Gay Patriot Header Image

About That New Right to “Dignity” the Supreme Court Just Found in the Constitution

Posted by V the K at 5:28 pm - July 1, 2015.
Filed under: Identity Politics

Nobody is ever allowed to discriminate against anyone else about anything ever.

x2015-07-01_08_47_02.jpg.pagespeed.ic.U6zlTAyfYv

In Closing, Caitlyn and Sideshow Flozell

Posted by V the K at 5:32 pm - June 16, 2015.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends,Identity Politics

If you had to pick a single person to epitomize Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the USA, you could not do better than Caitlyn Jenner, who once achieved feats that brought the admiration of the entire world, but has chosen to become an emasculated, celebrity-chasing joke.

But Rachel Dolezal (a.k.a ‘Sideshow Flozell’) comes a pretty damn close second.

11393158_10152935869756700_2077593722813386203_n

“I was drawing self-portraits with the brown crayon instead of the peach crayon,” she told Matt Lauer.

Whether her race-fluidity is a cynical exploitation of an academic and political culture that favors dark skinned people, a reflection of deep mental illness, or just an extreme example of a white person appropriating what respected social anthropologist Cher called “black cool,” it is striking that her effforts to change her identity have been not as universally lauded by the social progressive left as Caitlyn Jenner’s. (Although some leftists are willing to support Dolezal’s delusion.)

The Mister says that gender reassignment should be thought of as a form of therapy. If so, it is the only form of therapy I know that involves validating a psychological delusion. Well, that and telling women who haven’t really been raped that it’s totally okay for them to believe they were raped and even seek retribution against the men who didn’t rape them but could have.

Once it’s been decided that some delusions should be indulged, where do you draw the line between what to indulge and what not to indulge? Is it as simple

One of the reasons transgenderism is impressed is because the progressive left is highly Freudian and will eagerly embrace anything that seems kinky and pushes the envelope of hedonistic self-indulgence; although very few progressive left men would hook-up with Caitlyn Jenner given the chance.

Transgenderism is also accepted simply because of technology; chemical and medical procredures exist that make it possible to mutilate the male form into a crude facsimile of the female form and vice versa. This creates something of a dilemma for progressive leftists who embrace gender fluidity but are uncomfortable with race fluidity since surgically altering features and chemically altering skin tone to more resemble those of another race are also possible. So, it is not merely a matter of “what science can do.”

Also, transgenderism is attractive because it subverts The Patriarchy. Allowing people to decide their own racial identity, on the other hand, undermines the leftist coalition. Nothing could quite smash the whole culture of affirmative action and race preferences like millions of “trans-racial” Caucasians suddenly coming out of the closet as black and demanding that their identity be respected and that they be given access to scholarships, educational opportunities, and jobs set aside for minorities.

Above all, the fixation on Caitlyn Jenner and Flozell of Spokane at a time when Chinese hackers are stealing state secrets with impunity; when the Chinese, Iranians, and Russians are laughing at our military; when our economy is being sustained only by massive Government borrowing (that can go on forever, right?) shows that, as a culture, we no longer care about Serious Things. We have lost sight of what matters, and instead are locked into a cycle of self-validation through self-gratification and fixation on frivolous identity culture.

Was the Dude Who Wrecked the Train an LGBT Activist?

Posted by V the K at 7:41 am - May 14, 2015.
Filed under: Identity Politics

All I know is my gut says “maybe.”

Brandon Bostian is the 32-year-old gay man who lawyered up after a deadly derailment in Philadelphia. The train was reportedly going twice the speed limit.

Bostian is a gay activist who previously worked at Target as a cashier before joining Amtrak, according to his LinkedIn.

The train hurtled off the tracks after making a left-turn at high speed; much like the USA under Obama.

And according to Democrats, the derailment was not caused by Bostian lead-footing the train to 106 MPH nine minutes after leaving the station like it was the DeLorean in ‘Back to the Future,’ but instead by Republicans unwilling to double AMTRAK’s $1.6 Billion annual subsidy to $3.2 Billion, or whatever else they’d like to spend so they can hire more gay Target cashiers to pilot choo-choo trains.

“While he is still interested in working for marriage equality, Bostian admitted that he is less enthusiastic this time around. “It’s kind of insulting to have to beg people for my right to marry,” he said. “I feel like we shouldn’t even have to have this fight.””

How to completely lose perspective in 15 days, the French way:

French court convicts three over homophobic tweets, in case hailed as a ‘significant victory’ by LGBT rights campaigners

Je suis… meh, nevermind.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Casa)

Weird Gay Commercial from Weird Gay Lawyer

Posted by V the K at 5:46 pm - January 11, 2015.
Filed under: Identity Politics

Michael A. Fiumara is a California lawyer and a Democrat LGBT activist. He made a very weird commercial. That’s all.

YouTube Preview Image

Lefists Fret About Offending Those Who Want to Kill Them

So, it’s OK for feminists to claim that all men are morally responsible for the rapes committed by a tiny number of men. It is also OK to claim that all white people have white privilege and all white people owe all black people reparations for slavery. But to suggest all Muslims should take a moral stand against terrorism is… according to those same people… racist.

SRSLY, how does that work?

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the primary concern of left-wing media was not that violent Mohammedans would commit more acts of violence against innocent people, but that “anti-Islamic” sentiment might increase and, even more terrible, right-wing political parties in Europe might benefit!

The New York Times @nytimes

The key danger the Times is worried about, it would seem, is that Europe might reverse course on its march to demographic and cultural oblivion.

The Book of Matt – and how myth is made (and unmade)

When President Obama signed a federal “hate crimes” law in 2009, many people at the time were calling it The Matthew Shepard Act. There was just one problem: The murder of Matthew Shepard, while horrible and grotesque, wasn’t a hate crime (i.e., crime of bias). It had nothing to do with anti-gay bias until after the fact, when it suited many persons’ interests to make it seem like it did.

Matthew Shepard was a methamphetamine addict – and possibly a small-time meth dealer/courier – who was well-acquainted with his chief killer, Aaron McKinney. “Well-acquainted” meaning that McKinney and Shepard had done meth together more than once, had conducted business as small-time meth dealers/couriers, and yes, had occasionally even had sex with each other.

It’s probable that Shepard didn’t know the other convicted killer: McKinney’s then-recent acquaintance, Russell Henderson. But there’s evidence that Henderson wasn’t homophobic and, on the night of the killing, may have even taken a knock from McKinney as Henderson spoke up for Shepard (against McKinney’s raging, meth-fueled violence). Which, if true, would make Henderson’s *murder* conviction unjust. (He would still deserve a lesser conviction as an accessory.)

Shepard’s killing was most likely a criminal-style ‘debt collection’ by McKinney that went wrong because McKinney was a troubled and cruel person coming off of a multi-day meth binge. So, who fabricated the myth of a hate crime perpetrated on Shepard by two homophobic total strangers, and why? It was a combination of personal and political interests.

  • McKinney’s higher-up meth connections wanted to remain hidden, and they would be able to kill McKinney (even in prison) if he squealed on them. Which meant: McKinney would desperately need to avoid naming them. Which meant: McKinney needed to hide his own meth dealings, and therefore, the true nature of his relationship with Shepard.
  • As a short, little guy (135 lb) headed for prison in the late 1990s, McKinney also needed to hide his own bisexuality. Which, again, meant: hiding the nature of his relationship with Shepard.
  • McKinney, his girlfriend and his lawyers all thought (at the time) that a “gay panic” defense, however unfaithful to reality, would be McKinney’s best shot at acquittal (or reduced charges).
  • Certain friends of Shepard may have also wanted to distract people from their, and Shepard’s, meth use and dealings.
  • Gay activist groups – ranging from GLAAD and HRC to what is now the Matthew Shepard Foundation – obviously gained benefits, both political and financial, from the myth.
  • The media gained a big “story”.
  • Once the public/media frenzy started over the (perceived) Shepard hate crime, Bill Clinton got involved in it – at least partly to try to blunt the impact of his Monica Lewinsky scandal. Shepard was attacked on 10/6/1998 and died on 10/12/1998 – roughly around the time Kenneth Starr released his reports and the House of Representatives opened its impeachment inquiry on Clinton.

All this, and more, is cited or documented in The Book of Matt, by Stephen Jiminez. It was published in 2013 and V the K posted on it. I had the book and recently, after talking with liberal friends who were still unaware of the revelations about Shepard, I finally read it.

Despite the horror of its subject, the book is a powerful work of investigative journalism. No such book can get everything right. But this one is readable, gripping, and honest about Jiminez’ own fears and doubts as he slowly comes to understand the falseness of the Shepard “hate crime” myth. The book weaves together a wealth of recollections and coherent detail from dozens of sources who knew Shepard or his dealings, including two of Shepard’s more important boyfriends. The book evaluates the credibility of its sources and, where that may be lacking, provides multiple sources for key claims. (more…)

Oh, my…..

Posted by V the K at 6:09 pm - December 7, 2014.
Filed under: Identity Politics,Pop Culture

This would definitely put a crimp in the yiffing: Chlorine gas sickens 19 at furries convention

Chlorine gas sickened several people and forced the evacuation of thousands of guests from a suburban Chicago hotel early Sunday, including many dressed in cartoonish animal costumes for an annual furries convention who were ushered across the street to a convention center hosting a dog show.

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.”

What Happens When the Patriarchy Is Smashed?

Posted by V the K at 8:10 pm - August 24, 2014.
Filed under: Identity Politics,Liberal Lies

This Weekend, feminists held one of their infamous “Slut Walks” in Chicago where they engaged in unhinged man-bashing while walking around dressed like trashy skanks… because that (along with demanding that other people pay for their contraception) is what Modern Feminism has been reduced to. (And of this the Feminists are very, very proud.)

As someone clever pointed out, it’s interesting that the Feminist chose Chicago for their “Smash the Patriarchy” message, because nowhere has the Patriarchy been more successfully smashed than in the inner cities. Households led by fathers have become exceedingly rare,  single women raise families without husbands, and very few people participate in capitalist enterprises; the inner cities have become Radical Feminist utopia.

How’s that working out for them?

The Barbarians of Gaza

Posted by V the K at 2:20 pm - August 3, 2014.
Filed under: Identity Politics

Here we see a Palestinian barbarian hanging children in front of a house to prevent civilized Israelis from attacking it (probably because there are weapons inside).

140802-hamas-hangs-children-in-front-of-weapons-cache-house-465x650

Also, Hamas is on Twitter bragging about how many Jews they’ve killed.

If you side against Israel, you are siding with the Barbarians.

BTW: The Obama Regime is siding with the Barbarians, and has, once again, condemned Israel.

You know who else are pretty barbaric? Certain French tourists.

Laugh at the Superior Intellects of Progressive Journalists

Progressives revel in their superior intellects, which they are assured are superior because within the eco-chamber of the left, everyone agrees with them. Global Warming is real. Republicans hate gays. Socialism works as long as European white people are in charge of it.

We have seen, by dint of the leftist commentators on this site, how this notion of left-wing intellectual superiority is laughable. Now, watch as Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist rips through the smug facade of leftist intellectual superiority like a starving jackal through a zebra carcass, including an entire section devoted to the unbelievably dim-witted Matt Yglesias, a man who has earned a good living parlaying his complete ignorance of every topic imaginable into a position as one of the left’s premier pundits and thought leaders.

Perhaps no living writer more fully embraces unabashed ignorance than Yglesias. I couldn’t begin to adequately catalogue the examples but interested readers might enjoy “Does Matthew Yglesias Ever Tire Of Being Embarrassingly Wrong About Everything?” and “Taming The Fury Of Rage: How Not To Write, Starring Slate’s Matt Yglesias.”

Everyone has their favorite example of Matt Yglesias not knowing what the heck he’s talking about. I have many, including his confusion over why the Vatican has a separate embassy from Italy and the day he found out about the Everglades.

It’s a good read. Unfortunately, it will do nothing to penetrate the left-wing bubble of insufferable arrogance. At least we can laugh at the superior intellect.

Gay Professor Sues Black College

Posted by V the K at 8:52 pm - June 25, 2014.
Filed under: Identity Politics

Identity politics can be fun when rival victim-privilege groups turn on each other.

A white professor is suing Alabama State University (ASU) over claims the historically black university discriminated against him and his partner based on their race and sexual orientation.

According to the lawsuit filed in federal court on June 11, Dr. John Garland is suing the ASU and eight current and former employees for racially discriminating against applicants for university positions and subsequently targeting him when he retaliated against those practices.

Garland, who is a member of the Choctaw Nation but is identified as white by colleagues, was hired by the university in August 2008 as an adjunct professor. In January 2009, Garland was rehired as an assistant professor for the Master of Rehabilitation Counseling Program in the Department of Rehabilitation Studies in the College of Health Sciences (COHS).

His white same-sex partner, Dr. Steven Chesbro, was hired at the university around that time. They legally married in Maryland in February 2013.

Hat Tip: Peter H

Should Democrats Pay Reparations?

Posted by V the K at 11:34 am - May 25, 2014.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends,Identity Politics

So, once again, the progressive left is pushing the idea of Reparations; the idea that people who never owned slaves should give large sums of money to people who never were slaves in order to compensate, allegedly, for injustices suffered by the ancestors of non-slaves that were committed by the ancestors of non-slaveowners. (And a great way for Democrats to tell low-information voters that there is a huge pile of money owed to them that greedy Republicans don’t want them to have.)

But if the point of this exercise is “justice,” shouldn’t the weight of justice fall more heavily on those with the closest ties and relationships to the perpetrators of injustice? Because there is clearly one group of people who are far more responsible for injustices committed against African-Americans than other groups of people.

Which of two political parties in the USA was founded for the explicit purpose of abolishing slavery; the Republican Party. Which party supported slavery and opposed the abolition thereof; the Democrat Party.

Which party was it that instituted the Jim Crow laws, and maintained the institution of Segregation well into the 20th Century; the Democrats. What was the party that forcibly integrated previously segregated schools in the South; the Republican Party.

A majority of which party supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the Republican Party. A majority of which party opposed it; the Democrat Party.

Clearly, Democrats are responsible for the vast majority of injustices committed against African-Americans. Pay up.

(more…)

Lena Dunham Says Something Mind-Numbingly Stupid

Posted by V the K at 12:29 pm - April 10, 2014.
Filed under: Gay PC Silliness,Identity Politics

Not exactly news, but whatever

“I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.’”

[She's on an HBO program that unmarried left-wing women like.]

The Destructive, Vengeful Nastiness of the Left Leaves No Room for Healing

Posted by V the K at 12:57 pm - April 4, 2014.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends,Identity Politics

Let me ask you guys something. After the 2012 elections, did any of your left-wing friends offer any words of comfort or reconciliation? None of mine did, and a lot of them were spiking the ball and dancing in the Endzone. It would have been nice if even one liberal friend had said, “Hey, this must have been a tough loss for you guys, and your guy actually had some good points.”

It at least would have been something, a small act of reconciliation and understanding.

I was thinking about this in the context of Mozilla’s purge of Brendan Eich for being on the “wrong side” of the Gay Marriage war. After the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln tried to reconcile a country whose citizens had been literally killing each other over opposite opinions on a profound moral issue. Even after the end of Apartheid in South Africa, there were attempts made at “Truth and Reconciliation.” But instead of being content in their victory, and trying to reconcile with their opponents, the Gay Marriage Left seem determined to carry on the war, in a kind of ideological bloodlust.

But there seems to be no room for reconciliation on the Modern Left. Perhaps, this is a consequence of them painting their enemies as sub-human. They have convinced themselves that their opponents are racists, bigots, homophobes, anti-woman, anti-science… and that they owe those who don’t agree with them nothing. No dignity. No compassion.

And it isn’t just on the fringe; or rather, the fringe is indistinguishable from the mainstream left. Gay leftists demand that those who don’t agree with them lose their jobs and livelihoods. Academics in institutions of higher learning demand that those who disagree with them be jailed for their difference of opinion. The President of the United States, instead of reaching out “with malice toward none,” hurls childish insults at people who disagree with him on matters fiscal.

It used to be a mark of a civilized man to be gracious in victory, and to behave with decency toward his defeated opponent. But those values are gone, perhaps because graciousness and courtesy are values now associated only with dead white slaveowners. Or, perhaps because the left is morally void, and its ideological bloodlust can never be satisfied no matter how many scalps they collect.

The Paradoxes of Left-Wing Feminism

Kevin Williamson spells it out.

A useful definition is this: “Feminism is the words ‘I Want!’ in the mouths of three or more women, provided they’re the right kind of women.” Feminism must therefore accommodate wildly incompatible propositions — e.g., (1) Women unquestionably belong alongside men in Marine units fighting pitched battles in Tora Bora but (2) really should not be expected to be able to perform three chin-ups. Or: (1) Women at Columbia are empowered by pornography but (2) women at Wellesley are victimized by a statue of a man sleepwalking in his Shenanigans. And then there is Fluke’s Law: (1) Women are responsible moral agents with full sexual and economic autonomy who (2) must be given an allowance, like children, when it comes to contraceptives.

Lefty Fey Outrage About PajamaBoy and Duck Dynasty

Ace takes note of a lefty setzpinkler who thinks he’s figured out why Conservatives have been making fun of Obamacare spokesmodel PajamaBoy. It’s because Conservatives hate gays.

I had no idea that left-wing pundits had Professor Charles Xavier-level telepathic abilities and were able to read the minds of all Conservatives everywhere all the time!

Also, GLAAD is throwing a hissy-fit because one of the stars of Duck Dynasty expressed an opinion about gay people that hurt their feelers.

GLAAD has condemned “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson in the wake of inflammatory remarks about gay people.

In January’s issue of GQ, Robertson said that “homosexual offenders” will not “inherit the Kingdom of God” and unfavorably compared “a man’s anus” to the vagina.

The gay rights group was quick to denounce his comments.  In a statement, GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz slammed the Robertson family patriarch:

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

On one level, I don’t get the mindset that says you can’t be happy if someone, somewhere doesn’t approve of your lifestyle. What’s the Big Deal if a guy on a cable TV show doesn’t like you? Obsession that someone, somewhere might disapprove of you seems like a cripplingly neurotic way to go through life. (We’ll leave aside, for the moment, the obsession secular leftists have with judging what “true Christians” should and should not believe.)

On another level, I understand it completely. Faux outrage generates publicity. Publicity generates donations. Donations ensure that Wilson Cruz can keep his cushy job as an outraged spokesperson for GLAAD and not have to get a real job in the miserable Obamaconomy. Such generosity is what earned Alec Baldwin a pass from GLAAD for his repeated use of anti-gay slurs.

Update: A&E caves to intolerant bigots.

(more…)

Gay Dude Appreciates His 2A Rights

Posted by V the K at 8:53 am - December 18, 2013.
Filed under: Gun Control,Identity Politics

Chris Cheng, Season 4 winner of the History Channel’s “Top Shot” competition, came out as “gay for guns.”

One reason why I chose to come out publicly is that I’m a gay guy in a gun world. Hunters, sport shooting enthusiasts, and collectors are too often stereotyped as part of efforts to politicize guns as we witnessed last week on the anniversary of the horrific Newtown tragedy. Take it from someone who in a single package is not only gay, but Chinese, Japanese, California-born, a college graduate, a tech geek who worked on cool Google projects, a gun enthusiast and a passionate 2nd Amendment advocate. Our community is as diverse as anyone’s.

It’s good to be armed. That way you can defend yourself when a deranged leftist like Karl Pierson, Floyd Corkins, or Amy Bishop starts shooting at you.

(more…)

Fashion Question for You

Karl Pierson, who would have become the latest school mass murderer – except that a good guy with a gun (and not Colorado’s Draconian gun laws) stopped him – disappointed the media by being a socialist left-winger whose hatred of Republicans was almost at MSNBC levels and not, as they had fervently hoped, a pro-Second Amendment Tea Party supporter.

Gabe Malor at AoSHQ has dissected the media’s pattern of desperately hoping a new shooter is a right wing nut job, and then losing interest in a story when they find out he’s on their team. There is nothing for me to add, so thorough is his dissection.

So, one detail of the story piqued my interest. Karl Pierson showed his love for murderous progressive leftism partly by wearing Soviet themed T-shirts to school and proclaiming himself a communist. Communism is a murderous and opporessive ideology that butchered somewhere north of 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century. Do you think the school would have let him wear T-shirts emblazoned with Swastikas and proclaim himself a Nazi? Why is one murderous ideology okay and the other forbidden? Are some murderous ideologies just “more equal” than others?

(more…)