Speaking to students at Ohio State University on May 5, President Obama said:

Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham, with which we can’t be trusted.

Obama said, in effect: Disregard people who worry about tyranny. We can have government do the things that they warn against, without it being tyranny, because we are such wonderful people – so well-intentioned – that it isn’t tyranny, when we do it.

Get it? So, when Obama has his administration lie to Americans so he can win re-election, or when he takes an increasing share of people’s incomes, or requires people to engage in private commerce that he happens to want (Obamacare mandate), or eliminates their rightful choices in the free market, or uses the IRS to obstruct his opponents and violate their privacy, or uses the Justice Department to snoop on reporters, or uses the EPA to extort fees from opponents (that progressive groups don’t have to pay – hat tip V the K), it’s not tyranny. Because it’s Obama doing it, and by his account, he can be trusted.

But the Framers of the constitution thought otherwise. They believed in checks and balances. They *were* those people who “warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner.” They founded America, by “gumming up the works.”

Perhaps Obama doesn’t know that the Framers set up the United States as a republic under a limited government, precisely because they knew that all governments tend to degenerate into tyranny. Or perhaps Obama is unaware of his own party’s President Andrew Jackson, who said that “eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.”

Obama implies that people who warn us of tyranny are distrustful nihilists. Our only choice, Obama implies, is between continuing the crony-social-fascist gargoyle of a government that he now leads – and harmful anarchy. A typical Obama false choice (flowing from a typical Obama straw man), I’m pretty sure it has the Framers rolling in their graves.

So much for Obama. But there’s more! Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee recently said: (more…)

You’ve heard the news, now here’s the comment thread on your favorite gay conservative blog. Kermit Gosnell is guilty of three counts of murder re: the babies, and one count of involuntary manslaughter re: his grownup patient who died in a late-term abortion.

With outstanding cluelessness, Planned Parenthood tweeted “The jury has rightly convicted #Gosnell for his appalling crimes, ensuring no woman is victimized by him ever again.” Clueless, because – even apart from the fact that a Gosnell acquittal probably would have made PP breathe a sigh of relief – they made no mention of Gosnell’s main victims (the murdered babies).

NARAL’s statement started in a similar vein to PP, then topped PP by suggesting that conservatives are the real villains:

Justice was served to Kermit Gosnell today…Anti-choice politicians, and their unrelenting efforts to deny women access to safe and legal abortion care, will only drive more women to back-alley butchers like Kermit Gosnell.

Lefties!

FROM THE COMMENTS: Noting another deception in the NARAL quote, V the K says “Gosnell was not a ‘back alley butcher,’ he operated precisely the kind of ‘safe and legal’ abortion mill PP and NARAL champion; state licensed, he advertised in the yellow pages and accepted all major credit cards.”

From Bloomberg[1]: Gore Is Romney-Rich With $200 Million After Bush Defeat

In 1999, Al Gore…had a net worth of about $1.7 million…In January, the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about $500 million [of which Gore] grossed an estimated $70 million…

Two weeks later, Gore exercised options, at $7.48 a share, on 59,000 shares of Apple Inc. stock…about a $30 million payday…

How Gore achieved this is as much about timing and luck as it is about business skills. His Apple board tenure has coincided with a 5,900 percent increase in its stock price. Current TV was a moribund “fixer-upper” when Al Jazeera stepped in to buy it at “a huge valuation,”…

Gore also had his share of flubs, most of them in his efforts at green-tech investing…

The article goes on to report praise of Gore – from people who likely got money or power by being connected with him. And to give numerous examples of Gore making money from, in essence, being well-connected. Here is one pair:

After losing to Bush [in 2000], he had enough wealth by March 2008 to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through Capricorn Investment Group…founded by his buddy, Canadian billionaire Jeffrey Skoll…

By the time of the Capricorn investment, he was already starting to rake in cash from Generation Investment Management – - a fund that incorporates “sustainability” into its investment approach. [ed: I read that as government "green" subsidies] Gore co-founded GIM in 2004 with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Managing Director David W. Blood. [ed: Goldman-Sachs are top Obama donors]

Public filings show that in 2008 through 2011 London-based GIM racked up almost 140 million pounds ($218 million) in profits to be split among its 26 partners.

There are more examples; you can read the whole thing. What I find interesting is:

• The latest confirmation that, actually, Democrats are the party of the super-rich.
• The Gore-Romney contrast; how each man got rich. Romney did it by adding to the economy’s productive power[2]. Gore did it by exploiting his connections to the American government’s power and largesse, and also by pandering to the prejudices of various anti-Americans.[3]

(more…)

I’ve hesitated to comment on yesterday’s Boston terror attack. Much of what could be said right now would be either obvious, or premature.

In the ‘obvious’ category: To attack masses of ordinary people trying to do something happy is singularly evil. (Some call it ‘cowardly’; but that’s not enough: It’s human evil.) Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

As to ‘premature’, I haven’t seen much real info yet on the identity or motives of the perpetrators. But hey, if you have seen something (or, as we get more news), please feel free to post it in the comments. Ditto for patterns in the Obama administration’s response.

As to patterns in the media coverage, it does seem as though some of the usual suspects want to wrongly insinuate the patriotic Right being at fault; but even there, the pattern (if any) is still forming.

As to the trial of Kermit Gosnell (who also slaughtered innocents) and its possible impacts, here are a few items of interest:

• The lamestream media has finally been forced to send reporters to the trial.
• Other unsafe/unsanitary abortion clinics are coming to light. (I thought these clinics were supposed to be better than back alleys?)
• LauraW (at Ace) puts her finger on why this matter is so sensitive for the pro-abortion Left: “As long as the belief persists among most reasonable people that the child has not been formed yet, and will not suffer, they will tolerate [abortion]…However, as soon as they understand that big, live, squealing babies are being murdered in abortion facilities, the spell is broken.”

UPDATE: As of this morning, Obama is calling the Boston attack ‘evil’ and an act of terror. Kudos – glad to see him state it clearly. Still no info, yet, on who did it.

And, so far as I know, still no comment from Obama on Gosnell. Yes, I am drawing a moral equivalency here between Gosnell and the Boston terrorist(s): both appear to have killed wantonly.

UPDATES: It looks like a pressure-cooker IED was used in Boston.

Steny Hoyer (D) says the attacks are “proof” that the ‘sequester’ budget cuts are bad, before catching himself and conceding that the paltry cuts are not “having any impact presently.”

UPDATE: The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have slashed the domestic bombing-prevention budget by 45% in its time, while reportedly spending $200 million on Hawaiian vacations.

And they do it as only leftists can: by blaming nasssssty Republicans for magically changing how the voters feel about the word “entitlement”, which now begins to sound bad.

From the linked article:

Obama Programs Derided by Republicans as Pejorative Entitlements

…Republicans have been working to convert the once-neutral entitlement label into a negative…

…“‘Entitlement’ used to be a fairly positive thing,” said historian Edward Berkowitz, an expert on social-welfare policy at George Washington University in Washington. “Now, the term is being changed. Entitlement is this form of social spending that’s getting out of control.”

Look, Mr. Berkowitz: If Republicans’ power to mold language/voters were that good, Romney would have won in 2012.

But further down, some facts creep into the article:

…Obama [ed: yes; not Republicans] last week proposed changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients [to reduce future benefits]…

Spending on Social Security and…Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and jobless benefits — rose 40 percent over the decade ending in 2012…more than twice the inflation-adjusted increase in the size of the economy…

…while Democrats portray the most costly entitlements as benefits that voters have paid for, typical wage-earners retiring in 2010 will receive at least $3 for every $1 they contributed to [Medicare]…

Social Security’s disability trust fund is expected to be exhausted in 2016…A two-income couple with both individuals earning an average wage of $44,600 who reached age 65 in 1960 received more than seven times as much in lifetime benefits as they paid in…

Golly, do you think maybe the facts are what make the word “entitlement” seem bad? That maybe entitlements are a “form of social spending that’s getting out of control”?

This will be a rambling non-post, inviting your input (even) more than usual.

First, here’s my general position on abortion. Having long believed that both total permissiveness on abortion and a total prohibition of it will lead to some horribly unjust outcomes, and that a line must be drawn somewhere even though the line will be permeable and arbitrary: I would ban late-term abortions – let’s say, I don’t think second-semester abortions should be allowed – while permitting early-term abortions – let’s say, I’d allow first-semester. (Again, I know the “semester” line is unclear and highly debatable; I simply believe that the other lines that people propose are worse.) Also, I favor counseling about the alternatives, and parental notification where the mother is a minor. Finally, I oppose publicly-funded abortions, i.e., I am against our government forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions against their conscience.

Having arrived at the above positions some time ago, I spend little time on the issue of abortion. It’s just not a top one for my interest.

But abortion may interest many of you. This is, after all, a gay conservative blog (and, as a non-conservative on certain issues, I am a guest).

So, what’s up with the Gosnell trial? It’s big right now, in Bruce’s Twitter stream. In my slower-moving way, I gather that:

1. Gosnell did some particularly shocking, immoral late-term abortions; and that
2. The media silence about the trial is shocking and repugnant in itself.

Is that the gist? Or is there more (or less) to it? Re: the media blackout – Is it a conspiracy perhaps, or just the media’s usual left-wing Herd Instinct? Has the trial been getting, say, foreign coverage?

People who have been following the trial, please feel free to inform me (and everybody) in the comments, and to express your informed opinion. I feel that, certainly on a conservative blog, this topic should get some daylight as a comment thread.

UPDATE: Wouldn’t you know, today Yahoo! is rotating a column on the Gosnell trial through its headlines, on and off. I don’t know if that means the wall of silence is cracking, or only that Yahoo! had me profiled as conservative-leaning.

UPDATE: The wall of silence is cracking. Ace has examples of Jake Tapper and Andersen Cooper both teasing some coverage to come. Naturally, and as Ace puts it, Cooper’s “entree into the story is through the prism of ‘not enough government regulation.’” Better than nothing!

In Ace’s “Headlines” sidebar, I just noticed this post at FreedomWorks: 15 Year Old Wisconsin Conservative Meets Bullying From Teachers.

Worth a skim. To be clear: By “bullying”, he does not mean physical assault, but rather a series of moral-emotional assaults from teachers who single him out for questioning (sometimes invasive) and ridicule. From Mr. Backer’s conclusion:

If teachers want bullying to end with homosexuals, other races or religious beliefs, they should want it to end with every type of bullying possible, including political views.

I haven’t done any research that would let me vouch for Mr. Backer’s story, but if it’s true, it’s chilling. Or, to say something more positive: that kid has guts!

Rand Paul’s filibuster ended yesterday, after 13 hours. Neither Bruce nor I were clear on how to turn off GP’s post that was counting it, so…it’s gone. We executed it (so to speak). But where did America end up?

• Before: A poll showed that fully 41% of Democrats think the president should be able to order pre-emptive drone strikes on American soil without review or oversight (that is, “on his own” in the poll’s wording).
• After: The Democrat-led Senate has refused to pass this resolution, “Expressing the sense of the Senate against the use of drones to execute Americans on American soil”.

I think that means: according to the Senate, if Obama decides that you are a “suspected terrorist”, he could execute you and your family in a drone strike on your home. At least, the question is open. Obama’s America, Forward!

UPDATE (from the comments): heliotrope informs us that Senator Paul has just received a letter from Attorney General Holder, writing that the president does NOT “have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil.” That’s better.

UPDATE: Republican senators McCain and Graham are clueless as ever, while liberal comedian Jon Stewart praises Rand Paul, sort of.

First, thoughts and prayers to Dorner’s victims and their families. This is an awful tragedy.

Next, mainstream media seem oddly silent about any possible political angle amongst his motivations. A Yahoo! / Atlantic Wire article, titled The Scariest Parts of the Chris Dorner Manifesto That Warned of LAPD Killings, does take the time to quote Dorner’s love of Ellen:

Ellen Degeneres, continue your excellent contribution to entertaining America and bringing the human factor to entertainment. You changed the perception of your gay community… I congratulate you on your success…

I don’t know why they found that quoteworthy; love of Ellen is hardly ‘scary’. And somehow, the article omits any mention of the fact that Dorner also loves liberal journalists, Obama, certain socially-liberal Republicans, Hillary and gun control.

Basic AP coverage is no better. To find out about Dorner’s politics, you must dig into his manifesto yourself. Letting Dorner speak:

If you had a well regulated AWB [ed: assault weapons ban], this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives…Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!! Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”…Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB…

(more…)

It turns out that they were predominantly rich – and white.

This will come as no surprise to those familiar with the hypocrisy of the Left and of the media, and as well, the role that the ‘rent-seeking’ (i.e., lazy) type of rich person has always played on the Left.

Inspired by the lovely and classy Dan Savage who I’m sure supported the union thugs in Michigan.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

This comes from the ultimate TrigTruther himself…

I mean: what do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?

A faggot.

People said I read this “the wrong way”… that Crazy Andy was calling gay conservatives “faggots”. 

Oh really?  Well the only other way to read it is to suggest that Sully has magical sentient powers that allows him to read minds of every single Republican Party honcho in the nation.

Either way you read it — Sullivan is nuts.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

NewsBusters (a site hosted by the Media Research Center) is always a great source to highlight the blatant leftist leaning of what used to be considered ‘mainstream’ media outlets. One of their most visited nemeses is Chris Matthews of MSNBC.

Their latest link for Matthews highlights his comments last night regarding Rep. Anthony Weiner’s current predicament. It’s titled “Matthews: Weiner in Trouble Because His Behavior Offends ‘Culturally Backward’ Christian Conservatives”, and naturally this insinuation by Matthews grabs the viewer for its obvious condescension and elitism. But it seems NewsBusters may have missed an even more curious comment from the huge-headed commentator. As you view the imbedded video, tell me if what Matthews says at 0:10 strikes you as well:

It’s getting very very hard to defend the behavior—politically—of the party. Now you throw on top of that, immoral behavior, indiscreet behavior, embarrassing behavior, gross behavior like this…”

(My emphasis)

Now? “NOW “?!

Where was Matthews when Rep. Massa was playing tickle-fight with his staffers and encountering Rahm Emanuel in the shower? Has he never heard of Barney Frank’s brothel? Elliot Spitzer, Jim McGreevey, and my God, Bill Clinton?!

“NOW“?!

Should we consider from Matthews that all these (and believe me, we could go on all day listing them, no?) dalliances pale in comparison with Weiner twitting pics of his unit to consenting, presumably adult ladies, and that this most recent embarrassment to the party of Jackson and Jefferson is finally the one that sends him over the edge?

Thank goodness for MRC and NewsBusters for watching his incoherent drivel so we don’t have to and can therefore enjoy the snippets of it for what they’re worth: a theater of the absurd.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

UPDATE (from Dan):  Nick, seems Matthews believes 91% of Americans are “‘Culturally Backward’ Christian Conservatives” given that that percentage of our fellow citizens believe it is “morally wrong” for a married man (or woman) to have an affair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

<…>

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

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

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

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

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

<…>

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

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

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

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

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

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Whoa baby. When Breitbart is on fire… he is ON FIRE!

We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.

I love Andrew because he, like me, hates hypocrisy and has a nose to find it.  Sniff away, Breitbart!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Sure sounds like it… (h/t – Riehl World View)

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) — A real estate broker says the Times Square bombing suspect told him years ago he disliked President George W. Bush and the Iraq war.

Igor Djuric  represented Faisal Shahzad when he was buying a home in 2004.  Djuric says he could not remember the exact words but said Shahzad made clear he didn’t like Bush or his policy in Iraq. He says the comments were not hateful, but he was surprised to hear them because they hardly knew each other.

Announcing your anti-Bush political views in someone’s face without them asking…. sure sounds like an American Liberal to me.

Dan Riehl has a hilarious commentary that I have to post as well:

Wow! It’s a wonder the guy wasn’t co-anchoring at MSNBC. Maybe he didn’t have the right skin color for that gig? They pretty much have a white only policy over there, as I recall.

Yep, we’ve covered that ground before here at GayPatriot.  MSNBC: The Home Of Angry Liberal Whites Who Call Everyone Else a RACIST.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Wow.  This is rich.

From Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades:

In March, 2002, Bishop walked into an International House of Pancakes in Peabody with her family, asked for a booster seat for one of her children, and learned the last seat had gone to another mother.

Bishop, according to a police report, strode over to the other woman, demanded the seat and launched into a profanity-laced rant.

When the woman would not give the seat up, Bishop punched her in the head, all the while yelling “I AM DR. AMY BISHOP.”

[Original story link at Boston.com]

I’m guessing — just a hunch — that the lovely Professor Bishop also thought that December 12, 2000 was the end of the world.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)