Just another WordPress.com site

Archive for June, 2011

Speaking of homophobic Jews…

Coming on the heels of last week’s all-out blitz of Albany by radical homo-hating Jews (see previous post), known homophobe (and Jew!) Benjamin Shapiro takes a mean-spirited swipe at the LGBTQXYZ community.

You may know Shapiro as the  loudmouth, yarmulke-wearing, young  right-wing columnist, activist, and radio host. This moron graduated suma cum laude from UCLA at the age of twenty and then graduated cum laude with a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law at the age of twenty-three.  Actually, I would be totally impressed with his Ivy League credentials if he were on my side, but since he isn’t, then I don’t really care.

Lil' Benny Shapiro posing with his first book, "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth". As if there's something wrong with that. Anyway, this is one, mean, nasty, gay-hating JEW. Being from California, I'd bet he even voted for Prop H8. He'd get along well with Jews for Decency (and/or Fascism)

Shapiro’s one of those abstinence crusaders. He thinks guys should keep their schmeckels in their pants until marriage. Marriage to women, of course. Psht. Somebody ought to tell him that abstinence is the leading cause of AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. That’s what I learned from NPR anyway. But you know he’s a real prude, and probably a repressed homosexual…or so I hope.

In his latest book, “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV”, Shapiro offers weak arguments to the effect that lefty producers in Hollywood are making television programs with lefty messages. What those messages are, or what evidence Shapiro presents, I don’t know because I haven’t read it. I won’t read it either, because I might kill myself. You have to understand that gay people commit suicide at the drop of a hat.

Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV". Haven't read this one either. And I won't. I guess it kind of perturbs me that he makes the Left "taking over" your TV sound like a bad thing.

The whole book is based on deceit. Shapiro actually went around to Hollywood producers, introducing himself–using his real name!–and wearing a Harvard Law baseball cap, which is a school he actually attended. He was trying to pass himself off as some kind of Harvard educated Jew…which he kind of is, I suppose. But it’s really sneaky because he predicts that Hollywood producers will assume that he’s a liberal just like they are and speak freely about their biases. And they did. Isn’t he underhanded?

Shapiro seems upset that the Hollywood producers he talked  go out of their way to make gay characters look good, the old “television promotes homosexuality” argument. Everyone knows that you can’t actually promote homosexuality because it’s an inborn trait. Don’t ask me to show you the gene that causes it because I can’t. Just take it on faith the way that I do.

So, what’s wrong with making gay characters look good? I think that’s a real positive. It doesn’t shake my faith in the gay precept that homosexuals are constantly maligned and abused in our society. Nope. Not one bit. I still consider myself America’s premiere victim group despite the fact that the entertainment industry does nothing but shill for my issues.

Imagine that you’re watching Law and Order or a similar cop show. Let’s say that the detectives are investigating a suspect for a possible homocide. And then they drop the bombshell–the suspect in question is a cocksmuggler! Well then, you know instantly that the homosexual being investigated didn’t commit the crime. He probably has an airtight alibi. He couldn’t have committed the murder because he and his partner were feeding the homeless at the time the crime took place. Or they were rescuing kittens.

If you want to know who really did the deed, turn your suspicion toward the swarmy Catholic priest or evangelical minister. Ha! Yep, you can bet that he was the one who did it, every time. He’s also a pedophile with odd Nazi sympathies.  If the show doesn’t feature any swarmy Catholic priests or evangelical ministers, your next best bet would be the deranged Marine who just got home from Afghanistan. He probably did it. Unless he’s a gay Marine of course, in which case all bets are off.

Homosexuals are always the most loveable, wise, kind, and generous characters in TV Land. The “homo with a heart of gold” is a stock character on every show. There are no gay drug dealers like the real life Matthew Shepard, or gay murderers like the real life Nicholas Gutierrez.  There are only friendly gay neighbors, funny gay husbands, and loveable gay teens.

And that’s the way it should be! Every LGBTQXYZ character is saintly, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I guess that’s my beef with Shapiro. Even the title of his book sounds conspiratorial–how the Left “took over” your TV. Wait, isn’t the TV rightfully ours? Only progressive people like me should be on television. Only people with my values should be writing the scripts. I’ve even heard rumors that there are a few backward people in the Midwest who still think homosexuality is “wrong”. What the hell is the point of televison if not to furtively deliver positive messages about sodomy into their living rooms on a daily basis?

In Shapiro’s latest rant, “Of Television and Same-sex Marriage,” he argues:

“It’s not that tolerance for gays and lesbians is a bad message – precisely the opposite.  But Hollywood’s goal in making homosexuality ubiquitous on television is to create a gay friend and neighbor for everyone, so that they can then make the most effective argument on behalf of gay marriage.”

Um, yeah? So? That’s what television is for–to make stupid people think like Hollywood’s gay elite. Stupid people need that from time to time. Flaming homosexuals need to be on television at every moment. Nothing but gayness on every channel, in every time slot. We need girls kissing on The Family Channel (we achieved that), we need gay weddings on every sitcom (we’ve achieved that), gay dads rasing kids (we’ve achieved that). We need an entire gay channel (we’ve achieved that). We need HIV positive characters on Sesame Street, for crying out loud! (We’ve acheived that too). Everything has to be gay all the time or else I’m oppressed and might take my own life. Okay, so even when the entire network line up is painted rainbow colors, I’m still oppressed. And I still might take my own life.

Shapiro has this weird idea that the overrepresentation of homosexuals on the television screen might have something to do with the fact that most Americans think that gay people are jumping out of the woodwork at them.

This week, a poll of Americans showed something absolutely stunning: a full 35 percent of Americans believe that more than one in four Americans is gay; a majority, 52 percent, think that over 20 percent are gay; and a full 78 percent believe that at least ten percent of Americans are gay.  The real statistic: somewhere around two percent of Americans are gay.  There is only one place in American life that the one in four figure or one in five figure is absolutely accurate: on television, where gay characters pervade virtually every show.  The younger Americans are, the more likely they are to believe that there is an elevated population of gays; the poorer and less educated they are, the more likely they are to believe the skewed statistics.  Not coincidentally, those who are young, poor, and uneducated tend to be the largest consumers of television.

Okay, so poorer and less educated people think that everybody’s gay because all they do is sit on their asses in their double wide trailers and watch the idiot box. And everything on their television is supergay. I think that’s really great. So what if actual proportion of LGBTQXYZ Americans is one in fifty rather than one in four? That just means that television is doing a bang up job of warping their reality in a gay-positive manner.

At one point in the book, Shapiro interviews Marc Cherry, the pillow-biting producer of Desperate Housewives. Mr. Cherry explains why he introduced a gay couple to the show:

“…[It is] it’s own political statement which was ‘see, you can have gay neighbors, they can be perfectly fine, they can fit in with the rest of the folks, and it doesn’t change anything.  And you kind of hope that you are preparing the way, planting little seeds in the minds of people who sometime over the next few years are going to have gay neighbors buy a house on their street.  And for me, that’s the most effective political message is that its not particularly aggressive.”

In Ben Shapiro’s bizarro world, producers who “prepare the way” and “plant little seeds in the minds of people” are engaging in some form of insidious “propaganda”.  It’s almost as if Marc Cherry is trying to slip you an “effective political message” without you even knowing it. Which he is, of course. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

The gay neighbors on Desperate Housewives. "And I don't really talk about their sexuality much," says gay producer Marc Cherry. I can see that. Cherry's "political message" is so effective precisely because it's "not aggressive", as he puts it. This happens to be my favorite DH scene ever. I TiVoed it so I could yank my crank to it over and over.

So, if you’re interested in wasting $24.99 on some wacky, insane, homophobic conspiracy theories from well-known ORTHODOX JEW, feel free to pick up Shapiro’s book. If you’re like me, however, you won’t read it. I don’t read much.

Advertisements

I ♥ NY (The Jews? Not so much.)

As I’m sure you have all already heard, New York has become the sixth state in the union to pass marriage equality.  I was absolutely giddy to hear the news.  Finally, those guys from the Village People can start pairing off together!

Now that we have vanquished our bigoted foes, I think it’s about time we seek to personally destroy anyone who opposed us. Democracy works a lot better when we intimidate, blacklist, harass and persecute our opponents. Wait, did I say democracy? I usually don’t like democracy, not unless it yields the results I want, as it did last night in Albany. Minority rights must never be voted on, unless my side wins and then I get a tear in my eye and I celebrate with champagne. In the future, we must devise a form of democracy that ensures that my side wins every time.

I really like how the homosexuals of California handled their Prop H8 defeat. Blacklisting their (mostly Mormon and Catholic) opponents guarantees that anyone who disagrees with us will think twice in the future about voting, speaking, or donating money. Blacklisting used to be a bad thing, back when the Hollywood studios used it against the Stalinist Left for about fifteen minutes during the McCarthyite 1950’s. I know it was bad because I’ve seen about sixteen movies and four PBS documentaries about it. But those were just utopian visionaries who wanted to bring the oppressive Soviet system to America, so let’s not compare them to the moral monsters who object to redefining marriage.

That’s why I was thrilled to discover a website pop up after Prop H8 called stopthemormons.org. Click on the site on my blog roll. As the bloggers explain in their FAQ, “Stop the Mormons” is not a bigoted, anti-Mormon site because Mormons really do deserve all the hate they get. Personally, I’ve never met a Mormon, but I kind of agree. Hating people who deserve to be hated isn’t hate. Also, the bloggers filled their website with testimony from all sorts of token non-Mormon Mormons that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t hate Mormons. They even have a picture of noted Mormon Harry Reid on their site. And everyone knows that Harry Reid is a super-devout Mormon. He just pretends that he isn’t in public.

Harry Reid, a devout Mormon. See? He's praying! Right there at the podium. Ha! Just kidding. Harry Reid doesn't believe any of that Mormon crap, and if he did we'd kneecap that motherfucker too. Still, it's nice to have guys like him around that provide us cover for our anti-Mormon hate.

As it turns out, there aren’t many Mormons in New York, so they weren’t as much of a force as they were in California.  I’m sure they were still hanging out in their caves in the desert, meddling in the affairs of New York from afar and marrying multiple underage brides.

But from what I saw, the main opponents of New York’s marriage equality bill were THE JEWS! So I immediately ran to my computer and tried to register the domain name “stopthejews.org”. But then I thought to myself, “Wait a second, Patrick. That sounds kind of anti-Semitic”.

But no, it isn’t true! I have lots of Jewish friends. None of them actually practice Judaism, but at least they’ve had their kosher franks circumcised. I know this because I’ve seen all of my friends’ dicks up close.  So I had a little debate with myself, right then and there. I asked myself, if someone had a website called “Stop the blacks” or “Stop the Mexicans”, would I consider that racist? Yes, I would.  If someone had a blog called “Stop the gays”, would I consider that homophobic? Yes, I certainly would. If someone had a blog called “Stop the Muslims”, would I consider that Islamophobic? Yes. And heaven knows that I’m deathly afraid of being called Islamaphobic.

But this is different! I would even go out of my way to find Jews who agree with me and lace the website with quotes from them, thus proving that a website about “stopping the Jews” is not really anti-Jewish. It’s kind of the same thing with the Mormons. I DO NOT hate Mormons. I just hate people who subscribe to the Mormon faith. If, for example, you are a Mormon who doesn’t actually believe any of that Mormon crap, then we’re cool. That way, you can provide cover for me against the charge that I am anti-Mormon. It’s the same with the Jews.

So let me clarify what I mean by “stop the Jews”. I am NOT against Jews. I love secular Hollywood Jews like Steven Spielberg. The well-known director and Eagle Scout even told the Boy Scouts of America to piss off over their no homosexual policy. Which is great, because I really think that the BSA should allow me to take little boys camping. It’s a travesty that they don’t. It’s good to know that when a wholesome youth organization dedicated to building character and helping little old ladies across the street is in a pitched battle with a group of foaming-at-the-mouth homosexuals, Steven Spielberg knows which side he’s on. I REALLY like the secular Hollywood Jews who happen to be gay–David Geffen and Joel Schumacher, for example. They make lots of great propaganda films.

And there are loads of good Jews in politics. Take, for example, Anthony’s Weiner, the recently deposed Congressman from New York. Now there was a nasty, arrogant, loud-mouth, in-your-face Jew that I could have really gotten along with. And since he’s never had the pretense of standing for “family values” (quote-unquote), then what he did was not hypocritical. And so it’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with being a dirtbag so long as you never pretended to have any moral standards in the first place. And really, you gotta like a Congressman who plays dress up in a bra and panties. My husband and I did that last weekend, so it’s kind of neat to know that a congressman does the same thing.

Anthony Weiner in his crazy college days. I thought he was just an arrogant prick. Who knew he had a softer side? He's a good Jew. We like this Jew.

No, the kind of Jews I hate are the ones with the hats and the beards and the lamb chops. Y’know–the churchy Jews. I guess you would call them synagogue-y Jews. Just last week, a group calling itself “Jews for Decency” descended upon the state house in Albany like locusts, doing their best to ambush senators and persuade them to vote “no” on marriage equality. Yeah right, more like “Jews for Fascism”. As I’ve found in the past, “decency” is basically a code word for fascism. Beware of anyone who uses it. Check out their website here:

http://www.jewsfordecency.org

Oh, the Jews and their “decency”. Don’t they know that religious organizations have no say whatsoever in governmental affairs? That’s what we patriotic Americans like to call the “seperation of church and state”. It’s been part of the American legal tradition ever since a KKK member named Justice Hugo Black inserted it into his majority opinion in order to deprive Catholics the use of public facilities. It’s not actually in the Constitution, but that’s good enough for me. Now, if some short, dumpy, bi-curious, genderqueer Methodist minister from some ultra-left wing church in a college town wants to come testify before the New York legislature, that’s okay. It’s okay because everyone knows (s)he doesn’t really believe in God, and thus the seperation of church and state no longer applies.

Rabbi Leiter of Jews for "Decency" walks and talks with Republican Senator James Alesi. Thankfully, Alesi told this Jew-boy to take a hike and voted YES on marriage equality. Good for him. And as for Rabbi Leiter--now I know why your people have been hated down through history. Don't you dare try to twist that as some kind of anti-Semitic remark.

I was thinking to myself that we should handle these Jews just the same way we handled the Mormons. For example, we should boycott Jewish-owned business, just like we boycotted Mormon-owned businesses. We should vandalize their houses of worship just the same way we did to Catholics and Mormons after Prop H8. But then a thought occurred to me–wait a second, if we treated Jews the same way we treated Mormons,  someone might draw a connection between our intimidation campaign and Kristallnacht. And then the Jews would be able to claim “victimhood”.

"Kauft nicht bei Juden!" (Don't buy from Jews!) I was thinking we could mount a campaign like this after last night's marriage equality vote. It seemed to work with the Mormons. But someone might see some historical parallels, so let's not do it. We're going to have to find another way to punish the Jews. I'm open to ideas, just leave a comment.

So let’s recap. I want to find a way to punish the Jews for participating in the democratic process on the other side of an issue about which I feel strongly. That does not mean that I am anti-Jewish, because I don’t hate all Jews. I only hate Jews who practice Judaism and believe that silly book they’ve been lugging around for like five thousand years. I’d like to treat them just like the we treated the Mormons after Proposition 8–unleash so much bile and discrimination against them that they’ll never even dream of opposing us in the future. Not that I’m anti-Mormon. Of course, if I treated the Jews the same way that I treated the Mormons, someone might see shades of Nazism in my actions. And I don’t want that.

Straight people are pretty gross…but I won’t judge

Professor David Epstein remains on the faculty of the esteemed Columbia University despite having pled guilty to misdemenor charges of incest in connection with the sexual relationship he had been engaging in with his daughter. That’s correct. Don’t believe for a second that incest is confined to white trash living in rural West Virginia. It’s now de rigeur among educated academics living in New York City as well.

Columbia University: Incest is best, put your DAUGHTER to the test. There's some really sick shit going on there, but who am I to judge? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.

Earlier charges of felony incest were dropped in a plea deal. Don’t ask me what the difference is between felony incest and misdemenor incest because I’ve never passed the New York State Bar Exam. It seems to me that he was either shtooping his daughter or he wasn’t. I don’t understand the distinction.

My intial reaction was revulsion, of course. I mean, that’s just gross. But then I found out that he was once a columnist for the Huffington Post, which I read religiously. I immediately sought out his columns. I liked the column he wrote about torture because I’m against it like he is, though I sorta like the naked pyramids they had at Abu Ghraib. He also hates Sarah Palin, though not quite as much as I do. From everything I can gather, he’s a liberal. I didn’t find anything in his archive about LGBTQXYZ issues (to his shame) but I’ll just assume that he’s on board. He  seems like a level-headed guy, not a bigot.

But as I was crusing around the ‘net, reading about Epstein’s incestual relationship, I stumbled upon a blog comment that really spun my head around. It appeared on the website of Columbia’s campus newspaper, under the heading “Full Marriage Equality”:

“Consenting adults should be able to pursue love, sex, and marriage (or not) with any other adults. Either we take ‘consenting adults”’and ‘right to privacy’ and ‘my body, my choice’ seriously, or we don’t. A woman of age 18 can sue or be sued, go to prison for life, serve in the military, operate motor vehicles and heavy machinery, consent to sex with men or women they just met. Are we to say they can’t consent to sex with a close relative?”

Read it here: http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/epstein-pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor-charge-of-attempted-incest

David Epstein, Columbia professor and HuffPo columnist. He's definitely "keepin' it in the family" if you know what I mean.

I can see the logic there. Speaking from the point-of-view of someone who knows what it’s like to be shunned and hated because of my sexuality, I can hardly condemn the good professor for his forbidden love. My love was once unspeakable as well. I was forced to hide it as if it was something shameful. All through my teenage years, I prayed to God to take away my sexual desires, but nothing changed. I’m sure David Epstein prayed to his god(ess)(es) as well, asking them to please remove the burning sexual desire he felt for his daughter. But we can’t change the way we feel. You can’t “pray away the inbreeder” any more than you can “pray away the gay”.

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their own business. In fact, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom deserves the full governmental seal of approval that only full marriage rights provide. Anything less is a denial of human rights.

Now I know that some of you may be thinking to yourself–“But Patrick, incest leads to screwed up, inbred, three-eyed children with hemophelia and crap like that.”

Here are a few of my feelings on that.

1) A marriage license is not a license to make a baby. People can (and do) conceive children out of wedlock. Four out of ten American children are now born to unwed mothers. If two people want to make a baby, they will, with or without a license from the state. It kind of reminds me of these people who think gay people will stop being gay if the state won’t allow them to marry. Sheesh. Almost medieval thinking.

2) Obviously, Professor Epstein and his daughter do not “choose” to be incestual. There’s just no way that it can be a “choice”. Who would choose a sexuality that is so reviled and rejected by society at large? For any of you judgemental people who think that Epstein “chooses” to be incestual, let me pose a question: When did you choose to outcestual? Hmm? It must be an inborn trait. Even though no gene has ever been discovered that determines incestual behavior,  we’ll just go ahead and assume that one exists.  We’ll call that science. And if you don’t believe in science, you’re basically a Christofascist loser.  Now, you might argue that people choose who they sleep with, and that would be true. Except then I would have to admit that I choose who I sleep with, and then that would mean that my sexual behaviors are actually behaviors. And that would make it virtually impossible to make perpetual comparisons between myself and black people. So let’s not got there, m’kay?

3) Incest has been around since the beginning of time. And that means it’s okay.

4) If the only reason we don’t accept Epstein’s relationship with his own daughter is because he runs the risk of impregnanting the poor thing, guess what? He didn’t. No harm no foul. I mean, what if Epstein were banging his 24-year old son, rather than his 24-year old daughter? That’s be cool, right? And what if he and his daughter engaged in oral sex only? What if Epstein wanted to do the horizontal limbada with his own (presumably menopausal) mother? That would be kosher. Not only would it be kosher, but we should grant him a marriage license. It’s only fair.

5) Actually, my state DOES allow incestual marriages. We’re very progressive here in the Bay State, far ahead of the rest of the nation. My state allows incestual marriages so long as they are HOMOSEXUAL in nature. Thank goodness. So if I weren’t already married to Michael, I could conceivably marry my dad. Or my brother. And the more I think about it, the more I’d really like to marry my brother. He’s a charmer. Now, from time to time, I’ve been on gay blogs and mentioned that two brothers can marry each other in my state and I’ve been accused of “lying”. So, if you don’t believe me, here is the statute, or you can simply google “Massachusetts legal impediments to marriage”:

http://www.tyngsboroughma.gov/government/departments/town-clerk/obtaining-a-marriage-licencse/

The law is very clear. Women may not marry close male relatives and men may not marry close female relatives. It doesn’t even make a common sense exception for men who want to marry their post-menopausal mothers! But it doesn’t say anything about men marrying close male relatives, or women marrying close female relatives. So me and my brother could tie the knot. If I weren’t already married to my loving husband Michael, that is. So if gays can marry incestually, why not straights? If your answer is because straights can make babies and gays can’t, then you’re of course positing that baby-making capabilities should have some bearing on marriage, which is just LUDICROUS! Marriage is about love. The state should bless all love equally, H8ER!

6) For you Bible-thumping theocrats out there, please don’t bring your morals to this argument. We have a strict seperation of church and state in this country. It’s right there in the Consitution…somewhere. Look, I can’t find it right now. I’ll look for it again later. In any case, I’d bet you can’t find a single instance of Jesus condemning incest in the Bible. Go ahead and look, I dare you. Those are the words in red, douchebags. See? He never said it, so that means it’s okay. Also, if you’re such a staunch believer in the Bible, maybe you ought to go out and thrash yourself for eating a shrimp cocktail. Until then, STFU.

7) How many more incestual people does God have to make before you get it through your thick skulls that God wants them around? Obviously, if incest were wrong, God wouldn’t have created people who have an inclination to do it.

So, the more I think about it, the more I think Epstein is a trailblazer for equal rights. He and his daughter are SICK, but that shouldn’t mean that they enjoy anything less than equal rights. It’s not the government’s place to decide what’s sick. That would be a slippery slope–next thing you know, they’d be telling me that I’m sick.

Perverts like us have to stand shoulder to shoulder with perverts like them. Let’s not allow the churchy haters to divide us. It’s not of our business if David Epstein wants to give his daughter the business. She’s cool with it, why shouldn’t we be?

Obama’s definition of marriage still evolving

Coming on the eve of the “Gala with the Gay Community” fundraiser in Manhattan, President Obama today says that his opinion of marriage equality is “evolving”. As in, he might just get with the program in the near future and tell everyone that he’s gay for marriage. Which I’m sure would help his fundraising efforts with rich fags in the Village and make this gay man very…gay?

Now, as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t really care that Obama opposes marriage equality. Everyone else who opposes it is an unforgivable bigot, a moral monster, but not Obama. Is it because he’s black? No. I hate black people who disagree with me too. I think they should be fired from their jobs. Is it because he’s a Democrat? Nope, that’s not it either. I also hate Democrats who disagree with me. They should all be fired as well. The reason I don’t mind Obama’s opposition to marriage equality is because everyone knows he’s being completely disingenuous!

That’s right, the whole thing is complete a fake-out! Obama loves the homos. He’d kiss our asses at high noon in Times  Square if it weren’t for the fact that he still needs to get re-elected.

And I can hardly condemn dishonesty in pursuit of a personal agenda. After all, I’ve lied about just about everything in order to push the gay agenda. I’ve told people that I’m a devout Christian, that I’m a veteran, that I got beat up last week just for being gay. In fact, years ago, I used to tell people that I “just wanted to be left alone”. Ha! Of course I didn’t spill the beans that I really wanted to be in the schools, teaching the next generation of kids things that their parents find abhorrent.  So I know what it means to keep mum about your true motivations so that you can push them quietly, under the radar.

Obama at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Obama opposes marriage equality, but he was glad to be warmly welcomed at the headquarters of an organization that worked overtime to strip the people of Massachusetts of their right to vote on this issue. Also, notice the shadow of TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) on the right side. I've heard that he can't put together a coherent thought without that thing.

You’ve got to be an IDIOT to think that Obama isn’t one hundred percent in the tank for the gay agenda. But that’s just it–there are gobs and gobs of idiots in this country! Morons across the fruited plain. I’m talking about senior citizens who think he’s a “nice young man”, but would be horrified to discover that Obama thinks that the definition of marriage should be changed.I’m talking about churchy blacks who are thrilled to see a black man in the White House but still object to homosexuality. He still has to hoodwink these people one more time in 2012.

Let’s face it. Voters are stupid, and sometimes they need to be lied to. My butt-buddy Bawney Fwank (D-Massachusetts) agrees:

“My own view is that I look at President Obama’s record, he was probably inclined to think that same-sex marriage was legitimate, but as a candidate for president in 2008 that would have been an unwise thing to say. And I don’t mean that he’s being hypocritical. I mean that if you live in a democratic society, it is a mix of what you think the voters want and what you think is doable.”

You nailed it, Bawney! If the American people had known where Candidate Obama really stood on the issues, he never would have been elected president. So it’s important that he continue his fraudulent candidacy in 2012. Otherwise, we might end up with a Republican who’s openly opposed to our agenda, rather than an ally who has the good sense to push our agenda quietly. That’s not hypocrisy as the Congressman explained. Definitely not.

Typical American voter. Believe me, I went to the Midwest once and I saw people like this. All they know is that they like Jesus, Wal-mart and Toby Keith. Is it any wonder that Obama has to lie?

Back in 1996, when Obama was running for the State Senate of Illinois, he responded to a gay newspaper’s questionnaire, saying:

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

Which is exactly what we thought, Mr. Obama. But he later explained that he was actually referring to civil unions, which he supports. See–when he said “marriage”, he didn’t mean “marriage”. He meant civil union. This can all get very complicated as you dig into it. Anyway, it was a great dodge.

Even more amazing is the fact that OBAMA DIDN’T EVEN FILL IT OUT! As  White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer explained, Obama outsourced that questionnaire to a staffer who just wrote whatever he wanted. But then later, White House spokesman Shin Inouye had to correct the record. As it turns out, Obama did fill it out.

“Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the president’s views are clear. He has long supported equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples and since taking office he has signed into law the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ signed into law the hate crimes bill, made the decision not to defend Section 3 of DOMA and expanded federal benefits for same sex partners of federal employees. “

Yes, his views are crystal clear. Press Secretary Jay Carney explains:

“He’s been very clear about his position on gay marriage, he’s been very clear about how that position is evolving. I don’t have any new announcements to make, but I think you know his record, and he’s proud of it.”

See? His position is clear. His position is that his position is evolving. What’s unclear about that? He’s “grappling” with it. Each night as he goes to bed, he engages in mental jujitsu with the idea of two men sodomizing each other on their wedding night. As he drifts off to sleep, he asks himself if it’s 2013 yet so he can drop his sham opposition.

Again and again, I don’t blame him one bit. I understand that he has to use stealth and deception to get what he wants. Without it, he wouldn’t be the president of the United States, he’d just be some state senator from Chicago. No problemo. Stealth and deception are all fair game when you’re fighting for civil rights like we are.

John Kerry, for example, was against gay marriage when he ran for president in 2004. The moment the campaign was over, he decided that he was actually in favor of gay marriage. It’s almost as if he had to pretend to believe one thing in order to get elected. Let’s just say that Kerry was against it before he was for it.

So, I guess Obama will just have to keep saying a bunch of bullshit he doesn’t believe. As he said to the members of Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. You know, God is in the mix.”

Pshhht! Yeah, that’s a good one, Barry. Everyone knows you don’t believe in God. Everyone except those rubes at Rick Warren’s gay-hating church, that is. Ha! Ha! Keep it up though. If I thought for a moment that you believed that ‘God is in the mix’, or that you’re actually a Christian, I would treat you like Carrie Prejean. I’d run up there on stage and grab that tiara off your bitchy little head, you hateful, hate-mongering, HATER!

Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church. I think he has blower's cramp in this picture, I 'm not sure. Normally, I would hate preachy Christofascists like this guy, but he welcomed Obama into his church so that Obama could lie to their faces. I think he should be proud of that. We need to fool people if we're ever going to get our way.

In the meantime, I hope Obama grapples just a little faster. It’s getting embarrassing trying to explain to my gay friends why it’s okay for Obama to define marriage according to his religion, but not for other people to do the same thing. Well, I’m sure after the election of 2012 he’ll be able to quit lying and just tell us what he really thinks. Give it time.

CNN’s new gay evangelist off to a great start. No pretense of objectivity with H8er Santorum

This time last month, I was on the edge of my seat watching CNN’s Don Lemon “coming out” before the whole world on the Joy Behar Show. I was moved to tears. Tears of joy, of course.

And then he had to go ruin it all by telling everyone that:

I don’t think just because I’m gay that it makes, it takes my brain away…or it makes me not be objective. I’ve been doing this job for a long time. And I’ve been objective and I think I’ve been fair.”
Uh…come again? Don intends to remain objective in his reporting? This, while gay kids are killing themselves? This is not time for neutrality. Here I was hoping that he would be CNN’s in-house crusader for the mainstreaming of homosexuality.
Don’t get me wrong. In most cases, I’m all for journalistic objectivity. For example, when the US military is engaged in a pitched battle with Islamic barbarians, I think it’s vital that the media not take sides. It’s not a reporter’s job to be a cheerleader for US military victories. In the war between Americans and eleventh century Islamic hordes, it’s best not to take sides. But when it comes to gays, journalists are OBLIGATED to take sides.
So, let’s recap. American soldiers engaged in a shooting war with the people who murdered 3,000 people on 9/11, journalists should not take sides. Gays are engaged in a culture war with homophobes, journalists should come out strongly for our side.  Got it?
How relieved I was to read in the (ultra-gay) Washington Blade that Don had changed his mind and decided to ditch that neutrality stuff.
“I work for a very credible and influential news organization. And there, frankly, aren’t many people like me ‘out’ in general, and when you break it down into subcategories like African American or whatever, then there really aren’t any people. So do I think I can change minds? Absolutely, and that’s why I’m doing it. I hope to change minds.
So brave of him!  I’m glad he spilled the beans about “changing minds” through a gay publication. First, he tells the whole world on Joy Behar’s show that he plans to be just as neutral as ever, but then he uses the Washington Blade to tell his LGBTQXYZ viewers something very different. Wink, wink. Nod, nod. It’s almost as  if he knows that his credible and influential news organization wouldn’t be so credible or influential if people caught on to the extent of its bias.

CNN's Don Lemon. I'm so glad he's gay because he's such a dashing gentleman. Is it true what they say about black guys and their...? Anyway, he had me worried back when he first came out of the closet, talking about all of this journalistic objectivity bullshit. Nice to know he's ditched that.

Before the Blade interview, I was concerned that he was going to be remiss in his gay duties. It’s the obligation of all homos to propagandize from whatever pulpit they have, gay reporters especially. There may still be a few people living in the far reaches of backwoods America who aren’t yet bombarded by homosexual propaganda. And it’s Don’s job to make sure that those old bigots get an attitude adjustment. It’s not a reporter’s job to deliver the who, what, when, where, and how. Not a GAY reporter’s job, anyway. It’s his job to be as in-your-face as possible, to slant the news in our favor, to make homosexuals look virtuous and kind, and to harass anyone who might have moral objections to homosexuality.
Luckily, Don got right to work after his coming out. In an interview with known homophobe Rick Santorum, Lemon pounced. Here’s some of that unbiased reporting:
“[S]ome people have been saying that [Santorum] is homophobic because he wants to change the Constitution in support of what he calls ‘traditional marriage.”
Boo-yah! Did you see how he hid his own personal opinions by attributing them to other people? “Some people” are saying that Santorum is a homophobe. Not Don Lemon, just “some people”. That was slick, Don. I like how you did that. He even used the intonation of his voice to mock and deride the term ‘traditional marriage’. Very snarky. And of course, Don Lemon portrays marriage between a man and woman not as traditional marriage per se, but simply Rick Santorum’s own conception of what marriage has traditionally been. And we all know how wacky Santorum is.

Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's most high profile bigot. Nice shotgun in the picture, dickwad. Anyway, I really like what someone did to this billboard. Everyone knows that people who have moral objectives to homosexuality are all just repressed homosexuals themselves. Hundred percent of them. Well, if Rick really is a pickle smoocher (and I suspect he is), then I'd suggest that he do what a lot of homosexuals do and blow his damned brains out with that gun. Now there's one gay person I wouldn't mind seeing commit suicide. I would, however, suggest the vandal in question learn how to spell basic words like "needs". It's only five letters. But other than that, great job!

Don Lemon then asked if Rick Santorum has any gays friends. Because it’s mandatory that everyone have gay friends. Who DOESN’T pal around with sodomites? I mean, seriously…I would have to be a little suspicious of anyone who didn’t have a single homosexual within his close circle of compatriots. I know that when I look for friends, I seek out people men who guzzle cum and women who munch carpet. It’s a very important to me.

Don summarized Santorum’s statements as follows:
“And he went on to say, you know, at least he talks about it with his [gay] friends. They respect his opinion. But he doesn’t feel that they should have the same rights, he said. And he said he wants to preserve what he calls, he says, he said special rights for traditional marriage. Those were his words.”
Yep. Those were his words. Santorum said that. He said, “Gay people shouldn’t have the same rights,” and also “There should be special rights for traditional marriage”. Okay, so Rick Santorum didn’t say that. But I forgive Don Lemon for putting those words in his mouth. That’s what a gay reporter is supposed to do. What the hell would be the point of having a gay reporter on staff if he missed this golden opportunity to make Santorum look like an ass?
Anyway, welcome out, Don! I’m so glad you’ve decided to quit living a lie. Now that you’re out, you can be even more biased than you were back in the dark days of living in the closet. We need you now more than ever. Please continue to put advocacy of your own personal lifestyle above journalistic objectivity. It’s not your job to report the news, it’s your job to make people like us!

Cisco Systems, Inc. fires anti-gay bigot

Let me go on record as a strong supporter of firing all opponents of marriage equality. They should not have jobs. Not anywhere. They do not deserve gainful employment. They deserve to live somewhere under a bridge in a cardboard box. If they don’t understand  “inclusion” they should be excluded from the labor force. I don’t care if they fill up our homeless shelters. Wait—on second thought, they should be thrown out of there too!

As some of you may have heard, another Christian crybaby is complaining that he was fired from his job for being a bigot. Boo hoo. The homophobe in question is a man named Dr. Frank Turek, and—until very recently— he worked for Cisco Systems, Incorporated.

Dr. Turek is the author of Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone, an error-filled, culturally-biased homophobic screed that I have not read, nor will I ever. As a Christian, he is unable to see homosexuality with any degree of objectivity.

Turek's offense. Haven't read it because I might kill myself.

I know someone who knows someone who claims to have read it, and he said it hurt his feelings. Given the fact that gays are emotionally fragile people prone to kill themselves at any moment, I think prosecutors should look into the filing criminal charges against Dr. Turek and his publisher.

Cisco actually put the BIGOT in charge of giving a leadership and team-building seminar for managers within the company! Later on, one of the managers who attended his seminar googled Turek’s name and found incontrovertible proof that Turek is a homophobe. The complaining manager is also a homo, so you know he’s the good guy here. He didn’t read the book either, by the way.

The manager complained to Cisco’s HR Department, which promptly fired Turek. Bravo, Cisco! Disagreement will not be tolerated. That was the right move to make. Very courageous.

Cisco Systems supports diversity! It's nice to know that we still have Corporate America in our pocket. Yes, when we queers say 'jump' they say 'how high?' They do nothing but kiss our asses, and for that we thank them.

Now I must amend previous statements I have made. From time to time, ignorant bigots have accused me of wanting to fire people of faith simply for believing the tenets of their religion. Nothing could be further from the truth! In previous contexts I have said that it’s okay if the person believes homosexuality to be immoral so long as he can work with sodomites like me. Then I had to back away from that statement. Later, I said that it’s quite okay if some Christofascist disagrees with homosexuality so long as he only makes his bigoted statements when he is off the clock. But then I had to back away from that statement too. I later explained that gay-haters can espouse their ignorant beliefs all they want, so long as they are off the clock and they don’t mention the name of their employer.

But that would let Dr. Turek off the hook. After all, Turek’s writing was an outside activity that has nothing to do with his work at Cisco. He never presented himself as an employee of Cisco when he wrote. Also, his leadership and team-building seminars were excellent, according to the gay complainer who got him fired. He never once mentioned during his seminar that he wrote a homophobic book, and the only reason the perpetually offended homosexual knew about it is because he typed Turek’s name into a search engine.

Dr. Frank Turek, known homophobe. Kind of cute though. I'd bet that after a night with me he wouldn't be quite as straight as he thought he was. In any case, I'm so glad he's been fired.

So let me clarify: Christians can hold whatever backwards, Paleolithic beliefs they want, with one important caveat—they must always pretend that they don’t believe those things. They may not express those beliefs under any circumstances. That means in the workplace, outside the workplace, at home, in the car with friends, at a party, on the beach, on the street, in church, or anywhere else. Not in a box or with a fox, not in a house or with a mouse. That way, gays will be free of defamation just like they are in Canada and Sweden!

I know, this seems like I’m backtracking. I had previously said that Christians can say anything they want so long as they leave their employers out of it.

Back in 2008 a black woman named Crystal Dixon was fired from her job at the University of Toledo because of a filthy, angry, anti-gay letter she wrote to her local newspaper. Just a few of the “gems” Crystal imparted on us:

First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others.

Have you ever heard such bigotry?! Also:

Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.)

Oh, that old chestnut again. Everyone knows that loving the sinner requires you to affirm his sinfulness. Anything less is bigotry. And finally:

As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are “civil rights victims.” Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.

Gasp! Apparently she didn’t get the memo that gay is the new black. She actually thinks that I choose who I sleep with! I’ve tried to explain this to homophobes on numerous occasions, but I’ll try again. Black people have higher levels of melanin in their skin. Homosexuals commit filthy acts of sodomy.  See the similarity? The parallels are eerie. How can anyone—much less a woman of color!—not see the blinding truth that homosexuality is equivalent to having black skin?

Crystal Dixon, known homophobe. She was fired from her job at the University of Toledo for not understanding that sodomy is roughly equivalent to having black skin. What would she know about being black, anyway? Ugh. I really hate black people. They've always been the churchiest of all the races. Roseanne Barr was right about them.

Anyway, back then I explained that she wasn’t being fired for her homophobic beliefs because that would have appeared to be a form of religious discrimination. I said that she was being fired for mentioning in the letter that she was an employee of the University of Toledo, and thus representing the school when she wrote her letter. See the difference?

Then there was the case of Sergeant Eric Holyfield, a raging homophobe and 16-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department. Holyfield serves as a pastor at his church when off duty. When delivering a eulogy for a fellow police officer, Holyfield quoted First Corinthians Chapter Six, a verse from that hate-filled book known as the Bible. It said that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God. And he was demoted, thank goodness! He should have been fired, but demotion is almost good enough.

At the time I explained that he wasn’t demoted for reading from the Bible. Instead, I said that he was demoted because he read from the Bible and identified himself as the deceased police officer’s supervisor, which makes a huge difference. He can say anything he wants so long as he doesn’t mention his affiliation with the LAPD.

See, so no one’s freedom is being squashed here. There is no chilling effect. People are just being fired for not denying their faith, that’s all.

And now back to Dr. Turek. Okay, so he never mentioned his beliefs at work. And he never mentioned in his writing that he worked at Cisco. But that’s okay, I’ll just move the goalposts.  I agree with his termination. He obviously doesn’t support Cisco’s values of inclusion and tolerance.

‘Tolerance’, by the way, does not mean that I have to tolerate other people’s religious beliefs. Tolerance means that people of the Christian faith get pink slips unless they take a black marker to all of the passages of the Bible that offend me. ‘Inclusion’does not mean including people of various faith backgrounds. It means including people of various sexual perversions.

Gay Girl in Damascus was a hoax. And your point is…?

Okay, so a lot of people have been asking me my opinion of Tom McMaster, the pudgy American peace activist from Georgia who recently came clean as the author of “A Gay Girl in Damascus”.

“Gay Girl” is an influential blog purportedly written by Amina Araf, a Syrian-American lesbian living in Damascus. “Araf” has been a witness to the ongoing turmoil in Syria, the latest chaper in the “Arab Spring” takeover of the Middle East by the Muslim Brotherhood and related groups.

The woman pictured here is supposed to be a Syrian-American lesbian blogger living in Damascus. Actually, it's a Facebook photo that Tom McMaster stole of some Croatian chick who lives in London. Not Syrian, but hopefully a lesbian. In any case, she's not a gay girl in Damascus.

Rather suprisingly, “Amina” is a big fan of toppling secular dictatorships in favor of  Islamic supremacist dictatorships. “Amina” apparently doesn’t think that three years in a Syrian prison is a harsh enough punishment for homosexual relations. That’s the current penalty in Syria.  She wants the Muslim Brotherhood to impose execution as the penalty for lesbianism.

Normally, I would be against the death penalty for gays, BUT–and there’s a big but here–I make an excpetion for repressive Muslim regimes. The truth is that I really just hate Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, and other people of other religions that don’t prescribe death for me.

Muslims, on the other hand, seem kind of oppressed. That’s why I joined Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT!). See the blogroll at right for more info. You may have heard of this organization. They used to call themselves  Queers for Palestine. QUIT! told me that once the Muslims liberated Palestine “from the Jordan to the sea” that they would indulge gay pride parades through Jerusalem. And I believe them. Obviouly, homosexuals are better off in Muslim countries than we are in an apartheid state like Israel.

Muslims seem like downtrodden victims just like me. Don’t get me wrong; on the heirarchy of victimhood, theirs  is not equal to ours. Homosexuals are the ULTIMATE victim group. No one else even comes close. That being said, I still get a dirty feeling inside every time I breathe a word of criticism of Islam, as if I am some kind of bigot. The last thing I want to be called is an Islamophobe, so I tend to keep quiet about Muslims killing pickle-smoochers like me.

But back to McMaster, the pasty white Yank living in Scotland who managed to fool the world into thinking he was a Syrian lesbian. I must say, he might have gone a little overboard when he wrote that post about “Amina” being kidnapped by Syrian police. It seems a little hokey. But other than that, BRAVO! Way to go!

Tom McMaster: Peace activist, tireless advocate for Palestian rights, and--unbeknownst to many until just recently--a lesbian and woman of color. McMaster recently explained to the Guardian UK why he had to pretend he was someone he's not. I think it's because no one would give a crap what he thought about the situation Syria if they knew he was a honky living thousands of miles away from Damascus and actually not a lesbian or a Muslim.

I don’t blame McMaster at all for the lies he told on his blog. In fact, I hardly even consider it lying. Neither does McMaster, as he explained:

While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground. I do not believe that I have harmed anyone — I feel that I have created an important voice for issues that I feel strongly about.

Telling untruths for a good cause isn’t really lying at all when you think about it. Recall the great fibbers of our time–Rigoberta Menchu, for example, won the Nobel Prize for fabricating some bullshit story about the oppressed indigenous peoples of Guatamala. Good for her. Her pack of lies did a lot of good for the burgeoning communist revolutions in her part of the world, so I commend her for it.  Al Hubbard, the notable founder of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, was not actually a Vietnam veteran and lied about being an officer. Right on, brotha! Gay mental patient Rick Duncan claimed that he graduated from Annapolis, that he was a decorated combat Marine, and that he had been at the Pentagon on 9/11.  He also said that everyone in his unit knew he was gay and they were all cool with it. Actually, he’d never served a day in his life, but who cares?

Rick Duncan in his Iraq Veterans Against the War duds. He's not actually an Iraq War veteran, or a veteran at all. Nor is he a graduate of Annapolis. Also, he wasn't at the Pentagon on 9/11 because he was confined to a mental institution. But he is gay, and I think that's a feather in his cap. He worked tirelessly for the repeal of DADT, and for that WE SALUTE HIM!

Can you really blame any of these people? Can you condemn their “lies”? I didn’t think so.

I used to do something very similar during the DADT debate.  It was ingenious. I used to surf around to all the military blogs and pretend I was an old gay veteran who had served fifteen back-to-back tours as a green beret in Afghanistan and Iraq. I even threw in some military jargon I learned from watching Full Metal Jacket just to sound more believable! My little misinformation campaign worked like a charm. Anybody can claim to be whoever they want on the internet and no one knows the difference. But, believe me, I really changed some hearts and minds when I told them everyone in my unit knew I was a cocksmuggler and nobody cared. It’s good to repeat that over and over again. Also, it helps to tell people that queer soldiers are smarter, tougher, wiser, and kinder than heteros. All the best soldiers are gay.

Telling lies to advance the gay agenda is downright admirable. I do it all the time. So, in the end, if the gay girl in Damascus was actually a chubby, life-long college student from Atlanta, I don’t think it really matters much. He told someone’s story, if not his own. And we’re all better off because he did.

Tag Cloud