THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

A meaningless milestone in the form of an unrealistic artificial timeline was celebrated with a meaningless speech by an artificial leader specializing in meaningless words.

His chin was tilted to the perfect angle to hide the lack of meaning. He looked downright authoritative and serious with his meaningless proclamations.

Then the evening went downhill when President Obama stopped doing his “wow, I look important” pose and began the lecture.

The blatherer in chief let us know that the flu virus situatin was “serious.” The government is “doing something about it.” He told us to wash our hands and cover our mouths when we cough.

He claimed that his recovery package “saved or created $150,000 jobs, and gave a tax cut to 95% of all working families.”

Hey, they guy makes up numbers out of thin air and the media blindly accepts it, but let’s be fair. His suit looked good, his shirt was crisp, and his necktie was perfect. The Jayson Blair Times will be doing a three part expose on whether he prefers the Windsor knot or a more traditional tie style.

He even claimed that his housing plan led to a spike in refinaincing, which in Obamaland, “is the equivalent of another tax cut.”

Yeah, and my doctor just put on the rubber glove and checked me for testicular cancer. It’s the same thing as when my girlfriend visits, except it is completely different. It depends what the word “equivalent” is. Equivalent is a word that lying politicians and makers of diet soda use. The equivalent is just as good, except it is not.

“We have to lay a new foundation for growth.”

He is just brilliant.

He bragged about closing Gitmo, without addressing whether he will actually work on a plan to place the detainees.

He claimed to be against torture “without exception,” which I thought meant he would end his speech right there. No, he continued.

He thinks he is doing a good job. He is pleased with himself. Now there is a surprise.

He acknowledges that projected deficits are still too high, without acknowledging that he is the cause of the projected increases.

He will continue scowering the budget for savings and eliminate programs that don’t work. The man is a genius.

The first question belonged to AP reporter Jennifer Loven, who is a left wing hack married to a former John Kerry campaign staffer. Oh, and she is unbiased. She asked about closing the Mexican border and possibly quarantining people. This allowed him to come across as “compassionate,” as if there was any chance he would say yes.

He actually said that “the Bush administration did a good job” regarding the bird flu epidemic in 2005. He should get some hate mail from the leftist lunatics for that remark.

He reiterated washing hands and covering the mouth when coughing. He then admitted that what he was talking about “sounded trivial.” He then told people to stay home from work if they are sick, and not to fly when they are sick, as if that will ever happen.Then again, maybe he can change the behavior of the entire human race.

For some bizarre reason, the Detroit News was allowed to ask a question. President Obama spoke about Chrysler and General Motors. He said nothing of consequence, but nothing harmful.

ABC News asked if waterboarding was torture, with the obligatory war crimes accusation against President George W. Bush. President Obama insists that we could have gotten vital information”in other ways, in ways that are ocnsistent with our values.” of course he did not elaborate because that would mean having a solution. He then rambled about Winston Churchill in World War II, and how Churchill did not torture.

Churchill would have taken any steps to win, but let’s not confuse facts with President Obama.

Shockingly enough, President Obama was comfortable with his decision. President Obama would not commit to pursuing war crimes charges against President Bush. He wants no part of that powder keg.

I found irony in the fact that the conversation was about terrorism, especially since the next questioner looked like a terrorist. It turns out the fellow with a beard scruffier than most vagrants was actually Mark Knoller of CBS Radio. I have nothing against Mr. Knoller, but when entering a room with the President, even I would shave, or at least trim.

Mr. Knoller asked if President Obama would use coerced interrogation methods if there was an “imminent threat.” President Obama insists that we could have gotten the valued information without torture. Apparently Khalid Sheik Mohammed disagrees with President Obama.

President Obama then said, “I will do whatever is required to keep the American p[eople safe, but…”

There is no “but.” That is where President Obama goes off the tracks.

He then said, “There is no information I have seen that makes me second guess the decision I have made.”

There is a surprise. When a guy makes up his mind before the question is asked, there is little room for reflection.

Naturally, MSNBC got to aska  question. Chuck Todd asked President Obama to promise to secure loose nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Barack Obama crossed his heat and hoped to…well, not die.

He is confident on the issue. This seems to be a recurring theme.

CBS News asked if the Arlen Specter switch would lead to “one party rule, where he runs roughshod over the Republican Party.”

He replied, “I am under no illusions that I will have a rubber stamp Senate.”

He meant to say that he would NOT have a rubber stamp Senate. That was an interesting Freudian slip that the leftist media ignored. With regards to Republicans, “reaching out to them has been genuine.”

Inviting them to a Super Bowl party is not reaching out. Reaching out does not mean politely listening to opposing views and then dismissing them. Nobody questions his politeness.It’s his sincerity that is the problem.

He then reminded America that he won a historic election.

Ed Henry of CNN asked if the President would keep his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

This allowed Obama to be at his most weaselly. He went out of his way to say that he respects those with an opposing view. Yet that is not the same as actually offering an ounce of compromise on an issue. He should have just said, “I am pro-choice, so yes.” He tries so hard to sound moderate that one could believe that he actually is a moderate, if one was a media lapdog.

He then said that the Freedom of Choice Act was “not my highest legislative priority.” NARAL will find a way to take that dismissal and claim that he supports them.

The Jayson Blair Times, never won to show an ounce of humility or ask a tough question of a liberal, asked what surprised, troubled, enchanted, and humbled the President about his office.

The surprise came in the form of the number of issues coming to a head at the same time. President Obama did not anticipate “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression,” despite talking about it on the campaign trail repeatedly. He claimed arbitrarily that “other presidents have two or three crises, while he has seven or eight.”

He is troubled by the partisanship, which is odd since he is a driving force behind it. For one thing, he will not rein in the Pelosiraptor.

He likes our troops. He claims that they are “really good at their job.” Now if only he would let them.

He is humbled by the power of the Presidency, and the patience of the American people.

Black Entertainment Network got to aska  question on what the president would do to lessen the impact of the recession on black people. President Obama smartly responded that he was trying to help all people.

I give him credit on this issue. He simply refuses to become like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. He may be doing this because he knows white America will not tolerate it, but that does not change the fact that he is right to stay away from it.

Time Magazine asked about the State Secret Doctrine. President Obama wants it “modified,” which is a fancy way of saying, “mend it, don’t end it.” This guy really is not Jesse Jackson. He doesn’t even rhyme.

He doesn’t want to reveal covert information which might compromise our safety. In short, he will do exactly what President Bush did without saying so.

The Wall Street Journal asked him what kind of shareholder he would be, regarding auto companies. Then Barbara Walters asked him what kind of tree he would be.

President Obama claimed that he did not want to own auto companies or banks. Yet at the same time, he refuses to let banks pay back the TARP money.

He wants to “help these companies make tough decisions.”

The banks that are screaming that they do not want or need his help are being ignored.

I have to concede that his five minute speech was not dreadful. The remaining 55 minutes were inconsequential.

Then again, those who want substance should wait for his Republican successor.

eric

Senator Arlen Specter has switched sides.

To steal a line from David Letterman after the Jim Jeffords switch, “This is the biggest political switch since…well, since Jim McGreevey.”

The bottom line is that not one Republican in this country should be celebrating right now. This is a disaster. It was also an avoidable disaster.

Let me begin by saying that I have never liked Arlen Specter. I have never met him personally, but I never liked him. Given that he was a Jewish Republican, I wanted to like him. Yet I always found him to be an opportunist.

My prediction is that the Jayson Blair Times will praise him for being “courageous” and “principled.” That is what happens when Republicans vote to raise taxes, bash other Republicans, or in some cases, leave the party entirely and become Democrats or left-leaning independents.

When Democrats dare to cross party lines, there is talk of betrayal. Just ask Joe Lieberman.

There was nothing principled about Arlen Specter’s decision. It was a cold, naked political calculation. Senator Specter has stayed around too long, lost touch with his constituents, and is now trying to blame the party for his losing touch.

Arlen Specter has been drifting leftward slowly since 1992. 1992 was the “year of the woman.” Women everywhere began deciding that merit did not matter, as they picked the least qualified candidates nationwide who yelped the loudest. From Barbara Boxer in California to Carol Moseley Braun in Illinois, qualifications went out the window.

In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter was trailing an unknown named Lynne Yeakal by a 2-1 margin. The issue was Anita Hill and her long since discredited accusations against Clarence Thomas.

These women ran for office with the same “Yes, we can!” blather of our current President.

Specter was running scared. He ran hard to the left, and with the fortune of running against a bumbler, eked out a 51-49% victory.

By 2004, Specter, was facing a primary challenge from Pat Toomey. This was something I was against.

I like Pat Toomey. The Club For Growth is fabulous. I just don’t believe that we as Republicans should cannibalize our own.

Yes, this is a democracy, and Pat Toomey had a right to run. Nobody is entitled to coast to a general election without a primary. However, politically it is a mistake. Sometimes it works out well, such as when Al D’Amato took down Jacob Javits in New York. Usually it just splits the party and elects liberals.

(I like Kay Bailey Hutchison better than Rick Perry, but still wish they were not facing off against each other.)

Specter barely survived Toomey, but Toomey is taking him on again for the 2010 race. I again wish this had not been the case.

Arlen Specter did two dishonorable things. Switching parties was not dishonorable. Yet a pair of actions connected with the switching are dishonorable.

First of all, I believe that when a politician switches parties, they should resign. Period. They should run again, but not as a sitting Senator. Even Richard Shelby, who blatantly telegraphed and all but announced his switch on a megaphone before his 1994 reelection, should have resigned. Phil Gramm did it the right way. He left the Democratic Party, resigned his seat, ran as a Republican, and won. That is honor.

Arlen Specter should return every dollar from every donor that wants their money back. Many people, rightly or wrongly, vote based on party. His switch is a breach of contract (morally, not legally).

The second act of dishonor is his blaming the Pennsylvania Republican electorate.

Losers blame the voters. I respect the American people. Unlike liberals, who blame voters whenever they lose, Conservatives should be above that pettiness. Republicans lost the 2008 elections. I don’t blame the voters. We lost.

Arlen Specter drifted away from the party in the same way Bill Clinton triangulated his way to a second term. They are both about self-preservation at any and all costs.

One thing that will be interesting is whether Democrats bail out Specter the way that Republicans aided Lieberman. Many Democrats will be resentful if they have to shelve their own ambitions for Specter.

So what do Republicans do now?

The main thing we do is stop cannibalizing each other.

I speak around the country, and one message that I hammer over and over again is that if you have an “R” next to your name, then you are party of my political family.

I have no litmus tests.

I get angry when the moderates attack the social conservatives. I get just as angry when the social conservatives refer to moderate Republicans as RINOs (Republicans in name only).

Ronald Reagan gave the 11th Commandment, that “Thou shalt speak ill of no other Republican.”

I want Sam Brownback in my party, and I also want Susan Collins.

What I want most is to win elections. There are no moral victories in politics. Winners get to govern.

Some conservatives think that it is good to have a Democrat win from time to time so that they can screw up and get “real” conservatives elected. They point to Jimmy Carter being followed by Ronald Reagan.

Jimmy Carter was a disaster, and Ronald Reagan probably would have won anyway.

John McCain is not the same as Barack Obama. There is a lot more than a “dime’s difference between the two parties,” despite what George Wallace said.

For those who forget, it was moderate Republicans in 1993 that defeated the stimulus bill debacle put forth by Bill Clinton.

We need to unite. We can have all the disagreements in the world when we are governing, but if we are fractured now, then the march to socialism will succeed, and we will need a couple of generations to reverse the damage.

The national party must flood Norm Coleman with money in Minnesota so that Al Franken never becomes that 60th seat. Coleman will be under heavy pressure to quit, even though Al Gore was allowed to nearly provoke a constitutional crisis. Liberals never resign with honor. They hang on kicking and screaming. Norm Coleman must hang on and win. Otherwise Democrats will continue to try and steal elections because they will (correctly) conclude that Republicans will not fight to the end.

Losing numbers is losing, period. It is not a victory, especially if Toomey loses.

We need to respect the members of our political family that we disagree with. Idaho and Mississippi are not California and Massachusetts. Republicans can win in California, but they have to be moderates. Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger went too far, but Pete Wilson was attacked as a “moderate,” and he was a fabulous Republican governor. Would I like a conservative like Tom McClintock? Of course I would. Yet I don’t have the votes.

The liberals have destroyed California. The only way we can save the state is with moderate Republicans. As long as these moderate slash taxes and protect our safety, I can be more patient on re meat social issues.

We have to stop the bleeding. We need to make sure that Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins stay with us. Maine is not going to give us leadership that would make Alabama happy.

Lindsey Graham said it best. He said, “I can’t win in Pennsylvania. I can win in South Carolina. I cannot win in Pennsylvania.”

I am absolutely not advocating that we water down the party or act like Democrats. I am saying that we have to give some of our members latitude when they need to stray from time to time, provided it does not become the rule instead of the exception.

Arlen Specter betrayed the Republican Party. He violated his oath to those that supported him.

Yet the entire party needs to make sure that we do not have this situation occur again. This is not a blessing in disguise, or even a blessing for all to see.

This is a party that wants to wreck this country moving one vote closer.

eric

At the UCLA Festival of Books, I actually encountered somebody worse than Arianna Huffington.

I did not know this was possible.

Yet at a panel on the role of media in our society, Ms. Huffington was not the most obnoxious participant.

When asked what she read, she replied, “I read newspapers, and not just online. I read physical newspapers. I read the LA Times, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. I don’t believe newspapers need to die.”

With regards to whether organizations could charge for people to read their content, Ms. Huffington was convinced this would not work. “The only things people would pay for online are niche content or weird porn. Putting content behind walls will fail.”

While Ms. Huffington represents some of the worst of the new media, she ironically defends the worst of the old media.

“We can save journalism and newspapers.”

“The debate on torture is pathetic. When did torture become a leftist issue?”

“How did financial journalists miss the financial meltdown?”

“A New York Times article mentioned Goldman Sachs profits. The article was a reprint of a Goldman Sachs press release.”

Ms. Huffington freely admits that the mainstream media is a complete and utter disaster, but wants to save them anyway. Also, she criticizes them for getting stories wrong when the truth would benefit liberals. Yet she cannot bring herself to discuss that most of the mistakes of the mainstream media are what really benefit the liberals.

She did say one thing I agreed with, although her lack of courage was astounding. It was announced at the beginning of the session that recording devices were not allowed.

“In 2009, asking people not to record sessions about the media is absurd.”

She made this pious proclamation at the end of the session. This allowed her to get plenty of cheers from the room without actually accomplishing anything. A sincere move would have been to demand at the very beginning to allow recorders. Then again, much of liberalism is about symbolism and appearances, rather than concrete positives.

When she was asked about incorrect stories on her site, she simply responded by saying that the questioner should email her, and that she would look into it. I privately asked her about anti-Semitism on her site. I made it clear that I was not saying that she supported the anti-Semitism, but that it reflected badly on her. Perhaps I was being overly generous, but I erred on the non-accusatory side. She simply replied that if I found something to that effect, I should email her and she would look into it.

Marc Cooper was the voice of reason on the panel. While he was not a conservative, he was significantly less useless than the rest. In fact, he was actually worthwhile.

“Guttenberg invented the printing press to propagate the bible. Instead it led to secular humanism and the enlightenment.”

“In 1968, if we had fewer Washington reporters, we would have avoided war in Vietnam.”

“Text will survive. Newspapers will not.”

“The right to publish is only a decade old. I would take amateurs any day over the polished professionals.”

Sharon Waxman was the panelist that shilled for her former employer, the Jayson Blair Times.

“We learned nothing from Vietnam coverage. The media led us right into the 2003 Iraq War.”

“The New York Times is the establishment.”

“I regret that the news industry is losing professionals.”

Yet as dreadful as Ms. Huffington and Ms. Waxman were, there noses were barely in the air compared to the worst member of the panel.

James Rainey works for an inconsequental section of the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps that means he works for every section. Nevertheless, one sentence he uttered, taken completely in context, reflected why Americans should be disgusted with the media, and most liberals in general.

“I liked the old world where Walter Cronkite, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times ruled the world, and we could ignore you.”

The “you” he refers to are the citizen journalists, also known as bloggers. Mr. Rainey at least was an honest jack@ss. He admitted that he is an elitist snob. He was the moderator for this panel, which shows why the old media needs the Old Yeller treatment.

I asked him a public question, and he could barely contain his anger and contempt.

“I am a political blogger who admits his biases up front, and when I make a mistake, I issue a loud mea culpa. Why can’t the old media do the same? How many times do we have to experience ‘fake but accurate’ memos, Jayson Blair, secret troop movements being revealed, and corrections buried on page 37, before you realize the problem is oen of loq quality? You brag about 1-2 million people reading your paper, but 299 million people do not read it. Shouldn’t you be treated the same way as the financial firms you criticize? Doesn’t the idea of ‘creative destruction’ mean that, like Lehman Brothers, the Los Angeles Times and Jayson Blair Times should fail?”

The trick to asking a long question is to speak clearly but quickly.

Mr. Rainey seethed, and blathered on about how the mistakes I cited were aberrations. Evidence of high quality is found in, according to him, “recent Pulitzer Prizes.”

Is he kidding? Sadly, no. He actually believes that liberals giving each other awards actually means something. Sorry, but Oscars, Nobels, and Pulitzers have little to do with quality and much to do with ideology.

Rather than admit the problem, he simply denies the problem exists. You see, the problem is not the old media. It is ordinary people. Let me repeat his words again, which were not said in jest.

“I liked the old world where Walter Cronkite, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times ran the world and we could ignore you.”

Yes, Arianna Huffington is poison. Yet at least she is using the new media to spread her propaganda. She is a successful purveyor of hate speech.

James Rainey is the worst of all possible worlds. He is an ineffective purveyor of hate.

He is worse than Arianna Huffington.

May the Los Angeles Times, Jayson Blair Times, and every sneering member of their miserable money losing lot continue to rot to death.

eric

The most self-hating people on Earth are liberal Jews. They beg Islamofacists to like them, all the while despising themselves for not doing enough to bring word peace while disparaging evangelical Christians, who for some reason tolerate this.

The most anti-Semitic newspaper in the country is the Jayson Blair Times, run by self-hating Jew (to be fair he did convert away from the religion) Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr.

While the Jayson Blair Times thinks that the Arabs are innocent victims of evil Jews, the JBT will offer a balanced perspective. A jewish voice is allowed in their paper provided that the Jew is an apologist that also blames Jews. Arabs do not have apologists. They shoot them.

Richard Cohen has a Jewish last name. I wish he understood that when Iran tries to form a Caliphate, he will not be spared.

His most recent self-loathing screed comes in the form of supporting victim Iran over aggressor Israel. The fact that his article came out during Passover is just icing on his anti-Israel chocolate digestive, or in his case, indigestive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcohen.html?ref=global

He accuses Israel of “crying wolf” over Iran. That is a fancy way of saying that Israel is a liar.

His “evidence” is flimsy at best.

“Four years earlier, in 1992, he’d (Shimon Peres) predicted that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999.”

“You can’t accuse the Israelis of not crying wolf. Ehud Barak, now defense minister, said in 1996 that Iran would be producing nuclear weapons by 2004.”

I want to be more eloquent than simply referring to Mr. Cohen as a self hating Jew and left-wing horse’s hide. Yet equine anus is as equine anus does.

The issue is not whether the prediction was 100% accurate. The issue is whether the prediction based on behavior was reasonable. Of course it was reasonable.

The fact that Iran has not blown up Israel YET does not mean they are not trying to do so every waking moment.

It is this same idiotic logic that says that Hamas and the Palesimians should be rewarded because homicide bombings are down. Homicide bombings are down because the Israeli Defense Forces are getting better and better. The Palesimians are as bloodthirsty as ever. They are just less successful.

Iran only needs to get it right one time.

One school of thought that those on the elft continue to spout is that Iran will not attack Israel because Israel would then obliterate them. This argument is beyond flawed.

The Mullahs are not pragmatists. They are not afraid to die. They believe that the Caliphate will be spread when the 12th Imam returns. This can only happen after a cataclysm.

Also, there are one billion Muslims in existence. There are 14 million Jews. If the Iranians sacrifice 10, 20, or 50 people for every single Jew, they still win.

During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980-1988, the Mullahs sacrificed women and children. 14 year old boys were sent to die. The Mullahs do not care. Dying in battle is glorious, and they have the people to sacrifice.

“Netanyahu also makes the grotesque claim that the terrible loss of life in the Iran-Iraq war (started by Iraq) ‘didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness.’ It did just that, which is why Iran’s younger generation seeks reform but not upheaval; and why the country as a whole prizes stability over military adventure.”

The young people have no say. There is no revolution from within. They will not rise up without U.S. support. Republican Presidents did not finance this. There is no way a liberal President would. Also, the Iran-Iraq War did not make them averse to war. It just made them determined to get better weapons.

As for the imbecilic notion of prizing stability, Iran foments worldwide terrorism. They fund instability. Their leaders are unstable. Unstable people cause unstable situations. Even liberals should grasp this. If not, they can go to Amazon and buy a thesaurus.

In 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Iranian President and psychopath Armageddonijad as a “wide eyed believer.” Roger Cohen saw a bigger threat that he described as only a smug liberal could.

“I must say when I read those words about ‘the wide-eyed believer’ my mind wandered to a recently departed ‘decider.’ But I’m not going there.”

Liberals love to chortle at their own wit. This guy is practically French he needs rhinoplasty so bad.

What liberals pass as dialogue is advancing the idiotic notion that President George W. Bush is more dangerous than Armageddonijad.

I challenge Roger Cohen to take his liberal smugness to Iran and see how long he lasts. Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl were not beheaded by Republicans. They were murdered by Islamofacist zealots.

Let’s see how funny Iran would find him if he made remarks about Iranian leadership while living there. It is pretty easy to brave when working for a morally bankrupt newspaper that exists because American soldiers protect and defend the paper’s right to be hateful and wrong.

“I don’t buy the view that, as Netanyahu told Goldberg, Iran is ‘a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest.’ Every scrap of evidence suggests that, on the contrary, self-interest and survival drive the mullahs.”

What scrap of evidence? Oh, I forgot. In the world of the Jayson Blair Times, “fake but accurate” memos are considered evidence. In the real world, not the Jayson Blair Times world, allowing your nation to receive economic sanctions puts fanaticism above self interest. Refusing to allow western culture, including technological advances that could help with oil infrastructure, puts fanaticism above self interest. Driving out Jews from your country despite the fact that everywhere they go, they have brought economic value to their mother econmy, is putting fanaticism above self interest.

Murdering your own intellectuals and beating your own women, while refusing to let them get educated, is putting fanaticism above self interest.

The Mullahs are not pragmatists. They are prepared for Armageddon as soon as they get the tools to bring it to their enemies.

Self loathing liberal newspapers are bad enough. They will be bankrupt financially soon enough, to accompany their moral and ethical bankruptcy.

Yet liberal Jewish apologists that are more threatened by a President who was reelected after liberating two nations than a nation run by murderous monsters need to have have their heads examined.

It is not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

It is not crying wolf when the wolves really are there, with blood dripping from their Islamofacist fangs.

The Mullahs want to kill Roger Cohen. He wants to blame Israel and Republicans.

Who or what could be so disgusting to tolerate such a useless human being?

Oh, that’s right. His fellow self-loathing Jewish apologist Arthur Sulzberger at the Jayson Blair Times.

eric

Radical gays need to get back in the closet. Then the closet needs to be locked. Then the room needs to either be flooded with water or set ablaze.

(Fine, I do not want to take it that far. Yeah, the hyperbole train went off the track. Yeah, I am deliberately provoking those that deserve it. No, I don’t want God to strike them down. I just wish he would give them laryngitis.)

Either way, I never want to hear from another radical gay lunatic ever again.

I supported gay rights. I supported civil unions. I was neutral on gay marriage, vowing to follow the law, whatever the eventual decision.

Yet that is not enough for radical gays. They will not be satisfied until they successfully terrorize every person that disagrees with them. Also, their bigotry is hurting gay Americans that are not radical, and do wish to coexist.

All bigotry is wrong. Being the victim of past bigotry does not excuse current bigotry, whether it be reverse racism, reverse sexism, or reverse sexuality.

Gays celebrated when Dr. Laura Schlessinger had her television show canceled before it began. All Dr. Laura ever did was disagree with them. She passed no laws.

Now the radical gay community has affected the Miss USA Pageant.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton-the-way-miss-california-answered-her-question-lost-her-the-crown/21528?nc

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ny-etmiss2112675670apr20,0,2777847.story

Miss USA was supposed to be a beauty contest. Then they added stupid talent contests as ratings nosedived. Then politics was interjected.

Perez Hilton, who is basically famous for being gay and obnoxious, decided to ask Miss California Carrie Prejean what her views were on gay marriage. Miss California stated that she was against it.

Why the heck was this question asked? What does gay marriage have to do with being Miss America?

One can argue whether or not Miss California’s answer cost her the crown. Perez Hilton smugly seems to think so.

I want to know why this question was asked, and why Perez Hilton, an untraditional person to say the least, should be allowed anywhere near a traditional forum in a speaking role.

This is not equal rights. This is not tolerance. This is thuggery. This is the verbal equivalent of what was done to Matthew Shepherd. Miss California was ambushed and savagely beaten.

I was neutral on gay marriage. No more.

I will not support the agents of intolerance. The agents of intolerance are not those against gay marriage. Otherwise, 70% of black Americans and an almost equal number of Hispanic Americans in California would be intolerant, and we know that minorities are always tolerant.

The bigots are the radical gays.

I have friends who are Log Cabin Republicans. They are embarrassed by liberal gays.

The intolerance is not even an accurate reflection of all gays. It is a completely accurate reflection of liberals.

This is why I claim that liberals spread ideological bigotry. They just cannot stop the hate. They are diseased.

The next time somebody supporting gay marriage preaches to me about tolerance and equality, I will tell them that until radical gay America stops trying to bully innocent people for feeling and thinking differently, they will not get my support.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is not a bigot. Congressman Barney Frank is a bigot.

Yet when anybody questions Barney Frank for being corrupt, he plays the gay card. Ask him about why he let his boyfriend run a prostitution ring out of his home. Ask him why he was one of the leading culprits behind the current financial crisis. Ask him why he had a sexual relationship with an employee of a company that his committee was supposed to be regulating.

Then expect to be called a bigot.

Governor Jim McGreevey was not fired for being gay. He was fired for being corrupt. The only person who used his sexuality as a weapon was McGreevey himself.

If the gay community wants to blame innocent people for their problems, then perhaps everyday Americans should just stop putting up with the abuse.

The next time I am presented with a leaflet from a gay marriage supporter, I will set it on fire right in front of them.

I have utter contempt for these bigots.

They have civil rights. They are not victims. They are aggressors.

Aggressors are bullies. Bullies need to be decked between the eyes.

Call me intolerant. I don’t care.

I will side with whoever wants them to shut up.

Unless the gay community, outside of the Log Cabin Republicans, condemn Perez Hilton, then they are just as culpable.

They should also condemn him for calling Miss California a “dumb b*tch.”

No Mr. Hilton. You are a dumb b*tch. You are also a bigot.

Until the gay community condemns this bigotry, my advice to the gay community comes with even more anger than when they tried to declare “gay day” and skip work.

Gay America needs to do what straight America has been doing for years.

Gay America needs to shut up. Just shut up. For the love of God, shut up.

I want gays to be treated equal to straight people. Straight people shut up and go to work. Gay people should do the same. People wanting to be treated equally need to act equally.

Otherwise, I will be happy to take up the cause of gay rights. I will break my neutral stance. I will join the gay marriage opponents.

After all, somebody has to stand up for the innocent victims of ideological bigotry.

eric