Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama Regime/LGBT Suing School District Over “Transgender Rights”

What interests me in this story is that the Tranny was okay with the school district’s accommodations. But the Obama SJW Bureaucrat and the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarian attorney who insisted, “No, it’s not enough. We demand nothing less than complete submission to the Social Justice State.”

The district said she was allowed to change inside the girls’ locker room, but only behind a curtain. The student, who has not been publicly identified, has said she would probably use that curtain to change. But she and the federal government have insisted that she be allowed to make that decision voluntarily, and not because of requirements by the district.

“What our client wants is not hard to understand: She wants to be accepted for who she is and to be treated with dignity and respect — like any other student,” said John Knight, the director of the L.G.B.T. and H.I.V. Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, who is representing the student. “The district’s insistence on separating my client from other students is blatant discrimination. Rather than approaching this issue with sensitivity and dignity, the district has attempted to justify its conduct by challenging my client’s identity as a girl.”

Because “feelings” have become the go-to excuse for expanding State Power.

It would be worth a Zombie Apocalypse to end this Social Justice Stupidity.

Things We Condemn – and expect our opponents to condemn

So, this post is written by Jeff; but I may say we/us/our in the following, meaning that I’m pretty sure that other GP authors would agree with me.

From time to time, trolls show up in GayPatriot’s comments section: people who are here not to provide new info or discuss anything for real, but only to throw accusations. They are usually left-wing. It’s fun, because they so often provide evidence for our points about how the Left thinks (or rather, doesn’t think).

You can tell a troll because his accusations are illogical. He usually shows little understanding of our viewpoints as the writers of GP, which may differ among us on some issues, but which are always rooted in our respect for human life including liberty (human freedom).

For example, if you understood anything about our viewpoints, you would know that we condemn violence^^ against gays and lesbians. And against women. And against black people or any minority. We condemn physical violence against anybody who isn’t a perpetrator of physical violence, because we condemn all physical violence that isn’t necessary for self-defense. No peaceful citizen should have to live in fear for his or her physical safety.

Likewise, we condemn anyone who -calls for- violence^^ against gays and lesbians, against women, or against anybody else who hasn’t committed criminal violence. To our way of thinking, we shouldn’t have to say the preceding, because it should be SO OBVIOUS that it flows from our principles. But if it’s important to you that we say it: there it is. Easy to say. Done.

It’s an example of something so basic that we would expect any commenter on GP who wants to be taken seriously to feel the same way. A similar example of something basic would be condemning violence against children – including the sexual exploitation of minors, such as child pornography or pedophilia**.

Rejecting the sexual exploitation of minors is so obvious and basic to being a decent human being that a person should not normally be asked to condemn pedophilia – but, if she is asked to, it should be quite easy for her to say “Of course I condemn it – Done.”

The thing is: When it comes to the Gay Left, and because the Gay Left sometimes tolerates NAMBLA or promotes certain individuals who do condone sex with minors, it may be legitimate to ask the person to condemn it. And when they condemn it, that’s good. You got your answer, and you move on to other topics.

At this point, a gay leftie might say “But then we’re right to ask you if you condemn violence against gays!! Because you tolerate or associate with Christians, and Christians promote or condone violence against gays!!!1!11!1!”

And the answer is: No, Christians don’t. Of course you can find some crazy/fringe person who happens to call themselves “Christian” and calls for violence against lesbians or gays; but the key words there are “crazy” and “fringe”. The words apply because the real world is different. In the real world, all major denominations of Christianity reject violence against gays.

But, sadly, it is not equally true that all major Gay Left groups, Pride parades, etc. shun NAMBLA and condemn anyone who has sex with teenage boys. Sadly, no.

All this came up in a recent GP thread. A leftie commenter asked me if I condemn violence against gays, and/or anyone calling for violence against gays. I replied readily that I do. Thinking that I was throwing the guy a softball, I said, now you can reciprocate my example by condemning pedophilia, right? He couldn’t or wouldn’t. Instead, he claimed that Christian leaders typically call for violence against gays. I demanded contemporary examples – and the one example that he provided (after some stalling and further hand-waving) was just a fringe nutcase, a worthless example.

To summarize.

  1. We (authors at Gay Patriot) condemn violence^^ against gays. (and always have)
  2. We condemn anyone who promotes or calls for violence^^ against gays. (and we always have)
  3. We condemn pedophilia**. (and always have)
  4. We find these things easy to say, when we are challenged about it.
  5. We think that any decent person should find these things easy to say, if they are challenged.
  6. We do NOT normally want people to be challenged on these things, in GP comments. (Why not? For staying on topic, for goodwill / presumption of innocence, etc.)
  7. But, if a troll is going to make challenges on these things, then he or she may expect to be challenged back – and had better come up with the right answers. As we do.
  8. In the future, when we are challenged, we may simply refer the troll back to this post.

(^^Violence meaning: real violence, which of course is physical violence.)

(**Pedophilia broadly also including hebephilia/ephebophilia, the sexual exploitation of teenagers or of any/all minors.)

John Boehner Admits the Republican Party Is Useless

Weepy, ineffectual Speaker of the House went on Face the Nation this morning to trash Conservatives in his own party. (Criticize Democrats? Of course not.)

Boehner ticked off the biggest legislative victories he had in the House ‘all voted against by my most conservative members’ because, as the Speaker put it, the bills weren’t ‘good enough.’

‘Really? This is the part that I really don’t understand,’ he said, shaking his head.

Continuing the tirade against the right flank of his party Boehner said, ‘absolutely they’re unrealistic,’

The problem is not that the Conservative Wing of the party is demanding perfection; the problem is that the conservative wing is getting nothing. There has not been a single piece of Conservative Legislation passed by Congress and signed into law since the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.  Even during the period 2003 – 2007, when Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, no substantive conservative legislation was passed. Under George W Bush, plenty of Progressive Legislation was passed… No Child Left Behind, the creation of the TSA, McCain-Feingold, the Sarbanes-Oxley Financial Regulations, and the Prescription Drug Entitlement, to name but a few.  The only thing remotely conservative passed in the Bush years were some modest, temporary tax cuts; but even these were essentially progressive in that they did not substantially reform the tax code.  Meanwhile, the Bush Administration lavished spending on the Federal bureaucracy, with all Departments receiving massive increases in their budgets.

The Republican leadership thought they could appease the Conservative base with symbolic, meaningless votes against Obamacare and endless hearings on the Obama scandals (Fast and Furious, IRS Targeting, NSA Domestic Spying, Benghazi, Hillary’s Emails, and now Planned Parenthood) that were just for show and accomplished absolutely nothing substantive. How long did Boehner and Company think they were going to keep the right satisfied with meaningless show votes and waste-of-time investigations?

Boehner and the Establishment complain about an unwillingness to “compromise,” an unwillingness to “work together.” But the fact of the matter is, compromise in Washington means promoting the progressive Democrat agenda. Boehner has done so, fully funding Obamacare, Fully funding Obamamnesty, and twisting arms to pass Obamatrade.

Granted, Obama and the Democrats are an iron wall, unwilling to compromise on anything in their agenda. Granted, the Senate Democrats filibuster all House legislation that doesn’t support their agenda, and Obama will veto anything that doesn’t give him exactly what he wants. But part of the job of an opposition party is to make the case why the dominant party is wrong. That is where the Republicans are failing the most.

Take Executive Amnesty, for example. The Republican Congress not only fully funds it, but only offers a weak, procedural argument against it that “the president is abusing his authority.” First of all, the Congress should not be funding unconstitutional acts of the president. But second, whining about process just sounds like you’re whining about process. If you want the public on your side against Executive Amnesty, you don’t just whine that the president isn’t playing by the rules. You go to the people and you tell them why the president is wrong. Illegal immigration is hurting people’s communities by taking resources away from schools and infrastructure. Illegal immigration is hurting the middle class by taking jobs and driving down wages. Make a case that people can relate to, don’t just argue like law school professors in a faculty lounge.

If Republicans are just going to go to Washington, and then whine that they can’t do anything but go along with the Democrat agenda, what is the point of the Republican Party?


Leftist Gays and Westboro Baptists Unite in Hatred

Posted by V the K at 12:31 pm - September 6, 2015.
Filed under: Unhinged Liberals

The Westboro Baptist Street Theater  Troupe has inserted itself into the Kentucky gay marriage license controversy, and they are joining with the gay left in attacking the personal life of the clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses; attacking her for her past sexual and marital histories.



This is even better than when the WBSTT went to Iraq to support Saddam Hussein.

I Have Nothing in Common with People on the Left Part III

Posted by V the K at 1:41 pm - November 26, 2014.
Filed under: Unhinged Liberals

In Portland, OR – some Ferguson protesters didn’t want their public temper tantrum interrupted by a car trying to get to hospital, to the point that fisticuffs broke out.

I come to feel, more and more, that I have absolutely nothing in common with people on the left

Posted by V the K at 8:35 am - November 26, 2014.
Filed under: Unhinged Liberals

It came out in the George Snuffelupagus interview with Darren Wilson that the wrongfully accused police officer and his wife are expecting a baby. This revelation unleashed a torrent of hate and threats from the tolerant left.

I don’t get these people; there is nothing in them I can relate to. Much as despise Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Dan Savage et. al.; there is nothing in me that wishes suffering upon them. Nor would I take any joy in it. I am not made that way, and I don’t get people who do. I also don’t understand how people can hate Darren Wilson for defending himself from a thug, but adore Che Guevara for being a sociopath and mass murderer.

There is absolutely no truth to the Democrat/Media promoted narrative that Mike Brown was an innocent black schoolboy gunned down by a racist cop for jaywalking. Yet that is what people have decided. I think it’s because it gives them a way to justify the hate and ugliness that has always lived inside of them.

And the political and media class have decided that feeding that wolf is somehow in the best interests of their overall agenda. Take, for example, Rachel Maddow’s body double Chris Hayes on MSDNC, who found something romantic and beautiful in people being burned out of their livelihoods by rampaging thugs.

“Cameras right now are going to show things burning, and things are burning here in Ferguson tonight,” he said. “They’re not going to show thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people in metro St. Louis and I think around the country who are just burning up inside with a feeling of impotent rage, of alienation and of anguish and disappointment and injustice.”

I also note that the New York Times published Darren Wilson’s home address; knowing full well that violent radicals are calling for his murder.

Angry Women Miss Breakfast, Trash McDonald’s, Assault Patrons

Posted by V the K at 2:22 pm - November 12, 2014.
Filed under: Unhinged Liberals

This comes to us from the Democrat-Occupied city of Philadelphia; where Barack Obama received 100% of the vote in many voting precincts. Some representatives of the Democratic Urban Base were chagrined that they arrived at McDonald’s after the specified time at which the breakfast menu ceases to be served. And, of course, they responded in the manner of the Urban Democratic Base usually does when confronted with injustice. [Video after jump. Language Warning for use of the customary vernacular of the Urban Democratic Base.]


Mia Love Is Pretty Much a White Dude says SJW in Puffington Host

Posted by V the K at 7:44 pm - November 11, 2014.
Filed under: 2014 Elections,Unhinged Liberals

Darron Smith, a Huffington Post Editor with a Ph.D in Education (Are you impressed?) is a SJW who writes for the Puffington Host and is apparently suffering from an acute case of BRDS (Black Republican Derangement Syndrome).

His derangement has led him to conclude that Mia Love … the Haitian-American Republican female elected to Congress last week… is the very embodiment of White Privilege.

“Love’s political convictions show a strong support for values that do not necessarily represent her interests as a member in any of these oppressed groups,” Smith writes. “For example, blacks are not doing well with respect to education, economics and health outcomes, while women still trail behind in salary and significant positions of power, and conservative politics are not typically known to aid these groups in such key issues. These actualities of Mia’s existence seem to be diametrically opposed to her values that are grounded in a white, male, Christian context.”

So, what he is actually saying is that white, Conservative, Christian values actually *work* in helping minorities achieve, but that blacks should categorically reject these values and continue to live in a state of dependence because the latter is more culturally authentic.

And he prattles on…

“She appears publicly unhampered by the daily grind of white racism that affects other racial minorities within the United States…”

Probably because she doesn’t obsess over her own “victimhood” like “good minorities” are supposed to.

“Mia gets to walk through the hallowed doorways of white institutions controlled by elite, powerful men. She is allowed to pass through in her black, female body with the understanding that she must not see, speak or openly advocate for anything related to race or gender — an unholy compromise. Hence, she might look black, but her politics are red. This is one way white privilege is reproduced at the legislative level of government.”

Mia Love, the embodiment of White Privilege.

I guess the white Democrat man who lost to her must have checked his privilege and lost the receipt.


Joining in the BRDS is left-wing blog Wonkette… who declare Mia Love “crazy” for believing in things like hard work and fiscal responsibility.

Feminist Rants About “Rape Culture” Aren’t Really About Rape

Posted by V the K at 12:07 pm - August 26, 2014.
Filed under: Leftist Nutjobs,Unhinged Liberals

Some rather clever boys have invented a nail polish that will change color in the presence of rape drugs. [I refuse to call them "date rape" drugs. Drugging someone so you can have sex with them is just plain rape. "Date rape" is apparently a term used when a woman consents to sex with a guy, and then some days or weeks later changes her mind when he doesn't call.] It’s intended to protect women against sexual assault.

Good idea, right? You would think woman would embrace this form of protection.

Women, yes. Feminists, no. In fact, feminists are even more angry than their resting state of angry over this invention.

“I don’t want to f[***]ing test my drink when I’m at the bar,” said Rebecca Nagle, one of the co-directors of an activist group called FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture. “That’s not the world I want to live in.”

Ah. So you see, all their “rape culture” rhetoric isn’t about preventing rape, it’s about “changing the world.”

Specifically, it’s about changing the world so that men have no power or status in it.  (What did you think they meant by “Smash the Patriarchy?”) “Rape Culture” is just the latest cudgel. “Do you oppose the radical agenda of the feminist left?  Well, you obviously support Rape Culture!”) Imagine how the Duke lacrosse case would have worked out if the feminists had had their way?

To a militant feminist “rapist” is just a synonym for “man.”

Discuss this incendiary opinion.

Pro-Abortion Feminists Have a New Superstar

And she’s as smart as she is pretty. Seriously, one word from Rush Limbaugh, and I think we’re looking at the new Sandy Fluke. (Severe Language Warning: Because you know how leftists are when they try to reason with an opponent.)

I mean, seriously, all Rush has to say is “This is the last woman on Earth who needs to worry about birth control” and Bam! Keynote speaker at the Democrat Convention.  And maybe even a candidate for Governor of Texas Ohio.


Ridiculous Lefties, in daily life

When a viewpoint (leftism) goes against reason, logic and civil society – when its basic doctrine is in essence an attack on the rights of the individual – we should expect at least some of its adherents to be rude, “entitled” people in the encounters of daily life. Because the person and the viewpoint gravitate toward each other. Leftism fundamentally denies other people’s rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, committed leftists should tend – not always, but on average and over time – tend to be unreasonable people who disrespect others.

It’s much better to laugh at these people than to feel upset by them. Consider this an open thread for posting your own favorite “ridiculous leftie encounter” stories, in the comments.

I’ll start with a very little one, that just happened. Picture a large gym, a bank of 12 large TVs shared by many exercise stations. A woman is exercising in front of TV #4. She watches #4 intently, with perhaps an occasional glance to TVs 3 or 5. TV #2 is far out of her field of vision, and clearly nothing that she’s watching. So she won’t mind if I change it, as I’m about to work in front of #2. I pick a sports channel. Oops! TV #2 had been set to MSNBC, and she’s a Ridiculous Leftie who must dictate everything that happens. She stops exercising and strides to the far wall just to change #2 back to MSNBC, glaring at me with vicious hostility. And then – get this – she *still* doesn’t watch it. (Probably since she would have had to strain her neck, to keep it up for long; or do even liberals dislike MSNBC?)

The story ended OK for me (I did speak with her and have reason prevail) but that’s enough. Tell yours! :-)

The Closed Liberal Mind

Erin Ching, a student at Swarthmore College (Tuition: $60K per year) was quoted in her student newspaper with the following:

‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’

And Rutgers University answers: “Right on, Sister.”

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice abruptly withdrew Saturday from speaking at Rutgers University’s commencement address amid protests at her selection from faculty and students and denouncements of her as a “war criminal.”

The largest student newspaper, The Daily Targum, also urged the school to reconsider in a strong editorial that said that none of their commencement speakers should have “questionable politics.”

Other Rutgers campuses followed suit in calling for the forced withdrawal of Rice and students and faculty at the main campus staged a sit-in protest on Monday. During that protest, some participants held up signs that read “No honors for war criminals,”War criminals out” and “RU 4 Humanity?”

One notes that the Little Fascists of Rutgers had no protest at all when another Iraq War supporter, Hillary Rodham Clinton, spoke on campus. Curious, isn’t it?

Hypersensitive Lefty Hissy-Fit Over Heteronormative Happy Meals

While we on the Right concern ourselves with little things like unsustainable debt and the erosion of the Rule of Law; the Left frets about this stuff: McDonald’s Gave Me the “Girl’s Toy” With My Happy Meal. So I Went to the CEO.

(Or, Safe Link to Weasel Zippers.)

In a series of 30 visits, we sent boys and girls, ages 7-11, into 15 McDonald’s stores to independently order a Happy Meal at the counter. We found that 92.9 percent of the time, the store, without asking, simply gave each child the toy that McDonald’s had designated for that child’s gender—a Justice fashion toy for girls and a Power Rangers toy for boys

McDonald’s is estimated to sell more than 1 billion Happy Meals each year. When it poses this question—“Do you want a boy’s toy or a girl’s toy?”—McDonald’s pressures innumerable children to conform to gender stereotypes.

Reading that temper tantrum over stuff-no-rational-person-could-possibly-care-about is causing me to do some gender stereotyping right now.

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.

The Democrat Perspective on Domestic Terrorism

1. Nadal Hasan murders 14 people at Fort Hood While screaming “Allahu Akbar!” Not a terrorist.

2. American citizens come together and, without firing a shot, protect a Nevada rancher from Federal Agencies who assaulted his family, killed his cattle, and destroyed his equipment. These are the people Democrats consider “domestic terrorists.”

I am reasonably confident King George III considered George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson to be “domestic terrorists,” too.

UPDATE (from Jeff): V makes a great point about the Democrats’ penchant for calling their (political) opponents terrorists, which GP has before documented with links (e.g., here and here).

Basically, left-wing Democrats want an obtrusive Big Government, to pay for their lives/mistakes and to punish anyone whom they have ever envied. Someone who stands for traditional citizens’ liberties under a smaller, less oppressive Federal government will simply terrify them. And is, therefore and to them, “a terrorist”.

Left-wing economists: They’re that stupid

Zero Hedge remembers how the Great Housing Bubble of 2003-7 was something Paul Krugman had called for:

Before you say “But that was in 2002!”, consider more recent examples of Krugman stupidity, like his calling in 2012 for the government to boost (supposedly) the economy by faking an invasion of space aliens. The Krugtron quote from Time’s account:

“If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack, and we needed a massive build-up to counter the space alien threat, and inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months,” Krugman says…

A second instance, from PuffHo’s account:

“So if we could get something that could cause the government to say, ‘Oh, never mind those budget things; let’s just spend and do a bunch of stuff.’ So my fake threat from space aliens is the other route,” Krugman said before a laughing crowd. “I’ve been proposing that.”

So he said it more than once; only half-joking at best. The man loves his malinvestment.*

(*Borrow-and-spend that creates market bubbles, overbuilding, leaf-raking, wars or other activity that is economically inefficient, or useless, or even destructive.)

Related: It struck me that one way you can tell a left-liberal is: government spending always sounds like a good idea, to them. Should government spend, to stimulate the economy? Check. Spend more on education, so people will (supposedly) be more educated? You betcha. It never occurs to the left-liberal that government just might be incompetent at most things. So that the proposed spending would do nothing at all – or would even make things worse, as it only subsidizes incompetence. For example: Subsidizing an incompetent system of educators. The possibility just doesn’t cross a liberal’s mind.

Obama’s daily lawlessness

On Wednesday, V noted how President Obama set aside his own Obamacare law and decreed a delay to the “individual mandate”. (The mandate that he previously told the Supreme Court was an absolutely essential part of Obamacare.)

Thursday’s example was Obama’s plan to decree overtime pay for some 10 million who had willingly been working without it, because they are salaried employees.

It’s not a good thing. First of all, anytime the government mandates pay increases, it costs real people their jobs. While some people might get more pay, others’ pay goes to part-time, or to zero. When Obama proposed his minimum wage hike last month, even the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agreed that it would cost 500,000 jobs.

But the deeper problem is that, in Barack H. Obama, we have a President who increasingly abandons constitutional, legislative and democratic processes. Throughout his administration, in issue after issue, he has declared that the rules are now different because he says so. Whether it’s ripping off honest GM bondholders, Fast and Furious, hiding information about corrupt federal prosecutors, Obamacare or countless other issues, you never can tell when this President will suddenly decide on different rules.

With this overtime change, there is serious debate about whether the President has the legal authority to do it. Some say he doesn’t; some say he does. But that means his move is dubious. And however that might be – and I say, even worse – Obama’s move makes the government interfere, once again, in arrangements that freely consenting adults had agreed on. (Liberals may want government out of the bedroom, but boy, do they want government in everything, everyone and everywhere else.)

This is one more, little thread in the tapestry of America’s decline: we have become a nation ruled by “men, not laws.” And if you think that arbitrary government doesn’t make for an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty that stifles the economy, think again.

UPDATE: Allahpundit has video, as he puts it, of Obama “in 2008 promising to roll back Bush’s executive overreach because he was a law professor and knew the Constitution ‘n stuff.”.

Rep. Trey Gowdy gives an appropriate response.

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.


Fictional Anthropomorphic Locomotive Accused of Crimes Against Feminism

 A dingbat British Labour MP named Mary Creagh has identified the latest War Criminal in the ongoing War on Women: Thomas the Tank Engine.

Thomas the Tank Engine has been blamed for a lack of women train drivers by the shadow transport secretary.

Mary Creagh said it was a ‘national scandal’ that there were so few women drivers on the railways, but was ridiculed for saying that the popular children’s story was partly to blame.

She said all the main characters in the original books – published in the 1940s – are male, and the only female characters are an ‘annoyance, a nuisance and in some cases a danger’ to the railway.

According to her Wikipedia page, Mary Creagh is a typical leftist whackjob whose previous achievements include campaigns against carbonated beverages and hot water, and who has been described as “lacking in balanced judgment.”

Needless to say, she will never have to worry about being added to GLAAD’s blacklist.


PajamaBoy Claims the Only Argument He Ever Lost Was Against a Gay Conservative

PajamaBoy – a.k.a. Ethan Krupp, a.k.a the result of drunken, unprotected fling between Rachel Maddow and Saturday Night Live’s Pat … Metrosexual, 1%er, archetypal Democrat male … claims that he only ever lost one argument… to a gay conservative.

“I sat in a pizza joint, chomping on meat-heavy pizza and slamming whisky sours with gay guys on Pride Parade day in Columbus, Ohio; My gay roommate and friends loved to ironically ‘bro-out.’ I love gays because they are all liberal fucks too,” Krupp wrote.

“Someone mentions politics and everyone perks up, distracted from the whisky. Equal rights get first dibs, followed by education and then sassy comments about closeted Republicans. Feeding off the energy, I introduce abortion: ‘Old men controlling women’s bodies.’ The guy who’s stayed silent, Chip, joins the conversation,” Krupp wrote.

Krupp claimed that he at first told Chip, a conservative on the abortion issue, that his “ignorant views come from his biological disregard toward pregnancy,” prompting Chip to explain a procedure by which fetuses can be removed from the womb, grown elsewhere, then given up for adoption.

“The whisky yelled at Chip for being a terrible gay man. Chip smirked, knowing full well he won the argument,” Krupp wrote.

Everything I read about PajamaBoy adds to the picture of a smug, leftist, phenomenal d-bag; the heart and soul of the modern Democrat party. I can believe he’s never lost an argument, the same way Keith Olbermann, Al Gore, and Rachel Maddow “never lose” arguments, by simply not debating conservatives.