“Catilyn” Jenner

JennerHere’s a man – and yes, I dare say “man” – that was once the pride of America, had all eyes on him, made good money, had a lot of attention….then he got older, and the milk from that gold medal win dried up. Next we see him with a bunch of beautiful (if not morally f’d up) women, who are getting all the attention America can throw at them…while he sits there in the shadows, an old, washed up Olympian that nobody cares about. All of a sudden, we see him morphing into what could be another Kardashian sister; he even takes a name that has a hard “K” sound to it, just like Kim, Chloe, Kourtney, Kylie…even the lead tramp, Chris. But that’s just a coincidence, I’m sure. Subconsciously, he sees all this fame and adulation that these “women” receive, and thinks about how he doesn’t have that adulation anymore he so desperately loved and needed. So, in the deepest pools of his mind, he decides that to get all that adulation and attention again, he needs to become one of those sisters, in effect, and “poof” he becomes a woman – and just look at so many people throwing themselves out there to praise him for his “bravery”.

I really don’t give a damn if you respond to me, calling me names, a hater and all that BS you libs like to do…I really don’t. There are reasons for everything people do, and most of that comes from the subconcious, which is a crying, unhappy, demanding baby that wants what it wants WHEN it wants it. If you can’t see the psychopathology behind Bruce, “Caitlyn” or whatever you want to call this person, that’s your fault, because you don’t WANT to see it. You don’t WANT to be called a “hater” or “unaccepting” or other adjectives that other liberals load up there guns with.

“Bravery”? Having a optional cosmetic surgery is now “brave”?

That’s not brave, it’s selfish. How must Chris and his children feel? Oh sure, they have to put on the “I think it’s awesome” face, lest they be immolated by the liberal press – but in their hearts they are dissapointed, at the very least, crushed at the very most. I’m sorry, but NO child wants their dad to prance around like a woman – NO CHILD.

Bravery is someone dying so someone else might live.

Bravery is someone that faces fear everyday, and does it anyway, damn it.

It’s a soldier on patrol in some third world crap hole; down to a mother of three that just lost her police officer husband because “black lives matter”.

That’s bravery. That’s what needs to be lauded.

Not a washed-up Olympian looking to regain his former love and adulation.

“An unarmed black teenager is shot and killed by a white officer.”

The perfect liberal call-to-arms.


Keep in mind, that the liberal brain is dominated by feelings. This is manifest in their actions and professions. Liberals dominate the expressive arts: writing, acting, singing, movies. They express themselves socially, often and loudly – breaking up peaceful meetings, shouting down speakers, sit-ins, die-ins, all forms of social media.

When was the last time you saw conservatives do a sit in for the Keystone pipeline? How many journalists are conservative in nature, or teach at universities? Bingo.

There is a reason we are called “The Silent Majority” – we don’t speak our minds that much and there are statistically twice as many conservatives as liberals. Any conservative thoughts I post on Facebook are met with few “likes” – though in person they tell me they did like what I posted. Those folks are fearful of reprisals by angry libs. I’m not.

Ah, but back to Ferguson, and the bonus of the Eric “I Can’t Breathe” Garner.

Liberals can not let go of the slavery issue. They constantly remind blacks, through schooling, black history month, and cases like these, that white men just hate them, want to enslave and kill them, keep them down, and whites are racists; how America is still a largely racist nation!

They don’t mention that the most powerful man in the world is black, our own president, or that the most arguably powerful woman in the world is black – Oprah. Whites put them in that position, because their aren’t enough blacks to have done that on their own. How blacks are preferred candidates over whites when it comes to public jobs, such as policing, admittance to colleges, or a host of other preferences.

But this is the racist hateful nation we are.

They fail to mention that blacks dominate team sports like basketball and football – but you don’t see them campaigning for diversity for whites there, do you? That feels good to libs – like they are “catching up” in a sense, so we’ll forego our sworn allegiance to “diversity”.

But once again, back to Ferguson.

As the liberal media first (and largely still do) reported it, a little black unarmed teen was mowed down by a racist white cop. They show the picture of this innocent looking 16 year old boy listening to his headphones at an arcade. When you report the incident this way, of course people take notice and get upset – what kid should be shot by an adult?

But liberals don’t want to hear the facts of what happened in Ferguson, because it plays into that slavery mold they just can’t let go off – whites hate blacks, and try to kill them or keep them enslaved. Ferguson perfectly modernizes that – a white cop (by definition racist) kills an unarmed black teen. Whites bad, blacks innocent. Blacks don’t do anything bad, but whites do.

This is really a great example of just how dominated the liberals brain is of emotions, which have no need for facts or understanding – just ask an out of control two year old to listen to the facts about why they shouldn’t throw sand at the other kids.

• The other kid with Michael Brown said Brown had his hands up. Dorian Johnson, the other kid, said that the officer shot Brown in the back, and he had his hands up, surrendering. Autopsy showed no back wound, and other witnesses, that were black, said Brown didn’t have his hands up. By the way, Johnson is 22, Brown 18. Not kids.

• Officer Wilson could have done something else to stop Brown. Really? We just saw that moments before Brown was shot he did a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store – how he pushed around a little Indian guy, like he deserved those smokes he took – and he could do it, considering he was 6′ 4″ and 250 lbs plus. Oh wait, he’s a little teen, like in the photo. Sorry. The tape shows what attitude brown had towards others in his marijuana-laced mind at that time – screw you, I’m doing what I want. There’s no denying by anyone that Brown was walking down the middle of the street- a big FU, if there ever was one. The black community, thanks largely to libs, are told the police are racist pigs, and is it inconceivable that Brown reached through that window and tried to grab Wilson’s gun? That he turned around and tried to attack the officer before the fatal wounds? How do you stop a 6′ 4″ large charging male that is high, pissed and injured? Hug it out?

• Brown was unarmed; he shouldn’t have been shot. You hear this constantly in any mention of the Brown case. He was unarmed, which I guess means, he was unable to harm the officer?  That an officer shouldn’t shoot someone because they aren’t equally armed (again, with the equality mantra)? Unarmed people can be very dangerous and hurtful as well. Should a woman lying on her back being raped not reach for that pistol in her pocket because the male is unarmed? If a bunch of guys is beating up another guy, I tell them to stop, and they start coming after me – should I not use my pistol because they are unarmed? What if Brown just had a knife, would that still be called “unarmed”? Unarmed does not equate to not dangerous, but the media portrays it as such. Remember black slaves had little recourse over their armed masters, and this is in the back of the liberal mind.

• The police shoot a lot of black men;  police are racists pigs therefore. If blacks commit the most crimes in society, and they do, statistically, then yes, they are going to be shot more often, duh. When white police are called into black neighborhoods – to defend black people, by the way – it just makes sense they are more likely to be shot. When that culture tells their kids that whites are racist, that police hate them, the fact no authority figure is bringing them up – then it makes sense blacks are going to try to fire at police more often, which is a terrible mistake.

• More cops need to be black. Which is a bonus, because of the golden rule of diversity, the snake-oil cure all of social ills. More black cops means what, less black crime? Less shooting of black males by police? Better understanding of black culture? What exactly does recruiting of more black officers offer? It’s like they are saying we should have more black officers because they get the black culture. Which means…they will allow certain things to slide, because you know, they get it?  Can’t blacks live under the same rules? Rochester NY, where I live, has a black female mayor, a black head cop, several members on the city council are black, and yet we are one of the highest murders-per-captia in NYS. More blacks in positions of power makes no difference. Even if Ferguson had ALL black police officers, and Brown was still killed, the libs would be asserting that police are “aggressive”, “militarized” or other disparaging terms.

Maybe the biggest point in Ferguson – and in the Garner case – is what liberals aren’t talking about, because you NEVER blame a presumed victim.

Had Brown and Garner simply complied with lawful, simple commands by police – both of these cases wouldn’t have ended up the way they did. Everyone talks about what the police could and should have done differently; but rarely do you hear about what the instigators of the trouble could have done differently to have avoided the tragedy.

That just doesn’t fit the whites hates blacks tale.





Also see:

The Treyvon Martin Allegory and the LIberal Mind

You may have heard of the civil rights movement of the 1960s – when black people rose up to demand they be treated equally, whether it be in the voting  booth, or the restaurant booth. They were treated badly, to be sure, and they deserved to be treated equally with others. A black person could be nothing else but a black person, no matter what. Same with women, and the suffragette movement. Liberals rallied around this cause because, of course, if there is a wrong to be righted (be it real or perceived) and the emotional liberal mind is simply compelled to act.

Now that the black issue has been largely resolved (and yes, it has), a new victim is required to rescue. The victim de jour are gays. You can’t go a day now with hearing the word; be it in the news, or in entertainment, gay is everywhere.

Gay is the new black.

But it shouldn’t be. It’s not the same thing.

No, rights for gays is not, and can never be, what blacks and women strived for – rightfully so. But rabid liberals always make it seem as though they are all on parity.

I hate to break it to liberals – because reality is such a harsh bitch slap – but homosexuality is nothing more then a behavior. It’s not an immutable trait, such as skin color or gender. It’s a behavior, and as such, is largely malleable. We’ve heard of men finally coming out, leaving their shattered wives and kids, because they finally realized they are gay. It’s not they were straight, and have experienced some emotional issue that is causing them to act out – no, that can NEVER be it. They were gay along. Period. Well, no, they weren’t. There behavior indicated they were heterosexual. However, gay activists can never allow this, because, it might crack open the door that we are talking about behavior, and would de-link it from legitimate causes, such as black civil rights. By the way, this is a favorite tactic of liberals – attach whatever cause they are fighting for to a previous legitimate cause, therefore conferring the feelings of justice associated with it.

For liberals, there can only be not just tolerance for gays – but you must openly and loudly support gays – whatever the case. Failure to do so, by default, means you hate them. Hate them. There can be no other reason in their minds, because of the irrationality of their emotionally soaked brains. They’ve coined a term for it – “homophobia”. Phobias, clinically speaking, are an irrational or over-reaction response to a place, situation, or object. You see, you have an emotional issue, if you are not gushing about them.

Talk about fascism.

“Homophobia” is the new racist.

Back in February, I published this post which made the point that now that the gay mafia has largely succeeded in making gay marriage legal here in America ( and to a larger extent, abroad), they would move on to the last frontier – the churches. Churches, the last hold out of not unconditionally embracing homosexuality, the last place that doesn’t condone gay marriage, the last place where (most importantly) acceptance is not total and fabulous.

Well, just off our shores, to our kindred blood, the nation of England, we have this story today “Gay Couple Set to Sue Church of England Over Refusal to Offer Same-Sex Nuptials”

And they told me that this kind of thing could NEVER happen. Separation of Church and state, and all that (and yes, I know we are talking about England here). But I guarantee, it WILL happen here.

The plaintiff states, “[It] is a matter of opinion. There are legal pathways to go down and before we make a conclusive step forward we have to explore every avenue. We have been speaking to very senior legal advisors with Cannon Law experience who feel that there actually may be a case to answer.

What the outcome maybe, is another question. We shall have to wait and see, but at the end of the day, the pressure will be highly visible and the church will be in the spot light again for discrimination against the same-sex community.”

In other words, the plaintiff is not comfortable that an institution disagrees with him, and won’t do his bidding, so he’s taking them to court to force them to! Again, all about acceptance, and the often seen trait in gays, narcissism.

Is the church some how legally standing in the way of this guy and his guy living together? No. Are they stopping him from having a job, housing, or any other inhibitions? No. It’s all about making them bend over forward so that this gay couple can feel good about their relationship – because obviously, they don’t.

In a similar story,  we have the tale of the Southern California Catholic school teacher fired after gay wedding, and the pictures were in the paper. Lawsuit to follow, of course, because it should be fine to be able to go against something your employer stands for, and not be punished. If I was a cop, and I committed a felony, of course, I should keep my job. In like fashion, if you’re teaching kids about Catholic values, in a Catholic school, where parents pay tuition to be have their kids taught Catholic beliefs by Catholics that ostensibly can act in a manner consistent with Catholic beliefs, and you so boldly break those beliefs, then yes, of course, you should be able to keep your job.

This kind of thinking is irrational, emotional and narcissistic – hallmarks of the liberal mind. This teacher knew that this school would have a big issue with this, but he went ahead and did it anyway. He could have been married and not published pictures, and rubbed the Catholic school’s nose in it, but likely having a passive-aggressive streak, he made sure those pictures were out there for all to see.

The hoped for result of this for this trouble maker will be tidy settlement, his job reinstated, and a change of policy, in which you can do whatever the hell you want in a religious education setting, and get away with it, because, the church is wrong of course, and they need to change to make ME ME ME feel good about myself.

And to think Christ died even for these.



  1. A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
The Treyvon Martin murder trial is a liberal dream; it plays out in reality what is conjured up in the liberal mind – racism everywhere.
A white (or close enough to being white) Zimmerman killing (or oppressing, keeping down) a black man. It’s classic victimhood for the liberal, one of their favorite causes. Everyone is a victim – except white males, of course.
The media paints Treyvon Martin – then a big 17 year old  (at 5′ 11″ and 158 pounds, a tall, slightly built man) as this innocent, unarmed (true) nice little black kid, just walking  through a white neighborhood with his soda and candy, on the way to visit his father’s fiancée. Zimmerman (who is close enough to being white, and therefore is a de facto racist) trails and shoots Martin, point blank, for no other reason then he looks suspicious.
This case is going to be made into a circus, and widely publicized by the liberal media, because it’s an allegory of whites hating blacks. It’s not for the crime – people kill people everyday – especially blacks on blacks, as in Chicago. Those are just as awful, but they go almost unreported. No, this is a white man killing a black man – as liberals have been telling us for years. THAT is why this is a perfect story. I wonder if the roles were reversed …would that be a media circus? If a 28 year old black man shot a white kid? Doubt it. In the liberal mind, the black man would be justifiably angry, because his ancestors were in chains 150+ years ago, and society just keeps it’s boot on his neck all the time – they tell him so, daily. He would have a right to be angry – just like the OJ jurors were. It’s payback time for blacks onto whites.
We also know that Martin could not have been a belligerent black male. No, we can’t allow that, because that would play into a stereotype of the angry black male –  a class 1 felony in the liberal world – no stereotypes (unless they apply to whites)!
We also know that Martin was just an innocent little kid, never mind being on this third suspension from school, having woman’s jewelry that wasn’t his, a burglary tool, and a pot pipe. IF that was all true (and it is), it’s because white society made him do all that.
No, what you must pay attention to is the allegory – that whites hate blacks, and want to control and destroy them. THAT is why this is a such a huge story.
It’s interesting to contrast this to the OJ murder story. He did the murders, we all know that. He killed out of a jealous rage, two people. Yet, the jury – mostly blacks – found him not guilty. They were doing a payback number on whites.
You and I don’t know what happened that night. We may never know exactly. I think Zimmerman followed Martin to see what he was up to – and Martin got all in his face about it, and started assaulting Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot him because he was getting pounded hard. I’ve been in those situations; there is great fear for the victim.
My point? Keep in mind why the media is painting this as such a monumental story.

coexiststickersquare_largeIt’s friday night, and this Boston Marathon runner has just crossed the finish line – you know, the muslim one. The one that blew up people? His ass has been caught. Praise God (not Allah).

Learning a little more about this scum, we come to know that he and his dead brother were both, surprise, surprise, Muslims. This is of course, very much to the chagrin of liberals, who, after seeing on the FBI images of the suspects that they were Caucasian, were hopeful that Muslims weren’t involved, that perhaps white supremacists or another non-muslim group was the culprit. But, they were yet again wrong, as we now see that Muslims come in all different colors (yay!), but are still homicidal maniacs just the same (boo).

It was fun listening to NPR and FOX report this as it played out; NPR hosts tried to tip toe around the muslim issue, and the hackneyed “….we must not malign certain groups….” and the catch-all “…but not ALL (insert your group) are (insert the behavior)…” . It was just ridiculous. FOX, to their credit, really didn’t say much either, until they did find out the older brother’s jihadic ramblings on his YouTube channel. Then, they ran with it.

Then, Obama comes on after the suspect has been taken into custody, and of course, has to play the “we shouldn’t judge all the people of certain groups…” line.

This is such a stalwart liberal tactic – you can’t ascribe bad characteristics to any one group just because a few behave badly (unless they are conservative or Republican of course; then it’s ok).

So my question would be to the liberals, “At what point do you say ‘You know, maybe this group is one we ought to be careful of ‘ ?”  For the liberal logic (of which there is little, I’m just being generous), you would have to go through testing every person to see if they behave that way. That of course, is just irresponsible; No, it’s stupid. Everyone realizes that rarely do all the people in any group behave a certain way – let alone the some 1 billion in the muslim group. Hell, I can hardly get my family to all agree to what restaurant to go to. The point should not be ” not all are like that”, but the point is, as I think we should have learned by now, that enough are. Not all sharks in the ocean are man-eaters, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to swim where I know there are sharks. That should just strike you as common sense – but not the liberal, because if you started looking at muslims with a skeptical eye, well….that would just make them FEEL bad, and Oh GOD we can’t have that, feelings being the center of the universe that liberals spin around.

Surprisingly, I finally figured out why I was suspicious of this diversity thing all along. Liberals, as you know, feel diversity is the greatest thing since Jesus; it can cure all social ills. If we all just sit down and talk, and get to know each other, why then, there would be no strife between the groups – “diversity is our strength” and all that hog wash. I never bought it – and I couldn’t figure out why – but thanks to our little Johnny Jihadi, I have.

We are finding out these brothers and there family came to America under asylum from Russia. They were on public assistance for some time, then worked there way up – to great schools, scholarships – even a shot at the US Olympic team. They really made the most of all the US had to offer.

Now, according to the diversity tripe that liberals push, they, being foreigners, should have come to understand us, and held no ill will against us – they should have understood us, you see, and they would like us.

Well, how’d that work out, my stupid little liberal friend?

No, your diversity didn’t unite us – it separated us. They knew us better, so they hated us more, not less. Understanding does not always convert to acceptance, but hey, diversity, diversity, diversity, c’mon let’s get happy.

I’m sorry, but some people just aren’t comfortable in other people’s camps; that’s normal. I’m not comfortable in certain circles, and I know others wouldn’t be comfortable in mine. There’s no strength in that; it’s divisive, not diverse.

But of course, the liberal brain, being the emotional tempest that it is, can only see the possible uncomfortableness of others, and so we must diversify so they feel ok. Generally, these means diluting what culture there is into one big sloppy Joe  that no one wants to take a bite of.

Hello, world, hear the song that we’re singin’ 
It’s diversity!
A whole lot of difference is what we’ll be bringin’ 
It’ll make you happy! 

We have a dream, we’ll do everything together, 
We’ll share our differences, then we’ll keep gettin’ long. 
Somethin’ always happens whenever we’re together 
We get a happy feelin’ ’cause our differences make us strong! 

Trav’lin’ along there’s a song that we’re singin’ 
It’s diversity!
A Whole lot of difference is what we’ll be bringin’ 
It’ll make you happy! 
It’ll make you happy! 
It’ll make you happy!

(with apologies to the Partridge Family TV Show opening theme)

While listening to NPR (yes, I do, there is some good stuff on it), I caught the end of an interview with a woman that advocates for prisoners, and trying to prevent people from breaking the law to begin with. I openly laughed out loud when the advocate stated that we don’t spend enough on programs to give people things to do so they don’t get into trouble. Yes, you see, it’s up to you and I to give black kids (and you know this is the group we are talking about, let’s not BS each other), something positive to do, babysitting into adulthood, and if we don’t, it’s our fault if they get into trouble.

More liberal madness; it’s never a person’s fault when they get into trouble. If a woman gets pregnant, it’s her employer’s fault for not giving her free birth control (she shouldn’t have to pay the $13 a month herself); if an inner city kid gets into trouble, it’s because of “economic injustice” or no after-school programs; if a minority kid doesn’t get into a certain college, it’s because the college is racist. And so on, and so on.

It’s never anyone’s fault, with a liberal. Check that – it’s someone else’s fault (a conservative, if nearby).

It’s this kind of emotional crutchery that has kept people dependent upon the government. A lot of blacks are still on the plantation, in a manner of speaking, sadly. Blacks can’t get ahead because whitey keeps them down, their ancestors were slaves 150 years ago, there is “economic injustice” and all kinds of other excuses.

Guess what liberals? Blacks are every bit as capable of achievement as any other race. You liberals that assert that they somehow can’t excel because of white oppression or they get into trouble because they  don’t have a basketball program after school – in fact, YOU are the racists for believing there are incapable without a helping hand, not conservatives who refuse to pander to those that want a hand out.

That’s not to say some people truly do need a helping hand; I recognize that. Look, I’ve been thisclose to being homeless, and had to stay in a single-room occupancy place for a few weeks, a place supported by the government; I’m glad it was there. The difference is, I’m not there now. I laid it upon myself to find a way up and out, and I did. But liberals would have coddled me, told me, and kept me in comfortable poverty, had I let them. I knew of a girl – now a middle aged woman – that has been on welfare her entire life; her mother was on it for a time before that, and this woman’s child was (or still is). Three generations on welfare. Is that acceptable to you? These people were perfectly capable of working; the girl had a leg problem as a teen, but somehow could comfortably walk all over our small town. Not cool.

Once again, the emotionally dominated liberal brain claims more (perceived) victims. And that’s sad.

Over the past several weeks, you’ve heard the most wonderful news just gushing out of the liberal media about how polls now show that “most americans now favor gay marriage”, which just happens to come out as the Supreme Court takes up the DOMA/ California’s Prop 8 , of course, in line with the usual “everybody wants it, so why don’t you join us” tactic of the gay sycophants.

I don’t doubt that the polls are correct – if not in terms of percent, but in terms of public shift. That is, the numbers may or may not be 50+%, I don’t know, but I do believe that yes, more people support gay marriage then 10 years ago; and why shouldn’t they? No, I’m not saying I have had a change of heart, and I believe gays should be able to change the definition of marriage – I never will; my point is, there has been an all-out publicity campaign to show gays and lesbians as sympathetic figures, as their cause being a civil rights cause (which it certainly is not), and other underlying themes that have (as good publicity often does) promote an unbalanced picture of the truth.

Shows like Grey’s Anatomy, As the World Turns, One Life to Live, Greek, Ugly Betty, and Modern Family all have positive portrayals of gay characters. They are funny, kind, warm, likable folks,  seen as normal as their heterosexual counterparts, searching for love, dealing with hardships and so on. Any characters in the storyline that in any way challenge the sexuality of the gay character – be it someone uncomfortable with it, a hurt family member, a religious figure – are always vilified, if not overtly, then subtlety; they are the antagonist. They have no valid points or concerns, no feelings that need to be respected, if they don’t totally and without reservation support the gay character.

This, of course, goes right to the heart of the liberal mind – emotions over realism, and the never-ending desire to find a victim to defend, and it’s corollary, defining a villain. Eugene Robinson, the liberal black political commentator, is notorious for finding racism; I’m surprised he’s not calling God a racist for making daytime white, and nighttime black. The liberal mind, being so burdened with an emotional task master, really can’t help itself in this regard. You see, for the liberal, there can be no acceptable reason for not seeing things their way; you must be a (something) -ist. Racist, ageist, misogynist, and so on. You just simply hate. This response makes perfect sense, if you consider it – it’s an emotional reaction to an emotional reaction. It’s the only response they are capable of. You can’t accept their position on a point for a perfectly acceptable reason, because in their sea of emotions, their can be no logical islands, no beaches of reasoning, even.

Enough digression. My point is, the liberal media has been complicit in turning public opinion to favor gay marriage – which is, by the way, not about “equal rights”, but simply about forcing public acceptance. If they can use their considerable power to change the public opinion about gays, then damn it, they can go home and feel good about themselves, that they’ve finally righted a wrong, and dispatched yet another monster. Really, it’s no different from having elected Obama; it’s undeniable a lot of people elected him to finally break that barrier, right that wrong – choosing a black man for president (despite his under qualifications). It felt good to do it, and a perceived wrong was finally righted. Hallelujah! They could feel better now (again, with the emotionally driven behavior).

What the media doesn’t show you is the rest of the story.

Do they ever show you the crushed parents of the gay man that came out? The realization they’ll never have grandkids with this child, or how they’ll have to live with this socially? No.

Do they ever show you the “gay” man that leaves his wife and kids of 15 years for another man? How that family suffers? No.

Do they ever show a person who acts out in homosexual ways, because of emotional trauma suffered earlier? No (because gay is gay, and can never just be an emotional acting out).

Do they ever show promiscuous gay men? No. Because, we all know, men don’t want sex wherever or whenever they can find it – especially two men together.

Do they ever show kids of gay parents that say gee, they really might have benefited by having a two sexed parentage? No.

You don’t see those sides of the story, because it doesn’t paint gays in a favorable light. It’s not because these scenarios aren’t real – they are. If the above instances are mentioned, of course, it’s not the gay person’s problem, it’s everyone else. Get those parents into PFLAG; the gay men that leave their wives always were gay all along; people acting gay are always gay; gay men can’t be promiscuous, never mind gay bath houses and adult bookstores where gay men have encounters. Kids with gay parents wouldn’t have it any other way – because they don’t know any other way, duh!

Yes, perhaps the public’s perception of gay marriage has changed – but it’s due in LARGE part to the gushing portrayals by liberals in the television, movie and print media.


gay-churchs600x600You can laugh all you want to at the thought of gays forcing a church to marry them that doesn’t want to – but churches that don’t tow the gay agenda are up for the next hit by the gay mafia. The gay mafia is just like the Italian mafia, with a protection racket you have to buy into, lest you incur a “hit” on your person, business or group concern.

Who has the gay mafia taken on and taken down? The military, the Boy Scouts, schools, legislatures, some liberal churches, all kinds of businesses – like Chick-fil-A, and others that don’t offer domestic partner benefits, and so on. You don’t pay, you won’t play; or in their case, you don’t accept, you will regret. Continue Reading »

gay scoutAs predicted, the gay mafia is after another victim to shakedown, in their extortion racket of acceptance; this time it’s that klan-ish, misogynistic …Boy Scouts.

You see, the gay mafia looks for victims to “pop” wherever they can in their quest to eliminate any possible semblance of anything other than arms-wide-open, gushing acceptance of homosexuality. If you even look down at your shoes, you are a bigot; if you don’t feel comfortable, you hate them. You’re not entitled to your feelings, but you must accept theirs. Continue Reading »