Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay groups’ failed one-party strategy

Following the gay marriage debate in New York, Stephen H. Miller observes:

What’s going on in the New York marriage struggle shows why winning over Republicans (even just a few!) matters greatly. But those who run our leading LGBT political lobbies still seems to be firmly committed to a one-party strategy. Their identity politics is all bound up in being Democrats.


(Emphasis added.)

With Steve’s words in mind, I was wondering how HRC’s leadership thinks they can influence members of the majority caucus (you know those who set the agenda, chair the committees) in the U.S. House of Representatives now that the group has endorsed Barack Obama for reelection before the first ballots have even been cast in the contest for the GOP nomination.

I mean, isn’t part of their work lobbying our federal legislators?  And showing just how eager you are to back one party’s standard bearer is not likely to endear your organization to the opposing party’s leadership.  Just sayin’, ya know?

On calling disagreement hatred

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 4:47 pm - April 4, 2011.
Filed under: Identity Politics,Liberal Intolerance

On Friday, a friend posted an icon on Facebook asking, “I was born gay, were you born hateful?”

What struck me was the assumption inherent in this question — and how it parallels the attitude of many in the gay community to those offering views at odds with their own.  Advocates of California’s Proposition 8, they claimed, did not favor traditional marriage because they saw the institution as defining a union between individuals of different sexes, but because they hated (or, h8ed) gay people.

Disagreement, one of her friends wrote, “does not equate to hate in any of the studies that I have looked at lately.”  Liking his comment, I told my friend, a wise a kind lesbian that I agreed with this friend of hers:

Having spent a good part of my adulthood as an openly gay men among conservatives and Republicans, I have found much disagreement on gay issues and even some (oftentimes crazy) criticism of what some deem the “homosexual lifestyle,” but very little actual hatred. I’ve found more hatred, far more hateful attitudes, among left-of-center associates, including, indeed, especially among gay and lesbian left-wingers.

I wonder (and not for the first time) why those who use such venom in their criticism of conservatives and Christians, must themselves label their critics as haters and their arguments as hateful.

UPDATE:  As the friend who posted the icon has since commented, I wanted to make clear that in the first ¶, it is the icon which asks.   Here’s a screenshot of that icon:   

Why can only straight, white male Christians* be oppressors?

When reader V the K e-mailed a link reporting that “75 percent of religious persecution being carried out against Christians,” I sent back a hasty response, edited for clarity:

Shhh. . . don’t tell the left.  It’ll upset their narrative.  Remember, white male Christians are responsible for the most persecution in the world.

One day, someone will have to examine why so many on the left have decided that the only oppression that matters is that done by white Christians or Jews.  Why do so many in the West, those with a European Jude0-Christian background, assume the victim always be the “other”?

Well, it seems one of our readers has.  Writing on his blog, he looks at how these Westerners have turned out society’s tradition of self-correction against itself:

Part of the trouble with this noble self-criticism, based as it is on the multiculty prescript that one may critique one’s one people but not another’s (especially if brown), is that the other groups are not doing this. While Westerners flagellate themselves in this ongoing and interminable White Lent, the other tribes are flexing their muscles, singing their virtues and heartily agreeing with us that we do not deserve to live. This is a part of why Obama’s repentance and apology tours provoke me so much.

A lot of liberal behavior reminds me of two particularly female psychopathologies: bulemia and self-cutting.   Liberals, especially the comfortable classes, alternately gobble up the pleasures of the West and then, guilt ridden, vomit them out. And it seems that they are happiest when they are cutting up their own bodies.

Read the whole thing.

RELATED:  DOJ to white male bullying victims: Tough luck

*or Jews.

Creating a gay victim status to get out of jury duty

It seems for some gay activists, everything is political.  Mark, one of our readers, alerted me to a story about which he, while regularly disagreeing with yours truly, offers commentary that I find spot-on:  “stunts like this make gay people look like idiots”.  Well, fortunately, most Americans (or so we hope) won’t judge all gay people by the juvenile antics of this one man who wallows in his (perceived) victimhood:

A gay man was excused from jury duty in New York last week because he said that discrimination against gays makes him a second-class citizen and therefore he couldn’t be impartial.

Jonathan D. Lovitz, an actor, model, and singer who will be on Logo’s upcoming show Setup Squad, wrote on his Facebook page, “I raised my hand and said, ‘Since I can’t get married or adopt a child in the state of New York, I can’t possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second class citizen in the eyes of the justice system.’”

And instead of criticizing the man for this self-righteous stunt, the Advocate reports that some activists are encouraging “others to use the strategy”.   Such individuals have so internalized the victim mentality that they define themselves as second-class citizens.  Wonder why they need convince themselves of such status.

This is not to say that things are perfect for gay Americans, but the notion that we’re second-class citizens suggests we lack the fundamental rights and privileges associated with citizens, many denied African-Americans in certain states until federal legislation in the mid-1960s overturned discriminatory laws and practices. (more…)

Coulter joins Palin in welcoming gay conservatives into movement

Reader Peter Hughes alerted me to Ann Coulter’s latest column, one of the simultaneously funniest and most insightful commentaries on current events I’ve read all year.  Currently finishing her next book and is thus

. . . only able to catch bits and pieces of the news this month, but, based on what I’ve heard from the mainstream media, I’m pretty sure the conservative movement is now being led either by Jared Loughner or GOProud’s president, Chris Barron.

Pretty  much sums up their coverage of the first six weeks of this year.   A deranged Tea Party member shot up a rally featuring a Democratic Congresswoman while CPAC is all about GOProud.  Then, she joins Sarah Palin, albeit in a much different tone, in welcoming gay conservatives into the movement:

No, we don’t generally care for identity politics of any sort, much less hearing about people’s sex lives, even Nino Scalia’s. (And judging by the number of children he has, it’s pretty active.) Conservatives believe in individual rights, low tax rates, fighting terrorism and punishing criminals — so do gays! They also happen to believe Judy Garland was the most underappreciated and misunderstood person in the history of show business. I don’t think most gays care about gay marriage; they like going to the gay marriage meeting because it’s a good way to meet other gays.

Read the whole thing.

Where will the gays Democrats go after they get what they want?

Comes interesting news this week that an internal Democratic poll shows strong support for President Obama among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Of note, this poll was done before the repeal of DADT last month.

Some serious concerns about the interpretation of this poll. First of all, the poll was released only to the Huffington Post blog and only “on the condition that the full survey not be published.” Whenever a) the internals of a poll are not released and b) the results are sent only to a partisan publication for dissemination, it’s clear an agenda is being advanced by the numbers, that might not be borne out by the actual findings.

What’s more, in such an instance, plenty of questions arise: 64% either “approved” or “strongly approved”. So was that 10% “strongly” and 54% simply approving? Perhaps that’s splitting hairs, but it’s still significant. That the original results aren’t released suggests the depth of support might not be as impressive as its breadth. Another question: Where are these folks? There are no comparable approve/disapprove numbers from the same poll to indicate this demographic is any more supportive of Obama than the population (from which the respondents were separated as being “LGBT”) overall. Point being, poll gays and lesbians in San Francisco, you’ll likely find the same level of overwhelming support for Teh One as you would from that city’s overall population. Bottom line, this poll leaves many more questions than answers, if you’re willing to ask them.

But one great thing it does is offer up once again the opportunity to discuss the following thesis:

As more “gay” issues are settled by democratic means (as opposed to court mandates and decrees), and are therefore taken off the table, do you suppose gays and lesbians will begin to concern themselves with more important issues like the economy and national defense when it comes to picking their representatives? When HRC, Equality Matters and the slew of other left-wing advocacy groups don’t have things like DADT, ENDA, and marriage to flail about, do you think gays and lesbians will start to vote on more universal issues, and therefore gravitate more toward those who share American values of small government, low taxes, individual liberty, and a strong national defense?

To expand on the point to which Dan alludes directly below, the caricature of conservatives being ogres who simply hate gays and want to keep us all down and “would send us all to an island if they had their way” may be useful in this (and previous) day and age when some are still so animated about certain “rights”. But take away those “struggles”, and who would you vote for?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

DADT Repeal May Usher In A Colorblind Society

One of the best arguments I’ve heard against the repeal of DADT (which, as we say in the business is now OBE) is that it will lead to a new level of mamby-pambyness vis-a-vis gay troops demanding they be treated “fairly”. Often as we’ve noticed, when any “rights” group is looking for “fairness” it’s often simply code for “special rights”.

For the majority (based on my experience) of gay troops, our lives will likely not change much on a day-to-day basis. I, for one, am not planning to “come out” to anybody save a few close friends where I work. I’m expecting, in fact, that they likely know about me anyway. (After all, such a devilishly handsome man with so much going for him my age not married? He must be gay! Har har, but anyway…) Inasmuch, I don’t expect most gay troops will be demanding anything much more than simply not getting kicked out if we forget to use the gender-neutral pronouns when speaking of our dates.

This is not to say there won’t be a few (which will likely seem like much more than a few) flamboyantly unprofessional troops whose conduct will surely be seen as unbecoming and hopefully will be counseled right away. That will be a touchy subject I’ll save for another post.

For now let’s talk about “special rights”.

Many have argued this is a stepping-stone to a larger “gay rights” agenda. I’ve never seen it as such, and I regret that there will definitely be many gay “rights” champions who will misuse this to further their own agenda (much as those opposed to gay “rights” will also use it to further their agenda). They have no concern necessarily about the defense of the Nation nor about the military. We are a tool for them to use and they should be ashamed, if they knew any such thing as shame in the first place.

There’s another thing that I think might come of this which would be a good sign. Check out this quote from the DoD’s report on the repeal of DADT:

We do not recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Program. We believe that doing so could produce a sense, rightly or wrongly, that gay men and lesbians are being elevated to a special status as a “protected class” and will receive special treatment. In a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their sexual orientation, we believe they will be accepted more readily if the military community understands that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else.

(emphasis added)

This is a sentiment I (as most libertarian conservatives) have long espoused: Equal treatment, not special treatment. Which leads to the next logical question: Why should “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” be the basis for special treatment either? If gays and lesbians “will be accepted more readily” if not treated differently, wouldn’t that also be the same for members of these other groups? What an interesting outcome of this whole episode if the entire concept of “special” categories of troops went by the way-side?

For all the talk (and legitimate, I might add) of “unintended consequences” surrounding the repeal of DADT, what a happy accident it would be if, by virtue of this new policy change, we had to rethink how we treated everybody. Because if there’s no good reason to treat gays and lesbians as “diversity programs” (and there isn’t), then why do we need them in the first place? This could be a whole new chapter in respecting each other as individuals and as part of a larger team rather than the social balkanization the Left so often loves to use to drive us apart.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Gay Americans Made Important Contribution To GOP Wins

This is the kind of data I’ve been waiting to see…

According to CNN, 31% of self-identified gay voters supported Republican candidates for the U.S. House. This number is a dramatic increase from the 19% GOP House candidates won among gay voters in 2008. “Exit polling makes it clear gay voters played an important role in bringing conservative leadership to Congress,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies. “It also proves something we have been saying for months now – that the Tea Party’s message of limiting government is something that appeals to many gay Americans.”

That my friends, is a huge shift.  It also marks a high water mark of self-identified gays voting for GOP as I believe McCain got 27% in 2008 and Bush got 24% in 2004 (don’t quote me on those numbers, I’m using my memory).

How will the professional Gay Leftists handle the fact that one-third of the gays & lesbians in America vote conservative?   For example, will they back off of their position of abortions-for-all when genetic advances are leading to the days of selective aborting gays & lesbians before they are born?

And that’s just one issue where the Gay Progressive radicals are on the wrong side of 60% of America and 30% of gays & lesbian Americans.  What does this say about gay America’s eroding support of President Obama?

Will anything change among the Gay Street crowd?  Doubtful.  They are bought & paid for by the Democrats and George Soros-funded organizations.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Loretta Sanchez’s Sense of Racial (& Partisan) Entitlement

Barbara Boxer isn’t the only California politician with a sense of entitlement.  While she may think she deserves her Senate seat because of all her (self-professed) hard work, another Golden State Democrat thinks she deserves her seat on account of her ethnicity and political affiliation.

Don’t believe me?  Take a look at this video:

So, an election should be decided not based on one’s qualifications to serve and her record in office, but on the fact that she’s a Latina Democrat?!?! Now, there are many fine Latinas in America today, indeed, I’m rooting for one to be the next Governor of the Land of Enchantment, but it’s not her ethnicity which qualifies Susana Martinez to serve.

This video leads John Hinderaker to wonder:

It will be interesting to see whether a single prominent Democrat will denounce, or even distance himself from, Sanchez’s racism. My guess is that the number of Democrats who do so will be zero. If that is the case, what can we conclude about the Democratic Party, historically the party of slavery and Jim Crow?

Meanwhile, Allahpundit asks, “Does she talk this way in front of English-speaking audiences too, counting on her Absolute Moral Authority as a Democrat to shield her from criticism“?

Just as there are many fine Latino candidates, like the next Senator from the Sunshine State, so too are there many fine Vietnamese candidates.  California’s Van Tran (Sanchez’s replacement) appears to be one of them.  You can support his campaign here.

REPOST: The Mathematical Formula for Barack Obama

UPDATE:  I just found this post that is nearly a year old.  It still seems to fit (even MORE so now, perhaps). 

Take the very worst personal and leadership traits of these Presidents:

lbj nixon carter

Combine the Socialist, statist and world-view philosophy of this one:


And add the big-spending ways of this one:


And you get this big mess:


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

More evidence that national gay groups prefer leftist solidarity to advocacy for their (supposed) constituency

Gay conservatives have been so critical of the national gay groups, in large measure because these organizations seem more beholden to the political left in general and the Democratic Party in particular than they do to their supposed constituency.  With the Service Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN) being the notable exception.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 elections, after a Republican president was elected to a second term in the White House and with Republicans making gains in both the House and the Senate, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), instead of picking someone who could work with Republicans, tapped a Democratic partisan (who had most recently worked for a group committed to electing pro-choice Democratic women) to helm its operation.

Guess they were more interested in playing to the left than to influencing the (then-)party in power.

That choice came to mind when I received a recent e-mail from the National Center for Lesbian Rights.  When I saw the name Glenn Beck in the subject line, I thought maybe they were going to praise the conservative polevangelist* for acknowledging the obvious that gay marriage isn’t a threat to the country.

Instead Executive Director Kate Kendell (she who devoted her most recent 9/11 letter to ranting against conservatives) included a piece by the group’s Federal Policy Attorney Maya Rupert on Beck’s “Cynical Invasion of D.C.”  Now the timing of his “Restoring Honor” Rally may well have been cynical, but, well, what does criticizing this timing have to do with advancing “lesbian rights”? (more…)

Long anticipated rash of anti-Muslim hate crimes is yet to emerge

Remember how, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, a number of voices in the chattering classes, in the highest of dudgeon, inveighed against a coming backlash against Muslim Americans, with a skyrocketing number of anti-Muslim hate crimes?

Well, that doesn’t seem to be the case:

Hate crimes directed against Muslims remain relatively rare, notwithstanding the notoriety gained by incidents such as recent vandalism at the Madera Islamic Center.

Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are all more frequently the target of hate crimes, FBI records show. Reported anti-Muslim crimes have declined over recent years, though they still exceed what occurred prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Such crimes did jump right after 9/11 but, as Jonah Goldberg reminds us, have since begun to decline considerably.  

Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.

(Read the whole thing.  Jonah asks a great question about the rush of some on the left to find intolerance in America.)  Guess Americans just aren’t the vindictive, bitter people who cling to their antipathy to people who aren’t like them as a means, you know, to express their frustration.  

Now, catch this anecdote (from the first article I quoted); it gets at the real problem with defining certain crimes hate crimes: (more…)

GOProud Announces Ann Coulter to Headline Homocon 2010 in New York City

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, announced that conservative author Ann Coulter is headlining their first annual Homocon – a party to celebrate gay conservatives.

“The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the ‘no fun police’ on the left,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud. “I can’t think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed ‘right-wing Judy Garland’ – Ann Coulter.”

Ann Coulter is the author of seven New York Times bestsellers —Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America (January 2009); If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (October, 2007); Godless: The Church of Liberalism (June 2006); How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)(October, 2004); Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (June 2003); Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (June 2002); and High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (August 1998).

Homocon 2010 will take place in New York City on the evening of Saturday September 25th. VIP Sponsorships are available for $2500 and general admission tickets go on sale August 20th. To purchase tickets or for more information:

“I can promise you, Homocon 2010 will be a hell of a lot more fun than chaining yourself to the White House fence,” concluded Barron.

More details are coming soon! Please contact Jimmy LaSalvia at for information about sponsorship opportunities.

General reception tickets ($250) go on sale August 20th. Visit for more information.

©2010 GOProud | 426 C Street NE | Washington DC | 20002 | (202) 543-1003 |

Further thoughts on a conservative approach to gay issues

One reason the headline Log Cabin v. USA so struck me is that in nearly emptying all my e-mail boxes these past few days, I’ve been struck by the absence of independent thinking among gay organizations in coming up with “solutions” to the problems and difficulties gay people face in contemporary society. And it seems that Log Cabin is no different.

Instead of considering how conservative ideas could benefit gay individuals, they have (all too often) simply deferred to the agenda of the various left-leaning national gay organizations on gay issues as if all gay people must back them because, well, these are the gay issues. And in almost every case (save for legislative repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT)), they back policies which either expand the size of the federal government (and, in some cases, state governments as well) and increase its scope. Or both.

Many of the leaders of Log Cabin have, like all too many Republicans, alas, not realized how much the world changed with the inauguration of Ronald Wilson Reagan now nearly thirty years ago. When he spoke these words, he indicated a new approach to addressing our nation’s problems (an approach which neither his vice president nor that future president’s son fully understood):

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

In fashioning a conservative approach to gay issues, gay Republicans should ponder those words. Do we really need more laws to address the issue at hand?  Or, would free-market reforms benefit gay people?

We first saw Log Cabin consider this approach at its national “convention” in 2005 when Chris Barron, then the Political Director of the organization, promoted then-President Bush’s proposed Social Security reforms, noting how they would particularly benefit gay people.  But, with Chris moving to GOProud, his new organization, in many ways, represents the Reagan “revolution” while his old one, in many ways, represents the old Republican guard. (more…)

Will CBS Add any Gay Conservative Characters?

In response to pressure from GLAAD, CBS plans on adding some gay characters to its “scripted programs“.  Now, I have no objection to this inclusion, indeed, think it’s a good thing, but wonder if the gay characters they introduce will adhere to the stereotypes of gay people as defined by the various gay organizations (you know, activists militating for “equality”) — or will they be as complex and diverse as are real-world gay men a lesbians?

I mean, if they add at least three characters, then one of them (to reflect gay demographics) should be a Republican.  Should they introduce such a character, will he be a caricature (as was the gay Republican in a recent movie) or will he be an interesting and independent thinker, regularly exposing the prejudices of his supposedly broad-minded peers?

And while we’re at it, I’m sure conservatives are also underrepresented on CBS shows.  I’m sure the Tifanny Network is moving ahead with all deliberate speed to right that wrong.

(H/t:  Reader Peter Hughes.)

Was Obama Channeling Robert Byrd on The View?

I am sick to my stomach and furious that our so-called “post-racial” President uttered these words on national TV today:

When asked about his background, which includes a black father and white mother, Obama said of African-Americans: “We are sort of a mongrel people.”

I initially was going to resist posting on this because I really despise racial politics.  But since we are getting some new readership from the Left (and they have no clue about American history), I thought it was important. 

Does President Obama have any idea what he just put out there on the table?  Perhaps the most incendiary language in American history

From the article ‘D. W. Griffith and “The Birth of A Monster‘:  [Reference: Who Is D. W. Griffith?]

D.W. Griffith’s 1915 motion picture The Birth of a Nation — originally titled The Clansman — a film which presented a re-writing of the actual history of post Civil War Reconstruction by the same Confederate traitors aginst whom the war had to be fought. It portrayed African-Americans in the post-Civil War South as depraved, lascivious beasts whose rampant lawlessness and alleged domination of the South — through military force and control of the state legislatures — threatened to destroy “Southern civilization” and “mongrelize the races”. The film asserts that this could only be stopped by the glorified lynchings and reign of terror carried out by the “honorable” new, secret order of the “chivalrous” Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.


In most of the Northern cities where the The Birth of a Nation was scheduled to be shown, political fights exploded, and some small riots did occur in Philadelphia and elsewhere where the film was shown. The NAACP and others attempted to seek either a banning of the film completely, or to force the editing-out of the most egregious racist scenes. For the most part, those attempts were futile. Endless hearings were held before mayors, state legislatures, city councils, and state and city censorship boards across the country. The Illinois legislature voted 111-2 to ban the showing in that state, but eventually lost on judicial appeals filed by the film’s promoters.

Those hearings became platforms for the pro-Griffith lobby to pronounce the alleged virtues of eugenics. In New York City, Griffith’s lawyer Martin W. Littleton told Mayor Mitchell that the film was a “protest against the mongrel mixture of black and white.”

It is disgusting and putrid that a President of the United States bring this kind of filth language into the public discourse when our nation has moved so far past it.  Laura Ingraham is correct, Obama is not “post-racial” — he is the most racial and divisive President we have ever had.  Two top Democrat operatives agreed with that conclusion as well this week.

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

We have seen the divisive approach under Republican presidents as well—particularly the administrations of Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. By dividing America, Mr. Obama has brought our government to the brink of a crisis of legitimacy, compromising our ability to address our most important policy issues.


The president had a unique opportunity to focus on overarching issues of importance to whites and blacks. He has failed to address the critical challenges. He has not used his bully pulpit to emphasize the importance of racial unity and the common interest of poor whites and blacks who need training, job opportunities, and the possibility of realizing the American Dream. He hasn’t done enough to address youth unemployment—which in the white community is 23.2% and in the black community is 39.9%.

Mr. Obama has also cynically divided the country on class lines. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and corporations behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda.

Obama’s use of the expression “mongrel people” on The View is further evidence that this President wants to stab America at its heart and divide our people in a way that no other President has.

I have always questioned Obama’s knowledge and comprehension of the American Experience and the American Character.  Now I truly do not believe he has any clue about either.  This is a dangerous man we have elected.

[RELATED: Mongrel. Sexism. Just Another Healing Day for the POTUS - Liberty Pundits]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Victims of our own imagination?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:36 pm - July 28, 2010.
Filed under: Identity Politics,Individuation,Random Thoughts

Have you ever met someone at a social event or in the course of your professional endeavors, started chatting with that individual, gotten to like (or dislike) him (or her) before learning his name and then upon learning his full name, saying, “Oh, so, you’re so and so!”  You’d heard all about him from someone else.  But, the impression you get on meeting him is the exact opposite of the image you had created of him.

This thought comes to mind (and not for the first time) for a variety of reasons, first, speculating about meeting one of our critics at a non-political event where we talk movies or history or whatever before finding out that we sit on opposite side of the political fence and second, thinking that there must be a movie which addresses this topic.

As I thought about this, I realized, the idea is much bigger than just a question of how we often create images of other people in our minds (based upon what others have said about them — or our own impressions of people in a group to which they belong — or who hold the creed they do).  And then, there are the times, when, we fret over what we wear or what we say, fearing we offended somebody in some way.  It’s not that we offended them, it’s that we fear we offended them.

(Or that if we do this or that thing, you know, like jumping in the pool less than an hour after eating, it will cause this or that adverse result.)

It’s all inside our heads.

There is more to this notion than this and I may to build upon it in a future post, but want to keep this one brief to get you thinking.  Sometimes we do become victims of our imagination, seeing things as far different (and perhaps far worse) than things actually are entirely because of how we imagine them to be.

My Apology to Shirley Sherrod — Withdrawn

Last week, I jumped the gun (as did many others) in taking what was a complex story and boiling it down to an video clip without its proper context.  I apologized to my readers and to Shirley Sherrod.

I hereby withdraw the apology to Mrs. Sherrod. 

As I noted at the time, this was a very complex story and I had a pretty good hunch that Mrs. Sherrod was not the angel she appeared to be.  I am correct.  She is a picture perfect product of the liberal policies that make African-Americans dependent on the Federal Government and foster a victimization mentality.  Mrs. Sherrod claimed she learned something when she helped that white farmer, but what she learned may be worse than the presumed racism from the clip of her at the NAACP meeting in March.

I mean – get a load of this.  This is the conclusion Sherrod makes against Andrew Breitbart:

SHIRLEY SHERROD, FMR. GEORGIA DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, USDA: I don’t think he’s [Andrew Breitbart] interested in seeing anyone get past it, because I think he’d like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’d like to see all black people end up again. And that’s why –

ANDERSON COOPER: You think he’s a racist?

SHERROD: — I think he’s so vicious. Yes, I do. And I think that’s why he’s so vicious against a black president.

Are you f–ing kidding me??????  So Shirley is in the camp of — “If You Criticize Obama, You are a Racist”.  Give me a bloody break.

Oh but there’s much more.  Salon’s uber-progressive Editor in Chief calls Shirley’s husband, Charles, a “civil rights hero”.  Um, really?

Charles Sherrod: “We must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections.” (January 2010)

The Sherrod’s are full-blown race-baiting liberals.  Dan Riehl has done all of the research, so you don’t have to.  But here’s the money quote:

Mark Knoller mentioned a potential wrongful termination lawsuit [from Shirley Sherrod] in passing. And now the media and the administration seem intent on making her [Sherrod] disappear. One theory on that I’ve heard is, they don’t want people asking questions about her lawsuit. What I’m wondering is, maybe they don’t want people asking questions about Obama.

He worshiped with Jeremiah Wright for years. He potentially appointed a racist black liberationist Marxist to the USDA. Just how many of them does he have around him, as he sits in the WH waging war on capitalism? And, finally, what might all those college documents of his they won’t let us see tell us about him … especially given this? 

Ultimately, given all this now beginning to come out as a result of Andrew Breitbart’s original work makes him a hero in my book. These are the tough questions the press doesn’t even want to ask. It brings to the front important issues on race and racism, black, or otherwise, the press and the WH don’t wish to confront. But that’s what’s suppose to happen in a genuinely free, open and democratic society.

As things stand, an extremely controversial woman is sitting there with a free ticket for a promotion at the USDA from an incompetent in the WH who created this mess by appointing her, then firing her too quickly for some reason. This isn’t Breitbart’s mess. This is now Obama’s mess to clean up, or justify, as far as I’m concerned. Heckuva job, Barry. Heckuva job. At least we’re starting to get used to it. I believe the word is: incompetent.

Obama really does seem to have some of the strangest friends, just like Joan Walsh, of Sherrod’s white media conspiracy against blacks. Who’d a thunk it?

So I’m through with this story.  The edited video was unfortunate, but the true racist stripes of the NAACP, the Sherrods, and the Obama Administration have certainly come out over a week’s time.  So bravo, Mr. Breitbart.  You hit the target.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

NAACP Release on Tea Party “Racism” Relies on Unsubstantiated Accusations

Over at the Kansas City Star, Derek Donovan posts the entire NAACP press release on its resolution condemning “racism within the tea party”:

The resolution condemns the bigoted elements within the Tea Party and asks for them to be repudiated. The NAACP delegates presented this resolution for debate and passage after a year of vitriolic Tea Party demonstrations during which participants used racial slurs and images. In March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were accosted by Tea Party demonstrators and called racial epithets. Civil rights icon John Lewis was spit on, while Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was called the “N” word and openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was called an ugly anti-gay slur.

(H/t:  Gateway Pundit)

Seems they based their entire resolution on a jaundiced view of the Tea Parties.  By their method of argument, if fringe elements of a large movement use hateful rhetoric, that rhetoric can be used to criticize the movement.

First, what the resolution is asking to be done (not sure who they’re asking given the use of the passive) has already been done.  Tea Party leaders have repudiated the handful of racist slurs at image, heart and seen at a handful of Tea Party (yet described in a plethora of media reports, blog posts and opinion columns).

Second, look at the actual “facts” cited by the organization.  Despite a $100,000 prize for video evidence of such activity, no one has stepped forward to provide the video and claim the money.  As Deroy Murdock explains:

If such comments actually were uttered, the NAACP and its leftist allies would have played them over and over and over and over and over and over and over to embarrass and humiliate Republicans, conservatives and the allegedly racist tea party movement. In fact, no one has stepped forward to collect Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 prize for any documentary proof that these supposed race bombs ever were dropped on their targets.

What Does AG Holder Think Of NAACP’s Tea Party Racism Resolution??

February 18, 2009: Attorney General Eric Holder calls USA a “nation of cowards”

July 13, 2010: NAACP Passes Resolution Condeming “Racism of Tea Parties”

Passed on the fourth day of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s annual convention in Kansas City, the resolution also urged people to oppose what it said was the tea party’s drive “to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”

“We feel it’s very important that we educate our membership about the tea parties,” said Anita Russell, head of the Kansas City branch of the NAACP, as the debate on the resolution began. “We are concerned that there is a racist element within the tea parties.”

Mr. Attorney General… who are the cowards now?

RELATED STORY: The Racism of the NAACP –

In the short history of the Tea Party there has been one racist incident, one, and it was a Tea Party protester who was the victim. The NAACP has abandoned its mission and become a partisan political organization.

Sadly the NAACP has forgotten the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:

This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)