Liberal Calls Sarah Palin A “Cunt” A Week After Calling Her A “Dumb Twat”

All I can say is that, based on liberals rationale, conservatives should be able to call Obama a “stupid nigger” all day long.  After all, just as it’s wrong to use such hateful language toward women unless we don’t happen to like a particular woman’s political views, it’s therefore perfectly okay to use the “N” word toward a black person when you don’t agree with him or her politically.

This racist, bigoted hatred of the left isn’t new.  It is who they are and who they always have been.  It defines them.  It’s called “projection”: liberals assume that conservatives must be racist and bigoted and misogynist, because liberals are so damn racist and bigoted and misogynist.

Interestingly, given that I said conservatives have every right to call Obama a nigger now, given the left’s justification for anti-woman hatred for Sarah Palin, it is fitting that it is – as usual – LEFTISTS who are actually applying that label on Obama.

The fact that Bill Maher is still on the air is proof positive that liberals are despicable, hateful, vile hypocrites.  Because only liberals are depraved enough to watch this over-the-top despicable liberal fascist.

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin a “****” a Week After Calling Palin a “Dumb ****”
Monday, March 28, 2011 | Kristinn
Posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 3:50:53 PM by kristinn

A week after calling former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “dumb t***” vulgar insult for women, comedian Bill Maher went all the way and called Palin the c-word, adding, “There’s just no other word for her.”

The Dallas Voice (The Premier Media Source for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) Texas) reporting on Maher’s appearance Sunday night at the Winnspear Opera House Sunday night, cheered Maher using the crude sexist slur against the 2008 Republican party vice presidential nominee as an act of “fearlessness”:

It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “c***” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

The audience at the Winnspear was descibed by the Voice as “largely gay (and certainly gay-friendly)”, which might explain Maher’s fearlessness in attacking a conservative, Christian, married mother of five in the most vulgar, personal and sexist way.

When Maher was first being criticized for calling Palin the t-word, Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters asked:

Is the universal media hatred for this woman so pervasive that it’s now acceptable for a man to call her that?

Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?

Sadly, it didn’t take long for Sheppard to be proven right.

Last month, Slate Magazine was caught slyly calling Palin the c-word in a headline. Slate’s editor apologized after being called out by Big Journalism.

It’s really not all that hard to be right when you’re talking about liberal progressives.  Simply assume that they are as vile as possible, and then think, “If I were 95% cockroach, what would I do next?”

Lesbians, gay, bisexuals and transexuals cheered this as “fearless,” did they?  So conservatives now have every right to be similarly “fearless” and apply the same sort of bigoted hatred in labeling toward them now?  Why is it only “fearless” when a liberal displays this level of personal hatred toward a conservative?  How does it not work the other way around?

If Glenn Beck did this, there is no question that he would be fired.  And that is because conservatives are superior to liberals in every way morally possible.

These are ugly, ugly people.  They have no shame.  They have no decency.  They have no integrity.  And they have no honor.

Gay Military: Something America Needs Like A Massive WikiLeak

Well, what would have been absolutely freaking unthinkable to our first commander-in-chief, George Washington, has finally happened: we’ve got a gay military now.

I feared this from the outset of the Obama presidency and wrote it up in tones of irony and as much derision as I could muster:

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea.  Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory.  Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military?  Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs.  It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling.  You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejab develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory.  They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads.  Good luck with that, girls.  The guys carry that; surely you can do it too.  And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality.  You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

It is absolutely stunning that we have these disastrous leaks revealing literally hundreds of thousands of pages of US government secrets at the hands of a homosexual soldier, and the very next thing we do is provide for the creation of another hundred thousand Private Bradley Mannings.

I would have thought the theft and release of 250,000 top secret documents would have made the “intelligentsia” pause about the wisdom of recruiting homosexuals who have a documented history of super-massive hissy fits.  But nope.  That would be the sane thing to do; and we can’t have that.  Onward ye proverbial lemmings!  Mush!  Mush!!!

Irony aside, and Bradley Manning aside, I thought this article from Townhall nailed the biggest reasons why this thing is going to be a disaster:

Obama’s New ‘Gay’ Force
Kevin McCullough

With the passage of the law to repeal the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.

Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.

Throughout the entirety of this debate I’ve had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I’m especially sure that President Obama wouldn’t push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.

1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?

If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited “thing” for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don’t engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don’t, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?

2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?

Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn’t go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the “sissy” out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.

3. Will base commanders be required to host “pride” events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation’s cities each year?

There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any “pride” event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.

4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?

It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?

There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.

For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, “every other nation on the planet already does it,” shut up!

None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.

In the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with those that serve in our nation’s armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.

I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.

But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.

It was President Obama’s doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.

Another set of questions by a Marine that no one ever asked about ending “Don’t Ask” can be found here.

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “sexual relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

It will be interesting to see if the infantry units – you know, the guys who basically do all of the fighting and most of the dying – are going to see significant drops in enlistment.  The Marine Corps will be an interesting place to look, since “infantry” enlistment figures are hard to find.

One thing I definitely don’t expect to see is huge swells in enlistment, as all of those homosexuals suddenly join up and fill the ranks.  If I’m wrong, you’ll see – based on statistics homosexuals offer – that the US military will suddenly have 143,000 more enlistments, as that 10% of the population that are homosexual suddenly rush to join up.  The thing is that these people didn’t want a gay military so they could join it; they wanted a gay military so they could ruin it.  Just like marriage.

The liberal ideologues whom we just appeased are not the people who will serve.  The people who will serve just got served an in-your-face insult.

The same people who want homosexuals in the military are the same people who think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a rock star for publishing every stolen classified American document he can get his filthy paws on.

This was a terrible and an immoral decision, which is all the more terrible and immoral for occurring during time of war.

The left always points to Europe or “other countries” and say that we should do what they do.  A few things are wrong with that: one of them emerges from Thomas Jefferson’s words, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?  Another emerges from the question, “WHAT PART OF EUROPE ARE YOU FROM? THE PART WHOSE ASS WE SAVED, OR THE PART WHOSE ASS WE KICKED?” To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe.  And yet another emerges from the question why European nations aren’t bothering to stand up and fight for freedom?  Europeans aren’t sending troops to Afghanistan; the troops they do send don’t fight; and most European Union nations are failing to spend even the minimum 2% of their GDP on defense, as required.  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?

Now we’re way down the path to becoming useless, pathetic and apathetic Europe, only with deodorant.

If homosexual men and women really wanted to serve their country – rather than further break down our nation and its social structures more than they already have – then they would have continued to volunteer and serve their country, rather than imposing their rabid homosexual agenda onto those who just want to defend their country.

Tolerant Leftist Academia Tries To Impose ‘Thought Reform’ On Christian Student

The funny thing is that all of these incredibly radical and fundamentally intolerant university faculty almost certainly support the construction of the Islamic mosque/community center right next to Ground Zero. That very much seems to be the liberal position, after all.  Even though the central imam in the Ground Zero mosque advocates the extremely intolerant Sharia law.

Islam is, after all, “The World’s Most Intolerant Religion.”  And it is no shock to history that progressive liberals would be the useful idiots of radical Islam.  Particularly given the fact that both movements are fundamentally if not rabidly intolerant toward any who think differently from themselves.

So one can only wonder if the American secular humanist liberal is advancing the cause of Islam out of fanatic hatred for Christianity, or whether like-minded intolerant fascists merely think alike.

Thought Control at Augusta State University
August 11, 2010 – Herbert London

It often seems as if political correctness hasn’t any boundaries. Recently an Augusta State University counseling student filed a lawsuit against her university claiming it violated her First Amendment rights when she was allegedly told to change her traditional Christian views on homosexuality or leave.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit on behalf of Jennifer Keaton seeking to prevent the expulsion from her master’s degree program.

According to David French, the ADF attorney representing Keaton, “They (college officials) made a cascading series of presumptions about the kind of a counselor she would be and have consequently… tried to force her to change her beliefs.  It’s symbolic of an educational system that has lost its way.”

The suit claims that program officials were upset that Ms. Keaton stated her belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and not a “state of living.” According to the suit, the university wants her to undergo “thought reform” intended to alter her perception. Most significantly, she faces expulsion unless she complies.

To exacerbate matters within the department, Ms. Keaton argued the “conversion therapy” for homosexuals should be entertained, a point of view that departed significantly from accepted norms within the program and according to program officials, from “psychological research.”  It is noteworthy that the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) defends the practice Keaton advocates and notes opponents of conversion therapy are often criticized by politically motivated biases, albeit, in fairness, the reverse accusation might also be made.

The Augusta State University counseling program required Ms. Keaton to attend at least three pro-gay sensitivity training courses, read pro-gay peer reviewed journals and participate in Augusta’s gay pride parade. She was also asked to familiarize herself with the Association of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Issues in “Counseling” webpage, which defines homosexual behavior as healthy and an appropriate way of life. In addition, her professors required “a two page reflection” each month on how her participation in pro-gay activities “has influenced her beliefs” and how future clients might benefit from her experience.

Without getting into the merits of the case and the claims in the lawsuit, it seems to me that if even a portion of the allegation is accurate the Augusta counseling program is engaged in a form of thought control that hasn’t any place in the Academy. As I see it, if there are diametrically different positions on the nature – nurture argument regarding homosexuality both points of view – with empirical evidence marshaled for each side – should be entertained and given a fair hearing. It is not as if one position is dispositive, notwithstanding the position taken by the counseling program.

In far too many instances a university orthodoxy is confused with the rational exegesis of an idea. Proponents of the orthodoxy act as if they are the American version of the Red Guard, incapable of even giving a fair hearing to an alternative point of view; in fact, often going to the extreme of requiring a reeducation program.

Here is the rub: university life predicated on the free and open exchange of opinion has often become a filtering mechanism for politically correct ideas. Those who do not share this view are chastised or, in Ms. Keaton’s case, put through a thought control exercise.

It is interesting that Ms. Keaton’s religiously based view of homosexuality is disregarded, even though one could argue her First Amendment rights are being violated. In the way the university is constituted today, some designated groups have more rights than others. You don’t need a program to know which groups fall into that category; the university catalogue is likely to offer that information.

Liberalism = communism = fascism.  Pure and simple.  What do you even say about a faculty of a university – which at the same time prides itself on its openness – demanding that a student undergo “thought reform” that could well have come right out of a program by Chairman Mao?

Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better.  It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it (or, to put it into Obama’s terminology, by “fundamentally transforming” it).  Early Marxists designed this tactic a long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same game plan: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language.  Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

The left – and increasingly the radical left – that so dominates our education system is incredibly hostile to the religious worldview, and seeks to purge it much the way that Stalin sought to purge those who disagreed with him:

“How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?  Religion … has always hoped to practice upon the unformed and undefended minds of the young…  If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.” – Christopher Hitchens

“If scientists can destroy the influence of religion on young people, then I think it may be the most important contribution we can make.” – Steven Weinberg

How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?  It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children?  Is there something to be said for society stepping in?  What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?  Isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought out?” – Richard Dawkins

“[S]ome children are raised in such an ideological prison that they willingly become their own jailers… Parents don’t literally own their children the way slaveowners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere.” – Daniel Dennett

“Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given license to enculcate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstitition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.” – Nicholas Humphrey

Kenneth Miller admits that “a presumption of atheism or agnosticism is universal in academic life…  The conventions of academic life, almost universally, revolve around the assumption that religious belief is something that people grow out of as they become educated.”

And philosopher Richard Rorty argued that secular professors in the universities ought “to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like their own.”  He noted that students are fortunate to find themselves “under the benevolent Herrschaft of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”  He said to parents who send their children to college, “we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than reasonable.”

Only a true fool would be unable to see how dangerous and corrosive this building trend is.  Christianity created the very idea of the university (universities emerged from the monasteries).  Oxford, Cambridge, and all the great universities of Europe had their beginnings as Christian monasteries.  And yet fundamentalist atheists are trying to purge universities and society of the intellectual and creative spirit which were these institutions’ foundations in the first place.  And in doing so, they corrupt, pervert and destroy the very meaning of the open university system that they now deceitfully claim to defend.

We are entering a world in which teachers and professors no longer believe that parents have a basic right to educate their own children.  We are entering a world in which students no longer have a right to their own worldview if it is not the worldview of the left.  And if a student tries to express or stand up for his or her religious worldview, well, to quote another leftist totalitarian ideologue named Nikita Khrushchev, “We will bury you.”

See my articles on “How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism” (part 2, part 3).

See also my article “The Intolerance Of Academia Creating Modern-Day ‘Galileos’.”

See also my article “Leftist Thought Led To Fascism – And Is Doing So Again.”

See also my article “Fascism Thriving In ‘Democratic’ America.”

Homosexuality Not Dangerous To America?

I’ll bet you didn’t know this.  And if you do know it, you didn’t hear it from the mainstream media.  Because we have the kind of media that doesn’t bother to report that the drunken scumbag who ran over an aged nun also happened to be an illegal alien who had been busted, handed over to the federal government, and then released.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, the guy who leaked so many thousands of documents that it’s positively unreal (it was 90,000 documents before the number exploded)?  He’s an open homosexual who says, “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” And the consequences are a gigantic, naked act of treason.

Now America, the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and a whole bunch of Afghani civilians who were unfortunate enough to cooperate with the United States, are “facing the consequences.”

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page
Bradley Manning, the prime suspect in the leaking of the Afghan war files, raged against his US Army employers and “society at large” on his Facebook page in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret memos, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

By Heidi Blake, John Bingham and Gordon Rayner
Published: 10:00PM BST 30 Jul 2010

The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t “have anything left” and was “beyond frustrated”.

In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: “Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,” and quoted a joke about “military intelligence” being an oxymoron.

Mr Manning, 22, who is currently awaiting court martial, is suspected of leaking more than 90,000 secret military documents to the Wikileaks website in a security breach which US officials claim has endangered the lives of serving soldiers and Afghan informers.

Supporters claim the war logs leak exposed civilian deaths in Afghanistan which had been covered up by the military, and Mr Manning’s family, who live in Pembrokeshire, said he had “done the right thing”.

The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.”

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”

Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”.

His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!”

Mr Manning was arrested at the end of May on suspicion of leaking a video of a US helicopter attack, and quickly became the main suspect when the Afghan war documents were leaked earlier this week.

You want another oxymoron, Mr. Manning?  How about “normal homosexuality”?

And now Bradley Manning has done to military secrecy what Judge – and fellow homosexual – Vaughn Walker has done to the institution of marriage.

Ah, these pesky homosexual relationships that gays want to normalize.

Only, they aren’t anything even CLOSE to “normal.”

[Updated March 3, 2011]: Take domestic violence:

The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of “men who have sex with men” (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews.

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is “substantially higher than among heterosexual men” and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.) […]

The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships “is a very serious public health problem.”

That’s not normal.  That’s a 406.5% increase in violence.

Maybe you’d rather consider married women, versus lesbian women in domestic partnerships:

• The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, “the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.” ^[14]

• A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention “indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time.”^[15]

• A study that compared domestic violence between lesbian couples and married women is even more pronounced in respect to the above statistics that suggest that homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples.

And what you actually find is that these statistics – as terrible as they are – are actually dramatically UNDERREPORTED:

“But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently…” (New York Times, November 6, 2000)

“Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community…” (Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403)

Why would any morally intelligent person want this? [end update]

When you compare drug use, suicides, rape, promiscuity/infidelity, psychiatric problems, child molestation, and sexually transmitted disease, the rates between heterosexuals in marriages and homosexuals in committed relationships are likewise so through the roof that it’s positively unreal.

And you can add treason to that list as well.

We’re not talking about normal, healthy people in normal, healthy relationships that should be encouraged in society.  We’re talking about broken, fractured people in broken, fractured relationships that are a lot more like cancer and a lot less like healthy.

But in order to be “tolerant,” I have to drill a giant hole in my head, scoop out all my brains, slam then on the floor, and then repeatedly stomp on them.

I have to accept whatever lame answer I’m spoon-fed regarding the massive issue with homosexuality in our prison system.  We’re assured that if we were thrown in jail for a weekend, we’d surely all turn gay for the duration of our sentences.  Baloney.  These violent felons are homosexuals with massive identity issues.  I’m forced to accept whatever answer I’m handed regarding the massive problem with homosexual Catholic priests and the fact that most of the sexual abuse occurred between priests and teenage boys.  80% of priests who sexually abuse do so with adolescent boys rather than prepubescent minors.  The “Pedophile Priests” are mainly homosexuals, and not so-called “pedophiles.”  And the cancer they have inflicted upon the once-respected Catholic Church, and upon the larger society, cannot be underestimated.

Homosexuality IS dangerous to America.  And a California homosexual judge just said that he frankly doesn’t care; he’s going to usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose his own twisted morality on a state that already has more than enough problems.

Laying To Rest The Myth That AIDS Is Not A Gay Disease

There’s an advertising campaign that goes by the mantra, “There’s no LOL in HIV.” The ads are your typical “public service announcement” caliber: you watch them, and figure a pack of hyperactive ring-tailed monkeys with a video camera could have pulled something off that was at least as good.

But the ad perpetuates the constant liberal stereotype that AIDS is not a gay disease.  Sorry, but the facts speak otherwise.

I normally don’t read my paper so thoroughly that I cover the obituary section, but I saw a headline that made me stop and read this one from the Los Angeles Times.  What I would like you to do is see firsthand the chronology of the very first AIDS cases:

Dr. Joel D. Weisman dies at 66; among the first doctors to detect AIDS

Dr. Joel D. Weisman was a general practitioner in Sherman Oaks in 1980 when he noticed that three gay male patients had the same constellation of symptoms. He wound up referring two of them to UCLA immunologist Michael S. Gottlieb, who had a gay male patient with a similarly strange array of afflictions. The two doctors then wrote a seminal report that signaled the official start of the AIDS epidemic.

The Los Angeles physician went on to became a national advocate for AIDS research, treatment and prevention.
By Elaine Woo
July 23, 2009

Dr. Joel D. Weisman, who was one of the first physicians to detect the AIDS epidemic and who became a national advocate for AIDS research, treatment and prevention, died Saturday at his Westwood home. He was 66.

FOR THE RECORD: An obituary about Dr. Joel Weisman that ran in Thursday’s Section A had the first name of AIDS-research pioneer Dr. Michael S. Gottlieb incorrect as Martin. An earlier version of the online caption also contained that error.
He had heart disease and had been ill for several months, said Bill Hutton, his domestic partner of 17 years.

Weisman was a general practitioner in Sherman Oaks in 1980 when he noticed a troubling pattern: He had three seriously ill patients with the same constellation of symptoms, including mysterious fevers, rashes, drastic weight loss and swollen lymph nodes. All were gay men whose problems seemed to stem from defects in their immune systems.

The physician wound up referring two of the patients to UCLA immunologist Martin S. Gottlieb, who had a gay male patient with a similarly strange array of afflictions. Recognizing that these were not isolated cases, Weisman and Gottlieb wrote a report that appeared in the June 5, 1981, issue of the Centers for Disease Control’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. That report signaled the official start of the epidemic that the federal agency later named acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

“Joel was a very astute physician,” Gottlieb said in an interview Wednesday. “In his practice he was alert to unusual symptoms in his patients. He had a sense that something out of the ordinary was happening.”

Gottlieb, who later treated perhaps the world’s most famous AIDS patient, Rock Hudson, received most of the credit for identifying the disease.

But Weisman “contributed his open eyes. He felt right away he was observing something that was never seen before,” said Mathilde Krim, a research scientist who, with Gottlieb, founded the New York-based nonprofit amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research.

Born on Feb. 20, 1943, in Newark, N.J., Weisman graduated in 1970 from the Kansas City College of Osteopathy and practiced in New Jersey for a few years.

In 1975, he acknowledged his homosexuality and ended a three-year marriage to start a new life in Los Angeles.

He joined a medical group in North Hollywood, where in 1978 he was presented with some puzzling cases: a gay Anglo man in his 30s who had Kaposi’s sarcoma, a cancer usually seen in old Mediterranean men, and several men with shingles, another affliction normally seen in much older patients. Weisman also had a number of patients with swollen lymph glands, often an indication of lymphoma, a type of cancer that originates in the immune system. But in these cases, no lymphoma was detected.

In 1980, he opened his own practice in Sherman Oaks with Dr. Eugene Rogolsky. Weisman’s sense of foreboding deepened with the arrival of two patients who had a panoply of confounding problems: persistent diarrhea, eczema, fungal infections, low white blood cell counts.

“On top of these two cases,” Randy Shilts wrote in his definitive AIDS chronicle, “And the Band Played On” (1987), “another 20 men had appeared at Weisman’s office that year with strange abnormalities of their lymph nodes,” the very condition that had triggered the spiral of ailments besetting Weisman and Rogolsky’s other two, very sick patients.

“It was dreadful. We didn’t know what we were dealing with,” Rogolsky recalled Wednesday.

In early 1981, a colleague put Weisman in touch with Gottlieb. Two decades later, Weisman recalled that he “had a feeling going into the meeting that what this represented was the tip of the iceberg. My sense was that these people were sick,” he told the Washington Post in 2001, “and we had a lot of people that were potentially right behind them.”

He sent his patients to UCLA Medical Center, where Gottlieb found they had pneumocystis pneumonia. Gottlieb had earlier found the same pneumonia in his own patient. He later diagnosed it in two gay men referred by other doctors.

A few months after their initial meeting, Weisman and Gottlieb wrote in the CDC bulletin that “5 young men, all active homosexuals, were treated for biopsy-confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia at 3 different hospitals in Los Angeles, California. Two of the patients died.” Eventually, the other three patients died too.

The report sounded an alarm heard around the world. AIDS deaths in the U.S. rose exponentially, from 618 in 1982 to almost 90,000 by the end of the decade. By 2002 the death toll surpassed 500,000 and was still climbing.

Weisman began to press for services for people with HIV and AIDS as founding chairman of AIDS Project Los Angeles in 1983. He also helped organize the first dedicated AIDS unit in Southern California at what is now Sherman Oaks Hospital and Health Center. He advocated for research dollars as an original board member of amfAR, which was formed in 1985, and served as chairman from 1988 to 1992.

Described by Shilts as “the dean of Southern California gay doctors,” Weisman continued to see patients, building his partnership with Rogolsky into the Pacific Oaks Medical Group, which became one of the largest private practices focused on the treatment of AIDS and HIV.

As soon as he became convinced that AIDS was sexually transmitted, Weisman began to warn patients that they needed to change their sexual behavior. But during the early years of the crisis, his warnings too often were ignored. “I couldn’t even make some of my friends listen, and they’re dead now and that’s disconcerting,” he told The Times in 1988.

Among the casualties was his partner of 10 years, Timothy Bogue, who died of AIDS in 1991.

Battling the epidemic on the front lines “made me look at issues of death and dying in a very different way,” Weisman said in 1988. “What makes somebody a good physician in this situation? Is it just winning? Keeping people alive? If I looked at every death as a defeat, I would not be able to continue.”

In 1997, he stepped away from the battle, ironically just as new drug cocktails were extending the lives of AIDS patients. In 2000, he moved to New York, where he ran a bed-and-breakfast with Hutton, but he returned to Southern California about five years ago. He was an active ambassador for AIDS Project Los Angeles until illness overtook him this year.

In addition to Hutton, Weisman is survived by a brother, Mark; a daughter, Stacey Weisman-Bogue Foster; a granddaughter; and two nieces. Memorial donations may be sent to amfAR, AIDS Project Los Angeles or the Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences College of Osteopathic Medicine.

Plans for a memorial service will be announced later.

Now, before I say anything else, I would like to say that Dr. Joel D. Weisman was a truly decent and compassionate man who heroically tried to make a positive difference with his life.  And I am sorry that such a great man has passed, and extend my sympathies to his family and friends.

This article does not attack Dr. Weisman or his work in any way.  Nor does it even attack homosexuals or homosexuality, per se.

It only tries to point out an important truth: AIDS is a gay disease.  It started out ENTIRELY as a gay disease – as the obituary article clearly testifies –  and it still IS a gay disease.

It is a documented fact that the liberal mainstream media falsified a myth that AIDS was a heterosexual boogeyman.  Michael Fumento is merely one among many who have documented the fact that there was a clearly deliberate effort to frighten the national population to fund AIDS research and further legitimize the homosexual lifestyle.  I read Bernard Goldberg’s book BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How The Media Distort The News, which goes into detail to describe both the fraud of heterosexual AIDS and the media disinformation to market the fraud as fact.  And the sheer number of previous efforts to document what were clearly homosexual men as heterosexuals makes any present claims of “heterosexual AIDS” dubious at best.  It’s like the boy who cried wolf.

To the extent that heterosexuals do get AIDS, there are at least two clear primary culprits: 1) bi-sexuality, and the spread of AIDS from men who have sex with men and then have sex with women; and 2) Drug use, particularly involving the sharing of hyperdermic needles.  A 3rd culprit would be the “down low” phenomenon in which men have sex with other men and yet do not regard themselves as homosexual.  Good luck getting them to tell you about their little secret lives.

It’s interesting.  In years past, I have heard homosexuals describe the terrifying devastation of AIDS in the gay community.  I have heard homosexuals describe the fact that literally dozens of their friends had become infected with HIV or died of AIDS.  And yet I have never known a single friend or family member who has ever had AIDS in my entire life.  And some time back, when I found the question interesting due to some propaganda media report, I proceeded to ask virtually every friend and acquaintance I had if THEY had ever personally known anyone who had ever had AIDS or HIV.  And there were only two friends/acquaintances who had EVER known such people – and it turned out that both of the friends knew that the men who had contracted HIV/AIDS were homosexuals.

I would not wish AIDS on anyone, except perhaps truly evil monsters such as Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.  I would most certainly not wish it on a gay man merely for being a gay man.  There are simply too many homosexuals who are decent and kind people – like Joel C. Weisman – for me to ever wish such a terrible thing.  And while I believe that homosexuality is a sin – as God’s Word teaches – I also realize that I, too, am a sinner.  And I confess that sin has bested me very nearly as often as I have bested sin.

God Himself will one day judge every sin and every sinner; He did not commission me to do this work for Him.

But it’s one thing to sympathize with people bearing the result of a terrible, disfiguring, life threatening disease, and quite another to participate in propaganda for the sake of advancing the gay lifestyle.  I want to do the first; I most certainly have no intention of doing the second.