wonder why I cannot relate to Gay, Inc. and the liberal/”progressive” leanings of 90% of America’s gay activists??

Here they are… front and center with their radical messages at another anti-American protest movement.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

What is old is new again!  The alleged “gay Republican organization” known as Log Cabin has once again decided it is more important to tear down our candidates rather than defeat President Obama’s America-destroying agenda.

Log Cabin – a fully bought-off affliliate of the Radical Gay Left’s Tim Gill – attacked Cain after the GOP candidate appeared this morning on “The View”.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Cain chose to divert attention away from a solid platform of greater liberty and smaller government by indulging in anti-gay rhetoric. Log Cabin Republicans sincerely hope that Herman Cain is open to hearing the evidence and changing his mind on these issues.”

Chris Barron has an awesome, and gosh…. FACTUAL…. response to this Cain smear campaign by The Professional Gays.

 Cain specifically says on The View that he hasn’t seen enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality isn’t a choice and he admits that others have drawn different conclusions.

Finally, far from attacking gay people, Mr. Cain has made it clear that he is willing to be a President for all Americans – including gay people.  Mr. Cain does not support a federal marriage amendment, will not reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, supports policies like the Fair Tax, free market healthcare reform and social security personal savings accounts – all of which would benefit gay and lesbian Americans.

Back in June I wrote about the left, and in particular the gay left’s reaction to Cain:

For the gay left none of this will matter.  All that matters is the group hug.  For the gay left, it isn’t important whether the policies pursued by a candidate or a party actually improve the lives of gay people, all that matters is that they get the pat on the head – the assurance that they are ok.  I don’t need the group hug, nor do I need affirmation from the government that I am ok.  What I need is a President and a Congress that will pursue policies that will make life better for me and my family.

It is time the gay community put real policy before emotional theater, and that is exactly why gay people should be willing to listen to and consider the candidacy of Herman Cain.

The Gay Left, including their paid-off Log Cabin affiliate, are too invested in the Obama Democrats to have a rational response to the Cain candidacy.  Too bad.  But their hatred of conservatives is too blatant to ignore these days.  So at least there is that.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)