Posted on 04/24/2012 3:02:54 PM PDT by Kaslin
Outrage! Or something! Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has "stepped on a landmine" by having the temerity to appoint -- I hope you're sitting down -- an openly gay national security spokesman, according to one leader of a social conservative group. Once you've pried yourself from the floor, feel free to persuse some choice excerpts from this person's incensed column:
Gov. Mitt Romney stepped on a landmine by appointing Richard Grenell, an out, loud and proud homosexual, to be his spokesman on national security and foreign policy issues. Grenell has for years been an outspoken advocate for homosexual marriage. In fact, word is that he left the Bush administration because President Bush would not formally acknowledge his homosexual partner.
"Word is" that unattributed rumors can be passed off as facts in certain quarters.
Since, as the saying goes in D.C., personnel is policy, this means Gov. Romney has some ‘splaining to do. This clearly is a deliberate and intentional act on his part, since he was well aware of Mr. Grenell’s sexual proclivities and knew it would be problematic for social conservatives. It’s certainly not possible that there are no other potential spokesmen available, men who are experts in foreign policy and who at the same time honor the institution of natural marriage in their personal lives.
So the mere employment of a gay or lesbian person -- regardless of his or her political leanings, or level of expertise -- is "problematic" for "social conservatives?" Is heterosexuality now a prerequisite to work on behalf of a Republican presidential candidate? Quite a standard, I must say. And the kicker:
Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.
What's the "obvious" conclusion here, again? It sounds like this gentleman is suggesting that because some homosexuals engage in "frequent and anonymous" sexual encounters -- as do some straight people -- all gay people with access to sensitive information are ipso facto national security risks. Okay then. Rather than punch holes in this, er, logic, I'll just encourage you to read Jen Rubin's take down of this nonsense here. It seems Romney has repudiated this particular individual in the past over some previous inflammatory rhetoric, so perhaps the whole spat is personal. In any case, here's an actual gay rights-related threat to the American ideal, upon which conservatives of all stripes should agree:
Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties. The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month. According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”
Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.” “It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.” He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties. “What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.
Unlike the "controversy" discussed above, this story truly is outrageous. According to the Constitution -- and recently reaffirmed 9-0 by SCOTUS -- churches and other religious institutions have the right to adhere to the tenets of their faith, especially within the walls of their own places of worship. This proposal (in Kansas, of all places) would sacrifice Americans' sacred religious liberties on the altar of political correctness. It's both flagrantly unconstitutional and totally wrong-headed. Sadly, it's not unprecedented. We've seen pastors persecuted by Canadian "human rights" tribunals for public criticisms of homosexuality, and an EU court ruled last month that churches that decline to carry out gay weddings in member states that have legalized the practice are guilty of discrimination. Oh, but that sort of thing could never happen here, we're told, because we have a First Amendment. Indeed we do, but we've just gotten through witnessing a presidential administration stomp all over said amendment, in furtherance of a tawdry political end. So forgive me for questioning the hard Left's fealty to the United States Constitution.
“States and civilizations blithely break their bonds with their patrimonies at their mortal peril. That’s because people who “rise above” the disciplines of civilization, are no longer capable of sustaining it in any meaningful way.”
And here we are. It is amazing that those who cannot see this are so debauched they cannot even grasp why we refuse to join them.
I guess Log Cabin Republicans are horrible too? not every gay person is a radical leftist, there are many that love this Country and believe in Capitalism just like you and me.
Well, isn’t that fabouloush, mary?
When you see guys clustering like that, especially gays, you're justified in suspecting ulterior agenda and shunning the whole bunch. Which the entire GOP needs to do -- a purge of the homosexuals infesting the Party. They seem to be overrepresented ..... which means they're deliberately climbing aboard, like shiprats, and running cabals behind the scenes to expel non-gay-friendly people from the GOP. Well, guess what, girls -- turn about is fair play.
Absolutely.........you are right.
By virtue of their lifestyles and accompanying behavior, they demonstrate extremely POOR judgement. For that reason, I do not want them making any decisions that will effect me or mine OR my country. Sorry, reality is a beach.
So do you make a swishing sound when you walk. Do you have lisp? Just askin’.
Yet another bit of evidence that Romney is “Obama Lite.”
As much trouble as the family is in -- and like capitalism it is a fons et origo of everything else, because that is where every person learns his basic lessons of life -- we can't afford places in politics for movement homosexuals who are on the record favoring destruction of the traditional family model by policy, just to "erase" the heteronormative influence and example of monogamous het marriage -- "breeder" marriage, they sneer.
Loggies, in the last analysis, self-identify as gay, gay, gay. Otherwise they wouldn't be Loggies.
This should make Ann very proud, me it just affirms that I will not vote for Myth Romney for POTUS in 2012, screw the GOP.
And Sarah, you should have run, not teased us, our country is gone.
They don't care -- they only come on these threads to try to intimidate and demoralize us. "We are everywhere, we are victorious!" The jubilant victory-grunt of the 2% over the majority.
The thing we never get around to discussing is that, the way the Dems are stitching their minoritarian coalition together will ultimately become violent and rights-denying, because minoritarian regimes are inherently weak and metastable, and so they repress the majority with threats and violence.
Worse, the Marxist-Leninist core of the Democratic Party is inherently criminal in its worldview and encourages the worst impulses, in their "organizing", among the rabble they work with. (Alinsky said so. Always agitating, rousing the anger of the mob against the Main Enemy.)
Therefore bloodshed is guaranteed, even blinking Bill Ayers's forecast that they would have to murder 25,000,000 American patriots to make Marxism-Leninism stick in the U.S.
Syria is a case in point.
Maybe someone paid her a visit and showed her the shape of things to come, if she did run, and detailed the practical consequences for her and her family.
We're talking the major leagues, now, and people who are determined, very determined, to have their way.
Now all we need is a proper label to call the perp.
George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and others had some very determined people against them, they still did what was right for the country.
We deserve the leaders we get, the GOP is no different then the DNC, both are communist front groups.
They get none of my support or money.
1. Carry water for and promote Romney as THE GOP ONE; regardless, his principles and policies (Like Obama was promoted by the left) -here we see hero worship; the cult of personality; blind following sheep.
2. Disparage True Conservatives.
3. Promote the normalization of homosexual sex and as a consequence promote the homosexual agenda.
Sure, 'cause stuff like undermining the very bedrock foundation of the country's social structure isn't going to do any harm at all or anything.
Hint - the very fact that the whole point to their group's existence is to self-identify as "gay" shows that they are every bit as much "progressive" and destructive to the country with their preferred tribalism as Jesse Jackson and La Raza are.
Log Cabin Republicans are NOT conservative. They are progressives like Romney the RINO. They wish to impose homosexual sex normalcy upon the people by using government to do it -they want to GROW the government JUST LIKE Obama though they may disagree with Obama on some areas of government tyranny and growth -they agree on mainstreaming homosexual sex normalcy.
What worked for Reagan was promoting an understanding, a position, that our primary goal as patriots is to defend the people against the encroachments of the state.
If the advocates of the homosexual agenda want to use and expand the power of the government to impose the normalcy of homosexual sex upon the people and we proclaim we represent those that defend against this, WE WILL WIN at the polls!
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.