Calling Christopher Hitchens “one of the most dynamic voices of our generation“, Sonicfrog laments the passing of this iconoclastic columnist:

With the exception of being an ardent atheist, he was impossible to pin down and categorize as belonging to any one political movement or ideology. He truly called them as he saw them. Without question, he truly was his own man. He burned as bright as anyone I can recall in my lifetime, and now the flame is no more. I can’t say I always agreed with him, but he was one HELL of a writer, and I am a better writer because of his influence!

The man always spoken his mind and while leaning to the left, never really subscribed to any ideology.  Just look him stand up to Bill Maher:

Joy McCann called him a “man was made of class“:

This amazing writer was fearless. And smart. And from what I could see, a good, decent man who stared death in the face and remained just as decent as he had been before, albeit in much more pain.

Goodbye, Mr. H. You will be sorely, sorely missed.

Indeed. In this increasingly ideological age, we need more of his kind.

“New Jersey Senate President Stephen Sweeney isn’t sorry for saying that he would like to punch New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the face.”

For, the record, Mr. Sweeney is a Democrat, Mr. Christie, a Republican.

RELATED:  Don Surber links Ed Driscoll’s “Why does the MSM Downplay the Violence at Left-Wing Protests?“

One of the most heartening things about blogging is not just that it provides the means for gay conservatives (a minority within a minority, as we have been dubbed) to publish our ideas, but also for disgruntled gay liberals to make known their discontent with the gay establishment (or Gay, Inc as it has been dubbed).

In reading blogs like Pam’s House Blend, Queerty and Americablog, to name but a few, I have learned that many gays on the left do not march in lockstep with the Democratic partisans at HRC.  Nor, as we have learned in recent days, have they accepted the word of the increasingly partisan GLAAD as gay gospel.

While we here at GayPatriot have taken the ostensible media watchdog to task for honoring a man who spews the type of hate speech against one segment of gay people they would excoriate had he directed similar speech against all gay people, gay lefty bloggers (and blogresses) have faulted the organization for its “public statements supporting AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile” as well as their letter “to the FCC opposing possible net neutrality rules.”  GLAAD received money from AT & T.

Gay leftie bloggers are concerned about what one calls, “the corporate hijacking of our movement.”

Now, for the record, we here at GayPatriot oppose the FCC’s attempt to impose net neutrality rules, so we did not wade into the controversy.  Yet, what stood out to us (well, to me, at least) was these bloggers were using this new medium to criticize a gay group.

And now we see that, just as in federal legislation action on DADT repeal, their efforts have had a real world impact, “Jarrett Barrios,” as Pam Spaulding reports, “the executive director of GLAAD, has resigned.”  At that link and this, Pam has more on the controversy.

Kudos to these folks for standing up to their principles, even if it meant exposing a rift in the gay community.  We may not agree with them in their criticism of GLAAD, but we do agree that it is better for our community that Barrios no longer heads one of the leading gay organizations.  Now, if only they could be as successful in influencing the board of HRC. . .

UPDATE:   On Facebook, Scott Schmidt asks, “Why is it wrong for gay rights groups to side with corporations that support them but not wrong to side with labor unions?”

Good question. Do hope some of those left-of-center gay bloggers use their web-sites to ask it.

Perhaps, we might be able to get to the bottom of the Barack Obama’s changing stance on gay marriage if some leading gay rights’ activists were more interested in advocating for gay people than in agitating for Democratic politicians:

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, ME OR YOUR OWN LYING EYES? Senior White House aide: 1996 Obama gay marriage questionnaire is a fake, even though Obama signed it. Presumably the White House is demanding release of the original long-form questionnaire.

While HRC is silent, gay bloggers and blogreses are asking questions.  At Pam’s House Blend, Autumn Sandeen feels like she’s “watching a denial from the Obama Administration of Barack Obama’s 1996 position on marriage equality in the face of documentation that makes the denial appear to be a lie. It looks to me to be an attempt at a history rewrite“:

I can’t imagine that this isn’t going to cause problems between the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and the Obama Administration, and it will require someone more senior to White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer in an attempt to straighten this out.

Once again, gay and lesbian bloggers (and blogresses), working on a shoestring, are doing the work the national gay organizations, with multi-million dollar budgets, fancy offices and expense accounts refuse to do.

Does seem Obama arrives at his positions on gay issues, not on their merits, but on their politically expediency.

It seems he supported state recognition of same-sex marriage in his first campaign, yet subsequently never marched in any gay pride parade — or otherwise participated in such celebrations.  You’d think national gay groups would be asking questions, especially given the president’s aggressive solicitation of gay money and votes.

Kudos to the gay leftie bloggers unwilling to serve as lickspittles to a Democratic president with whom they are, by and large, ideologically in sync.  Would it we could say the same thing for the national gay groups.  But, for them it seems, fealty to the Democratic Party — and its standard bearers — remains the highest bond.

Log Cabin is not letting up in its attack on HRC, the Democratic front group the gay and lesbian advocacy organization, that recently endorsed President Obama’s reelection roughly nine months ahead of the first primaries.  In an e-mail to the group’s mailing list, Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper speculates as to what kind of “message” this endorsement “sends to Barack Obama”:

Feel free to take gay voters for granted. Don’t bother pushing for ENDA or DOMA repeal. There is no need to “evolve” any further on marriage. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal doesn’t even have to be certified. You’ve done enough.

We don’t think so.

Endorsements, especially from our community’s (nominally) nonpartisan advocates, should be made on the merits of the candidates. Unfortunately, HRC has a history of endorsing Democrats too soon out of blind faith. They endorsed Bill Clinton, only to have him then sign the Defense of Marriage Act. Shamefully, the endorsement remained.

Log Cabin Republicans are proud of our record of standing up for our friends and standing up to Republicans who cross the line. Can HRC say the same about Barack Obama? After this, can HRC truly represent the interests of LGBT Americans?

(Emphasis in original.)  No, it doesn’t, but the president certainly thinks HRC represents gay Americans.  And now that he has HRC’s endorsement, Obama will assume he’s taken care of those pesky homosexuals and can start vacuuming up their cash, with the reassurance that he doesn’t need do anything else to placate gay Democrats.  No worries any more about running afoul of some of his religious supporters averse not just to state recognition of gay marriage, but to civil unions as well. (more…)

Here’s the thing… I read this article and thought — “Duh, no kidding.”

But then it dawned on me that many lib/progressive drones will never accept these facts. Because they are so blinded by their anti-military views and too infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Osama bin Laden’s death at the hands of U.S. special operations forces is a major success in our country’s war against al-Qaeda. As a result of the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation program and the intelligence gained from detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a major fraction of al-Qaeda’s senior leadership has been captured or killed since 2001.

This conclusion was inadvertently reinforced recently by WikiLeaks’ illegal disclosure of more than 700 classified Defense Department files on Guantanamo Bay detainees. Their publication has harmed our security and cemented the impression among allies that America is incapable of keeping secrets. But the material also provides compelling evidence of the effectiveness of Bush administration anti-terror policies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The illegally released files, in addition to a host of declassified documents on U.S. detention policies posted at www.rumsfeld.com, record complex decisions and excruciating trade-offs that President Bush and national security officials had to make. They document the deadly techniques and intentions of hundreds of Guantanamo detainees who still desire to return to the fight, and the labors of analysts and interrogators who enabled us to stop additional attacks.

Gathering intelligence is a painstaking process. Some information comes in an immediately actionable form. More often, the significance of particular data, whether provided by senior or lower-ranking operatives, does not become apparent for months or years, as happened with the years-long effort to patch together information that led our forces to bin Laden.

The classified files from Guantanamo Bay, particularly those on senior operative Abu Faraj al-Libi, contain clues about al-Qaeda’s courier network and even mention Abbottabad. Had bin Laden closely followed WikiLeaks’ release of these documents April 25, it is unlikely he would have been there when U.S. Navy SEALs descended into his compound days later.

The primary documents are the best public evidence yet of our systematic efforts to ascertain detainees’ links to terrorism and to weigh the dangers of their potential release or repatriation. In a war in which our nation’s terrorist enemies hide among civilians and do not carry their arms openly, the question is not whether some unfortunate detention mistakes are made but whether there are appropriate protections to detect errors and correct them when discovered.

Read the whole thing — it is chock full of FACTS.

I can only hope that the most important lib/progressive sees the error of his previous anti-Bush, anti-American world view. He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I am not holding my breath.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Twice in blogging about Ken Mehlman’s coming out, I wrote that there would be some “decent gay lefties” who would not go for this good man’s jugular, treating him instead him with decency and “dignity despite disagreeing . . .  on matters political.”

Due to my busy schedule these past few days, I haven’t been able to check the blogs as much as I would like so am grateful for readers like Eva Young of Lloydletta’s Nooz who alerted me to one leftie who has been relatively kind to Mehlman.  To be sure, John Aravosis, while refraining from attacking Mehlman personally (as have some of his left-of-center blogging colleagues), does spew a good deal of vitriol against the GOP (and engage in a bit of overheated rhetoric), he welcomes Mehlman’s coming out, saying he’s “more interested in equality than revenge.”

Now, you all know I have trouble with that term; I’m concerned more with preserving the blessings of liberty and, as many libertarian and conservative philosophers and pundits, recognize the tension between that American ideal and the notion of equality.

That said, John sees Mehlman as a potential ally in pursuing his goals and challenges his critics, “If someone can explain to me how it advances our civil rights to spurn Mehlamn’s offer of help, I’m all ears.”

I simply want my civil rights more than I want revenge. It’s the way good politics works, I think – and it’s the way politics used to work in this country – putting the potential to move forward today ahead of your legitimate anger about yesterday.

Now, I may quibble with John about our supposed lack of civil rights.  But, he is willing to put his principles over personality.  And in my book, that should count for something. (more…)

Back when I met lefty lesbian blogress Pam Spaulding on my cross country journey, we talked about doing regular Point-Counterpoint blog posts where one of us would address a topic of the day and another would respond.

Well, even though the editors of the Hill had little knowledge of our conversations, they did ask each of us to weigh in on whether or not “gay-rights issues are being adequately addressed by the Obama administration and this Congress.” Neither Pam nor I had seen each other’s pieces before they were posted.

Here is the beginning of my post (written in haste last Friday):

Unlike most gay activists, when it comes to politics, I have a very small “gay agenda.”  I believe Congress needs to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) and allow the Administration time (say no more than six months) to find a means to implement repeal without compromising unit cohesion or military effectiveness.  And I believe the federal and state governments should recognize same-sex civil unions (or domestic partnerships or marriages or whatever they’re called) while granting same-sex partners of government employees the same benefits that different-sex spouses in traditional marriages currently receive.

Other than that, the government should leave us alone to live our lives as we please.

With this as background, let me address the question of the day:  is the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress adequately addressing gay rights issue?

And the answer is well, sort of.

You can read the rest, including Pam’s piece, here.

There are now 107 confirmed names from the allegedly defunct “JournoList”.   And while the whole thing stinks to high heaven (news story manipulation by this gang), I can’t say I’m all that surprised about the names popping up.

But I do have to say I’m quite surprised that one Andrew Sullivan hasn’t surfaced.  He’d be the first one I’d expect to have been invited begged to have been put on the JournoList. After all, his Atlantic & TNR buddies Ambinder, Yglesias, Cohn, & Chiat are there.  And Sullivan is a “name”.  I would have thought he’d be one of the first we’d hear about — no offense to Dave Weigel.

Is it possible that the liberal media, academic & Obama cabal considered Sullivan too wacky for even them?  This Daily Dish posting on July 20 suggests Sullivan was in fact left out of the gang.

*snicker*

Or since the JournoList is mostly white straight guys — perhaps they are just racist and homophobic?

Video courtesy of HillBuzz.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This post originates from an email from B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest) to Bruce (GayPatriot):

I mean, give me a break.

George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.

That’s the verdict of 238 of the nation’s leading presidential scholars, who – for a fifth time – rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll.

In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position – two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.

Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.

Clinton took office during a recovery and succeeded in bungling his first two years in office so badly that the Republican Congress elected in response to his failures helped prevent him from undoing the accomplishments of the Reagan era.

Yeah, he may rank higher than you or I would like, but not above Reagan and certainly not far above the middle of the pack.

Seems these historians put their political prejudices ahead of their historical judgment.  I mean, Obama ahead of the Gipper.  Give me a break.  The economy has certainly not recovered.  And we haven’t seen the economic turnaround of the like we saw in the 1980s.

And that W is low on the list suggests the scholars crafting the study harbor the animi (animuses?) of the other practitioners of their trade.

=============

Bruce’s additional comments:

And check out this absurd statement from the news article:

“Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not,” said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. “He grew up without a father.”

Oh give me a friggin’ break.  Obama is probably the most elitist president (via education & upbringing) since the John F. Kennedy.  This idea that he had no father makes him “non-elitist” is completely absurd.  How many ordinary Americans do you know that grew up in three different countries, went to the best private schools there and then went on to Harvard?  I credit his work ethic getting there, but I know ordinary people and Obama ain’t one of ‘em.

Is Professor Lonnstrom suggesting that because Obama is BLACK that he’s no elitist?  Well, that’s just downright RAAAACIST!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

My SINCERE apologies for the delay in dancing on the grave Al Gore’s career this week.  Kaput.  Just like the climategate emails proved Global Warming was “fixed”…. this incident will purge Gore’s fradulent preaching for quite some time, if not forever.

PORTLAND, Ore. — The Portland Police Bureau has released an audio recording of the interview between a detective and the massage therapist who accused former Vice President Al Gore of groping her in 2006.

The woman spoke with Detective Molly Daul in January 2009 – two years after she canceled three appointments to meet with investigators.

During the interview, the massage therapist describes Gore as a “crazed sex poodle” as she details the moves he made during a late-night appointment at a downtown Portland hotel.

Police declined to file charges against Gore, saying there was insufficient evidence.

Now let’s be clear: no charges were filed.  Gore is legally innocent ’til proven guilty in this particular incident.  But where there’s smoke, there’s fire.  Why the sudden divorce from Tipper this month?  What about all of the rumors of Algore’s affair with TV producer Laurie David?  Why did the media ignore the accused sexual assault stories when accurately reported by the National Enquirer? (oh, off topic…)

So think about this:  Algore and John Edwards could have been our President & VP and both of their sex antics (and alleged criminal activities) would have made Bill Clinton look like an innocent puppy in comparison.

In the meantime, let me enter into evidence the following:  John McCain, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  Quite a comparison with the sleazy Democrat standardbearers of late.

And no, it isn’t “all about sex”.  It is about telling the truth and being honest with your family first so you have the capacity to be a leader.  In advance of smart-ass Iraq/WMD comments:  ALL foreign intel officials believed Iraq had them in 2003, so it was a collosal intelligence community fail, not a deliberate lie from Bush or Cheney.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Wouldn’t be the first time…. 

But check out this passage from 18 US Code, Section 600 (in reference to the Clinton offer to Sestak for an “unpaid job”).

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Will Bill Clinton or Rahm Emanuel be a fall guy and go to jail for Barack Obama?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In their remarkable spirit of tolerance, the folks at the taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR)

. . . has asked Fox News not to identify its news analyst, Juan Williams, with NPR branding when he appears on Fox News because of outrage among its largely liberal listener-base.

That was just too rich.  A radio network which leans left on the taxpayer dime upset that one of its commentators appears on a private TV network that supposedly leans right.

And Williams is himself no conservative.  But, before these lefties begin their belly-aching, they should actually watch their NPR colleague on FoxNews.  Personally, I find his presence there one of the best things about the network.  Simply put, he’s a very smart liberal who engages his conservative counterparts.

Not just that, while he wants Obama to succeed, he’s honest about the president’s missteps and failings.  He is, in short, a liberal with integrity.  I like to listen to Williams because he offers the liberal point of view without bile.  He doesn’t bash conservatives; he counters their arguments.

He makes a better cause for liberalism than do those who routinely attack FoxNews and does so on FoxNews.  How many other liberals get the chance to make their case in a supposedly conservative forum and do so in a manner which doesn’t antagonize their ideological adversaries?

Well, yesterday, this good man showed that he respects political movements at odds with his own ideas–and the president he supports — when he warned Democrats that there is a danger in their attempts

. . . to dismiss the tea party movement as violent racists deserving of contempt. Demonizing these folks may energize the Democrats’ left-wing base. But it is a big turnoff to voters who have problems with the Democratic agenda that have nothing to do with racism. . . .

But Democrats cannot win elections without capturing the votes of independent-minded swing voters. And that is where writing off the tea party as a bunch of racist kooks becomes self-destructive. The tea party outrage over health-care reform, deficit spending and entitlements run amok is no fringe concern. And it is insulting to all voters to suggest that criticism of President Obama, even by people who want to throw him out of office, is motivated by racism.

Like Patrik Jonsson at the Christian Science Monitor, Williams understands that Tea Party protesters (more…)