GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Now we know what Trump is

by

A lot has happened in the last few weeks, to let us know what kind of president Trump is going to be.

He isn’t the new Hitler. And he isn’t the new Ronald Reagan. He’s Obama-Lite, or roughly what President Obama would have been if were saner and more authentically masculine and pro-American. (Like Obama, President Trump often talks about his own good intentions/hopes as if they were accomplishments.
They aren’t.) “The Swamp” and/or Deep State will stay in business for quite awhile yet. I suspect that Trump has cut some sort of deal with several of its important factions.

That still makes him 100 times better than Hillary.

Hillary would have done none of the above. On his own, Trump is not all that hot. But when compared to Hillary, he still is.

AP says: the United Nations runs child sex rings

by

Via the Toronto Star.

By Paisley Dodds
The Associated Press
Wed., April 12, 2017

In the ruins of a tropical hideaway…abandoned children tried to make a life for themselves…they never could scrape together enough to beat back the hunger, until the UN peacekeepers moved in a few blocks away.

The men who came from a far-away place and spoke a strange language offered the Haitian children cookies and other snacks. Sometimes they gave them a few dollars. But the price was high: The Sri Lankan peacekeepers wanted sex from girls and boys as young as 12.

…An Associated Press investigation of UN missions during the past 12 years found nearly 2,000 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers and other personnel around the world — signalling the crisis is much larger than previously known. More than 300 of the allegations involved children, the AP found, but only a fraction of the alleged perpetrators served jail time.

…Here in Haiti, at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers exploited nine children in a sex ring from 2004 to 2007, according to an internal UN report obtained by the AP.

RTWT.

My thoughts:

  • These were OFFICIAL U.N. PEACEKEEPERS. “Blue helmets”
  • We’ve had rumors about U.N. pedophilia and child trafficking, for years.
  • The Controlled Media usually either ignores/buries this story, or goes out of its way to discredit the people saying it. So, the rumors have been mostly “fringe”.
  • If the Controlled Media is reporting on it now as a legitimate topic… Whoa. Could this be a one-off story? Or will it grow?
  • Hmm, Haiti. Is there anyone in U.S. politics who visited Haiti a lot in the 2000s to “help the kids”? Anyone famous and corrupt, who might have overlooked a few things at the least? But I don’t want to name names. Especially no names involving “pizza”, a cluster-F of a story if there ever was one.

Things We Condemn – and expect our opponents to condemn

by

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.)

Brit Academics: Paedophilia Is Natural and Normal

by

An increasingly vocal and open group of prominent British Academics is claiming that paedophilia is a perfectly normal and natural thing.

“Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

The presentation in question was presented at an academic conference at Cambridge University in the UK,  where other topics included: “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

And — like every other horror of the current ear — this has its roots in the sexual liberation movement of the 1970’s.

With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia. [Emphasis added]

Hey, “Love is Love,” right?

IMHO, things are pretty messed up when it’s okay to openly discuss normalizing pedophilia in an academic setting; but you can get fired for expressing the wrong opinion on gay marriage.