Student GOP leader smears Obama via old reliable racial slur

I defy anyone to say that Obama's race won't be a factor in this election. At least the young man didn't use code words like "reverse discrimination," "welfare queen," or (dare I say it) "community organizer."

Student GOP leader resigns over Obama remark

The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on the Internet.

Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"

LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah" and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a racial slur, then we're ALL in trouble."

The College Republicans asked LaDuca to resign after his remarks were publicized by the Pennsylvania Progressive, a blog written by a Democratic committeeman from Berks County. The group announced LaDuca's resignation on its Web site Friday.


Anti-gay industry tries to shore up its base

Those who have read this blog know what I am about to say:

I hate Mondays.

This Monday has an interesting note to it. I am currently trying to recover from the Republican National Convention. And in the middle of my attempts comes this news:

CHICAGO -- Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Yet an opposing collection of Christian and Jewish clergy will petition the IRS today to stop the protest before it starts, calling the ADF's "Pulpit Initiative" an assault on the rule of law and the separation of church and state.

Backed by three former top IRS officials, the group also wants the IRS to determine whether the nonprofit ADF is risking its own tax-exempt status by organizing an "inappropriate, unethical and illegal" series of political endorsements.

I am not against churches inviting candidates to speak to the congregation (as long as they extend the invitation equitably) and I am certainly not against objective voter registration drives at churches nor am I against churches organizing carpools to get members to the polls.

But a pastor advocating a particular candidate from the pulpit is dangerous.

Regardless as to how the ADF tries to spin the situation, the only reason why it is trying to overturn this law is so that James Dobson, Rod Parsley, and company can better organize churches to elect their candidates to public office.

I find that sleazy.

Pastors are the leaders of the church, so they don't represent themselves per se, even if they stand in the pulpit and say "in my personal opinion, you should support so and so."

The pastor is still speaking as the leader of the church. Anything he or she does in that role affects more than just themselves.

Futhermore, I don't like the implications behind pastors advocating political candidates.

Pastors are the spiritual leaders in the community. What message are they sending by supporting a particular candidate - "God wants you to support so and so?"

Encouraging pastors to do this reduces the integrity of religion as far as I am concerned. Religion and spirituality has to do with souls and your relationship with God, not electoral candidates and certainly not trying to "win a nation for Christ."

Seems to me that if Jesus wanted this nation, he could take it without any of our help.

But yet in this country, there is this nasty idea that Jesus somehow said, "take up your cross and follow me and I will give you a nice car, nice house, two point five children, and a Republican in the White House every four years."

Humbleness and simplicity are replaced with warehouse sized churches filled with egotistical people thinking that God has blessed them above all others, demagogues waving Bibles as they confuse spiritual completeness with earthly conquest, and words like "morality," and "values" used to create a caste systems ruled by unrealistic characteristics of family.

And on top of all of this, some Christians propagate the lie that they are somehow "second class citizens in America."

I don't think it has come to that. But I wish these so-called Christians remember that "pride goeth before a fall" and sooner or later "you reap what you sow."

Now the fun really begins

Well I survived the Republican National Convention with my heart intact. But as luck would have it, us lgbts in South Carolina are going to be gearing up for Gay Pride that will be coming up this month.

And on the heels of the "South Carolina is so gay" controversy, things promises to be very interesting. Especially seeing that RuPaul will be performing.

This year I have made up my mind - I will not be a parade monitor. Every year I volunteer to walk alongside the floats and the marchers in order to keep the parade going and keep them from the protestors.

To hell with all of that - this year, I am going to ride on a float.

But there are other important things to consider.

Like what am I going to wear.

Seriously though, I doubt that the following will be my last thoughts regarding the upcoming election, but I still feel the need to voice them:

1. John McCain's speech - I told myself that I wasn't going to watch it. But I succumbed to temptation and turned the channel.

To put it nicely and without bias - John McCain's speech reminded me of Tucker Carlson on "Dancing with the Stars."

Forget gay marriage, can't we get a constitutional amendment against McCain making speeches?

2. If Sarah Carlin is so damned vivacious and exciting, then why won't the McCain camp let her do an interview?

3. About the Log Cabin Republicans endorsing McCain - A popular anti-gay industry stereotype about gays is about how we loved to get screwed. This has to be the first time I have ever seen a gay group try to prove this stereotype through its political practices.

Until Monday (or barring something monumental happening), I am out of here.

UPDATE - I told you that community organizers remark was going to bite Palin in the ass

From ThinkProgress.org:

Last night during her speech to the Republican National Convention, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) sought to play up her experience as mayor of a small town in Alaska by mocking community organizing:

PALIN: And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.
Today, the nation’s leading organization’s responded to Palin’s attack:

– Center for Community Change: When Sarah Palin demeaned community organizing, she didn’t attack another candidate. She attacked an American tradition — one that has helped everyday Americans engage with the political process and make a difference in their lives and the lives of their neighbors.

– Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now: ACORN members, leaders and staff are extremely disappointed that Republican leaders would make such condescending remarks on the great work community organizers accomplish in cities throughout this country. The fact that they marginalize our success in empowering low- and moderate-income people to improve their communities further illustrates their lack of touch with ordinary people.

More at ThinkProgress.org


Before this solemn mockery is o'er, all hell will break loose

One more speech and I can go back to monitoring the anti-gay industry.

McCain will talk tonight on what he can do if elected president.

But of course all of the attention is on last night and Sarah Palin's speech.

If you ask me, there are two more things to be brought up:

1. This "blame the media" mode will sooner or later backfire if the Republicans continue it. I have already seen some members of the media speak on it and they ain't exactly happy about it. The last thing McCain and his folks need are enemies in the press. And just how long will it be before the American public write them off as whiners?

2. To hell with claims of sexism. Palin obviously wants to stomp with the big dogs so let her stomp or get chewed up.

In other words (and this is me channeling myself when I was in high school watching a good old fashioned catfight) - beat that sista down!!!!

I almost can't wait to get back to showcasing the lies of the anti-gay industry. For one reason, One News Now has put their comments section back up. (I would link to it but as you know the powers that be on that site Rickrolled me).

Secondly (and this is something I don't think anyone has thought about with the convention and hurricanes) I think that our friend Peter LaBarbera may be a very unhappy camper. As I understand it, Southern Decadence was supposed to take place, thereby insuring that Peter would get more "research" of scandalously clad gay men in leather.

I think Hurricane Gustav put a kibosh on that.

But if I know Peter, he probably has something extra silly planned.

I await with interest. Really I do.

Associated Press - Palin stretched the truth in speech

Well the speech is over and to the surprise of no one, Sarah Palin did a good job.

But a few things caught my eye -

1. That attack on the media will backfire. As articles have shown, we don't know that much about her. Hell, McCain didn't know that much about her when he selected her. Trying to bully the media isn't going to play out well publicly. It just gives the impression that the campaign has something to hide.

2. All of that talk about attracting Hilary Clinton voters just went out of the window. Palin did nothing concilatory to appeal to those women. Her tone was mean and sarcastic. The delegates may have loved it but remember some of those same delegates loved Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech and we all know how that played out.

3. The crack about community organizers and the comment about Obama wanting to read terrorists their rights are going to backfire on her.

4. And the most important thing (by way of Americablog), Palin was highly deceptive about many things in her speech:

Ballsy move to lie to America during one's introductory speech. But, that's what Palin did tonight. AP said Palin "stretch[ed] the truth. She lied:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

The gloves are truly off here. When the hype and afterglow of Palin's speech is over, I am interested in seeing what is going to happen.


The Palin paradox and other things (because it's not all about her)

In the words of Addison DeWitt in All About Eve, tonight Sarah Palin will give the performance of her life.

No matter how the media tries to hype her speech up as a do or die situation, we all know how it's going to end. She is going to walk out to the podium under thunderous applause before her speech and will be hailed as a "gutsy underdog" when it's over.

Short of cutting a loud fart in front of the microphone, Palin will do just fine tonight, causing conservatives to heap her with more platitudes than Michael Jackson received when he started winning awards for the Thriller album.

But I find the line of defense that she is being attacked due to sexism highly funny. It would be more funny it if weren't insulting.

For months, we have all be inudated by claims, phony anecdotes, and out-and-out lies about Barack Obama.

And when folks pushing those claims got called to the carpet, they feigned shock saying "oh so it's wrong to even criticize Barack Obama. We are only just trying to find out the truth."

Now they take the opposite road with Sarah Palin. Give me a break.

When Palin has a book written on her by an attack artist like Jerome Corsi, then we will talk. Other than that, everyone is well within their rights to scrutinize her.

After all, John McCain certainly didn't.

But don't be fooled by this circling of wagons. According to this link, not all Republicans favor Palin.

And according to an MSNBC poll, people (by a large margin) think that the media should not back off investigating her background.

In other news . . .

I want to link you all to this very interesting story by a young black gay man. He recounts coming out to his family and introducing them to his partner.

In this fast paced world of bullshit, it's nice to spotlight brave folks like him.

I will try to not have a heart attack this week

With the good comes the bad.

Last week was the Democratic National Convention. So now this week will be the Republican National Convention.

And I may not watch it.

While I firmly believe in looking at two sides of an issue, even if my mind is made up, my heart just won't be able to take it.

I tried really hard yesterday to watch Fox News as their pundits pontificated about the effect of Hurricane Gustav on the convention. I was doing well until one of them, Fred Barnes, remarked that the relief effort of Hurricane Gustav wipes away the ill feelings of the inaction during Hurricane Katrina.

After ten minutes of mental profanities and two minutes of feeling slightly guilty for wishing that I could jump through the television and bury my foot in Barnes's ass, I came to the conclusion that maybe just this once, I don't have to look at both sides of an issue.

I'm an Obamaniac and I'm proud of it. And I am not voting for him solely because of his color. I am voting for him because he is a Democrat. The fact that he is an African-American is simply icing on the cake.

But you know what? What if I was going to vote for him solely because of his ethnicity? In this political climate, just what is wrong with that?

After all, John McCain choose Sarah Palin as vice president simply because she is a woman and evangelicals are excited about her because she claims she is also one.

But who is going to point the finger at that?

And speaking of choices and heart attacks, I see the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed McCain.

While I understand the need for them to be autonomous, I also have to say that they aren't that smart.

The Log Cabin Republicans cited several reasons why they support McCain, but I want to talk about one:

An endorsement will give Log Cabin better access to a McCain administration.

Yeah right. How much access do you think they will get when James Dobson starts threatening to pull supporters away from McCain unless he stops "legitimizing the homosexual agenda?"

How much access do you think they will get once Donald Wildmon gets his followers to send letters to the White House demanding that McCain not meet with them.

Unfortunately the Log Cabin Republicans' endorsement of McCain glosses over an ugly but true fact regarding Republican politics. Since Reagan, every Republican presidential candidate sooner or later have had to pander to the religious right and the anti-gay industry.

And McCain is no different (hence the pick of Palin). When and if the time comes that McCain has to choose between Log Cabin Republicans and the religious right, just what can they do?

They don't have any real power in the Republican party. If they do, would someone please write me and tell me just what it is.

Beware the potential Zogby spin - it may not be accurate

My prayers go out to those who are affected by Hurricane Gustav. And I think that McCain made a good decision to make changes to the Republican National Convention.

But I echo Obama's sentiments - hopefully those in charge will do better than they did during Hurricane Katrina.

I read something today that is interesting and I want to bring it to everyone's attention before the "spin doctors" try to manipulate it:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

In other words, the race is a dead heat.

The interactive online Zogby survey shows that both Obama and McCain have solidified the support among their own parties - Obama won 86% support of Democrats and McCain 89% of Republicans in a two-way head-to-head poll question not including the running mates. When Biden and Palin are added to the mix, Obama's Democratic support remains at 86%, while McCain's increases to 92%.

That's the Zogby poll. But the National Gallup poll has Obama ahead by eight points. It also says that Sarah Palin is an unknown quantity.

But how much do you want to bet that the Zogby poll will be repeated ad naseum by McCain's people, Fox News, One News Now, Town Hall, and every conservative blog and talking head who wishes to score quick points for the Republicans.

Already there is an effort underway to spin the Zogby poll. This is what the conservative writers from Newsmax said:

It is incredible, but the designation of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate seems to have totally obliterated Barack Obama's bounce from his convention and after his magnificent speech. Zogby actually has McCain two ahead and Rasmussen's Friday only data shows Obama only three up!

First of all, the use of the Rasmussen poll by Newsmax is a clever distortion.

According to the Rasmussen poll, before the convention, Obama and McCain have been pretty much even with Obama leading slightly.

During and after the convention, the poll shows Obama moving up by three to four points at the most. The Rasmussen poll never showed a "bounce."

So for Newsmax to use the Ramussen poll to claim that Obama enjoyed a big bounce from the convention and that McCain destroyed said bounce by his pick of Palin is highly farfetched.

Which brings me back to the Zogby poll. Anyone who tries to use the Zogby poll to make the case that Palin destroyed Obama's convention bounce is clearly not reading the entire article. Please bear in mind the words in the first sentence of the article's lead:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

What the Zogby poll is actually saying is that McCain's choice of a vice president has added more interest to the race by energizing his base. Before his pick of Palin, many were so-so about his candidacy. Now that he has picked his running mate, interest in him from his base has picked up.

In other words, as the second paragraph of the article clearly says, both candidates have solidified support in their own bases.

This election is not predictable. No one could have ever predicted that Obama would defeat Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and no one could have predicted that McCain would pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.

And I am sure that before it's all over, more unpredictable things will happen.

But hopefully the most unpredictable occurrence will be the pundits and journalists doing their jobs and not giving us half the story . . . for a change.

I await in anticipation to be surprised.

Good choice? Bad choice?

Awesome speech by Obama. That's all I can say.

And I noticed that McCain is trying to blunt the effect of the speech by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin.

Palin, Governor of Alaska, is not known to many people. Naturally the internet is abuzz with google searches, yahoo searches, and every other search.

She is pro-life and not necessarily pro-gay. Of course members of the anti-gay industry are lining up to praise McCain's choice.

Palin has also been called blunt, not necessarily a positive characteristic for someone who is allegedly not necessarily gay-friendly. This means she has the potential to say something ridiculous about the lgbt community while at the same time claiming that she is not homophobic.

So did McCain pick a younger, cuter version of Sally Kern?

Who knows. Maybe I am making too much of the situation.

But from what I do know, McCain picked a first term governor with no national experience and who is currently under an ethics violation (allegedly for using her office in a vendetta against her former brother-in-law) to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Well there goes that argument against Obama regarding lack of experience. At any other time, this would be considered a crappy choice. Hell, if Obama had made a choice like that he would be rode out of town on a rail.

You do have to give McCain points for effort though. By going for the odd choice, he has attracted some attention.

But attention, as does mystery, fades in time.

The question is what will the voters see when that happens.

Radom thoughts and significant ramblings

The Democratic Convention is almost over. Meanwhile John McCain will soon name his vice presidential candidate and the Republicans are going to start their convention.

I feel as if I am watching the coming attractions in a movie theatre.

Folks, its about to get ugly.

Last night, I googled the latest lie about Obama (the one about William Ayers and the Weathermen) and it got me thinking.

Why is it so hard for some Republicans to campaign on the issues? Why can't they just say "we feel so and so won't do a better job than our candidate."

But no. In a huge show of self involvement that would land many of us on a psychiatrist's couch, Republicans and their cohorts (especially the anti-gay industry) make every election a pitched battle between good and evil with them wearing the wings and the halo:

We can elect Michael Dukakis because he is a card carrying member of the ACLU who opposes children saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

We can't elect Bill Clinton because he is a draft dodger who protested against his country on foreign soil.

We can't elect Al Gore because he is a congenital liar who says he created the Internet.

We can't elect John Kerry because he didn't deserve the medals he got in Vietnam.

It's a broken record that no one seems to have the sense to throw away. And that's because its somewhat effective.

Dirty political tactics are like pornography. Americans claim to be disgusted by it, but at the same time, it draws their interest.

And this time, there is a serious overload of rumors, conjecture and intentional whispering campaigns. Forget how nasty it was with Bill Clinton. Republicans, conservatives, and the rest of the so-called moral folks have gone into hyperdrive about Obama, accusing him of every of bad behavior except for shooting J.R. Ewing and "squeezing the Charmin."

By themselves, the claims are bizarre. But if you grouped them together, they take the semblance of one of those ridiculous Left Behind books combined with an episode of Twin Peaks:

Obama has deep ties with Jerome Wright, a "nutty" preacher.

Obama is a rock star.

Obama’s birth certificate is fake .

Obama has deep ties with “terrorist” William Ayers.

Obama had sex and did drugs in a limo with a white guy.

Obama is the anti-Christ.

Obama is secretly Muslim.

Obama’s mother was Communist.

Obama received “training” in a Muslim school while a youngster.

Obama did drugs while in the Senate.

Obama is for infantcide.

Obama is uppity.

Obama is like Paris Hilton.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not wear an American flag pin on his lapel or tie.

Obama was sworn into office on the Koran.

Years from now, people will look back at this election and scratch their heads. They are going to ask the question that I have been asking for a number of months:

What's wrong with these people.

Gay adoption, Hilary and other Wednesday musings

I got a message from a member of Arkansas Family First, the group working against the ballot measure I talked about yesterday:

This is Laura from Arkansas Families First.

Please visit our website, http://arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/, to join us in the fight to defeat this amendment!

I echo that sentiment for a number of reasons. Not only is the proposed law a piece of symbolic claptrap that will actually hurt children, but if it passes, we can count on seeing similar ballot initiatives in other states.

On other issues, give it up to Hilary. She turned it out last night.

Last night, I flipped between PBS and Fox News while the pundits and reporters on both channels were analyzing the speech.

What was funny about the entire thing was the pundits on Fox News attempting to find things wrong with Hilary's speech.

She only did it her herself. She didn't help Obama. I could hear her saying asshole under her breath everytime she said Obama's name. That wasn't Hilary on the podium because the Democrats kidnapped her. It was a Stepford Wife like that movie.

Then this morning, I happened to catch Joe Scarborough and his panel (with only one black man onboard) try and deconstruct Hilary's speech.

The ironic thing about that was Pat Buchanan's participation on the panel. Buchanan has said some ugly things regarding Obama and black people in general; something to the tune of black people were lucky to come to America as slaves because they were exposed to Christianity, blah, blah, blah.

And it made me realize that Pat Buchanan is a living, breathing symbol of the hypocrisy of racism on America's underbelly.

I mean if he was a black man and had said half the things about white people than he (as a white man) has said about black people, he wouldn't be considered as a venerable newsperson.

He would be a part of those code words Fox News uses when they want to scare white people about the motives of black people.

You know the code words - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan.

Finally, some of you may have noticed that the countdown clock that usually sits on the right of this blog is gone. I removed it yesterday.

The countdown clock was showing how many days had passed since anti-gay doyenne Peter LaBarbera had seen my book (Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters) and not responded to the charges lodged in it.

It was not (as a certain individual put it) a plea by me to get LaBarbera to review my book. It was put there to demonstrate LaBarbera's hypocrisy.

He can go from one subcultural event to another and demonize the lgbt community from the depravity he sees there but will not address the fact that he and folks on his side have engaged in unfair and unscrupulous tatics to lie on the lgbt community.

Well as seen in my blog two Saturdays ago, Peter finally addressed those charges.

Granted, it took me pulling it out of him via a series of emails, but he did address my charges.

We're not perfect, he said.

Well duuuuh.

Arkansas makes a possible boo boo

Wasn't Michelle Obama awesome last night? Personally I think she nailed her speech. And her two little girls were just adorable.

How can anyone vote against that family?

But seriously, in all of the hoopla about a presidential election, we sometimes forget state votes that could have a negative impact on our lives.

It happened in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. During that same time, Colorado passed a mindbogglingly bad law that prevented the state from passing any laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.

It was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1996. If this law had not been overturned, the effects on our fight for rights and self-determination would have been disastrous. Laws like it would have popped up virtually all over the country.

And I don't think I have to rehash the anti-gay marriage laws that passed in 2004. To this day, some people still say that they were the key to the re-election of Bush.

So now in 2008 comes the following, courtesy of Arkansas:

A proposal aimed at effectively banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents was cleared Monday to appear on this fall's ballot in Arkansas.

The measure would prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering or adopting children, and Arkansas doesn't allow gays to marry or recognize gay marriages conducted elsewhere.

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the proposed initiated act for the Nov. 4 ballot after verifying that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee had submitted 85,389 valid signatures of registered voters. Supporters needed to turn in at least 61,974 valid signatures.

"Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers," Family Council President Jerry Cox said. "We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible."

This proposed law is pernicious on so many levels. It illustrates how the anti-gay industry is willing to distort while at the same time trumpet how they stand for morals.

The part about unmarried couples is a dodge because the Arkansas court recently said that a ban on gay adoption is unlawful. So the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee can't come out and say to keep lgbts from adopting is the purpose of the law, but everyone knows that is the case.

Apparently ducking and dodging is now a Christian value.

Of course lgbt couples can get around this law if it is passed by using surrogates or sperm donations.

And it is here where we see just who the law will hurt.

For all of the bluster about it, this proposed law does not guarantee that foster children will end up in two-parent heterosexual households. It neither encourages nor mandates that two-parent heterosexual households take foster children in.

Jerry Cox and those like him all over the country are constantly saying that "children have a right to a mother and father." Well this is all well and good but this law does not guarantee them that right.

In fact, it does just the opposite.

It eliminate choices based on outdated concepts of family. It is also based on an inaccurate assumption that unmarried couples (be they heterosexual or lgbt) are stealing foster children away from two-parent heterosexual households.

Based on the number of children in foster care nationwide, that's not happening.

This law is about symbolism, not actualities.

And it's a shame because a child can't get love from a symbol.

But the real shame is that in their attempts to get at the lgbt community, the anti-gay industry in Arkansas aimed wrong and kicked foster children squarely in the mouth.

All eyes on Denver

This week will be a drag regarding news about the anti-gay industry.

You all know why. This is the week of the Democratic National Convention so all eyes are on Denver as the media will pontificate, guesstimate, and, in the case of Fox News and others like them, try to throw a monkeywrench in on the proceedings.

And the majority of the heavy hitting progressive bloggers are there also.

Oh well, there is always 2012 for me.

Seriously though, my guess is that the anti-gay industry will have their forces all keyed to making Obama look like a sepia Damien Thorne.

One good thing about him getting the nomination is how it threw everything into chaos. I think the anti-gay industry, et. al. were expecting Clinton to get the nomination and they were counting on her to galvanize supporters who are not necessarily sold on McCain.

How the pedulum turns.

Other than watching the convention, I think that I am going to take time out this week to work on several projects, including my other blog.

This is not to say that I am taking a break. We all know how the anti-gay industry is.

No rest for the wicked.

Hallmark joins the 'overthrow of America'

In my best faux European accent - Our operatives tells me that we were able to elicit Hallmark Greeting Cards in our plans to overturn Christian values in America. With them selling cards congratulating gay couples on their marriages, nothing can stop us now.

Okay that was corny but I only did it to give a gist of the mindset of the anti-gay industry. Apparently they are all up in arms with Hallmark's decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards.

In fact, the American Family Association will be launching a boycott:

Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a protest of Hallmark for its decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards. AFA wants Hallmark to “stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.” From the protest site:

We’ve all given or received Hallmark Cards – remember their slogan – “when you care enough to send the very best.” But promoting same-sex marriage for profit is not the very best for families or our nation.

Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. American Greeting Cards, Hallmark’s competitor, does not offer same-sex marriage cards.

Enough of the semantics already! Hallmark is selling these greeting cards because of the old reliable concept of supply and demand.

God bless capitalism. If you don't agree with the concept of gay marriage greeting cards, then don't buy any.

But don't waste your time telling that to the AFA. The group continues to push the lie that anything recognizing the fact that lgbts are normal people and should be catered to and treated as such is really part of a nefarious plan to destroy Christianity.

Somehow I just know Janet Folger is going to connect Hallmark with putting Christians in jail. Or Peter will connect the company with Folsom Street Fair.

What kills me about the AFA is their intentional deception regarding the legality of gay marriage - Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.

That passage is not accidental nor is it a product of an overeager publicity writer. It's an intentional distortion.

Same-sex marriage is not illegal per se. True, it is not legally recognized but it is not against the law. The illegality of an act entails penalities such as arrests and jail terms.

I personally think that the AFA has stock in Hallmark, especially when one considers how successful their boycott against McDonalds is going.

I'm expecting Hallmark's sales to go through the roof.

Is the Family Research Council distorting another study?

From the Family Research Council's 25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation:

In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."

I have just emailed the Family Research Council asking where did they receive this information regarding gay marriage. I have an idea as to what study they got this information from. And if it's what I think, then the Family Research Council will have a lot of explaining to do.

My guess is that they used a study completed in the Netherlands by one Dr. Maria Xiridou. If this is the case, they took the study out of context big time.

You see, the 2003 published study's objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).”

The study only looked at casual relationships amongst gay men and was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands.

There are other facts about Dr. Xiridou's study that speaks to how it cannot be used to gauge monogamy amongst lgbts in general. But I won't bring that up until I get an answer from the Family Research Council

If I don't get an answer back via email, then I will be calling their 1-800 number.

I will keep you all posted.

Jerome Corsi and his fancy toilet paper

I am sure many of you know about the Jerome Corsi book that tries to skewer Barack Obama.

Corsi, who wrote a book about Sen. John Kerry four years ago during time in which Kerry was running against Bush for president, claims that this book will show the real Obama.

Please.

This book is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. It recycles some of the worst lies about Obama and creates a few more. Corsi is so scandalous that he even talks about Obama's mother.

But it is the number one book on the New York Times best seller list thanks to a skilled campaign of bullshit emanating from the right.

Corsi gets featured on Fox News unopposed in his lies on several occasions, conservative columnists (such as those on Town Hall and One News Now) give Corsi attention, conservative groups buy Corsi's book in bulk . . .

and lo and behold, we have to divert time away from real issues to talk about a smear job.

Whatever happened to true journalists like Edward R. Murrow, who would have devoted a significant bit of time to call out this bullshit, just like he did to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

With the crop of "journalists" we have now, McCarthy would probably be canonized.

LGBT For Obama - an excellent site.

More good news from California

It's slowly shaping up to be a very good week thanks to the lovely folks in California:

Court decisions forcing same-sex "marriage" on California and Massachusetts have had a predictable side effect -- an increase in adoption by homosexual couples.

The Associated Press recently produced a feature article titled, "More gay men embrace marriage, fatherhood." The report was all but an endorsement of homosexual adoption, according to Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. - Homosexual adoption increases in California, One News Now

Naturally the One News Now article only features the comments of our dear pet homophobe Peter LaBarbera. But his comments are hilarious:

"What is incorrigible about this coverage from Associated Press is that it is totally absent of any critical coverage; I mean serious coverage examining the effects of homosexual 'parenting,' bringing in public policy data, even bringing in pro-family critics," argues LaBarbera.

By critical coverage from "pro-family" critics, Peter means that the Associated Press should ask the opinion of so-called experts that the anti-gay industry prop up. You know who I am talking about - folks with absolutely no experience in the field they claim to be experts in but who can be counted on to give a good soundbite.

And by all means, let them be the head of a phony group with a credible sounding name, like the Center for Parental Readiness or the American Christian Adoption Association, or The Center Dedicated to Keep Children Away from Those Nasty Homosexuals.

And I love this part of the article:

LaBarbera says that, as with any media discussion of homosexual involvement with children, there was no mention in the AP story of the harm to the children.

I know why there was no mention of it. Because there is NONE. There has never been a legitimate study that has said that children in same-sex homes are harmed because of the orientation of their parents. Of course there are some studies, like those by Paul Cameron. And other claims, like those of Linda Harvey.

But they are as credible as a Klansman advocating racial harmony.

And then there is the piece de resistance:

" . . . you have this ridiculous situation in which these professional adoption organizations are talking about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design," LaBarbera points out.

I don't care what anyone says, I am convinced that these anti-gay groups have weekly meetings where they bounce phraseologies off of each other. These phraseologies cover up the fact that their positions have nothing behind them that resemble facts.

" . . . Intentionally placing children in homes that motherless and fatherless by design?"

What the hell does that mean anyway? Is there some conspiracy between professional adoption organizations and the lgbt community? Peter seems to be inferring to the old Anita Bryant nonsense of "gay recruitment."

For the last time, let me say something about that. If lgbts were recruiting, we wouldn't be going after children. We would be going after celebrities.

I personally would chair the committees to turn the following celebrities gay:

Philip Seymour Hoffman,
Patton Oswald,
Jonah Hill,
Jon Heder
Beck,
David Spade (sue me, I'm kinky),
and that Cute Bald Wrestler with the Hairy Back Gay.

But in Peter's defense, he does bring up a good idea. I am all for giving one of those phony "pro-family" studies or spokespeople room to hang themselves with their distorted positions.

After all, giving Elaine Donnelly a forum did wonders for gays in the military.

Two pieces of good news for the Monday blaahs

Everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I hate Mondays.

And this Monday was no different.

But on the positive side, I thought I would spotlight two pieces of good news that should bring a smile to everyone's face;

Good news item #1

S.C. ‘queen’ reigns over ‘America’s Got Talent’

Dorae Saunders, a former Miss Pride Charlotte and star in the movie “Trantasia,” has been chosen among the top 40 contenders in NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”

The third season of the show will return with live episodes to whittle down the crowd of contestants after NBC’s broadcasts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Saunders, a Columbia native, was recognized for accomplishments this past winter by the Carolinas Black Pride Movement and is most widely known for her performance of Tina Turner. The gig has managed to land her a slot on the upcoming “AGT” finals.

Dorae Saunders is a friend of mine. As the video clip shows (click on the link), she is daring, outspoken, and highly talented.

I know I am showing bias by saying this, but I hope she wins.

Good news item #2

Anything that infuriates the anti-gay industry is always a good news item in my book. This particular situation goes farther than that, however. The California Supreme Court stood up for the rights of lgbt parents and averted a potential crisis that could arise via physicians hiding behind their religious beliefs as an excuse not to give lgbts proper medical care:

Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds

Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case

The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.

Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.

The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.

The case, which drew 40 "friends of the court" briefs, pitted gay advocacy groups against religious and medical organizations.

Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.

In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments  all covered by insurance  Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.

Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.

"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.

"I did it not only for me, my partner and my children but for other people coming after me, so they don't have to go through the humiliation and frustration and abandonment as a patient," she said.

More here

Ms. Benitez's victory is one for us all. How sweet it is.

Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero

On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.

Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:

The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community.

By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.

Don't be fooled.

You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.

Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am

Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.


Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.

but you miss the point, peter.

Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.

The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.

Look around you. It's crumbling now.


In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.

You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.


Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

Peter,

Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.

Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.

You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.

And the list of deceptions goes on and on.

Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.

I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.

Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?

In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am

This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?

Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?


Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.

How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.

And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.


In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.

I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.

What are you trusting in?

I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.

It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.


Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

Peter,

what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.

And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?

Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?

You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.

This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.


In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"

You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?


Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.

Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.

In other words, he fits in perfectly with the anti-gay industry.

Commentator on Pam's House Blend demonstrates a perfect smack down

I read something today on Pam's House Blend that was so awesome that I just have to spotlight it on this blog.

Apparently former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum wrote some ridiculous screed about Proposition 8 in California. Other than the usual tired "those who support traditional marriage will now be looked at as bigots" whine that Maggie Gallagher uses constantly, Santorum also said the following:

What happens if we permit this tiny minority to reshape marriage? The next step is to use the new law to suppress the liberties of Christians. Already:

* A Christian adoption agency--Catholic Charities!--has been shut down by the government because it will not do adoptions for gay married couples

* A volunteer fireman, who risked his life to rescue friends and neighbors in need, was told his services were no longer wanted--because he signed a petition supporting marriage as the union of husband and wife.

* A father was arrested for trying to prevent a public school from teaching his son that gay marriage is normal.

* In New Jersey, a Methodist organization just lost part of its state tax exemption because it refused to permit civil union ceremonies on church-owned property.

This is an old but effective anti-gay industry tactic: distort current events to demonstrate how the lgbt community wants to silence Christians.

Well a commentator on Pam's House Blend, cindik, took it upon herself to break down these stories. And in doing so, she demonstrates the correct way to fight the anti-gay industry. When they distort, show the truth and back it up. I hope Pam will forgive me but I want to post cindik's comment. It's too awesome for words:

* A Christian adoption agency--Catholic Charities!--has been shut down by the government because it will not do adoptions for gay married couples

At least he's specific about the charity, but which government? And how did they shut it down?

The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. - CBS news

That's right, Boston's Catholic Charities decided to end their services because of a state law that required organizations that received state funds to not discriminate against gay and lesbian people.

* A volunteer fireman, who risked his life to rescue friends and neighbors in need, was told his services were no longer wanted--because he signed a petition supporting marriage as the union of husband and wife.

This is very sketchy. Who is this guy? Where was he volunteering?

It turns out that volunteer fireman Leo ''Skip'' Childs was not chosen for a vacancy on the Truro, MA board of fire engineers and they instead chose one of the other candidates they interviewed, Jeff Perry. A former selectman for he town, Paul Asher-Best, apparently was against choosing Childs because Childs had signed a petition against same sex marriage in Massachusetts. Cape Cod Times

So the opinion of the selectmen was to choose another person for the board, perhaps in part due to the fireman's endorsement of a measure to go against the state's Supreme Court ruling on the rights of others.

* A father was arrested for trying to prevent a public school from teaching his son that gay marriage is normal.

Rick, Rick, Rick. Can you be more vague?

Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.- Boston Globe

And incorrect, it turns out. He wasn't arrested for trying to prevent his child from being taught that same-sex marriage is normal, he was arrested for refusing to leave the school.

* In New Jersey, a Methodist organization just lost part of its state tax exemption because it refused to permit civil union ceremonies on church-owned property.

Kudos, Mr. Santorum. You identified the state, the denomination, and the loss (partial tax exemption).

Of course, it wasn't a religious tax exemption, as one might have incorrectly inferred from Mr. Santorum's omission of detail. It was a tax from the New Jersey EPA for having a green space open to the public.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on Tuesday denied a Methodist organization's request to continue getting tax breaks for a public pavilion in Ocean Grove, N.J., where it allows weddings but not same-sex civil-union ceremonies.

The state ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's space, formerly tax-exempt under New Jersey's Green Acres Program, is not eligible for tax breaks because it is no longer open to all members of the public.- Gay.Com

It also turns out that LGBT-owned businesses were a big part of the revival of the area, which is still owned by a Methodist organization. - New York Times

And the financial impact? About $175/year.

So these aren't outright lies, but they are vague, misleading anecdotes. Hey, I have an idea - what if we start a new trend? We could change "rickrolling" to mean a link to a video of Rick Santorum saying something misleading.

Alright cindik! You better work it, girl!!!

The difference between good news and propaganda

How sweet is this:

Openly gay Democrat Mike Colona won the Missouri State Democratic primary for St. Louis Tuesday night. With no Republican opponent to face in the fall he will head straight to the state House.

Naturally some folks aren't exactly happy about Colona's victory:

An openly homosexual attorney, who previously did legal work for a homosexual pornographer, has been elected to the Missouri legislature. - Homosexual politician running unopposed in Missouri

Believe it or not, One News Now is actually correct on this score. Colona does have ties to the adult industry via his law practice.

Of course One News Now didn't go into detail about this. Leave it to my favorite phony news site to not only miss the entire story, but use the opportunity to give our friend Peter LaBarbera room to gripe:

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, does not know which is worse -- the fact that Colona openly campaigned as a homosexual, or that Democrats knowingly supported a former attorney for a homosexual pornographer.

"[T]his guy got endorsed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, NARAL, the leading pro-abortion group in the country," says LaBarbera. "...I think the sad thing is the Democratic Party is becoming the home of the most immoral politicians and candidates in the country."

Colona defended his work as the "Custodian of Records" for a homosexual porn website during the campaign, claiming that he was "keeping kids safe." LaBarbera's response? "You've got to love a politician's ability to always put a friendly spin on something, even something as nasty as being the lawyer for a homosexual porn outfit."

This is the actual story:

When a porn producer contributed to his campaign, Colona admitted to advising him. His role, he said, was limited to ensuring no minors were used in any porn production.

Some voters felt Colona must have been hiding something when several adult websites removed his name as the holder of records. “Resource for parents, so that's the spin? He works with these companies as a social service? That is a pathetic justification for a whore for hire!!!” wrote an anonymous commenter who listed fifteen websites with Colona's name as evidence of his participation in the industry.

Colona, however, continued to win endorsements – including the State Police Association and St. Louis Police Officers Association – and ultimately the Democratic primary.

A lawyer advising a client? Someone call the U. S. Attorney General!!!

I don't know what I love the most: the fact that a gay man was elected to public office or the fact that it is driving the anti-gay industry nuts.

And speaking of gay folks winning elections, I would be remiss if I did not mention:

Internet businessman Jared Polis beat two opponents in the 2nd Congressional District Democratic primary after pouring a record amount of his own money into a bitter and hard-fought race.

If Polis, 33, wins in November he would become one of the richest members of Congress. And he would be among only a handful of openly gay members and the first from Colorado.

I can just imagine James Dobson shaking in his shoes. It must be my birthday.

It's Tuesday so forgive my tangent

I am enjoying the Olympics. In a perfect world, Michael Phelps would be one of my concubines.

Yeah, I know. I generally don't go for pretty boys but he is such a good son to his mother.

And you know us mama's boys have got to stick together.

One problem I do have with the Olympics are the damned swimsuits. What hell are those one-piece long things they are wearing now?

Whatever happened to the good old days when all male swimmers wore speedos? Hell, if the suits are going to be that long, can they at least be white?

I'm with Huffington Post writer Karen Tanabe on this one:

It's called the Speedo LZR Racer. Credited with dozens of world records, it's not sewn but welded together, was engineered by NASA, produces 38% less hydrodynamic drag than a normal bathing suit, covers from ankle to neck and has all but ruined my favorite spectator sport since I could say "libido": men's swimming.

You have to forgive me but I have special memories that I cherish from the 1984 Olympics. That was when I first began to realize my gay orientation and my gaydar at the same time via two words:

Greg Louganis.

Seriously though, I love how this country develops new sports heroes during the Olympic Games.

I had never heard of Michael Phelps before this week. Nor any of the other swimmers.

And when the track and field time rolls around, I know I will have new heroes.

The only one I am aware of now is Tyson Homosexual.

I mean Tyson Gay. Come on, you know I had to work in an anti-gay industry dig in there.

And speaking of my favorite phony news service, it seems that One News Now has eliminated its comments section.

Now some may say that us "radical gay activists" caused this to happen due to our "jamming" of the comments section, but I disagree.

My belief is that One News Now doesn't want anyone the mindsets of those who read and agree with their articles.

And based on some of their comments, I would be ashamed too.

I am upset though. Reading those comments was half the fun of the site.

Whatever shall I do for fun now?

I would join free republic and post some comments there except for one thing.

The folks on that site are nuts. They would scare Freddy Krueger.