Posted on 04/24/2010 6:49:07 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
On the face of it, Elena Kagan, the United States Solicitor General, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina would not seem to have much in common.
Kagan is a Democrat and former dean of Harvard who is currently in the frame to be chosen by President Barack Obama as a Supreme Court Justice. Graham happens to be a lawyer too but he is a Republican, a faithful sidekick of Senator John McCain and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserve.
Last week, however, both were "outed" as being gay - actions that prompted outrage on the Left in the case of Kagan and, well, hilarity on the Left in the case of Graham.
...
Prefacing his remarks with the statement that "I'm a tolerant person", William Gheen, head of Americans for Legal Immigration, demanded that the Senator "tell people about your alternative lifestyle and your homosexuality".
Graham's crime in Gheen's eyes is that he favours immigration reform - and is (bear with me here) "trying to sell out your own countrymen" for fear of his true sexuality being revealed.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Was McCain doing the blackmailing?
I sure as heck could.
The entire British MI-6/Philby ring was recruited in Cambridge because they were all gay, by an as-yet-unidentified, probably-gay-himself NKVD recruiter on faculty.
Some U.S. military and atomic spies were recruited through homosexual contacts and "the Life" -- Whittaker Chambers was gay.
High-status Anglo-American gays were a major target of Cheka/NKVD/KGB recruiting for sixty years. And it isn't important that these guys were gay?
Or how would you feel about Sen. Graham voting on a nomination of Kevin Jennings (lately of GLSEN, a.k.a. "we're coming to get your kids") for Secretary of Education? Or the FBI?
It matters just a whole bunch -- and the key word is "alienation", which would still be on the table whether you were "reconciling" and "tolerant" or not.
They're radically anti-Christian. They want the Pope to cut Leviticus and those pesky Chapters 19 and 20 of Genesis out of the Bible and "take it all back", and they want the Church to eat the moral onus of gays' homosexuality.
How can you be radically anti-Christian, which means a persecutor waiting in the wings (on the order of Galerius and Decius, who made Nero look like an infant) ......
.......and still be an Originalist, or any kind of conservative?
See my last. Also, as one of the Founders pointed out, it requires virtue (as defined in Judeo-Christian tradition) to exercise the self-control needful for the successful exercise of citizenship in a successful, constitutionally-constrained representative democracy like ours ..... whereas the mental habits of vice, he pointed out, would quickly doom the entire enterprise, necessitating "other arrangements."
No, morality is also an issue. Ditto honesty, and trust.
And morality means morality. Morality means, "honest people don't do that stuff".
Sure. Mark Foley got outed by them as Rahm's "October surprise" in 2006. He and Nancy farmed that one out to the NGO's.
Oh PLEASE!! What state are you from??? ALL states have corrupt people in it...YOURS INCLUDED, so what’s yours??
“It matters just a whole bunch — and the key word is “alienation”, which would still be on the table whether you were “reconciling” and “tolerant” or not. “
What are you, some kind of homophobe? Well guess what - the Rosenbergs were NOT GAY and they spied - therefore your argument is lost - the Rosenbergs proved that one does not have to be gay to be a spy...even if 80% of our spies were gay. So I say again, who cares? Same is true is pedophiliacs, and just because 98% of terrorists are Muslim does not mean every Muslim is a terrorist. It is still possible that a 98 year old grandmother could be the next suicide bomber and we don’t strip search everyone of them, we won’t find her.
Ok - enough of being politically correct - YOU NAIL ME. My point had been that people that are openly gay cannot be blackmailed (at least with the threat of outing)...but my point means nothing to a Republican representing South Carolina - since that Republican (especially in the South) would be lucky to be elected dog catcher if he were open about being gay. My other argument is that those past spies didn’t matter, since we won the Cold War - even if the Soviet arsenal is still pointed down our throats.
Bottom line - no more “I don’t cares” from me. Just as in profiling at airports we need to get busy profiling lifestyles...at least for people in positions of power and high responsibility.
You don't pay the taxes on your home? You get your license suspended and your car towed. Now the towing industry in SC is even more corrupt than Illinois.
Your car gets towed and the tow yard steals all your stuff?
Don't even complain to the sheriff, he;l he prolly owns the yard. Now someone who can't pay their taxes ... doesn't need a corrupt sheriff stealing his vehicle and tools.
And one guess which party pushed this through?
Keep in mind; what is done to the least, is done to the greatest.
Please see my post # 49.
I guess you are the guy who couldn’t pay his taxes and had his car towed.
Actually, do some digging on that law...
As always follow the money. Just trying to remind folks, this "Reap what you so stuff" 100% true.
As a life long "R" - I just expect more from the "R" Party.
After all, do they not axe me for money every month?
No, actually you're quite correct. I doubt if you could ever find a truly conservative homosexual.
Not when those Republicans are “mavericks.” But if they are gay and in the closet and refuse to dance to the Left’s tune, they will be outted. If this guy is going to accuse Graham in this way, I want to see his evidence.
Lindsay is really, really hateful towards conservatives. He acts as if we are his enemy to the death. What is the reason for this? Has he suddenly become a Marxist or is he looking at us as a major danger to his way of being? I can’t beleive that someone just suddenly wakes up Marxist out of the blue.
Huh?
<Firing up reciprocal ad-hominem generator>
What are you, some kind of ________________?<Fill in the blank>
<groping around> How about "white supremacist"? That might conceivably stick as an ad-hom. I mean, why bother?
Sample:
By my estimation, the whites have no more than about 10 years to make up their minds, and another 5 years or so to get to work (if they decide to fight). After that time, there will simply be too few fighting age whites - Europe will have plenty of old whites, but far too few able to fight. -- BobL
Well guess what - the Rosenbergs were NOT GAY and they spied - therefore your argument is lost .....
Not lost on the Foreign Service, which fired hundreds of gay security risks in the 1950's and 1960's after the Philby ring was uncovered and (mostly) elucidated.
My point had been that people that are openly gay cannot be blackmailed .....
Blackmailed, maybe not -- but they're still open to compromise because of their alienation from the rest of society, and to sexual recruitment (as the Philby ring were), and so they remain just as much a security risk ipso facto their homosexuality, as a needy man with a family and lots of debt, which security services the world over likewise recognize as a security risk. Same's true for people with expensive vices like gambling and drugs -- vulnerable to collection efforts, foreclosure of same, and compromise in lieu of debt.
Just as in profiling at airports we need to get busy profiling lifestyles...at least for people in positions of power and high responsibility.
It seems we agree about that ..... but remember, too, that one of the people Sen. McCarthy confronted was trotted out by his opposition precisely because they thought she'd be a sympathetic witness to their countercharges of "persecution" (and implicit racism). She was a black coding clerk living in DC -- who just happened to have, perforce, access to classified messages and correspondence. Her case was written up by Ann Coulter in Treason -- and she was later shown to have been guilty as charged by McCarthy.
Wow - that goes back a bit. I assume you understand the context (i.e., certain countries in Western Europe - not the US). I assume you also know that EXACTLY what I refer to has already happened to the non-Muslims in Lebanon and Kosovo, and happened earlier in the century to non-Muslims in Syria and Egypt.
I guess what one calls (out of context) White Supremacy in one country, might be called trying simply stay in your own home, in your own town, in another country.
But pretty neat digging it up - that’s probably better than I could have done...and by the way, one has to have their head up their butt to think that the future I’m calling for Europe isn’t going to happen.
By the way, I do agree with you in total (except for the supremacist line)...McCarthy has been more than proven right...and I was actually reading about just reading about the Alger Hiss case prior to your comment. By the way, a great book you might interested in is “Forsaken”, about American IDIOTS that went to Russia in the 1930s expecting a Communist utopia - they didn’t do all that well in the end. The more interesting parts of the book is what was going on around them, in Moscow and in Washington. Unreal.
Turned out madg was using a canned, "quotebox" (i.e., kept on the shelf for use, by the HRC/GLAAD seminar-poster organizers like dried horseapples, ready for use) citation from Poppy Dixon's website. Poppy Dixon is a recovering crack whore, according to Landover Baptist Church's website, and a fanatical ex-/anti-Christian bisexual polemicist who specializes in sarcasm and hate and promotes "Alternative Christianity", a sort of Playboy Mansion Christianity on amp -- there's actually a "church" of sorts, that teaches Jesus as a lust-driven bisexual. But see for yourself, here.
But Poppy had merely quoted someone else, who was quoting someone else (all context being trimmed away along the way by the gay werewolf-posters), and when you finally dug down, it turned out to be a quote from a dead sex researcher named Loretta Haroian (not named, not cited, quoted, or sourced in any of the material quotes before the last or innermost one) who was a HUGE fan of Kinsey and one of the people called in by the Kinsey Institute people to Mau-Mau Reisman and try to shut her up with a SLAPP lawsuit.
So that's what I mean by an "onion quote" -- it's designed to fog up the eyes, plug up the nostrils, and lead the people being attacked on a merry chase through the Internet to find the original source of the quote.
It's a way of protecting a biased and highly questionable source from "subverted authority", i.e. the fair and legitimate forensic technique of attacking a quoted "authority" by examining the "authority" for trustworthiness, factuality, and lack of animus or ex parte involvement.
The gay community did something very similar to their SLAPP attack on Reisman, by the way, to continue with homosexual "Mau-Mau" politics for a moment, with psychologist Paul Cameron when he challenged the "authorities" brought in by homosexual activists in a 1981 Texas sodomy case designed to challenge the state law in federal court before a partisan liberal, Carter-appointed and forum-shopped federal judge named Jerry Buchmeyer (1939-2009). Buchmeyer savaged Cameron in his opinion, becoming a lifelong gay hero in the process, and the homosexuals used Buchmeyer's homering to try to get Cameron defrocked professionally and expelled from the American Psychological Association in a political stunt they ran on him in his home state of Nebraska (they were after his Nebraska professional license) which involved activist plants at a lecture given by Cameron. The activists, just before the lecture, spread false rumors of an arrest, just that evening, of a homosexual man or men by Nebraska state police in a horrendous crime against minors (rape-murder, something like that), and then asked questions in the lecture period to bait Cameron into commenting on the false rumor they'd planted. He made some incautious remarks, the questioners/rumor sources disappeared into the night, and the homosexual activists of Division 44 promptly went after Cameron's license to practice, citing his spreading of slanders against gays.*
This stuff really happened. And one of the psych "experts" against whom Cameron testified in the Dallas trial (styled Baker vs. Wade) was, just as Cameron said, a biased and partisan homosexual professional, Judd Marmor, who had helped and led a cabal of gay professionals to roll both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association in 1972, getting the former to drop homosexuality from their list of pathological paraphilias in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ("DSM"), and the latter to establish something called Divison 44, which is a gay-dominated gatekeeper organization within the latter association, which has total dispositive authority over all issues touching on the subject of homosexuality that receive the imprimatur of, or are investigated under the aegis of, or submitted to the professional publications of, the named society.
Get the picture? Political (not scientific) coup and capture of the issue, institutionalization of the insurgent political agenda, and punishment publicly meted out to resistant unbelievers using underhanded and unfair tactics. Nazi science -- or Lysenkoism, if you wish.
Baker vs. Wade, a 1981 attack on the same Texas statute that was successfully overthrown in another homosexual political operation in Lawrence vs. Texas (2003), was eventually mooted when the Burger court handed down a relevant opinion that reversed Buchmeyer in a parallel case from Georgia, Bowers vs. Hardwick (1986). All these cases were organized and fought by "impact litigators" representing homosexual interests and factions. The lead lawyer at the SCOTUS level in Lawrence was, and is, a board member and co-chairman of Lambda Legal; his day job is as a powerful DC "liti-legislator".
*This persecution continues to this day, nearly 30 years later. See:
http://damnstraight.oversampled.net/2006/08/21/journal-of-biosocial-science-ignores-contributors/
Notice the call to mob the journal with complaints, or arrange for subscribers and contributors to do so, and the strong resemblance of these tactics to those alleged against the "Hockey Stick" climate-science researchers who were caught with their pants down, trying to rig the science of global warming and drive dissenters from the field.
Returning to the substance of your quote, my point is that we will face lots more of this kind of in-your-face argumentation from liberals and various other dealers in political fraud and intimidation.
That was AWESOME - I’ll probably have to read it several times to fully get it though. I’m familiar with the APA crap...and of course the recent Texas case. Nothing else in their bag of tricks surprises me either. These guys are tough (and they have a lot of time on their hands...not having kids and such).
Exactly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.