GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Bat-wielding vigilante mobs punish dissenters

June 8, 2017 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

At a U.S. college, mobs of neo-Nazi alt-Right fascist thugs have been roaming the campus, smashing windows and bashing people they disagree with. Kristallnacht!

Except that it’s Evergreen College and actually, it’s mobs of leftie fascist thugs roaming the campus, smashing windows and bashing people they disagree with.

Weinstein, the professor at the center of the sh*t storm, is claiming some students were even hit, but says they won’t report it to the police.

Why is this not national news? One guess…

A few other items for you that touch upon the theme of immoral left-wingers and/or watching left-wingers’ heads explode, while the media focus strangely on other things.

  • The House Oversight Committee states that, yes, President Obama and AG Holder obstructed investigation of Fast and Furious and, per Fox, “tried to hide the facts from the loved ones of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.”

    “The Department of Justice and ATF had no intention of looking for honest answers and being transparent,” said Grassley, now chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a staunch supporter of whistleblowers.

    “In fact, from the onset, bureaucrats employed shameless delay tactics to obstruct the investigation.”

    ATF Agent John Dodson, one of those whistleblowers, confirmed Grassley’s testimony. He relayed to the Committee that the [Obama] DOJ has “tried to discredit him by subjecting him to internal investigations, putting him under surveillance, denying him promotions and ostracizing him.”

    RTWT.

  • Courtney Love calls Linda Sarsour “a vile disgrace to women and all mankind.”
  • Trump’s judicial nominations: Another thing he’s doing right.

Bonus item: France says no trace of Russia hacking Macron.

The head of the French government’s cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron’s election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack.

About a month ago, I had noted the eagerness (and absurdity) of U.S. media in accusing Russia.

Filed Under: Fast and Furious, Hysteria on the Left, Liberalism Run Amok, Mean-spirited leftists, Media Bias, Obama Lies / Deceptions, Political Correctness, Politics abroad, Progressive immorality, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), Unhinged Liberals Tagged With: election hacking, evergreen college, fascism, Fast and Furious, Hysteria on the Left, Liberalism Run Amok, linda sarsour, macron, Mean-spirited leftists, media bias, obama lies / deceptions, Political Correctness, Politics abroad, Progressive immorality, Racism (Real / Reverse / or Faux), russia, Unhinged Liberals

A Constitutional Conservative Case for Backing Trump in November

July 24, 2016 by Kurt

Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about.  From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.

Trump was definitely not my first choice:  I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz.  As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.

My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election.  While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting.  While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality.  So what to do?  One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way.  Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.

Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes.  During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power.  I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.

But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues?  One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year.  My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.

Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma.  Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance.  Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.

In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles.  I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.

But let’s examine the situation.  We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative.  We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power.  Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.”  That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates.  She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”

During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin.  When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president.  And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”

So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?  This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:

The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.

Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.

Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.

And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.

You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.

Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.

Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?

I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not.   As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.

And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons.    As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.”  Barnes notes:

Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.

And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal.  The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.

The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.

For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.”  Hillary Clinton must not become president.  If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.

So then, why Donald Trump?  Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.

I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.

Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative.  How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?

For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system.  Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same:  Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Constitutional Issues, Democratic demagoguery, Democratic Dirty Tricks, Democratic Scandals, Freedom, Hillary Clinton, IRS/Tea Party Scandal, Liberal Hypocrisy, Media Bias, Misrepresenting the Right, National Politics, Second Amendment Tagged With: #NeverTrump, #NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverTrumpOrHillary, 2016 Presidential Election, Constitutional Issues, Donald Trump, electoral college, fascism, Hillary Clinton, liberal fascism, political elites, Second Amendment

Leftists hate hearing about the socialist roots of Nazism

December 9, 2014 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

That’s my embriefening of Daniel Hannan’s title from February: Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism.

Short version of this post: Hannan is awesome, so why not go read it?

Long version: I’ll tease his article for you, then add my comments. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Freedom, History, Socialism in America, World History Tagged With: Communism, daniel hannan, fascism, freedom, history, leftism, national socialism, nazi

Remember when lefties liked free speech? (or claimed to)

November 11, 2014 by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism)

Something in Bruce’s Twitter stream got me to notice this petition on Daily Kos, which is

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

I don’t know when DK started the petition; probably a few years ago. But it’s still active. Now, in terms of the U.S. constitution, what caused the Citizens United decision? As Justice Kennedy wrote in 2010 for the majority:

If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.

So, the principle of Free Speech caused the decision. The First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech – is what the decision expresses and defends.

If we do the math, the Daily Kos petition is effectively:

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn free speech.

…calling on Congress and the States [to] Act now to do whatever is within your power to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the First Amendment right of citizens, or associations of citizens, to engage in political speech.

Example #12,770 of leftism actually being fascism and vice versa.

UPDATE: Something more current…With approval from the National Science Foundation, Indiana University researchers spent $1 million of taxpayer money on activities to silence non-leftie voices on Twitter. Here’s another link.

Filed Under: Civil Discourse, Free Speech, Leftist Nutjobs, Liberalism Run Amok Tagged With: civil discourse, daily kos, fascism, First Amendment, Free Speech, Leftist Nutjobs, Liberalism Run Amo

Liberal “Tolerance” On Display in Manhattan

September 28, 2008 by GayPatriot

To quote Glenn Reynolds, they told me if George W. Bush were re-elected there would be mobs of intimidating citizens suppressing speech and sowing the seeds of intolerance.

They were right! (h/t – Jawa Report)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Filed Under: 2008 Elections, 2008 Presidential Politics, American Self-Hatred, Arrogance of the Liberal Elites, Leftist Nutjobs, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal Intolerance, Liberals, Mean-spirited leftists, Post 9-11 America, We The People Tagged With: fascism, Liberals

Categories

Archives