I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…

Let me point out that these homosexuals are Nazis.  And I mean that LITERALLY, given the historic connection between the rise of Nazism and homosexuality and that Nazism would not have risen had it NOT BEEN for homosexuals who served as Hitler’s brownshirted stormtrooper thugs and beat down the opposition.

And nothing has changed.  Homosexuals are every bit as violent and as hateful as ever.  Look at the history of the “gay rights” movement.  Their “movement” began with violence at Stonewall and the White Night riots.  Today our prisons are CLOGGED with violent and vicious homosexuals who rape one another every chance they get.  And homosexual domestic violence is FAR higher than among heterosexual couples.  Even studies that are clearly pro-gay acknowledge this fact.  Gays routinely threaten violence against those who don’t agree with them.

Nazism has its philosophical roots in philosophical worldviews that abandoned truth.  And once truth is dismissed as a possibility, anything and everything is allowed to fill the void.  And homosexuals have that in common with the Nazis, in that the philosophical systems they cling to abandon any and all notion of “truth” as held by classical foundationalism.  It really is no surprise that the two (homosexuality and Nazism) would be so inextricably inter-connected.  I documented this (liberal) philosophical worldview in depth six years ago as Obama was getting elected and these people have obviously become even worse since then.  There are so many examples of it happening it is beyond unreal.

Back on November 22, 2008 I wrote this article: Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

These people are true fascists.  They are identical to the Nazis – especially the homosexual Nazis who BEGAN Nazism in the first place.

And with that, here we are, detailing AGAIN how homosexuals act identically with NAZIS as they clearly haven’t changed one damn bit, have they?

MSNBC Panel Members Find ‘Disturbing Level’ of Gay Rights Interest in ‘Targeting People’
By Brad Wilmouth | April 19, 2014 | 16:27

On the Friday, April 18, All In show, during a discussion of the firing of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for simply donating to a political campaign opposing same-sex marriage, guest Richard Kim of the far left The Nation magazine intoned that he found it “disturbing” that gay activist friends of his have expressed interest in “targeting” more people who have made similar donations, and who have declared they should “find out where they live.” Kim:

Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level of targeting people.

Hayes, who had earlier expressed reservations about Eich’s firing, exclaimed, “Yes,” to Kim’s view that such talk was “disturbing.”

As he brought up the discussion, the MSNBC host seemed skeptical of the former Mozilla CEO’s firing: “And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded.”

A bit later, as panel member and MSNBC host Karen Finney defended the practice of pressuring company heads about their political views, Hayes brought up President Obama’s previous history of opposing same-sex marriage. Hayes: “Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.”

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, April 18, All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold:

CHRIS HAYES: So here’s the other interesting part of this, and I want to use this to segue to the Brendan Eich story because what you hear and see here are changing social norms, right? It is legal in South Carolina to fire someone because they’re gay. Increasingly, that is not viewed as socially acceptable, right? And rightly so. We agree everyone at the table agrees that is wrong.

But, now, there’s also social norms about whether it is socially acceptable to have the belief that gay folks can’t get married or to oppose gay equality. And this came to a head in the tale of Brendan Eich, who was the CEO of the firm, Mozilla, which makes a very popular Web browser. People found out that he had given a contribution to the wrong side in Prop 8, which was the anti-equality side. It was in a public record.

And there was a campaign that basically got rid of him, basically saying this is an unacceptable view for the CEO of a major firm to have. And there was part of me that did not know how to feel about how this whole thing unfolded. What was your thinking?

RICHARD KIM, THE NATION: Yeah, so I, first of all, say I don’t think anybody’s rights were violated.

HAYES: Nobody has a right to be a CEO.

KIM: Right, exactly, exactly. I do, on the level of proportion, question this. So this guy gave one $1,000 donation six years ago to a campaign that 7 million Californians voted for, that 6,500 people gave a donation at his level or higher. Mozilla has an anti-gay discrimination policy. He had no intent to change that. Marriage in California is settled law.

So there’s a question of whether or not all the sort of fury targeted at him and this one sort of, you know, attempt to oust him is in proportion to any threat that he represents to gay people in the future.

CATHY HENNA, LGBT ACTIVIST: It’s somehow, it’s how the culture works, too. This is a major tech company in Northern California, and, you know, as we were talking about before, you know, this is not just about gay people anymore. This is about allies. I mean, the second this went on social media, on Facebook, on Twitter, people just find this unacceptable. It’s no longer acceptable to be anti-gay.

HAYES: But did they find it unacceptable, there was a weird kind of advertising of one’s own enlightenment that this was part of. You know what I mean? It felt to me a little bit like, “I can like this, I can get behind this because this is a kind of, it’s no skin off my back, you know? Like, I don’t care who the CEO of Mozilla is.” And this shows — that’s what conservatives were saying, right? Conservatives were saying that this is basically hounding people, this is totally “il-liberal.”

HENNA: (INAUDIBLE) -to say that when it works for them because what their big thing is, “Oh, it’s about the free market.” Well, in this case it was the free market. People are making decisions about what they do and what they buy and what the organizations and the companies they support and the decisions they make as consumers voting with their wallets based on the leadership of those companies.

KAREN FINNEY, MSNBC HOST: It’s the little bit of power that we have as consumers. And you hear Karl Rove and the right wing. What do they always say about the companies that give to right-wing causes. We don’t want to have to publish our names. They’re afraid of a backlash. Well, guess what: I can decide I don’t want to spend my money at, with your company if I don’t approve how you spend that money. I can decide-

HAYES: Barack Obama in 2008 was opposed to marriage equality.

FINNEY: And he still got elected, you know, that’s the process.

HAYES: The point, but this guy gave them-

KIM: Here’s a disturbing thing. I did ask some of my gay activist friends, I was like, “Look, here’s a list; 6,500 people gave the same amount that he did or more in California. Should we go down the list and sort of start targeting all these people?” And I asked this facetiously, and people were like, “Let’s do it. Let’s find out where those people live. It’s all-” To me, that’s a disturbing level-

HAYES: Yes.

KIM: -of targeting people.

FINNEY:  But is part of it because Prop 18 is so, it became such a heated issue in this country, and it sort of became, I think, and it is a sort of either you’re on the right side or the wrong side, and, ironically, even the lawyer in the case has been evolving as he’s planning his daughter’s wedding.

I defy you liberals to show me ONE case of a corporate board firing their CEO because he gave money to the “No on Prop 8” campaign.  Because that never happened.  Only the LEFT is capable of that kind of rabid fascist intolerance.

In the same vein, show me ONE case of “Yes on 8” supporters viciously targeting their opponents the way the homosexual liberals did.

Who has been caught over and over and over again being rabidly intolerant of allowing people to have free speech?  The left.  Who routinely shouts down speakers if they don’t agree with those speakers to prevent ideas from being presented?  The left.  Who obeys the dog whistle whenever it is blown by chanting slogans rather than engaging in debate?  The left.  Who has been caught over and over again attempting to indoctrinate students in what amount to unhinged political rants in college/university classrooms (hell, this garbage happens all the damn time – here’s another one) and even in public elementary schools?  The left.  Who actually used the IRS as a thug ideological force to punish people with whom they politically disagreed?  The left.  Who systematically suppresses journalists?  The left.  The left is simply and purely intrinsically fascist.

Do you want to know which side routinely “outs” homosexuals publicly?  The left.  You see, certain homosexuals have decided that outing homosexuals is “a moral act, a means to prevent gays from participating in their own oppression.”

That is the essence of who these people are: YOU don’t have any rights; THEY have all the rights.  You have the right to sit down and shut up while they impose their agenda on you.  And if you don’t like it, they’ll come after you with a viciousness and a rabid hate that is beyond stunning.

The thing about the left is that they are pathologically incapable of seeing themselves for what they truly are.  They are your classic projectionists: the more rabidly intolerant they become, the more they project their own viciousness onto their enemies.  And since these people are true fascists, and with true fascists the end always justifies the means, this rabid hate and intolerance that is THEIRS but which they hypocritically project onto their opponents “justifies” them to be more and more evil and use any and every means to attack.

And just like the brutal Nazi stormtrooper thugs who used every tactic to ensure that their opponents were intimidated – if not physically beaten – into silence, the homosexual left is showing that they are the same damn Nazis they were in the 1930s.

 

Disgusted Top Gay Blogger Says ‘Obama Campaign Asked Me to Do ‘Dirty Work’ in 2008, and I Did’

When Obama wants dirty work done, he turns to someone he can later discard like just another used condom after the nastiest of nasty acts of gay sex.

Top Gay Blogger John Aravosis: Obama Campaign Asked Me to Do ‘Dirty Work’ in 2008, and I Did
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 | Kristinn

Leading gay blogger John Aravosis, writing today at his Americablog about White House spokesman Robert Gibbs attacking inside the beltway progressive critics of Barack Obama, like Aravosis, let slip that he performed surreptitious “dirty work” for Obama at the behest of his 2008 presidential campaign:

Joe and I are upset with Obama, and we, for example, raised nearly $43,000 for the man, According to the White House, our money now doesn’t count. Great, would they like to give it back? I for one, would love the $1000 back that I personally donated to the Obama campaign. Joe gave even more. I suspect a lot of our readers wouldn’t mind their contributions back too, since apparently they’re not appreciated.

Then there’s all that work we did for the campaign, all the dirty work they asked us to do – and we did it, gladly, and quietly – none of that counted either, apparently.

Presumably, the “Joe” who Aravosis mentions his Americablog’s deputy editor Joe Sudbay.

Aravosis does not detail the “dirty work” he and “Joe” did for the Obama campaign, however he has earned a reputation for despicable, life destroying behavior against political opponents.

Aravosis gained prominence earlier this decade for outing closeted homosexuals who did not follow the liberal homosexual agenda.

Act like a tool, get used like a fool.

Here’s the story that is posted on the last link above that might exemplify the “dirty work” Aravosis performed at Obama’s request:

March 29, 2005
The Gay-Outing Terrorists of the Left: The ‘Gayjahidiin’

Thanks to the terrorist tactics of the gay-outing left, The Gay Patriot has been silenced. Darleen calls this Leftist jihadism. I think the term gayjahidin is apt.

The tactics used by John Aravosis (Americablog) and Michael Rogers (BlogActive-Raw Story) have become more and more disgusting with time. Recently, we noted in a series of posts that the two have teamed up to ‘out’ Republican National Committee Chair, Ken Mehlman.

Now, the pair have sunk to an even lower low–if that is possible to imagine. Gay Patriot likened the two to ‘terrorists’. What did it get the anonymous gay-blogger? According to Outlet Radio:

According to GayPatriot, who is also a client of mine, Michael Rogers called GayPatriot’s place of employment on Friday immediately following the post above and spoke to GayPatriot’s secretary and boss. GayPatriot had no idea Rogers would go to such measures and shared with me that both he and his secretary were very upset by the calls but that his boss was understanding.

Rogers excuse for calling Gay Patriot’s boss?

Rogers expressed feeling threatened by the post and compared it to posts by anti-abortionists who posted the names of doctors performing them.

That is how threatening people behave, not those that feel threatened.

Rogers later instigated a police investigation and demanded from Gay Patriot’s webhost that his site be taken down (check the update).

As Rob at Say Anything puts it:

They’re telling us, with their actions, that if you’re gay in this country you can not support the Republican party or any aspect of the political right and if you do support that sort of thing you will be persecuted.

He also points me to Lime Sherbert who was appparently also a victim of the gayjahidin

Jay Tea over at Wizbang adds:

So, let’s sum things up: the attitude of conservatives towards gays is “do whatever the hell you want, just keep it in private. And no, you aren’t getting married, so forget about that.” The liberals say “we’re all for you, we’ll give you whatever you want, just so long as you do exactly as we say. Otherwise, we’ll fry your faggot asses — and not in a way you’ll like.”

The left keeps using that word tolerance. I do not think that word means what they think it means.

Update: Emperor Misha barks in and points me to Lime Sherbert’s banner. You can check it out here.

A couple of things.  One: I’m not out to defend homosexuality.  Two: I’m not out to personally destroy them as human beings, either.  Even the ones with whom I most disagree.

The activities of these liberal homosexuals to personally destroy conservative (or at least Republican) homosexuals is similar to an earlier effort that slimebag liberal gay activists unleashed against Prop 8 donors.

This kind of crap goes right to the heart of why the phrase “liberal fascism” is so legitimate.  And the term “Gayjahidiin” is accurate.

Apparently liberal gay activist John Aravosis screwed and hurt fellow gays to advance the Obamafuhrer agenda, and now he’s upset that they won’t give him the correct time of day.  Poor, poor thug.

Aravosis and the many liberal gay activists like him are more than thugs; they are hard-core fascists who routinely shout-down those with whom they disagree even as they themselves demand that they be heard.

I’m kind of reminded of this happening once before: In the events previous to and during “The Night of the Long Knives” during Hitler’s Nazi’s regime.

Ernst Rohm and his homosexual-dominated SA were purged in the most brutal and homicidal way after their usefulness to Hitler was at an end.

Many homosexuals have pointed out that Hitler persecuted homosexuals, and that they were actually victims of Nazism.  And this is true.  But they didn’t start out as victims; they started out as tools of Nazism.  Nazis themselves, who oppressed and persecuted others.  And then when their usefulness was over, Hitler eliminated them.

This was the same as Hitler’s use of avant-garde art prior to his persecution of avant-garde artists.  While Nazism was rising to power, it was revolutionary, and it permitted and even encouraged other revolutionists to serve the cause of Nazism.  But after taking total control, Nazism – revolutionary as it had been during its rise – became the new regime.  And the totalitarian regime would tolerate no rivals, and no other voices.  Thus the once revolutionary Nazis became profoundly anti-revolutionary.

And it was exactly the same with the communists.  They were very encouraging of expressions against the established order when they were trying to bring down the established order.  But once they were in power, they persecuted every voice that wasn’t exactly the same as their own.

The problem with Ernst Rohm and the SA weren’t that they weren’t “Nazi” enough; the problem was that they were too radical for Hitler’s political position as he tried to consolidate his power.  They were TOO Nazi, too unwilling to yield to Hitler’s toned-down rhetoric as he tried to reach other groups during his rise to power.  As an example, they wanted to kill all the Jews before Hitler was ready to kill all the Jews.

This is why we have the phrase “Useful idiots.”  And why it was a Stalin who coined it for us.

Like Hitler and like Stalin, Barack Obama was willing to use and encourage homosexuals to slavishly work for him and assist him in his rise to power.  But now it’s HIS regime, and he doesn’t want to do anything that will in any way undercut his regime.

Homosexuals were instrumental to Hitler’s rise to power.  Hitler NEVER would have made it without them.  Ernst Rohm brought Hitler into the Nazi Party and then protected him with his SA Brownshirts as he captivated audiences with his rabid speeches about the wonders of socialism.  Homosexuals love to whine about what victims they were during the Holocaust, but they got just what they deserved; not merely because homosexuality is wicked and perverted, but because there never would have BEEN a Holocaust that consumed the lives of six million Jews and sixty million worldwide in the war Hitler started without homosexuals.  Homsexuals complaining they were victims of Hitler’s Holocaust are like vicious children who slaughtered their parents and then demanded leniency because for God’s sake, they’re orphans, aren’t they?

And thus we have our own version of the SA today, and our own version of Ernst Rohm in John Aravosis.  Obama found homosexual thugs like John Aravosis to persecute and oppress others.  Eventually he will find other thugs to identify, isolate, freeze and escalate marginalizing actions upon the John Aravosises of the world.  Only Obama is too big to fail, on Obama’s view of the world.

One way or another, these slime who deliberately hunt down and harm others to advance their radical political agenda will ultimately get theirs.

Prop 8: Contemptuous Judge Overturns Will Of Both God And The People

Here’s the latest story of judicial abuse:

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

“Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.

This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California.  There’s a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”  Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

For the official record, Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.

Just one of Jefferson’s comments about such “judges” as Vaughn Walker:

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Thus this isn’t judicial activism; it’s judicial DESPOTISM.

The people no longer have any real power in this country.  Some unelected judge overturned the will of the people in Arizona by substituting her own ridiculous reasoning for the law.  Now this.  And soon states like Missouri – which issued a 71%-to-29% smackdown to ObamaCare – will likewise fall prey to judicial despotism.  Why even bother to vote when your will is continually overturned by despotism?  Of course, that’s exactly how liberal fascists want you to think.  They want you to give up.  Because socialism is only accepted by an apathetic, defeated people.

Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:

“Equal protection”? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?

A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him – the same as me.  There’s your “equal protection.”  On a platter.

If a gay man doesn’t want to take advantage of that, then that’s his loss.  But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation – or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period – is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.

How about the concept of “due process”? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process?  All it does is create undue process.  How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying?  If you can redefine the “one man and one woman thing,” why can’t you redefine the “two people” thing?  And by what objective standard that can never be overturned?  And if three people can marry, why can’t fifteen or more?  Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?

The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can’t marry her Great Dane?  Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter?  Why can’t I marry my canary?

And you’d better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they’ll probably be legal next month.

Gays want the right to marry.  The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys.  Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.

The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents’ consent.  That’s a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place.  Why not give NAMBLA what it wants?  It’s not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right?  That’s the argument we keep hearing, so let’s be consistent.  Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections.  Gay marriage proponents have none.  If I’m wrong, then just finish this thought: “A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because…”.  And don’t say that it won’t ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.

The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: “How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?”

That one really isn’t very hard to answer.

For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed.  I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?

Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place.  And the fact of the matter is that they AREN’T bothering to get married.  Because marriage is being destroyed.

When a young man today says “I do” in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents’ parents, and his parents’ parents’ parents – going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).

We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage.  And God said:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

“Shall cleave to his WIFE” – not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.

Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body – it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.

Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.

So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage.  Because it destroys the very concept of marriage.

Only Democrat Politicians, Activist Judges, And (Of Course) Beelzebub Support Gay Marriage

A snippet from The New York Times pretty much says it all:

Supporters of the [gay] marriage law, which the Legislature approved in May, have far more money and ground troops than opponents, who have been led by the Roman Catholic Church. Yet most polls show the two sides neck and neck, suggesting that gay couples here, as in California last year, could lose the right to marry just six months after they gained it.

Although Maine’s population is a tiny fraction of California’s and the battle here has been comparatively low profile, it comes at a crucial point in the same-sex marriage movement. Still reeling from last year’s defeat in California, gay-rights advocates say a defeat here could further a perception that only judges and politicians embrace same-sex marriage.

If Maine’s law is upheld, however, it would be the movement’s first victory at the ballot box; voters in about 30 states have banned same-sex marriage.

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont allow gay couples to marry, but courts and legislatures, not voters, made it possible.

“It’s a defining moment,” said Marc Mutty, chairman of Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the repeal effort. “What happens here in Maine is going to have a mushrooming effect on the issue at large.”

The people have now spoken thirty-one times.  And thirty-one times out of thirty-one times, the people have rejected gay marriage.

I think the gay activists have it right: only Democrat politicians and activist judges support gay marriage (I added the part about Beelzebub in my title, assuming that gay marriage advocates simply overlooked their biggest supporter).

These are people who care about democracy about as much as I care about liberalism: they actively despise it.

Gay activists used the most vile sort of intimidation tactics following their Prop 8 defeat in California.  They did the same thing in Washington state, targeting people who exercised their rights as citizens for boycotts, threats, and worse.

And, yeah, they have been trying to pick up the same fascist tactic in Maine.  And here’s what’s going on:

In addition to the fierce battle over the referendum itself, there has been another bitter fight: One over whether the names of the more than 120,000 people who signed a petition to get the referendum on the ballot should be made public.

On one side of the debate is Larry Stickney, the campaign manager of Protect Marriage Washington and one of the main people who got the referendum, known as Referendum 71, on the ballot. Stickney opposes releasing the names, arguing that doing so opens signatories up to intimidation and harassment.

In an interview, Stickney said he has been hit with “numerous death threats,” threatening phone calls in the middle of the night, and “obscene, vile emails” for being the public face of his cause.

“We’ve feared for our children’s lives,” he said.

Stickney characterized the people who signed the petition are “a bunch of little old ladies and nice people who go to church,” and said that “obviously we want to protect them from this kind of thing.”

He added that efforts to release the names amounted to a modern-day version of voter intimidation.

If I may wax philosophical for a moment.  The gay community practices a form of philosophical irrationalism, because they have abandoned the objective moral absolutes which have provided every other culture in history some semblance of moral order.  The eclipse of such moral absolutes has created an exclusive emphasis upon experience and subjectivity.

The problem of such moral irrationalism is that there are no longer any criteria for judgment.  If there are no transcendent absolutes by which one can evaluate experiences or beliefs, then ANY experience or belief can be invested with such transcendent meaning.  There is no basis for saying one idea is true and another false.  There is no basis for insisting that a particular moral principle – for example, that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, or, for that matter, that one ought not to murder Jews – is universally binding.

No culture has ever embraced homosexual marriage.

Homosexuals argue that their quest to impose gay marriage upon a society that clearly does not want it is a humanitarian quest for “civil rights,” and therefore good.  But when the wellsprings of irrationalism are released, human beings have a marked tendency to lurch to authoritarianism, violence, and self-destruction.  Just as homosexuals are proving yet again as they target law-abiding citizens for persecution.  The religious confessional doctrine of original sin accounts for the way that laudable ideals and noble-sounding goals can quickly turn vicious.

President Obama recently signed “hate crimes” legislation protecting gays in a bill that was ostensibly supposed to provide funding for our troops.  [This amounts to another proof that Democrat politicians are determined to impose their will upon the people, rather than allow their people to impose their will upon the politicians].

But the despicable reality is that if people need to be protected against hate crimes, it is the people who need to be protected FROM gays.

Liberal Blackshirts: Card Check and Carrie Prejean

At the core of representative democracy is the idea of the secret ballot: when you go into the booth to vote, you vote YOUR values and YOUR will; not the values and will of someone who is out to intimidate you into voting any other way.

But Democrats and unions think that kind of individual freedom is dangerous and unfair: better that everyone be forced to vote openly and publicly, so that their version of the fascist blackshirts can pay a visit to their home and “persuade” them to vote their way.

‘Card Check’ in Action
Matt Milner works as a “tracker” for the Colorado Republican Party: He follows Sen. Michael Bennet, a newly appointed Democrat, around and videotapes his public appearances. The Denver Post reports what happened when he went to an AFL-CIO meeting where Bennet was speaking Saturday:

Milner, with his tripod and video camera, garnered the attention of event organizers just as Bennet bid his adieu to hundreds of audience members, some of whom had grown passionate over politically tricky labor issues, such as the Employee Free Choice Act. . . .

The 5-foot-6-inch Milner found himself surrounded as the event wound down, he said.

“This hulking guy comes flying at me, and he’s yelling ‘Who are you with?’ There’s a flurry of F-words,” Milner said. “They circled around me. I’d try to move, and they’d move to block my path.”

[Mike] Cerbo [executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO], one of the five men who spoke to Milner after Bennet’s speech, disputed that version of events Sunday. He said the young interloper was aggressive and tried to provoke a confrontation, though he declined to say how.

“He came in uninvited. . . . I’d call him a trespasser,” Cerbo said. “He didn’t get the incident he wanted, so he’s clearly lying about what happened.”

Milner says the men demanded that he erase his recording, and one of them took his camera, while Cerbo claims, in the Post’s words, that he “offered to erase his tape because he hadn’t been invited to the event.” No one disputes that Milner was outnumbered, or that it was he who called 911.

If this is what happens to a man at a public event, what do you expect a woman to do when these guys show up at her house with a card to sign?

That WOULD be an excellent question: “What DO you expect a woman to do when these guys show up at her house with a card to sign?”  Except we ALREADY have our answer, thanks to UAW card check thuggery.

A working mom was repeatedly intimidated by union organizers.  They approached her going to work, leaving work, at breaks, at lunches, saying, “You’ve got to sign this card.  We’ve got to have your information.”  Telling them “NO” meant nothing to them.  They came to her house.  They waited outside.  She had two small children in the house.  She said, “We have a secure vote to elect the president; why can’t we have one when it comes to our paycheck and our home and everything else?”  She also said, “If this is my livelihood we should be able to have a choice – and card check isn’t a choice.”

The same intimidation happened to workers at Dana Corp. in Albion, Indiana when UAW organizers came to harass and intimidate them.

‘Card Check’ is flagrantly undemocratic and unAmerican – and so are the liberals who are trying to push it onto working people.

Meanwhile, we are learning that our new president is just as much of a union thug as the union thugs.  He’s refusing to allow banks to repay loans that many of them were pressured to accept in the first place.  The Obama administration is literally threatening investors who hold secured Chrysler bonds.  La Cosa Nostra has moved into the White House.

You might find the following unrelated.  I personally believe it is just another example of the same sort of ‘Card Check”-like crap that the left is trying to shove down our throats in the name of warped and redefined “fairness” and “tolerance.”

This kind of ruthless assault on people’s private beliefs being “outed” – and attacked if it doesn’t measure up to the left’s agenda – goes on all the time.

The campaign against Miss California Carrie Prejean is an example of this liberal pressure by intimidation.  Similar to what liberals want to do through Card Check, Carrie Prejean was forced to answer a question by a liberal that she clearly would never have wanted to publicly answer while running for the crown in a beauty pageant.  For a liberal, Perez Hilton’s question was a chance to shine with the politically correct answer that beauty pageants thrive upon; for a conservative, it amounted to being forced to answer the McCarthyesque question, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Christian?”

Prejean gave her honest answer.  And you would have thought she had said she liked eating babies (when we all know it’s liberals who favor baby meat).  And thus the left pounced, following the lead of the homosexual activist who forced this issue by demanding Prejean answer his question (only to call her “a stupid bitch” because he didn’t like her answer).

Media Matters called Prejean “dishonest” because she said, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.”  On their view, every state that doesn’t allow homosexual marriage doesn’t allow their citizens to choose.  But in fact, THEY are the ones who are throwing out falsehoods: Carrie Prejean – as Miss California – represents a state where citizens CHOSE to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Then came the beauty pageant blackshirts to get Prejean to “reconsider” her answer:

Miss California Carrie Prejean, who became the bombshell of the Miss USA pageant by saying gay couples should not be allowed to marry, said her state sponsors urged her to apologies afterward but she rejected the advice.

Ms Prejean, 21, said officials from the Miss California USA pageant were worried that her comments would cost their contest financial backing and tried to prepare her for a string of post-pageant media interviews by discouraging her from discussing her religious beliefs.

“You need to apologize to the gay community. You need to not talk about your faith. This has everything to do with you representing California and saving the brand,” Ms Prejean recalled being told.

Prejean has since had her private medical records exposed and “outed” for having had breast implant surgery.  There was nothing improper with this; pageant officials actually paid for the procedure.  It was nothing more than harassment.

And listen to how MSNBC went after her – and realize – for nothing more than providing her honest answer to a question that was forced on her:

OLBERMANN: There it is here, Miss California is opposed to same-sex marriage, which is at least marriage between two human beings, but she has fully endorsed now marriage between a man and a woman who is partially made out of plastic.

MUSTO: Well, she’s dumb and twisted. She’s sort of like a human Klaus Barbie Doll. I mean, you tell Perez Hilton you’re against gay marriage? That’s like telling Simon Cowell you’re against screeching a show tune. This is the kind of girl who sits on the TV and watches the sofa. You know, she thinks innuendo is a Italian suppository.

Can I keep going? On the pageants now, they really should have easier questions, like what’s your middle name or what show was Seinfeld on. I mean, this girl’s a ding-dong. I didn’t even like her earrings.

OLBERMANN: The cruelest cut of all. The outcomes here, too. Perez Hilton looks like an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights leader. And the new poster girl against same-sex marriage is not just a boob, but a fake boob. This is a real win for this cause, is it not?

MUSTO: Well, Perez is the new me, let’s leave him alone. And using the C word is something I wouldn’t do. But yes, Carrie Prejean, however you say it, she’s getting something off her chest. But what she really needs to get off is the price tag there.

The “girl” was dumb and a ding-dong, Michael Musto explained, as he struggled with her last name. (Olbermann fake-mispronounced her name too, right at the start of the segment. He added the fact that the girl is a boob.) Did we mention that Prejean’s position on the issue at hand resembles that of almost all major Dems? Resembles that of President Obama, to cite just one example?

At any rate, the boys went on and on—and on—with their clever boob jokes. Musto proved he was a progressive when he announced that he wouldn’t call Prejean a “c*nt” (or even a “b*tch,” one might assume), as Perez Hilton has done. Because the gentlemen were so clever, we offer you more of their minstrelsy:

OLBERMANN: Now, the moral in this is what? Never cross a beauty pageant official who knows you’ve had implants?

MUSTO: Yes, exactly, that’s it. This has escalated to a public shaving. I mean, and what Moakler has left out, Keith, is they also paid for Carrie to cut off her penis, and sand her Adam’s Apple and get a head-to-toe waxing. I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man, who liked marriage so much he did it three times. Now he’s a babe who needs a brain implant. Maybe they could inject some fat from her butt. Oh, they have?

How could Keith Olbermann or Musto have been more vicious or more vile?  If this isn’t the kind of propaganda attack that would have made Nazi Joseph Goebbels proud, I don’t know what is.  They certainly have been doing everything they could to dehumanize her and make her an object of mockery and hate.

One might ask where the feminists were to defend this strong, independent, successful woman who is being so attacked just for having the courage to stand up for her convictions.  But feminist Gloria Feldt actually used the same reasoning in attacking Carrie Prejean as a fake person with breast implants when she came on the O’Reilly Factor.

Even as activists who could care less about the intent of the voters immediately went to work nullifying the will of Californians so they could impose their own will.

They immediately flooded the courts so that a few judges could throw out the will of Californians.  It’s not about the will of the people.  Liberals don’t give a damn about the will of the people.  All they care about is power, and their ability to impose their will upon the people by any means necessary.

But even more to the point: they used vile intimidation tactics to punish people for their “Yes” vote on Prop 8.  Threats, harassment, intimidation, vandalism.  Homosexual blackshirts did to thousands of voters exactly what they would do to millions of workers if Card Check were to pass.

The left loves to call conservatives “fascists,” and have been shouting the label for years.  It is time they look at the mirror and recognize that THEY are the fascists, and always have been.

Fascism comes from the left, being a form of socialism.  “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei,” which means, “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”  If we had a “National Socialist American Workers’ Party,” would it be filled with conservatives or liberals?  The Nazi Party’s platform and its underlying philosophy were decidedly leftwing.

And the point is that the big labor “workers’ parties” in America are every bit as fascist as the German “workers’ party” that gave fascism such a horrible reputation in the first place.

And homosexuals themselves – who ultimately ended up being persecuted by the Nazis – were themselves instrumental in bringing about Nazi power.  It was they who filled the ranks of Ernst Roehm’s SA (also known as the stormtroopers or the Brownshirts) and brought Hitler to power.  The fact that Hitler later turned on them does nothing to mitigate that role.

The same players, playing the same fascist games, yesterday and today.  The left constantly scream and whine about being victimized, when THEY are the victimizers.  THEY are the attackers.  THEY are the sick, twisted freaks who continually harass and intimidate the innocent and the helpless to impose their will upon society whether that society be the majority or not.

Liberals and Democrats have become fascists.  If they don’t like being called “fascists,” they should quit acting like fascists and let people express their consciences in their opinions and their votes.

The Vicious Intolerance Of ‘Liberal Tolerance’ (Updated)

The heroes of the modern day liberal mindset: Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann, and Perez Hilton. In the name of tolerance, they are as intolerant as the universe is big.

Remember how liberals fallaciously attributed a quote to Thomas Jefferson that “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to provide themselves a slick teflon media cover for attacking our troops and the war they were trying to win? Mark Steyn revealed the liberal deception and the media propaganda on that issue in his piece, “America’s hardboiled newsmen can’t get enough of the Thomas Jefferbunk.” Somehow all those “wise seekers of truth” that ostensibly fill the ranks of the media weren’t able to uncover the blatant historical falsehood that one liberal after another cited. “Truth” only matters when it hurts Republicans.

Democrats got us into World War I, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into World War II, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Korea, and Republicans supported them. Democrats got us into Vietnam, and Republicans supported them. It is long-standing tradition to support a nation and its leaders in time of war. And, so, yeah, Republicans were rather bitter when Democrats – given that 29 of 50 Democrat Senators voted FOR the Iraq War; and given the many statements they had made in support of the need to confront and remove Saddam Hussein (see also here and here) – literally proclaimed defeat, pronounced our innocent soldiers as war criminals and cold-blooded murderers, and labeled Bush a liar and a war criminal.

“Highest form of patriotism”? Is THAT what the “highest form of patriotism” looks like? Do ya think? If Abraham Lincoln (a Republican, by the way) had been president instead of Bush, he would have thrown these rat bastards in jail for their vile undermining of a war while our troops were fighting and dying to win it.

Republicans expected bi-partisanship and support in dealing with a threat that both Republicans and Democrats had repeatedly recognized after the worst terrorist attack in history; what they got was unrelenting political backstabbing and demonization. And all in the name of “patriotism.” And how DARE we question them?

Well, liberals NEW butchery of history and truth is, “Dissent WAS the highest form of patriotism.” Now it’s suddenly become the lowest form of treason.

Rather than going to the lowest low of attempting to undermine a commander-in-chief and a military in time of war – a war which they had demonstrably supported when it suited them – conservatives today are decrying the fact that we are spending ourselves into a future financial catastrophe that will dwarf anything we’ve ever seen unless we STOP.

WASHINGTON – The federal government and the Federal Reserve have committed $12.8 trillion in spending so far to bailouts and “stimulus” packages – an amount nearly equal to the value of everything produced in the U.S. in 2008.

That’s the report from Bloomberg News about efforts to reduce the economic drag of a debt-based recession – the worst financial crisis to hit the U.S. since the Great Depression.

The numbers are growing so fast, it’s tough for most Americans to grasp.

Were the Tea Parties a politically-motivated hatchet job, as liberals and their lackeys in the media kept reporting? In a word, no. The liberals making this claim offered two contradictory straw men. They claimed that 1) the Tea Parties were a Republican- and Fox News-organized event even as 2) they refused to listen to the statements of those whom they claimed were behind the event.

As an example, when demonstrators confronted CNN’s Susan Roesgen for her biased reporting and presentation of the Chicago Tea Party event as an attempt to attack Barack Obama, a woman pointed just a couple of feet away and asked, “Did you look at his sign?”

You can see the woman’s finger pointing at the sign (at 4:02 into the video), and the head in the bottom right of the frame is Susan Roesgen’s. And even when she was FORCED to look at the sign, Roesgen didn’t acknowledge it; it simply didn’t conform to the liberal narrative, and therefore had to be ignored.

Another video from the Greenville Tea Party shows Tea Party protestors roundly booing Republican Congressman Gresham Barrett, who had voted for the first stimulus under George Bush. A comment left on the video by “Liberty4Ever” summed it up:

I guess Barrett didn’t get the message that the TEA Parties are non-partisan events, and weasels who vote for wasteful Big Government “stimulus” and socialist bailouts. He probably knows not to speak at another of these events. There will probably be tar and feathers waiting for him!

So the unrelenting portrayal by the liberal media machine that these were “rightwing” or “conservative” or “Republican” or “Fox News” events is simply propaganda and demagoguery out to marginalize a massive outpouring of popular – and bipartisan – sentiment.

And they weren’t merely mischaracterizing the Tea Parties and disingenuously creating a straw man in an attempt to marginalize them. They were downright hateful and evil.

Failed AirAmerica radio host Janeane Garofalo was allowed to appear on MSNBC‘s Countdown and say:

This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?

It would have been bad enough if Garofalo were just some blogger spewing her hate; but she is high-profile member of the liberal establishment in good standing appearing on a major news program to offer her commentary. And just what could she have said about the Tea Party participants that could have been any more hateful?

Keith Olbermann was merely one among many “journalists” who repeatedly characterized the Tea Party participants with the crudest sexual innuendo and insults. He said, “Well, the teabagging is all over, except for the cleanup. And that will be my last intentional double entendre on this one at least until the end of this segment.” But then – vicious liar that he is – Olbermann couldn’t help himself, and said, “Congratulations, Pensacola teabaggers. You got spunked. And despite the hatred on display, a few of you actually violated the penal code. But teabagging is now petered out, taint what it used to be.”

After all the crude, vicious, and hateful sexual innuendo, Olbermann actually had the gall to say of the Tea Party protesters, “And then there were the protest messages, seething with hate.”

“Seething with hate” means no riots. “Seething with hate” means no violence. “Seething with hate” means one or two demonstrators got tickets for jaywalking. Gregg Gutfeld had a humorous piece featuring hateful video from LEFTIST protesters, and said, “Oh, sorry. Wrong tape.” He pointed out:

Yep, those look like real extremists. Actually, they look like people who own riding mowers.

Fact is, I could find only one arrest among the hundreds of demonstrations that took place across the country. Sure, I didn’t look too hard — but still: Why is that not the story of the day?

I mean, not one person threw a chair through a store window. But that’s probably because that person owns the chair or the store or it could be a chair store.

I’ll tell you why the nonviolence wasn’t the story of the day: because it doesn’t conform to the liberal narrative. “Seething with hate” works better for them. Whether it’s true or not frankly doesn’t matter in this “brave new journalism.”

The hatred, anger, fear, and paranoia on the left is obvious: How DARE these people exercise their right to free speech and peaceful assembly to protest the bloated government socialism that we liberals love so much. Why aren’t our SS troops not doing something to STOP them!?!? You have to wonder how their heads don’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions: On the one hand they trivialize the Tea Parties as being no big deal, while on the other hand they use the most over-the-top and hateful language imaginable to describe them; on the one hand they call conservatives the haters, while on the other hand they can’t help but reveal that it is THEY who are the real haters.

The only people truly “seething with hate” are liberals like Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There’s your hate. And all offered from the perspective of “tolerant” liberals loathing the “intolerance” of conservatives.

And, of course, liberals like Perez Hilton. Let’s watch the videos of Hilton and Miss California and decide who is tolerant, and who is a vicious hater.

Poor girl. She might as well have been a Jew with Adolf Hitler or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the panel.

Miss California presented herself well, and gave voice to a position on gay marriage that was proven to be the one held by the majority of voters in her state. But the left could care less about the will of the people or tolerance or anything but their agenda; which is why they embarked on a hateful campaign to punish the people who didn’t agree with them in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote.

“Tolerance” for a liberal means crushing, punishing, or intimidating all opposition by any means available. When every voice but their own are silenced, there is “tolerance.”

Let’s just be clear on which side is truly “seething with hate.”

If you really want to find out what “seething with hate” really looks like, why not reflect on the words of Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual guide for 23 years?

Update April 22:

It occurred to me to wonder how – for all of her racist invective against conservatives – Janeane Garofalo felt about conservative blacks.  It didn’t take long to find out:

Youtube link (accessed here).

Garofalo attacks Michael Steele as a black man for being a conservative.  It is a racist attack if there ever was one.  Michael Steele is the chairman of the Republican National Committee – a powerful and prestigious position – but as far as Garofalo is concerned, she needs to put that negro in his place.  And as this psychotic gargoyle is spewing this poison, who’s sitting with her but Keith Olbermann?

If Condoleezza Rice were president, does anyone seriously think this unhinged witch would have supported her?  And precisly how does Janeane Garofalo feel toward our only black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas?  Oh, yeah, that’s right: he’s a stupid negro with Stockholm Syndrome, kissing the feet of his massahs.

How dare this racist bigot call me or anyone else a “racist”?

And let me also say a little more about Carrie Prejean, Miss California and the hate that she encountered.

On yesterday’s “Bill O’Reilly” program, Wayne Besen, a founder of a gay rights group and author of a book entitled, “Anything but Straight,” was on the program, and said of Miss California, Carrie Prejean:

WAYNE BESEN, FOUNDER OF GAY RIGHTS GROUP, TRUTH WINS OUT: I think it is fair. When she made those comments, she entered the political arena. And she’s entitled to make those comments. and I applaud her for having the courage to do so. However, when you do that, people are going to be offended. She said no offense, I was offended. Millions of other people were offended.

No!  NOT, you bigot!

Gay activist Perez Hilton asked the following question, which as a contestant Miss California had absolutely no choice but to answer:

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

And Carrie Prejean’s answer was as tolerant as one could ever hope for:

Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

States have a right to choose, and Prejean is grateful for that.  But since she was asked, “Do you think every state should follow suit?  Why or why not?”  Prejean answered the QUESTION.

And homosexual activists such as Perez Hilton and Wayne Besen, who are Big Brother Stalinists, then proceed to punish and attack her for giving her thoughts on a question that they themselves had demanded she answer, and then attack her for having “entered the political arena” when the only thing she had entered was a beauty pageant.  THEY WERE THE ONES WHO DRAGGED THE POLITICAL ARENA INTO THE EVENT, AND THEN ATTACKED HER MERELY FOR EXPRESSING HER PERSONAL VIEW.

Perez Hilton went all over the internet spewing the message:

PEREZ HILTON, MISS USA JUDGE: Let me explain to you, she lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she is a dumb bitch, okay?

These people would punish the majority of Americans (and the majority of the Californians Miss California was representing) merely for having a viewpoint even as they try to use the courts to impose their lifestyle by the judicial fiat of black robed masters.

These people are the haters.  And we need to expose them for what they truly are.

Gay Rights Groups Using Vile Intimidation Tactics To Attack Prop 8 Backers

Here’s one example from before the election via the Daily Kos:

But when the church and its members invest millions of dollars in an attempt to write discrimination into my state’s constitution and divorce my friend Brian against his will, there will be hell to pay.

So what am I asking you to do?

Some distributed research.

There is a list of a bunch of Mormon donors to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign (in case that one goes down, here’s a mirror with slightly worse formatting.

Here’s what I’m asking for:

This list contains information about those who are big donors to the Yes on 8 campaign–donors to the tune of at least $1,000 dollars.  And, as you can see, there are a lot of them.  It also indicates if they’re Mormon or not.

If you’re interested in defeating the religious right and preserving marriage equality, here’s how you can help:

Find us some ammo.

Use any LEGAL tool at your disposal.  Use OpenSecrets to see if these donors have contributed to…shall we say…less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious.  If so, we have a legitimate case to make the Yes on 8 campaign return their contributions, or face a bunch of negative publicity.

There are a crapload of donors on this list–so please focus on the larger ones first.  $5,000 or more is a good threshold to start with.

Feel free to use Lexis-Nexis searches as well for anything useful, especially given that these people are using “morality” as their primary motivation to support Prop 8…if you find anything that belies that in any way…well, you know what to do.

If you find anything good, please email it to:

equalityresearch at gmail dot com.

Here’s the bottom line for me: if someone is willing to contribute thousands of dollars to a campaign to take away legal rights from some very dear friends of mine, they had damn well make sure their lives are beyond scrutiny–because I, for one, won’t take it lying down.

This one is for Brian and the millions like him all across the nation.

The list of donors whose names and towns have been published is THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of names long.  And we have a call to harass and investigate them (does the fishing expedition targeting “Joe the Plumber” ring any bells?) to hurt people and punish them for exercising their free speech rights.  How DARE Joe the Plumber ask a single honest question?  And how DARE you support something you believe in if homosexuals don’t like it?

CBS had this story about the subsequent attempt to attack, harass, and intimidate supporters of Prop 8 even after the people spoke:

(CBS) For supporters of same-sex marriage, the Election Day loss in California seems to be energizing their campaign rather than ending it.

Demonstrations against Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, have been growing, CBS News correspondent John Blackstone reports.

Now the anger is moving to the Internet, where supporters of same-sex marriage are posting blacklists – the names and businesses of those who gave money to help Proposition 8 pass.

Chris Lee, an engineer who is an immigrant from China, was shocked to see his name on the Web site AntiGayBlacklist.com after he gave $1,000 to the campaign to end same-sex marriage.

“I was completely disgusted,” Li said. “This sort of blacklist should only appear in communist countries, should not be found in the United States.”

In Los Angeles, demonstrators called for a boycott of a restaurant whose manager made a personal donation of $100 to the “Yes on 8” campaign.

“She didn’t think it would be public record,” said Jeff Yarbrough.

Anger over the blacklists brought out demonstrators in Sacramento, where Scott Eckern resigned as musical director of a local theater when he was identified as a donor.

In other words, you’d better bow down to their “rights,” or they will destroy you.  Your rights don’t matter.  Your values don’t matter.  Your religious beliefs don’t matter.  Only they matter.  And they will come after you and destroy you if they can.  All they need is the power; they already have all the hate they need.

Another story serves to frame the ugliness and hypocrisy of the “tolerant” pro-gay community:

“Since Proposition 8’s victory, a series of protests against churches, small businesses and individual supporters of traditional marriage have taken place in cities across the state,” Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, wrote in a statement. “Tragically, some opponents of Prop. 8 who claim to cherish tolerance and civil rights are unabashedly trampling on the rights of others. Protests and boycotts have taken place against a Hispanic restaurant owner in Los Angeles, African American religious leaders in the Bay Area, and a musical theater director in Sacramento, among many others.”

Robert Hoehn, vice president of Hoehn Motors in San Diego County, gave $25,000 of his own money to the Yes-on-8 campaign in February. And he called what followed “a really really ugly experience.”

Before the vote, Hoehn said, he he received “dozens and dozens and dozens of really vitriolic messages” and his Honda dealership was picketed.  Since the proposition won, he said, he has received a few messages and phone calls denouncing his support for the measure.

Another story shows the blatant racial intolerance of the gay community.  70% of blacks voted for Prop 8, along with an overwhelming majority of Hispanics:

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

Blacks who have allowed homosexuals to depict their “struggle for civil rights” in the same terms as blacks should wake up and realize something: if being gay is like being black, then it truly IS immoral to be black.  If you don’t believe me, just look at what homosexuals are saying about you.

What if we did this stuff to them?  What if we published the names and information of opponents of Prop 8, and began individually targeting them for harassment, intimidation, and worse?  What would they say about it?

Bottom line: they are counting on the complete moral superiority of the supporters of Prop 8 not to retaliate.  They single us out and target us, even as they count on us to be better than they are and not retaliate by targeting them.  But what if we did?  What if we went to these peoples’ homes and business with the same vindictive spirit of hate these people are bringing to their cause, and to our doorsteps?

These people are hateful, vile, despicable, loathsome, vindictive, wicked, depraved hypocrites who will use any means necessary to get their way.  They are already hard at work trying to get the will of the people set aside, so that a four judges can impose their agenda on 30 million people.

In other words, the Bible is completely right about them and about their “lifestyle.”  Moses was right in calling their conduct “an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).  Paul was right in describing homosexuality as the ultimate level of depravity (Romans 1:26-32).  If nothing else, they prove it to anyone willing to look by their very own conduct.

Of Homosexual Marriage And Teachers Unions

Proposition 8 is a big deal in the State of California.  The only political issue getting more campaign funding than Proposition 8 is the Presidential election itself.  If passed, it would re-impose the view of marriage overwhelmingly passed by California voters with 61% of the vote in 2000.  If it fails, homosexual marriage – which was imposed by judges ignoring the landslide result of Proposition 22 – would pass by a vote of the people.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom started the homosexual marriage ball rolling when – flouting the law he was supposed to uphold – he began to perform homosexual marriages.  Frankly Mayor Newsom should have been arrested and prosecuted.  And he would have been in any society that holds elected officials accountable to laws that other citizens are held accountable to.  Courts finally ordered him to stop, but homosexual couples waved their marriage licenses and sued.  And activist judges made homosexual marriage the law of the land by judicial fiat.

Proposition 8 – although currently slightly ahead in some polls – has faced an uphill battle, primarily because ultra-liberal Attorney General Jerry Brown re-worded the proposition to make it seem as intolerant and unpopular as he possibly could.  Rather than the statement,”only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” Brown imposed the harsher-sounding wording, “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  People are far more in favor of “defining marriage” than they are “eliminating rights.”

One of the key issues is whether schools would begin teaching homosexual marriage to children.  The supporters of Prop 8 say YES; the opponents say it’s a flat lie.

An NPR article title has the right question: “If Gay Marriage Is Allowed, Will Schools Promote It?”

Other than the documented FACT that it has already happened in Massachusetts, where kids ARE indoctrinated into homosexual marriage and the courts have ruled, “public schools are not obliged to shield students from ideas which are potentially offensive to their parents,” there is another little issue to consider that should serve to prove that schools would promote homosexual marriage: namely, the fact that the California Teachers Union is the NUMBER ONE financial supporter against the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Ask yourself one question: if teachers don’t intend to teach homosexual marriage in California schools, then why in the hell do we have this:

California’s largest teacher’s union has given another $1 million to defeat a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8.

They can’t WAIT to indoctrinate your little darlings into homosexual marriage.  They have proven complete failures at teaching children how to read, or solve simple math problems, but teaching your little boy that there’s nothing wrong with him being bent over and sodomized is another issue entirely.  They think they’d actually be pretty doggone good at teaching that.

The education “professionals” who say that California schools would not be required to teach homosexual marriage are incredibly deceptive.  In fact, schools wouldn’t have to teach homosexual marriage if and only if schools didn’t teach sex education.  It is technically true that sex education is a curriculum choice for local schools (Cal. Ed. Code 51933).  But the simple fact of the matter is that almost EVERY school teaches sex education.  And IF a local school district teaches sex education, THEN it falls under the rule that “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” (Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7)).  And that would mean teaching homosexual marriages if homosexual marriage is legal.

AND OH MY GAWD, THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT!!!

If you DON’T think teachers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of teaching sodomy to your children, then you get to explain why they are so massively funding the political campaign.

The second thing I keep hearing is, this is a human rights issue.  Well, no it isn’t.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right.  If marriage WERE a fundamental human right, then the government – which has the duty of guaranteeing human rights – would have to find me a marriage partner if I couldn’t find one myself.  After all, I have a right to be married! And if I have the right to marry who I choose, then I choose Teri Hatcher (whom I’ve always thought is real pretty).

Getting serious, if a person has a right to marry whoever he or she chooses, then how is a pedophile not having his right deprived if he wants to marry that little boy the schools got hold of and taught that it was okay to bend over and be sodomized?  What about the right of pedophiles to marry who they choose?  Isn’t age as subjective a criteria as gender?  The North American Man/Boy Love Association says they should have that right, and the same ACLU that supports gay marriage has supported NAMBLA.  NAMBLA has resolved to “end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships.”  The Man/Boy Love Association belonged to the International Lesbian and Gay Association until the latter achieved United Nations status and had to dissociate itself from NAMBLA.   But the UN-approved ILGA had itself resolved that “young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect.”  How do you allow homosexual marriage and ban man/boy marriage?  What about that weird woman who wants to marry her German Shepherd that keeps trying to hump peoples’ legs?  What about that religious cult that wants to marry off a whole bunch of young girls to some 50 year old dude? What about that swinging group of 15 men and women who want to marry one another and move next door to you?

Teachers unions and schools have sided firmly with teachers and against children when sexual abuse has been alleged.  Schools routinely protect pedophile teachers by transferring them to other school districts.  The head of the National Education Association presided over the annual Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network conference which sought to push homosexual activism to kindergarten classrooms.

How do you decide to redefine the “one man, one woman” view of marriage that’s been around since Adam and Eve and hold the line at homosexual couples?  Legalizing homosexual marriage is just the tip of the iceberg, and justifying it will provide justification for all the rest.

The fact of the matter is, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” doesn’t take away homosexual’s right to marriage: a homosexual man can marry any woman who would have him.  Same as me.  Homosexuals’ rights aren’t being “taken away”; rather, they do not wish to have normal sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, rather like the pedophiles who do not wish to have normal sexual relations with an adult of the opposite sex.  That’s hardly my fault.  So don’t force me to sanctify this “Adam and Steve” thing.

I now understand why teachers are so pathetic at actually teaching children how to learn: they are moral idiots.  They don’t understand fundamental human realities.  They are ideologues who don’t even know how to think themselves, and therefore cannot possibly teach children how to think for themselves.  Obviously this frank damnation of teachers doesn’t extend to every individual teacher; but the fact remains that there are enough ideologues in the field of teaching to instill radical union leadership.

Sadly,  I’m really not exaggerating: teachers are being trained as “agents of change” who “question the legitimacy of a flawed social order.”