Blogcasting from the worldwide headquarters of the not-so-vast gay right wing conspiracy.
Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.
In her column yesterday, Peggy Noonan demonstrated the qualities that have caused me to dub her the Athena of punditry: she offers a particular feminine insight into recent cultural moments, a woman’s wisdom.
Just read her reflection on the death of Steve Jobs and wonder.
Although she is slightly critical of the soon-to-be-released movie about the greatest Western European politician in the past fifty years, contending it never grants the Iron Lady’s political views “any sympathetic legitimacy,” it does suggest “Mrs. Thatcher’s defiance of the snobs while depicting her defeat of the snobs.”
Noonan goes on to wonder why as “The left in America has largely thrown in the towel on Ronald Reagan, but in Britain Thatcher-hatred remains fresh”, contending it is because Mrs. Thatcher is a woman. Is that it?
I don’t know. Near all of my male conservative friends hold the Iron Lady in high regard, honoring her as we do the Gipper. This applies to my straight male friends as well as my gay male friends. But, maybe it’s different across the pond.
Finally, Peggy laments the decline in movies where “David Lean wouldn’t be allowed to make movies today, John Ford would be forced to turn John Wayne into a 30-something failure-to-launch hipster whose big moment is missing the toilet in the vomit scene in Hangover Ten.” She ends with a quote from an Iraqi military officer whom she had asked to identify the big thing he’d come to believe about Americans in the years they’d been there: ”You are a better people than your movies say.”
We are. If only filmmakers today believed what their counterparts of a previous generation knew in their hearts to be true. Americans are a good people.
The late Vaclav Havel was a voice of moral clarity on a continent confused by the various ideologies which arose as the threat of communism receded, indeed, which became chic even as those totalitarian regimes oppressed the citizens of nations in eastern and central Europe and challenged democratic republics in the western and southern regions of the continent.
There was a time when such men were commonplace in our society. Or at least when we honored men like him and the ideas they so eloquently expressed. We knew to call out oppressive ideologies for what they were — and warn our fellows of the threats followers of such ideologies posed to free societies like our own — and to men and women across the world.
During World War II, those who produced our entertainment understood the threat of fascism and called it what it was. In Watch on the Rhine, for example, Paul Lukas‘s Kurt Muller “I fight against fascism. That is my trade.” And he wins and Oscar.
How many other films were produced in that era which had strong characters exposing the evils of that system, with characters like Lukas’s Muller who had suffered under it. He was a German. The system was evil and not the people (nor the nation itself). (Am now watching Keeper of the Flame which seems to have a simlilar theme.)
So, this leads me to wonder where are the films where strong characters take a strong stand against Islamofascism? And where are the characters, say an Iranian gay man, who suffered under such regimes and speak out strongly for their overthrow as they tell us how that system oppresses their fellow Persians.
Or a film depicting an Arab heroine fighting the ideology which prevents her from reaching her full potential while refusing to punish the men who rape her sisters..
Any one whose labors take him into the far reaches of the country, as ours lately have done, is bound to mark how the years have made the land grow fruitful.
This is indeed a big country, a rich country, in a way no array of figures can measure and so in a way past belief of those who have not seen it. Even those who journey through its Northeastern complex, into the Southern lands, across the central plains and to its Western slopes can only glimpse a measure of the bounty of America.
And a traveler cannot but be struck on his journey by the thought that this country, one day, can be even greater. America, though many know it not, is one of the great underdeveloped countries of the world; what it reaches for exceeds by far what it has grasped.
<....>
We can remind ourselves that for all our social discord we yet remain the longest enduring society of free men governing themselves without benefit of kings or dictators. Being so, we are the marvel and the mystery of the world, for that enduring liberty is no less a blessing than the abundance of the earth.
Even as information comes our showing Obama’s hesitation in the run-up to Sunday’s successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden and as the White House bungles in providing that information, the fact remains that the operation succeeded. And that President Obama gave it the go-ahead. While many people contributed to its success, most notably Navy SEALs, the president deserves a great deal of credit. And I for one am hesitant to criticize him on this — or other matters — at present.
That blogger eminds us that the immediate past president would likely have
. . . have done the same thing and, yes, unquestionably, the left would have screeched about “politicization,” but I would have taken his side then so I’ll take The One’s side now. So much goodwill has he earned in the last 24 hours, in fact, that not only are Republican leaders congratulating him but even — gasp — Donald Trump is patting him on the back.
The President of the United States should be allowed to get some political capital out of his accomplishments. And yet when a Republican does it, we see the mainstream media castigate him for politicizing national security or whatnot. Recall how back in 2004, when then-President George W. Bush released his first ad, the media went apoplectic that he used an image from 9/11 — as if it were blasphemy, violating some sacred compact, to show that good man’s determination in the face of attack. (more…)
“Prior to this weekend’s events,” Frank Newport, Editor in Chief of Gallup writes, “Americans had more confidence in the military than any other institution we measure. The success of the U.S. Navy Seals’ operation in Pakistan Sunday will certainly underscore and perhaps increase that confidence.” We here at GayPatriot have never hesitated to show our high regard for the men and women in our armed forces.
Today, we are particularly grateful for the Navy SEALs. And to paraphrase something I wrote in another post, let’s recall that the last human being Osama bin Laden saw before being dispatched to the nether regions was a Navy SEAL.
To honor these braven men, I uploaded this video from Youtube. Seems a proud mother wanted to honor her son. And in honoring his service, she honored all those to serve.
But now we have OBL, and it is an opportunity for us to prove ourselves as Americans. For those of us on the right, we should simply thank God for a CIA Director who took the time to develop the appropriate plan, a Secretary of Defense who lent him sufficient man and firepower, and a President who was decisive enough to pull the trigger at the right moment. This sort of leadership should not be parsed or resented. For their part, our fellow citizens on the left might consider giving up the relentless drumbeat of “war crimes” for those who did so much of the long and lonely work to make this possible. Even with the so-called “harsh” interrogation techniques used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it took years to put together the pieces. How many honestly regret those techniques this morning, or that we had Guantanamo to house KSM and his colleagues for further reference?
I’m on the west coast on business and last night at about 8pm Pacific time, I was getting frantic texts from home: “Obama will be giving a major national security speech from the solemnness of The White House at 10:30pm. Very weird, especially for this President who prefers cheering audiences as much as his TelePrompTer.
And then came the words I had longed to hear for nearly 10 years: Osama bin Laden is dead.
I began to cry as I thought of the thousands incinerated, slaughtered, and fell to their deaths on Sept. 11, 2001.
My heart goes to the family of our close friend — Joe Ferguson — who died when Flight 77 slammed into the side of the Pentagon that bright blue September morning. I hope they will have some sense of closure. The War isn’t over, but the AQ Commander In Chief has been defeated in battle.
My hearty thanks goes to our intelligence and defense communities. A big thanks to President Obama, CIA Director Panetta and SecDef Robert Gates for what appears to be a rare coordinated intel/military ops that worked flawlessly.
Finally, nothing can express my grief and sadness toward the families of 9/11 victims and to those families who gave our nation their sons and daughters in the first round of the Global War on Islamic Terror.
As we celebrate the centennial of a great man who was both graceful and gallant, I’ve been watching some of the memorial tributes offered on the DVD, Ronald Reagan: An American President, I had the chance to watch once again former Vice President Cheney’s tribute to the Gipper.
“From my mother,” said President Reagan, “I learned the value of prayer. My mother told me that everything in life happened for a purpose. She said all things were part of God’s plan, even the most disheartening setbacks. And, in the end, everything worked out for the best.”
This was the Ronald Reagan who had faith, not just in his own gifts and his own future, but in the possibilities of every life. The cheerful spirit that carried him forward was more than a disposition; it was the optimism of a faithful soul who trusted in God’s purposes and knew those purposes to be right and true.
He once said “There’s no question, I am an idealist,” which is another way of saying, “I am an American.”
We usually associate that quality with youth, and yet one of the most idealistic men ever to become president was also the oldest. He excelled in professions that have left many others jaded and self- satisfied, and yet somehow remained untouched by the worst influences of fame or power. (more…)
“I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full-bloom from my brow — they came from the heart of a great nation.”
It is very hard for me to believe that it was 25 years ago this morning when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded after liftoff. It was a snow day for me in my senior year of high school on January 28, 1986. I was home and bored and flipping channels. I had completely forgotten about the “Teacher In Space” on the Shuttle that day until I came upon the live NASA feed being simulcast on the then-called “Learning Channel”.
So I stuck with it. One problem, there were no commentators… just the NASA flight announcer. After the explosion, I just stared at the TV. When the NASA guy said “Obviously a major malfunction….”, I switched to CNN.
That day is etched into my memory and was a day I’ll never forget for the rest of my life. It was raw, visual, scary, sad and very emotional to watch the TV coverage.
But then the President addressed the nation in the early evening.
This was one of Ronald Reagan’s finest moments as our President. Remember, this was the man who had steered us out of the greatest economic downturn since WWII (until 2008), restored America’s national defenses, and was on the verge of bringing down the Soviet Union and Eastern European Communism. America was back — until the Challenger explosion rocked our world that day.
This was also probably one of Reagan’s last great moments in office. Within the year, the Iran-Contra scandal would cripple his administration up until nearly the day he left office in 1989. Only his farewell speech would bring back the vintage Reagan that we saw 25 years ago tonight.
Serendipitously, while reading a book by a leader today of the American conservative movement, I came to her discussion of the greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr. whose day it is:
Famously, Dr. King called not for a rejection of America’s founding principles, but for American to “rise up to live out the true meaning of its creed.”
. . . .
It’s a shame not everyone wants to quote Dr. King these days. What made Martin Luther King, Jr., a great and effective leader is that he appealed to our better angels. (more…)
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords reached an important step in her recovery from a bullet through her head, breathing on her own for the first time and moving both arms, doctors said Tuesday in what was expected to be a long recuperation. Giffords still has a breathing tube in place as a precaution, said her neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Lemole.
“I’m happy to say that she’s holding her own,” he said.
Giffords, a three-time Democrat, remained in critical condition at Tucson’s University Medical Center since Saturday when she was shot during a meeting with constituents outside a grocery store. The attack killed six and injured 14 others. Six remained hospitalized.
Doctors previously reported Giffords raised two fingers with her left hand and gave a thumbs-up when responding to verbal commands. Now they say she is moving her arms.
Although her condition has remained virtually unchanged the past few days, doctors were hopeful.
My prayers continue to go out to Rep. Giffords, her family and all of the victims of Saturday’s attack by the lunatic.
On this day in 1773, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded British merchant ships and dumped into the Boston Harbor an estimated £10,000 worth of tea as a protest against British colonial policies.. John Adams declared this event, that we celebrate today as the Boston Tea Party, to be the “grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened.” What led once loyal colonists to protest the World’s leading power? How should we think about the Tea Party two hundred thirty-seven years later?
The American Revolution began as a tax revolt. After defeating France in the Seven Years’ War (which began in North America as the French and Indian War), Great Britain gained control over vast areas of land in the Americas, but also incurred massive debts. For the first time, Parliament looked to the American colonies as a source of revenue, and so began the long train of abuses against the American colonies. The American Revenue Act (sometimes called the Sugar Act) expanded import and export duties and created new government mechanisms to enforce trade laws. The Stamp Act was the first direct tax levied on America, requiring all newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, and official documents—even decks of playing cards!—to have stamps as proof of payment of taxes.
These new policies outraged the colonists. The problem with the policies was not the amount of taxation—the taxes were actually quite low—but the process by which the British government imposed and enforced these taxes. As loyal colonists, the Americans recognized Parliament’s authority to legislate for the empire generally. But, the power to tax was a legislative power reserved to the colonists’ own assemblies rather than a distant legislature in London. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without legislative consent, and since the colonists had no representation in parliament they complained that the taxes violated their traditional rights. Thus the American’s rallying cry became: “No taxation without representation!”
The British rejected the Americans’ argument for self-government. The Declaratory Act of 1766, asserted Parliament’s absolute sovereignty over the Americans, including the power to make laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.” “No taxation without representation” meant no taxation without the approval of the British Parliament. It never literally meant—not for the Americans or even for the overwhelming majority of British citizens—representation in that body. The colonists, like all British subjects, enjoyed “virtual representation” of their interests by the aristocrats that controlled Parliament.
After repealing the earlier taxes, the British government passed a new series of revenue measures (called the Townshend Acts) in 1767, which taxed goods such as paper, glass, lead, and tea—and once again affirmed the power of British courts to issue undefined and open-ended search warrants (called “writs of assistance”) to enforce the law. Asserting that the sole right of taxation was with the colonial legislature, Virginia proposed a formal agreement among the colonies banning the importation of British goods—a practice that quickly spread to the other local legislatures and cut the colonial import of British goods in half. So Parliament eventually repealed those duties, too, except for the tax on tea.
Our forefathers did not destroy the tea cargo because of a simple tax dispute. At issue were the principles of self-government, consent, and natural rights. These principles are enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and continue to define us as a nation and inspire us as a people.
Ronald Reagan’s love for the United States of America was both visceral and intellectual. He felt in his bones and he could articulate it with his words. He could tear up when at the sight of the American flag flapping in the breeze or at the sound of someone singing the Star Spangled Banner.
In words nearly everyone could understood, he could express what made this nation great, the ideals of its founders, the goodness of its people. Such expression does not come naturally to the man who currently occupies the office the Gipper once did. This is not to say Barack Obama doesn’t care for this nation — or even to suggest he doesn’t love it (as the title to this post questions), but simply to say that if he does love this country, he doesn’t make that passion as manifest as did the Gipper.
This question came to mind last night as I wrote last night about Jim Kessler’s contention that Democrats would do well in the 2010 election if they could just emulate the Gipper, particularly that Republican’s ability to offer a “ positive, powerful, muscular view of what this country can achieve“.
But Obama doesn’t do “powerful and muscular” well, at least not in the same sentence as “America.” And for a good reason – he is ambivalent about such an America. Reagan’s belief in that American was not only genuine, but consuming. Thus, he could run that “play” in good times and bad. Obama might be able to run it semi-convincingly in good times, but not now.
Their problem would be that their “leader” does NOT believe in the AWESOMENESS of America. To be THE leader in the World economy and to sell that not only here in America but around the World, one must first suspend disbelief that WE The People are a good and great people!
Maybe Obama does love this country. If so, he needs to do a better job selling that passion to the American people.
Wow…. two weeks in a row, baby! Tonight I’ll be talking with Ben Howe — a conservative activist and host of BTR’s “Renewing America”. Ben attended the “Restoring Honor” rally in DC on Saturday and has some on-the-scene commentary to share.
Oh yeah… and I’m broadcasting tonight live from our nation’s capital — Washington, DC. I couldn’t make it for the 8/28 rally, but I’m here this week for my “real” job.
And I’m just a few blocks from The White House. Maybe I’ll hop on over to 1600 Penn Ave and ask Michelle for a crumpet.
Bryan Glover, an assistant coach at Grassland Middle School near Nashville, co-wrote the country music song, “When You’re Holding a Hammer, Everything Looks Like a Nail.”
It was co-written by a parent who has a child on the team. Glover, 26, said he emailed a copy of the song to friends, family members and player’s parents through his personal email account.
And that’s when all the trouble started for the self-described independent conservative.
“The coach called me and said parents were upset – that I was being politically incorrect and the song had racial overtones,” Glover told FOX News Radio. “An hour and a half later I was told I was being terminated.”
“I was informed that I was being let go because of the song,” he said, denying claims there were any racial overtones in the song.
Racial overtones? Good lord. Hasn’t the “race card” expired already for overuse?
Sounds like the title of a great movie! Heh, heh. Well, I’m still in a nostalgic mood for what our Founding Fathers did on July 4, 1776. And I caught this item on today’s Heritage Foundation blog. I hope you find it as inspiring and motivating as I did when I read it this morning.
Happy Birthday America! America is 234years old. She was born on July 4, 1776, with the passage of the Declaration of Independence. Since then, America has grown from thirteen colonies on the east coast to fill a vast continent. Her economic and military power is envied around the world. And the American people are hardworking, churchgoing, affluent, and generous.
Independence Day is an opportunity each year to remember the root of our success—our founding principles as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration of Independence serves as a philosophical statement of America’s first principles. As Matthew Spalding describes, the Declaration affirms that all men are created equal. By nature, men have a right to liberty that is inalienable, meaning it cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess such inalienable rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights, and the people retain the right to alter or abolish a government that fails to do so.
These principles have made America the great nation it is today. But, since the early 20th century, these principles have been under attack in the academy, the media, and popular culture. So-called progressives have rejected the existence of self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. Instead, they embrace the notion of “Progress” that is constant change towards an unspecified end. From these faulty principles, it follows that, all men are not created equal; some people are further along in the historical process than others. There are not permanent rights with which man is endowed. Government creates rights, and these rights evolve according to the demands of the time. There is no need for consent of the governed, just experts who will tell us how to live and how to progress.
This is a serious attack on our principles, but not an insurmountable one.
We, The People are in charge. Our government’s power comes from our consent. And our rights come from our Creator. Never forget that!
