Gay Patriot Header Image

LGBTQ Readying to Force Christians to Bend to Their Power… Again

So, this transgendered person enrolls in a Christian college, and now demands that the Christian college change its ways to accommodate her/him.

 A male-to-female transgender student has filed a discrimination complaint against his Christian university, claiming the school must allow him to live in men’s dormitories regardless of its theological principles.

Hey, if Christians who consider abortions murder of the unborn can be forced to pay for abortions, if Christians opposed to bgay marriage can be forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, then Christians can be forced to violate their principles to accommodate the feelings of transgenderoids as well.

Under Obama, the First Amendment has been effectively rewritten: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless homosexuals demand otherwise.”

Another Brill Tweet

 

Obama Regime Ready to Deport Christian Family

Posted by V the K at 11:02 pm - March 3, 2014.
Filed under: War on Christians

Is it credible that we have room in this country for 12 million illegal border jumpers, but not for one Christian family that just wants to homeschool their kids? Because that is the position of the Obama Administration.

If you want to jump the border and sign up for welfare, housing, free college educations, Obamacare, and Obamaphones, then welcome aboard. But if you’re a Christian family that wants to come to the United State to escape Nazi-Era laws against educating your kids in the manner of your choosing… don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Silly Leftist Outrage Over Christian Comment Forces Coach to Resign

Posted by V the K at 8:47 am - February 18, 2014.
Filed under: War on Christians

A University of Connecticut assistant football coach has been compelled to resign after stating that “Jesus Christ should be in the center of our huddle.”

Jones’ comments prompted university president Susan Herbst to issue a statement to the Courant, saying staff members at the public university must not take sides on the theological front.

“It should go without saying that our employees cannot appear to endorse or advocate for a particular religion or spiritual philosophy as part of their work at the university, or in their interactions with our students,” she said. “This applies to work-related activity anywhere on or off campus, including on the football field.”

In other words, “Keep your shameful religion in the closet where it belongs, Christer.” Does anyone doubt for a moment he would have not have lost his job if he had said “Christians suck?”

And the whole notion that a public employee speaking affirmatively about his faith is tantamount to the State establishing a religion is another bit of secularist insaniy; no one anywhere has ever been forced to change their religion because they saw a creche on a courthouse lawn.

The coach is African-American, but his race was no defense against the “micro-aggression” of professing his faith openly. So, in the courts of political correctness,  anti-Christian trumps African-American. The left loathes it when Christian athletes profess their faith openly. Look at what happened to Tim Tebow.

Note: UConn is also where the feminists got all upset because they thought the new husky logo was too rapey.

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.

About that Fox News interview…

If you know a lot of leftists, as I do, chances are you’ve encountered a link to this interview of Reza Aslan by Lauren Green at some point in the past two days or so.  They see the interview as an example of the evil of Fox News.  They claim it illustrates the bias of the network, and that it illustrates how “smart” the author is and how he “totally pwns the interviewer’s assumptions.”

I watched the interview, and I encourage you to do the same, but my main reaction to their claims about it is to think:  Excuse me?  Did we even watch the same interview?  I believe neither the interviewer nor the guest came off particularly well in this exchange.

YouTube Preview Image

Lauren Green comes across as someone who likely hasn’t read the book, but who has read many reviews of the book, and is trying to provoke a response from the author. Reza Aslan, though, comes across as the ultimate disingenuous academic who says, “I am just a historian, I have no agenda whatsoever.”  He keeps reiterating that he is an academic with a PhD, as though that is an adequate defense against bias.  Green could have done a more skillful job challenging his assumptions or his arguments; her questions only serve to make him defensive, and so the interview doesn’t appear to accomplish much for either party.

Nevertheless, I didn’t view the interview as a complete failure for Fox News.  Quite to the contrary, I thought it illustrated that there is more journalistic spirit alive at Fox News than at most of the mainstream press outlets who have interviewed the author or reported on the book.  Why do I say that?  Because, the other morning I had to endure this NPR interview with the same author of the same book, and I heard a lot of claims by Aslan about his book, and his beliefs, but no one challenged those claims or tried to interrogate Aslan’s motivations for writing the book that he wrote.  The NPR interview was so concerned with helping him make his points, that it could have just as easily come from the public relations office of his publisher.

Not surprisingly, the other day NPR’s website featured this story entitled “Reza Aslan Hearts NPR”: “Author and religious scholar Reza Aslan is one of those people who’s at NPR West so often that he blurs the line between guest and employee. We always joke with our regulars that they should have a punch card, and when it’s full, they get their own cubicle.”  Even less surprisingly, today NPR has this sympathetic story about the reaction on the left to the Fox News  interview.

When you compare NPR’s very sympathetic pieces helping Aslan promote both his book and his talking points, with Lauren Green’s somewhat awkward attempt to interrogate him, though, it’s pretty clear to me which “news” outlet is more interested in informing its viewers and letting them decide for themselves.   Green’s interview told us much more about Aslan than NPR’s pieces: it showed us something of his character, it introduced us to some of the controversies surrounding the book, and it raised the question of his worldview and its influence on his writing.

And as it turns out, there is a lot of reason for controversy, as Pamela Geller Robert Spencer points out in her his own detailed post about the controversy (hat tip: Pamela Geller).   Geller Spencer writes:

I don’t care about his scholarly credentials. Even if everything he had said about his degrees had been true, it would confer on his book no presumption of accuracy or truth. I am constantly assailed for lacking scholarly credentials, but as it happens, when it comes to writing about religion I have exactly the same credentials as Aslan, a B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, and an M.A. in Religious Studies. His other two degrees are in other fields.

But anyway, it doesn’t matter: there are plenty of fools with degrees, and plenty of geniuses without them. My work, and Aslan’s, stands or falls on its merits, not on the number of degrees we have. Aslan’s pulling rank on Lauren Green and starting to reel off (inaccurately) his degrees was a sign of insecurity: it implied that he didn’t think his book could stand on its merits, and had to be accepted because he had a lot of degrees. And indeed, his book doesn’t stand on its merits.

I encourage you to be sure to read Geller’s Spencer’s whole post.

To my mind, the reaction on the left tells us more about their fondness for credentials and their disdain for Fox News than anything else;  that the same people who view this interview as an instance of intolerable bias think nothing of the swill served up regularly by NPR and MSNBC should tell us all we need to know.

Misadventures in Multicultural Studies Indoctrination

Jeff’s post the other day about the questionable workshop at Brown University came to mind recently when I saw a very far-left Facebook friend link to this article by a professor named Warren Blumenfeld who had just retired from a position as a professor of education at Iowa State University.  The article contains the professor’s reflections and gives voice to both his lamentations and his indignity about those students who took his class who were not won over to his worldview and who had the temerity to announce that fact in their final papers.

The course was entitled “Multicultural Foundations in Schools and Society,” and Blumenfeld describes it in the following terms:

I base the course on a number of key concepts and assumptions, including how issues of power, privilege, and domination within the United States center on inequitable social divisions regarding race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, sex, gender identity, sexual identity, religion, nationality, linguistic background, physical and mental ability/disability, and age. I address how issues around social identities impact generally on life outcomes, and specifically on educational outcomes. Virtually all students registered for this course, which is mandatory for students registered in the Teacher Education program, are pre-service teachers.

In other words, this is a required course in “multicultural studies” indoctrination.  If the course were voluntary, it would be a slightly different situation, but as a required course, it amounts to an example of the sort of thing that conservatives can easily point to as illustrating the left-wing biases of academia.

Professor Blumenfeld is particularly alarmed by the case of two female students who tell him quite boldly that the course has not changed their socially conservative Christian worldview:

On a final course paper, one student wrote that, while she enjoyed the course, and she felt that both myself and my graduate assistant — who had come out to the class earlier as lesbian — were very knowledgeable and good professors with great senses of humor, nonetheless, she felt obliged to inform us that we are still going to Hell for being so-called “practicing homosexuals.” Another student two years later wrote on her course paper that homosexuality and transgenderism are sins in the same category as stealing and murder. This student not only reiterated that I will travel to Hell if I continued to act on my same-sex desires, but she went further in amplifying the first student’s proclamations by self-righteously insisting that I will not receive an invitation to enter Heaven if I do not accept Jesus as my personal savior since I am a Jew, regardless of my sexual behavior. Anyone who doubts this, she concluded, “Only death will tell!”

Now while we might question the wisdom of both students in advertising the heresy represented by their beliefs so boldly in a graded assignment,  I think we might also be heartened by their courage in being true to their faith, even if we do not agree with all of the particulars of their worldview.

The professor, however, is shocked and appalled, and the rest of the essay is his attempt to reconcile–through reference to one leftist theory and tract after another–what he calls “our campus environment, one that emboldens some students to notify their professor and graduate assistant that their final destination will be the depths of Hell.”  Notice his word choice, there.  The problem is with the “campus environment” which “emboldens some students.”  It seems like a foreign idea to this professor to think that a university could be a place for the free and open exchange of ideas, especially those ideas that are unpopular.  I trust we will not find him quoting Voltaire or Jefferson anytime soon.

No, instead what we get is a description of and a reflection on a course that sounds like it could have been lifted straight from  the pages of Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, albeit with a more contemporary reading list.  While the professor uses the (more…)

Social Psychology, Politics, and Disgust

I saw this item at Reason.com the other day.  It’s a short piece reflecting on a video of a speech by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt talking about how one’s “sensitivity to disgust” is supposedly some sort of predictor of one’s political views.  I haven’t watched the whole video yet, but the speech was given at the Museum of Sex in New York City, so some amount of its content seems designed to appeal to the audience that would be attending a speech in that location.

Jim Epstein at Reason.com summarizes the key points of the speech as follows:

“Morality isn’t just about stealing and killing and honesty, it’s often about menstruation, and food, and who you are having sex with, and how you handle corpses,” says NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who is author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics.

Haidt argues that our concern over these victimless behaviors is rooted in our biology. Humans evolved to feel disgusted by anything that when consumed makes us sick. That sense of disgust then expanded “to become a guardian of the social order.”

This impulse is at the core of the culture war. Those who have a low sensitivity to disgust tend to be liberals or libertarians; those who are easily disgusted tend to be conservative.

The full video of the speech is available at the above link.

My reaction to all this is that it 1). depends on how one defines conservative, and 2). it depends on what kinds of things one labels or considers to be examples of disgust.

With respect to point 1)., I think that a large portion of the conservative coalition is rather heavily libertarian-leaning, and it just makes more sense for us to identify as conservative and vote for Republicans because  the Libertarian party seems doomed to remain a fringe party, at least as long as that party’s leadership continues to endorse an isolationist or head-in-the-sand approach to foreign policy.  Now while it may be the case that many traditional “social conservatives” have a “high sensitivity to disgust” with respect to issues of sex, I’m not even convinced that that is as widely the case as Haidt’s remarks suggest.  I’ve heard socially-conservative Christian ministers talk about sex in ways that show they may have a better understanding of the variety of human sexual experience than many academics who claim to be experts on the subject.

On the other hand, with respect to point 2)., I can find many, many examples of “disgust” fueling the attitudes of liberals and leftists.  One could begin by looking at their intense hatred of Sarah Palin and anyone like her.  Some of that hatred, I would argue, was fueled by a disgust at the lives of anyone who doesn’t live the life of a modern liberal in a major coastal city.

Most modern liberals are disgusted by hunting, by the people who shop at Wal-Mart, by the petroleum industry, by the food industry, by the military, by evangelical Christians, and by the reality of life in small-town, rural America.  James Taranto and British Philosopher Roger Scruton call it “oikophobia”: it is a worldview which accepts or excuses the transgressions of select special-interest groups or of non-western cultures, while it judges the familiar by a harsh standard and condemns them with expressions of disgust at the nature of their lives.

Hearing Obama on Lincoln’s Birthday

Presidents’ Day is this coming Monday, but Lincoln’s birthday was this past Tuesday, February 12th.  I was traveling that day, and had the misfortune of being subjected to hearing most of the State of the Union address as I completed the last leg of that day’s journey.

As Dan and others have pointed out many times in the past, Obama is fond of comparing himself to Republican Presidents, especially Lincoln and Reagan.  Perhaps it is because both Lincoln and Reagan were associated with the state of Illinois: Reagan was born there, grew up there, and went to college there, and although Lincoln didn’t move to Illinois until his 21st year, he is most associated with the state where he became a country lawyer, served in the state legislature, and represented a district in the House of Representatives.

Or perhaps Obama compares himself to Republicans because he doesn’t want to remind the public that his political views place him to the left of Clinton, Carter, and Johnson, or, for that matter, far, far to the left of Kennedy.  Perhaps he simply wants to preserve the narrative about his alleged “post-partisanship” and thinks that comparing himself to Republican Presidents is one way to keep pulling the wool over the public’s eyes in that regard.

Whatever the reason, hearing him speak on Lincoln’s birthday only reminded me, once again, how far Obama falls from Lincoln’s historic presidency (despite Steven Spielberg’s and Tony Kushner’s attempts to draw such a parallel through their recent film).   Not only was the speech the usual melange of the same tiresome platitudes we’ve been hearing from him over the last five years, as both Bruce and Jeff have pointed out here, it was also full of his usual partisan talking points, as he placed blame on Republicans wherever he could, and he rationalized future power-grabs by the Executive branch.

In the context of Lincoln’s birthday, though, I am less interested in the SOTU, and more interested in what Obama said on January 21st of this year.  Until Bruce posted the entirety of Washington’s second inaugural last month, the second inaugural address I was most familiar with was Lincoln’s.  I had read about FDR’s second inaugural address, but never felt moved to read it in its entirety, and have generally had just passing interest in the speeches delivered on the second inaugurals of the presidents who were re-elected in my lifetime.  But Lincoln’s second inaugural address is anthologized in textbooks alongside the Gettysburg Address, and I have read both many times.  They are both lessons in brevity, resolve and humility.

Consider, for instance, the way that Lincoln discusses the issue of slavery and the conflict between the North and the South in his second inaugural address:

Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

These are not the words of a proud and arrogant man.  These are the words of a man who is troubled by the horrible conflict which has engulfed his nation and who prays for its speedy resolution, even as he fears the terrible price that both sides in the conflict still have to pay.  Lincoln’s words are even more powerful in that way that they echo, perhaps unintentionally, one of Jefferson’s most striking passages from his Notes on the State of Virginia:

(more…)

We Interrupt Our Petty Lives for this Announcement:

Ever since I first heard of Yousef Nadarkhani, the Iranian Christian pastor held captive in that horrible subnormal nation by its rulers for the crime of apostasy, I’ve had as my homepage at work the American Center for Law and Justice website which had been counting the days of his incarceration.

That count has ended.

While I was out of town this weekend with my partner and away from the news, Pastor Nadarkhani was released by the court that had originally sentenced him to death. The charge of apostasy has been reduced to that of evangelizing, and his punishment to time served.

There is so much to say that if I did would look like gift-horse material. For now, let’s all just say a prayer of thanksgiving that he has been delivered from these savages and is currently back in the embrace of his family.

Let’s also further pray that now that he’s out of jail he will find safety. All to often in places like Iran, prisoners of conscience are released from official bondage only to be torn apart by the mobs that populate such backward countries.

If you’d like to know more about Pastor Nadarkhani and his trials, check out the link to the ACLJ above.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

How about a TV series treating Christians* with dignity?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:27 pm - March 13, 2012.
Filed under: Movies/Film & TV,War on Christians

On Saturday, reports Tina Korbe, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich “called out the double standard of the mainstream media” referencing “ABC’s new TV show, ‘GCB,’ based on the novel ‘Good Christian Bitches.’”  She cites this Politico report:

“Here’s to show you the biases of the elite media, look at the new show that’s on that has the word ‘Christian’ in it and I want you to take the exact name, drop out Christian and put in Muslim,” Gingrich said. “And ask yourself, is there any network that would have dared to run a show like that and you know the answer is not a one because anti-Christian bigotry is just fine in the entertainment industry but they have to be very protective of Islam.”

Just watch Sergeant York, the 1941 film the earned Gary Cooper his first Oscar.  The very versatile Walter Brennan snagged his fourth Oscar nod for his portrayal of Pastor Rosier Pile, an honorable clergyman who helps Cooper find a path to God and stands by him as he wrestles with the merits of taking up arms for his nation.  Or the 1954 Oscar winner, On the Waterfront where another versatile actor secured an Academy nomination for playing a priest, the strong moral center of an incredibly powerful film.

Why do we no longer see any TV shows with similar upstanding ministers — and members of their flock who live by the teachings of their faith and treat their fellows with dignity?

How about even bringing in gays, you know, like a gay man who moves out on his boyfriend when he finds that that latter had been cheating on him.   He has to move in with his brother who, once a wastrel, saw the light when he fell for a fetching Evangelical (or Mormon?) woman.  The brother initially refuses to put him up in their guest house because of  his “lifestyle,” but his wife presses him to show some Christian compassion.

Their pastor (or Bishop, if they’re Mormon) acknowledges that he is wrestling with church doctrine on sexuality and encourages the (straight) couple to treat the gay relative decently, to encourage him to come to church.  (And, heck, maybe the gay guy “at sea” since his relationship falls apart, talks to said minister who, through the young man, realizes that one man can truly, romantically love another.)

And we’ll add in a happy gay couple who can’t put our hero up because they’re taking care of the mother of one of the men–and trying to adopt.  So, we’ll balance the happy religious couple with the happy gay couple.

(more…)

Muslim Brotherhood Takes Egypt by Storm

YAY Arab Spring!!!!

Judges overseeing the vote count in Egypt’s parliamentary elections say Islamist parties have won a majority of the contested seats in the first round. The judges spoke on condition of anonymity because official results are expected to be released later Thursday.

They say the Muslim Brotherhood could take 45 percent of the seats up for grabs. The liberal Egyptian bloc coalition and the ultra-fundamentalist Nour party are competing for second place.

Together, Islamist parties are expected to control a majority of parliamentary seats by March. This week’s vote was the first of six stages of parliamentary elections that will last until then.

Obama = FAIL.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Three Things About Islam (That You Should Know)

It is pretty self-explanatory.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

The monster the media created & the monsters it ignores

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:10 am - September 13, 2010.
Filed under: Media Bias,War on Christians

Caught this on AOL’s front page this weekend:

Florida Pastor on Quran Burning: ‘Not Ever’
Terry Jones says his plan to torch Islam’s holy books is “definitely” off, claiming his mission was accomplished.

Yep, he drew attention to himself.  And that seemed to be his real goal.

And now, I wonder if those sought to define this isolated crackpot as a representative of (fly-over) American will also acknowledge how many Americans, from all weeks of life and both sides of the political spectrum, condemned his (advertised, but not executed) juvenile stunt.

While highlighting this fringe pastor’s stunt, all too many media outlets ignore the violence some radical Muslims foment in their lands.  When in 2008, just such an extremist murdered Moshe Nahari, a Jew in his native land of Yemen, “Saeed Al-Ammar, rabbi of the entire Jewish community in Yemen, admitted in press statements that the community had been receiving threats recently by extremists demanding them to leave the country.

Yet, this story didn’t get much attention in the mainstream media nor do stories about radical Muslims murdering Muslims from other sects of their faith (recent bombing of Shi’ite shrine in Pakistan).

And while our media don’t given such atrocities the attention they give to a lone Florida preacher, our intellectuals and entertainers regularly heap abuse on Christianity in almost rote fashion:

Attacking Christianity is practically an industry unto itself. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have become wealthy men attacking the Bible. Entire organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and state exist to sterilize the public sphere from any acknowledgment of Christianity. In entertainment media, Christians are generally portrayed as hypocrites, bigots, closet perverts, and idiots.

Certainly honor killings, stoning of adulterers, the brutal oppression of women, brutality against gays, and admonitions to murder those of other faiths would rouse the elites to outrage if they were a routine part of Christianity. (more…)

CNN Takes Note of “Draw Muhammad Day”

I must admit, I’m stunned….

CNN.com Cover Story:  “My Take: Everyone chalk Mohammed?

There is a difference between making fun of religious or other ideas on a TV show that you can turn off, and doing it out in a public square where those likely to take offense simply can’t avoid it. These chalk drawings are not a seminar on free speech; they are the atheist equivalent of the campus sidewalk preachers who used to irk me back in college. This is not even “Piss Christ,” Andres Serrano’s controversial 1987 photograph of a crucifix in urine. It is more like filling Dixie cups with yellow water and mini crucifixes and putting them on the ground all over town. Could you do it legally? Of course. Should you?

In Muslim culture, there is a longstanding tradition that to put something on the ground, where people step on it, is “the ultimate diss,” indicating “I hate you, you disgust me,” as I was told by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America

To this add the fact that after 9/11 hate crimes against Arabs, Muslims and “those perceived to be Muslim” increased 1,700 percent in the United States, according to a report by Human Rights Watch. Large numbers of innocent Muslims in the U.S. have been harmed or intimidated simply because they share a religious tradition with extremists. Can we reasonably suggest they not be reminded of this upon seeing their prophet, the most revered and admired person in their cultural tradition, underfoot?

CNN iReport -

There is a huge fight on the internet especially facebook about May 20th Draw Muhammad Day. I have thought long and hard about whether to draw Muhammad and I have decided that I will. I do not think people of certian religions should be able to tell other people not of that religion what they can and cannot do. I do not draw Muhammad out of malice but out of protest because I do not think it is acceptable for our artist to recieve death threats over cartoons. I understand that drawing Muhammad is offensive but many things in America are offensive. Republican and Democrats make signs all the time that are offensive too each other this is free speech to be able to say and expression our opinions to people we do not agree with. Drawing Muhammad does not constitute hate. I am doing this neither out of Malice or hate. If there are terrorist acts because of people drawing pictures I hope that America will wake up and see that people are killing over cartoons and that we should not give up freedom for security.

Maybe Nick was right — if CNN wakes up, perhaps today did change history.  Time shall tell.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Now at BigJournalism.com:
If Muslims Gay-Bash in San Francisco, Do They Make A Sound?

My second post is up at Big Journalism!  I’ll give you a preview, but you have to go there to read the whole thing.

Imagine, if you will, that the BB gun attackers [in San Fran] had been white. Or from Utah. Or from Texas.  Or Laramie, Wyoming. What kind of wild adjectives would have been applied? We can only surmise. Editorializing against mainstream Americans who are now out-of-favor by the media (whites, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, conservatives) happens everyday on America’s front pages and network news programs. But when it comes to Arab/Muslim attackers — all silence is golden for the American media.

<…>

It is also important to note that the fundamental philosophies of a majority of the American gay activist community have been rooted with elements of anti-capitalism, anti-democracy, anti-war, and anti-Israeli sentiment for the past three decades. You could not have attended an anti-Iraq war rally in 2003-2007 without seeing many rainbow flags (the unofficial symbol of gays and lesbians) mixed in with pro-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush and anti-American signs, symbols and chants.

In order to be gay and part of “the community” in America, you must first renounce “the mainstream,” your individualism, liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the basic right to vote and your patriotism. All those checked? Join the club!

Read the whole thing.  And please let me know your thoughts.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

CHENEY BLASTS OBAMA OVER AMERICAN SECURITY

Since we named Dick Cheney the “Conservative of the Decade” partly for staying pure to his conservative principles about American security in a time of war — I’m not surprised that today the former Veep came out swinging against the incompetence and indifference of the Obama Administration concerning the Islamists’ War Against America.

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war.  He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”

Ouch… that had to have left a mark.  What gives Cheney such power in his argument is that he stands with a moral conviction to protect this nation.  What lacks in Obama is any passion whatsoever to comprehend this existential threat to our Republic in an age where nuclear weapons can go rogue.

Again, I think by 2012 — a majority of Americans will wish Cheney was back in government in some capacity.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A Fallen American Hero: Pvt. William Long

Here is the photo of a true American hero.  It isn’t a photo that is being run 24/7 on NBC, CNN, CBS or even FOX News.

Recruiters Shot

This is a man who, along with this family, volunteered to serve his nation in a time of war and paid the ultimate price on his nation’s own soil.  It is believed to be the first Islamist terror attack on US soil since 9/11.  And so far, President Obama has had nothing to say about the death of Pvt. Long and the shooting at the recruiting center.

Those who are honoring a doctor who aborted 60,000 fetuses need to see what a real hero looks like. 

The American Liberal mouthpieces on TV and the internet have not only ignored the Islamist’s terror attack in Little Rock, but they seem more upset about the murder of Dr. Tiller than they did about the attacks of 9/11/2001.

Army Pvt. William Long – RIP

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Fisher-Price Meets Al-Qaeda?

You decide.  Frankly, the baby is scary enough without spouting jihadist cries!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Turkey’s First Gay “Honor Killing”:
Religion of Peace Strikes Again

This is a very sad story from Turkey (h/t – DoublePlusUndead).

Was Ahmet Yildiz the victim of Turkey’s first gay honour killing? – The Independent (UK) (7/19/08)

In a corner of Istanbul today, the man who might be described as Turkey’s gay poster boy will be buried — a victim, his friends believe, of the country’s deepening friction between an increasingly liberal society and its entrenched conservative traditions.

Ahmet Yildiz, 26, a physics student who represented his country at an international gay gathering in San Francisco last year, was shot leaving a cafe near the Bosphorus strait this week. Fatally wounded, the student tried to flee the attackers in his car, but lost control, crashed at the side of the road and died shortly afterwards in hospital. His friends believe Mr Yildiz was the victim of the country’s first gay honour killing.

Please read the whole story.  It is, for the most part, well-written and documents a horrific problem throughout the world.

I would make two simple observations, however.  

First, I don’t recall ever hearing about Evangelical Christians “honor killing” their gay relatives.  My point:  This item from Turkey is an example of a true homophobic societal problem.  Further, most gay bashings that are reported in the USA take place at significantly higher rates in urban locations — Blue States, if you will, that are allegedly more “tolerant”.  

The gay murder in Turkey should provide you with some perspective in the world of gay tolerance; since all we are ever being told by our Gay Leaders is how bad Reagan Bush Bush McCain will be for American gays.  Get those Montana Gay Concentration Camps ready, folks!   They’ve been buildin’ them since 1980!!!   They HAVE to be done by now!

*sigh*

My other observation is that if you missed just one word in the last paragraph of the Independent’s story — it might have slipped your mind that the “entrenched conservative traditions” mentioned in the first paragraph are Islamic sharia law traditions.   I guess those “pesky immigrant kids” who riot in France are infiltrating Turkey now?

In the Liberal World of Moral Relativism — right and wrong have no meaning nor purpose.  Unless it is your blood on the sidewalk.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)