Gay Patriot Header Image

More Intolerance from the Gay Left Thought Police

As I warned after the scalping of Brendan Eich (the Mozilla Guy), the Gay Left Thought Police are only getting more obnoxious.  Now, they have decided that affiliating with the Boy Scouts makes you unfit for public service.

California is proposing to ban members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from serving as judges because the Boy Scouts do not allow gay troop leaders, The Daily Caller has learned.

In a move with major legal implications, The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.

Remember when Gay Rights Activists objected to people being punished for what they did in their private lives? Seems like ancient history.

Dan Savage Is a Vile, Despicable Thing

I’m not going to reproduce the latest nasty, mean-spirited comment (in Tweet form) from the gay community’s self-appointed Moral Arbiter; suffice it to say, it uses the progressive left’s very favorite word (because profanity is how weak minds attempt to express emphasis) and it is a vile insult directed at people of far superior moral character than he. You can read it at this link.

And judging by the responses to his Tweet, his followers are as vile and reprobate as he is.

Charles Koch Speaks

We allowed the Eich/Mozilla brouhaha to obscure this, but it addresses the same underlying problem: the fascist intolerance of the “progressive” Left.

Last week, one of the Koch brothers responded to Harry Reid’s outrageous attacks demonizing them:

Charles Koch: I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society

Updated April 2, 2014 7:47 p.m. ET

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government…[and] we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

…In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you…

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle…

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced…

…I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished…

He gives more, including some facts/details. (I’d reprint the article fully, except I haven’t obtained permission.) RTWT.

UPDATE: Also not to be missed is Kevin D. Williamson on The Liberal Gulag.

Welcome to the Liberal Gulag.

That term may be perverse, but it is not an exaggeration. Mr. [Adam] Weinstein [of Mother Jones] specifically called for political activists, ranging from commentators to think-tank researchers, to be locked in cages as punishment for their political beliefs. “Those denialists should face jail,” he wrote. “You still can’t” — banality alert! — “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t be able to yell ‘balderdash’ at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year.” “Balderdash” — a felony. At the risk of being repetitious, let’s dwell on that for a minute: The Left is calling on people to be prosecuted for speaking their minds regarding their beliefs on an important public-policy question that is, as a political matter, the subject of hot dispute. That is the stuff of Soviet repression.

And much more.

Even Michelangelo Signorile shows No Self-Awareness

In the comments to V’s post, Even Andrew Sullivan Is Disgusted with the Gay Left, commenter Donny D has kindly pointed us to Signorile’s scoop that proves the Left’s sincerity about rainbows and tolerance:

Dear Andrew Sullivan, ‘Left-Liberal Intolerance’ Did Not Bring Down Mozilla’s CEO…

According to Sullivan, the gay mafia has struck again, destroying [Mozilla ex-CEO Brendan Eich] and bringing him down because he would not conform to its thinking…

But…it wasn’t the Prop 8 contribution, and Eich’s refusal to renounce it, that eventually did Eich in. He was being defended by company executives…Eich only announced he was stepping down after it was revealed late Wednesday that he’d given money to Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign in 1992, and later to Ron Paul’s campaign…

It all just became too much for Mozilla to bear…It’s about a company based in Northern California that has many progressive employees…

Get it? In Signorile’s world,

  • left-wing progressives *are not* a Mafia that viciously hounds anybody who deviates from their orthodoxy of thought…
  • because left-wing progressives *did not* destroy Eich over his crimethinkful deviation on Prop 8 (a deviation shared by a great many Obama supporters that year, 2008)…
  • rather, left-wing progressives destroyed Eich over his crimethinkful deviations on Ron Paul, and on Pat Buchanan way back in 1992.

Which deviations naturally merit a campaign of personal destruction, making the destruction perfectly understandable within a proper concept of tolerance. (cough)

To be clear, I don’t like what Buchanan stood for in the 1992 campaign, either. But “that was then” and, rather more importantly, I get it that freedom is a 2-way street. “Freedom means freedom for everybody.”

And Signorile’s use of Ron Paul is fascinating. Signorile is saying, in effect, that consistent support for small government and individual liberty (what Paul stands for) is unforgiveable. Boy, I sure am impressed with the Left’s wonderful tolerance for freedom of thought, now.

Even Andrew Sullivan Is Disgusted with the Gay Left

The hounding of Brendan Eich has inspired Andrew Sullivan to direct some disapprobation toward some people who actually deserve it for a  change.

His flaw lies in assuming the progressive left wants a “tolerant and diverse society.” They don’t. Read the responses to his Tweet. Most of them are totally on-board with intolerance and witch-hunts.

The gay left is reveling in their power to ruin anyone whose opinion is not in line with what they consider acceptable. As I said before, they are only going to get more obnoxious.

Nick Adds: Naturally, Mozilla closed comments on their milquetoast post about ‘diversity’ in relation to their decision. (Trackbacks are open, but such a cowardly and pandering move doesn’t deserve the mention, so sorry GP fans, you’ll have to search it out yourself.) How disgusting. I think it was Greg Gutfeld who said (something along the lines of): Diversity is great until you point out any way in which people are different.

Andrew (who I once respected immensely) gets a rare broken-clock nail-on-the-head here. As someone who’s perplexed by the Gay Kommunity’s fascination with marriage (why anybody would actively invite the government to involve itself in his personal relationships is beyond me and the topic of a million other posts I’ve written or at least considered writing, but beside the point…), I find their suppressionist approach is stomach-wrenching in its hypocrisy considering the alleged and self-declared oppression of this subset of society.

Explaining the Derangement of the Progressive Left

It seems Jeff and I have been doing more than a few posts lately cataloguing the angry derangement of the left. All of this anger, shrillness, violent pathology, intolerance, rage, and rejection of logic coming from those who claim to be the most peceaful, tolerant, and rational members of society creates a paradox. How can a progressive claim to be rationale, and yet consistently favor discredited and unsustainable economic policies? How can a progressive claim to be tolerant, yet demand that all contrary opinion be shouted down and dissidents be jailed? How can a progressive claim to believe all races are equal, but demand that blacks and hispanics be treated as inferiors that need to be condescended to and acccommodated because they just can’t be expected to perform as well as white people if all are treated equally?  And the greatest paradox of all; how are progressive leftists so blind to their own contradictions and hypocrisy?

(Progressive Leftist: “Um, because You’re a RACIST!!!”)

John C. Wright Attempts to explain:

The theory must explain, first, the honest decency of the modern liberals combined with their astonishing indifference, nay, hostility to facts, common sense, and evidence; second, it must explain their high self-esteem (or, to be blunt, their pathological narcissism) combined not merely with an utter lack of accomplishment, but with their utter devotion to destructiveness, a yearning to ruin everything they touch; third, it must explain their sanctimoniousness combined with their applause, praise, support, and tireless efforts to spread all perversions (especially sexual), moral decay, vulgarity, and every form of desecration; fourth, their pretense of intellectual superiority combined with their notorious mental fecklessness; fifth, it must explain both their violence and their pacifism; sixth, the theory must explain why they hate the very things they should love most; seventh, the theory must explain why they are incapable of comprehending an honest disagreement or any honorable foe.

The essay attempts to arrive at this theory, and as such, has to cover a lot of ground, and uses a lot of big words and philosophical concepts that would be utterly lost on the typical progressive Obama-voter. But it sort of comes down to this.

How can anyone continue to be a Leftist for a week, much less for a lifetime?

The answer, allow me to remind the patient reader, grows out of their theory. Again, their theory of knowledge is that there is no knowledge, no truth, only bigoted opinion. The only way to avoid bigotry is to avoid judgment and the use of reason. Avoiding reason necessitates a theory of morality that denies cause and effect. No vice causes loss, no virtue causes happiness. Hence life is a random roulette wheel. If there are no vices and virtues, not even the intellectual virtues of honest thinking, then no independent thought is desired or permitted. Instead, all thoughts are determined by social cues. Thought is collective.

The whole point of Liberal theory from start to finish is to form earplugs to smother the ringing of that alarm clock called reality.

The Leftists are people who abandon their innate intelligence and moral stature and who  deliberately make themselves to be stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man. The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony.

Progressive Leftist Mozilla Employees Accuse CEO of Thoughtcrime; Demand Resignation

Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich has a political opinion that employees disagree with. Therefore, he must be punished.

Some employees at Mozilla, the non-profit organization behind the Firefox browser, are calling on new CEO Brendan Eich to resign.

Mozilla workers are upset with Eich because he supported Proposition 8 and donated to the politicians who backed it.

Prop 8 was a Californian ballot-proposition banning same-sex marriage. It was officially rejected in February 2012.

Those who have a different opinion than the Progressive Left must be punished… because tolerance.

The Left Turns its Race-Hysteria on One of its Own

Stephen Colbert has been accused of racism by humorless leftists who 1. Didn’t get the joke and 2. Are perfectly fine when this sort of humor is directed at conservatives (which, technically, it was but in their deranged race-hysteria, the left can’t figure that out).

“I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever,” “The Colbert Report” Twitter wrote Thursday.

The joke was taken from a bit on Wednesday night’s “The Colbert Report,” parodying Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his launch of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in light of controversy over the team name. Taken out of context, however, many Twitter users saw the joke as racist, and launched a #CancelColbert campaign that quickly became a trending topic.

Believe it or not, there was a time when entertainment wasn’t subject to the outrage of puritanical leftist race-fascists.

Oh, and also, Kobe Bryant is also being targeted for a boycott by African-American activists, because he committed the unpardonable (for an African-American) sin of thinking for himself:

When McGrath asked Bryant’s opinion on the Miami Heat’s show of solidarity with Trayvon Martin in the now iconic “hoodie” photo, the LA Lakers star stated:

“I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American,” Bryant said. “That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, we’ve progressed as a society, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won’t assert myself.”

Oh, and I almost forgot about this: An editor of Ebony magazine beclowned herself by calling Juan Williams’s son a “white dude,” and then continued to beclown herself in offering the “I’m sorry I mistook you for a white person” defense.

Should fake hate crimes really be called “hoaxes”?

In my occasional posting on “hate crimes” that were faked by the victims (usually leftists), like many people I call such incidents “hoaxes”. But is that the right word?

hoax
hōks/
noun: hoax; plural noun: hoaxes

1. a humorous or malicious deception.

While faked hate crimes are malicious, in no way are they humorous. But I have a more serious objection. Calling these incidents “hoaxes” implies, not only that the incident was faked, but also that no real hate was involved. And I think that’s wrong.

We know that the Left is preoccupied with categorizing people by race, gender, orientation, etc. We know that emotions like envy, hatred, etc. are prevalent on the Left. We know that racism is a traditional province of the Left (such as the racism of Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood; or that of the Democrats who bequeathed the KKK and Jim Crow to America; or that of the Nazis, who were, after all, pro-worker advocates of ‘mixed economy’ socialism). And we know that even modern-day leftists will say the most racist things to be heard anywhere, if they think no one is listening except their fellow leftists.

Why, then, should we assume that a hate crime faked by a political lefty is really all that fake? When a leftist fakes a hate crime, he or she has tried to mislead people as to the crime’s author. But how is he or she not still doing a deeply hateful act?

For at least some modern-day leftists, it must be agony to have to be officially so anti-racism, all the time. Would not hate crime “hoaxes” express the repressed hatreds of their own hearts?

This question matters, because the word “hoax” sets up a dynamic where the leftist hoaxer is morally off the hook. “Oh don’t be hard on them, they just got carried away by their zeal to start a ‘conversation’ about race.” Golly, ya think?

Might it be that, due to their own racial preoccupations and (repressed) hatreds, lefties enjoy ‘conversations about race’ rather too much? A successfully-faked hate crime is a two-fer for the leftie hoaxer: He got everyone discussing his favorite obsession, and in the process, he actually hurt the victim group’s feelings (thus indulging his unadmitted hatred).

In creating a dynamic where the leftie hoaxer is morally off the hook, the word “hoax” also creates a dynamic where conservatives are still to blame, even though the crime was faked and even though a leftie did it. Because another implication is that if a conservative-leaning person had done it, it wouldn’t be a hoax. The implication is that a hate crime by a conservative is real by definition, because conservatives are h8ers who do such crimes; while a hate crime by a leftist is “just a hoax” by definition, because lefties are against hate crimes and never do them without a noble reason.

And that is, of course, total baloney. So, what would be a better word, for these faked hate crimes?

Another racism hoax

The year 2013 saw the Oberlin College racism hoax (which I commented on, here). Ugly, hateful racial comments appeared on the Oberlin campus, done by…two left-wing “progressive” students. Later, there was another hoax at Vassar College.

To keep up the tradition (I guess), we have the Grand Valley SU racism hoax of 2014. PuffHo commenters duly condemned America when it first came up but, in the words of the GVSU campus police, “The person believed to be responsible for the [hateful] drawing and language written on the dry erase board is a Grand Valley student and the owner of the message board.”

Lesson: When dealing with dramatic reports of hate crimes, wait for either (1) multiple, eyewitness reports of the deed as it was being done, or (2) a police report. Especially if it’s a college campus.

From the comments: Hate crime “hoaxes” are numerous and Jman linked two lists that people have compiled, here and here.

Something Else Islamists and Progressives Agree On

Posted by V the K at 7:10 am - March 20, 2014.
Filed under: Leftist Nutjobs,Liberal Intolerance

Images-cfiv-0004

Under Sharia, the penalty for “blasphemy,” (i.e. speaking critically of Islam or “The Prophet of Islam”) is severe, and can include brutal death. Some within the Progressive Global Warming Cult would like there to be similar penalties for speaking critically of Global Warming Dogma.

[Rochester Institute of Technology Philosophy Professor Lawrence] Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”

Torcello cites as precedent the criminal prosecution of six scientists in Italy for failing to predict an earthquake. A Libertarian or a Conservative looks at such prosecutions as a cautionary example of what tyranny and dogma lead to; to a progressive leftist, they are apparently a template. Both radical Islamists and Progressive Global Warmists share a common belief that it is dangerous to allow people to think for themselves.

On a related note, the press has been effectively banned from covering Michelle Obama’s Tour of China next week. The White House also refuses to divulge how many millions and millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent on Her Majesty’s latest Lux Vacation.

Update: A BBC Program ironically titled “Free Speech” chose to cut-off discussion on the question “When will it be all right to be Muslim and gay?” ostensibly so as to not give offense to Muslims (Bad Enough); in reality, an honest Muslim answer would have exposed their intolerance and belligerence toward gays; which progressives are in complete denial about (Worse).

Gawker Wants You to Hate Mr. Jerry Seinfeld

Posted by V the K at 6:35 am - February 4, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance

Because Mr. Seinfeld said in an interview that race doesn’t matter in comedy, only making funny matters, and according to The Gawker website, that’s racist!

Jerry Seinfeld, the most successful comedian in the world and maker of comedy for and about white people, isn’t interested in trying to include non-white anything in his work.

When asked why he featured so many white men in his web series Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee during a Buzzfeed interview on CBS This Morning, Seinfeld seemed offended by the very question. “It really pisses me off,” he said. “People think [comedy] is the census or something, it’s gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares?”

BuzzFeed Business Editor Peter Lauria seemed hesitant to pursue the frank answer, but the comedian continued on anyway. “Funny is the world that I live in. You’re funny, I’m interested. You’re not funny, I’m not interested,” he said. “I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that.” He seems to suggest that any comedian who is not a white male is also not funny, though he’s also likely fed up with the amount of bad comedy he’s been forced to sit through in his (waning) career.

Which is too bad, because Seinfeld is downplaying the work of everyone from Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby to Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, and Eddie Huang, who are all in various stages of their own sitcoms that just might turn out to be the next Seinfeld….

In conclusion: Yes, comedy should represent the entire pie chart of America, and the glorious, multicolored diversity pie should be thrown directly at Jerry Seinfeld’s face.

Hat Tip: Legal Insurrection. (No direct link to Gawker because I suspect the point of this silly column is trolling for clicks by being “outrageous.”)

Hate Chicken Spreading Hate Because Hate

Posted by V the K at 1:06 pm - January 30, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance

Chik-Fil-A is one of the many, many, many things hated with the white-hot passion of a million exploding suns by the progressive left because its owners committed the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with them on the issue of gay marriage and are, therefore, a million times worse than Hitler, Genghis Khan, Gul Dukat, and Tamerlane combined.  (That last reference should send some of our leftist participants to the Google machine.)

As a result, Chik-Fil-A is nicknamed “H8 Chicken” by people who are cheeky and fun, and also by dour leftists who are cruel and tragic.  I use the name “Hate Chicken” in the former sense, as I do with all my affectionate nicknames.

Anyway, guess what those hate-filled haters at H8 Chicken were up to this week: Providing free hate sandwiches to drivers stranded when ManBearPig (a cheeky fun name for what the dour left calls Climate Change) struck metropolitan Atlanta this week.

Some of the drivers had been stuck in their cars for nearly seven hours without any food or water. So the staff of the Chick-fil-A decided to lend a helping hand.

“We cooked several hundred sandwiches and stood out on both sides of 280 and handed out the sandwiches to anyone we could get to – as long as we had food to give out.”

The staffers braved the falling snow and ice, slipping and sliding, as they offered hot juicy chicken breasts tucked between two buttered buns. And Chick-fil-A refused to take a single penny for their sandwiches.

The meal was a gift – no strings attached.

Sigh. So much hate in the world. How can a tender heart bear it?

 

Lefties: No moral self-confidence – and fearfully proud of it

I had a lunch discussion recently with two former co-workers. Both of these men are engineers in their 30s who are fairly hard-working, competent and successful, pulling six-figure salaries. In the free and dynamic America of yore, these men would be proud of where their choices in life had taken them. But this is 2014, they are white, and they are MSDNC-watching left-liberals in a “Blue” area.

“Mark” started saying how lucky he feels to be an engineer because the work is physically so much easier and safer than being a field worker or factory hand, and pays more. I agreed, while reminding Mark that the work is mentally exhausting, something much-demanded by society (the market), and something most people wouldn’t even attempt. In other words, reminding Mark that he deserves his salary.

As if to answer me, “Ross” instantly went into a description of himself as “born into privilege”, saying how he had never really chosen anything in his life, but his course has always been determined by the social forces pushing him along and granting him privilege. This was strange, because I know for a fact that Ross works hard, which is a choice right there. So I reminded him of the constant stream of choices that he faces – be it as simple as “go back to work after this lunch, or not?” – and how those choices affect his results, like having a salary or not.

I won’t bore you with too many details. The conversation continued as a debate of Free Will implying self-responsibility and pro-liberty politics, vs. Social Determinism implying “you didn’t build that” and re-distributive, left-wing politics. We didn’t get into politics much; it lurked in the background.

But I want to tell you about the discussion’s ending. Here’s the short version: I was nice enough, yet Ross and Mark were red-faced with anger and embarrassment – because they didn’t “win”. I punctured their bubble.

At first, Ross could not process my point that all people have choices, by which they determine their own success. Asking near-childlike questions, he had me explain the concept over and over. “What if a person is born in poverty?” I’d explain how poverty is indeed a circumstance shaping the person’s life; but they still choose their *response* to it. Poverty may limit a person’s range of choices, but even poor people still face a stream of choices, that only ends when a person dies.

If a poor person joins a gang or develops a drug habit – and sticks with it, in adult life – that’s a series of choices they made. Likewise if, for better success, they work hard to get a G.E.D. and become a shift manager at the local McDonald’s, it is a series of choices they made. Likewise, my life-long self-education has been a choice. Thus I explained.

As Ross caught on, he correctly saw the implication that the McDonald’s shift manager would *deserve* her success being greater than the gang member’s or drug addict’s – just as he, Mark and I each deserve our success. And Ross didn’t like that idea. Smiling his best “Jane, you ignorant slut” type of patronizing smile, he suggested that I was out to rationalize backward, unjust notions.

With a smile right back, I pointed out that nobody was rationalizing anything; my success having come from my hard work and personal choices was not a rationalization, but a fact; and a fact that his determinist philosophy badly needed to deal with. That was the exact moment when Ross turned beet-red.

His words turned sarcastic (suggesting anger), while his voice turned quavery (suggesting anxiety). I could see that Mark, now silent, was also getting red – with a deer-in-the-headlights look of uncertainty around his eyes.

Mind you, nobody raised voices in this discussion; nobody called names or made the least of personal attacks. All I did was display my moral confidence, my certain knowledge that I had earned my success – and imply that Mark and Ross should also be morally self-confident, as they had earned theirs.

My doing that alone, nothing more, made these two men visibly feel both uncertain and violated. The interaction ended there, as we’d run out of time. I think it says a lot about left-liberals.

Lefties live in a world where lack of moral self-confidence is a required personality trait. Humility is not required; leftists usually proclaim their beliefs with arrogant certainty. But among those beliefs is a dogma to the effect that no one, including the leftie, *deserves* to have any confidence or any certainty, since no one is ever better than the worst “poor” criminal out there. Any educated, enlightened person must genuflect and display his official, dogmatic lack of confidence that he could ever be right about anything. THEN he can go on to make arrogant proclamations (provided they are left-wing).

If someone shows a different way of being – if someone thinks differently from the leftie, and has moral confidence in doing so – showing, for example, confidence that her success is deserved – many a leftie will find that person threatening. Tactic A is to smile and patronize the person as benighted; perhaps tactic B would be ridicule. If neither works – if the tables are turned, if the left-liberal’s worldview is punctured or exposed as the hollow thing it is – then the average leftie will go into fear and anger.

Sad!

They warned me if I voted for Mitt Romney, women would be punished for expressing political opinions

Intolerance.

A famed actress is facing backlash in San Francisco’s Latino community, after she voiced support for a conservative candidate for California governor.

Maria Conchita Alonso starred in a campaign ad for Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of San Bernardino County, a Tea Party favorite who is seeking the Republican nomination.

The actress was to perform next month at the Brava Theater Center in San Francisco’s Mission District in a Spanish-language version of “The Vagina Monologues,” scheduled for a run from February 14th through 17th. The show is being produced by none other than Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

“We really cannot have her in the show, unfortunately,” Lopez told KPIX 5. She said Alonso abruptly resigned from the cast on Friday, given the backlash on the immigration issue.

As the motto of La Raza (lit. “The Race”) states, “Within the Race, Everything. Outside the Race, Nothing.”

So, why is the Establishment GOP so Eager to accommodate this gang of racists?

Cuomo: “Don’t Let the Sun Set on You in New York, Tea-Bagger”

Posted by V the K at 4:55 pm - January 17, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Intolerance

New York’s Democrat Governor, Andrew Cuomo, often touted as a presidential prospect, has zero tolerance for anyone who isn’t pro-abortion, anti-Second Amendment, and isn’t all-in for punishing bakers who don’t want to make gay wedding cakes.

Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

Get it? Anyone who disagrees with gun control, disagrees with abortion-on-demand, disagrees with gay marriage is an “extremist,” and is unwelcome in New York. And I bet he also faults conservatives for being “divisive” and “non-inclusive” too.

Of course, no sensible person would want to live in his over-taxed, over-regulated, decaying hellhole of a state anyway.

Update: If Cuomo wants to drive everyone who supports the right to keep and bear arms out of his fiefdom, he better start rounding them up. If the map below is legit (and it appears to be), he’s got a lot of “extremists” in his state.

(more…)

GLAAD, Blacklists, and Acceptable Fascism

‘With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured…the first thought forbidden…the first freedom denied–chains us all irrevocably.’ Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom…and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.” – Star Trek: The Next Generation “The Drumhead

Hollywood used to think blacklists and the suppression of free speech were terrible things when applied to communists who were working to undermine and destroy the United States of America; but blacklists and suppression are now good things when used to advance the Gay Agenda. But GLAAD has shown them that blacklisting can be a very effective tool in squashing free speech that they don’t agree with.

Within hours of GLAAD’s publication of my addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along with dozens of other high officials in California, with the announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST.

Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera, since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has invited me on its show in the United States.  In-depth interviews with me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number of other nations.  In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the American Family Association and Frank Sontag’s “Faith and Reason” show in Los Angeles have interviewed me.  And I’d been interviewed, prior to the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and NPR, as well as a number of newspapers.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.

Prior to GLAAD’s blacklisting, I had received calls from people at universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and give speeches.  Three were working with me to set up dates.  Since GLAAD’s blacklisting, none.  Those who had discussed this with me said point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

The idea behind this form of proactive speech suppression is simple; punish one man and terrify a thousand more into silence for fear of losing their careers, their income, their social standing.

And underneath it all, leftist progressives don’t really respect teh gheys, they just patronize them for the sake of political correctness, so they can flaunt their “tolerance” they way Victorians flaunted their piety. But every once in a while, the mask slips, as with Alec Baldwin, Al Franken, Tracy Morgan and others… and gay leftists are made aware of the sad little secret that those who are supposed to be their biggest supporters privately loathe and ridicule them.

I imagine that explains at least some of their inconsulable bitterness.

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…)

Leftist Panel Bashes Christianity, Reiterates Hackneyed Cliches

A panel of left-wing groups (including the Human Rights Campaign) meeting in Washington DC declared that religious liberty is a threat to the leftist social agenda, and must be stopped at all costs.

The audience received a similar narrative of religious beliefs functioning as a Trojan horse for discrimination from ACLU senior counsel Eunice Rho, who denounced attempts to pass a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in various states.

“These are very dangerous because they can allow religion to be used to harm others,” Rho said.

You see, religion, like all else in a progressive, secular society, exists only to serve the needs of the State.

And, of course, what left-wing panel would be complete without the hackneyed recitation of grievances and tiresome cliches.

“People [are] using the term ‘liberty’ when they really mean ‘my liberty, your slavery,’” the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said during the discussion. Gaddy compared Christian florists who don’t want to provide service for gay weddings to employers who posted “whites only” signs in their windows.

Yeah, the Jim Crow persecution of blacks is precisely and equally identical to gays having to go across the street to a different baker to get a wedding cake because… feelings!

And if you open a business, you give up your Constitutional Rights to Free Speech, Free Association, and the Free Exercise of Religion. So sayeth the left.

Name that theme

Sometimes you’ll be scanning headlines at your favorite locations, and a common element will jump out at you. Consider:

The common element is, of course, the Left’s penchant for dictatorship and thuggery.