C-Gaymers New Podcast!! Episode 1: Gamergate

Hey guys, so this has been my secret project months in the making.  Every other Monday you can look forward to a dose of conservative politics thrown at you with my svelte and sexy voice over your morning cup of joe. Two Mondays a month I will be uploading my new C-Gaymer Podcast, with my co-host Mr. F.L.A.G. and we will tackle pressing political issues, gaming, and tech news, or just basically dick around on air and waste 30 minutes of your time leaving you with a euphoric smile. Tune in twice a month, Monday at 7 AM.

Anyway, this week we tackle the hard hitting issues surrounding gamergate and get to the bottom of the movement. Spoiler alert, if you have been told they were right wing extremists you have horribly been lied to.

Depraved Evil: 5 Horrendous Criminals Affiliated with The Democratic Party

Okay, I know. Lists were old the first time I did one. This one is informative and a sickening expose into the depravity the American left breeds. It is a list though so yes I am a lame ass. Hopefully, I will have something better next week.

Anyhoo let’s get on point, this list is a hard dose of truth for lefties. Sure, there are horrendous murderers who are Republican, we don’t deny that. However we don’t claim to have an absolute moral high ground, and besides, there is more of this kind of sickness coming from the left. These people on this list, they are all the worst murders in American History. Some of them are random psychopaths, some of them were DNC Darlings. The one thing they have in common though is that they were all Democrats. So let’s begin.


Elliot Rodger


23 Year-Old Elliot West

In 2014, 23-year-old Elliot Rodger went on a violent spree killing 6 people and injuring 14 others in Isla-Vista California. He began by stabbing 3 men in his basement. After that, he drove to a sorority and shot 3 girls (killing two), then moved on to a Deli and shot to death a male student. He then drove wildly through Isla-Vista injuring 14 innocent bystanders, and after crashing into a parked vehicle he took his own life with a gunshot to the head. Since California only gives access to voter registration records to individuals with Press Passes I was unable to verify 100% that he was a registered Democrat, however, it is safe to assume he was for many reasons. The first of course is his environment. He was raised in Los Angeles by his father, Film Maker Peter Rodger, then in 2011, he moved to Isla-Vista in Santa Barbra County to attend college. At no point in his life was he exposed to an environment where Conservative viewpoints were not demonized. He was also an avid follower of The Young Turks, a left wing outlet that claims to report the news.

Hillary Rodham Clinton


Hillary Rodham Clinton – Image from the Associated Press

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the wife of former president Bill Clinton. Her crimes span from white collar crimes of incompetence to possible murders. I say possible murders because people who are about to testify against the Clintons or have damaged their goals mysteriously dies at a time very convenient to her, this phenomenon has been called the “Clinton Bodycount“. At first, even I believed this was just wild conspiracy theories, however, the sheer number, timing, and significance of the victims in question have made me reconsider my skepticism. These are people who had dirt on Hillary and her husband or have failed them in some way over the years. Certainly, due to the rising body count and the convenient nature of these deaths, I believe an FBI investigation is reasonable. It is not like it is impossible since Hillary’s position in Congress afforded the Clintons a modicum of power while Hillary was groomed for the White House.

The crimes she were certainly guilty of were her crimes of negligence while she was secretary of state. There was the Benghazi Scandal in which she had denied the request of the US Ambassador to Libya for more security, resulting in his death and the death of 3 Military and Intelligence Officers. This resulted in a congressional hearing into potential wrong doing. There is also her mishandling of Classified Information by using a private email account on her personal server for State Department Duties. Despite the fact that this was a clear violation of the 1917 Espionage Act, she was not charged due to pressure from the former administration.


John Wayne Gacy


John Wayne Gacy – From wikimedia.org

John Wayne Gacy is one of the most famous and most depraved serial killers in American History. Between 1972 – 1978 Gacy killed 33 Male victims aged 13 – 24 (He indicated that he might have raped and killed as many as 45 victims however the police only found 33 bodies, 8 were unidentified), and he also drugged and brutally raped at least 2 male victims who he later released. Gacy was tried, convicted, and executed in 1994, 16 years after his last murder. Gacy’s crimes are horrendous, and even before the murders began he has a history of sexually assaulting young boys. Gacy even worked as a community clown and was part of the Jaycees, one would assume to scope out victims. But as it is most relevant to point out for the purposes of this article, John Wayne Gacy was a Democratic Party Precinct Captain. That’s right, one of the sickest men to have ever soiled this earth with his footsteps was a highly influential Democrat, whose Democrat friends and colleagues came to his defense many times despite knowing his pattern of sickening behavior.

On July 19th, one of Gacy’s previously unidentified victim was identified using DNA comparison to a sibling.

Omar (Mir Seddique) Mateen

Omar Mateen Registration

This is the Voter Registration information for Omar Mateen. Note also that his registration is still “Active” as Florida has neglected to remove it from the system. This Screenshot was taken on 7/24/17 and will stand as proof in case they remove it in the future.

On June 12, 2016, at 2:02 AM, Omar Mateen entered the Gay Nightclub Pulse with two semi automatic weapons and began to open fire. Mateen was a Security Guard and a registered Democrat. After entering the club he made a 911 call in which he pledged allegiance to ISIS and claimed this was retaliation for the recent death of Abu Waheeb in Iraq a month before. The incident continued for 3 hours till Matteen was killed by officers during a breach operation at 5:14 AM, with SWAT reporting him as “Down” at 5:17. At 5:53 after checking the club for explosives, Police declared the incident resolved.

Despite initial reports that Mateen was a frequent patron at Pulse and the claims he was seen on dating apps in the area, the FBI could not find any credible evidence that indicated Mateen was a closeted Homosexual. This means the motive for the attack was not sexual confusion as apologist Democrats tried to claim, according to the actual solid facts, this attack was motivated by Islamic hatred of homosexuality. And now here is the kicker. In this attack by Omar Mateen, 49 victims were killed and 58 were wounded in what is now the deadliest LGBT hate crime in United States History. That’s right, Democrats tried making excuses for a Muslim Democrat who committed the worst LGBT hate crime in US History, all while claiming Donald Trump was a homophobe.

James Hodgkinson


James T. Hodgkinson was the deranged leftist shooter who opened fire on Republicans on June 14th – From Wikimedia.com

On June 14th, 2017 House Republican Whip Steve Scalise and other House Republicans were practicing at Eugene Simpson Stadium Park in Alexandria Virginia to prepare for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for charity. The game was scheduled for the following day. Half an hour into the practice, 66 year old James Hodgkinson walked out towards the field and began to open fire on the players. The gunfight lasted 10 Minutes during which time Rep. Scalise was seriously injured. Capitol Police ended the situation by shooting Hodgkinson who was escorted to a local hospital where he died.

The reaction was mixed. There was a Bi-Partisan condemnation of the shooting as well as praise for the Capitol Police who saved the lives of everybody in attendance. However, Democrats used the incident as a further call for gun control, their go to move during any such tragedy. This angered Republicans who rightly pointed out that the shooting was caused by hateful anti trump/anti republican hysteria stirred up by the left wing activists and the media as the shooters social media history showed a growing level of hysteria and extremism indicated by some of the radical anti-Republican pages he was following on social media. Thankfully Rep. Scalise has made a speedy recovery.


This kind of depravity is no coincidence. Most Democrats do not turn out this bad thankfully. However, it is their ideology, the ideology of putting one’s own rights and happiness over that of others, the ideology of victory even if you have to lie or cheat or hurt people, it is this ideology that creates truly depraved minds. Being told you are superior or bring promised equal outcomes, it rots the moral compass of the human heart. These things create people with no regard for the lives of others or even their own lives.

To stop this and to save our society, we need to rebuke these ideas. We need to rebuke those who emulate them. The problem with my generation is that we were raised to idolize people who think this way, we were taught if you don’t think the way they do that you are a bigot or something. It is an insidious strain of thought, and you have to teach your children the rewards virtue brings. And if that fails, then they need to be taught what the curses of total self-concern are, because we surely don’t want them to experience or fall victim to these curses.

Setting the Bar of Common Decency

Remember how Liberals whined and cried about Republicans criticizing the First Family under Obama? Even when Malia got caught smoking pot we weren’t supposed to say anything because the first family was supposed to be off limits. Funny how that only applied to Obama and his wife and kids though. Even before they moved into the Whitehouse Melania was facing threats of Rape and Rosie O’Donnell lead a tirade of lunatics in TV and Media as they bashed Barron. The President himself has faced what seemingly amounts to a death threat from Kathy Griffin, to which Rosie responded by attacking Barron some more. Now the sick behavior that makes morons think it is acceptable to attack a 10-Year-Old Boy cannot simply be explained by T.A.R.D. or Trump Derangement Syndrome. Simply put, Liberals have lost sight of common decency for a very long time now.



A Trump Supporter receiving medical treatment after he was attacked last year at a Pro Trump rally.

Conservatives have their trashy moments as well, but most of them are just embarrassing and not hateful. And we routinely condemn them when they go too far. But when individuals on the left go too far instead of condemnation, they are defended and their actions are downplayed. And they have gone a lot farther than anybody on the right. When one party in society brings their discourse to the level of unprovoked physical violence, personal attacks on individuals friends and family, and justifying all this with selective reasoning (I.E. “If they do it it’s the most terrible thing ever but if we do it then it is no big deal because we are the anointed ones”), then society has a duty to call that group out for their behavior. But what do we do if nearly half of society is this way? What do we do if that half of society has gained significant control of the media?


Rosie O’Donnell has probably put more effort into her Twitter feud with Trump than she has into raising her children.

Let’s return to little Miss O’Donnell here, the poster child for an undeserved sense of superiority. It is well known that Rosie has a long-standing Feud with Trump, one she started in 2006 while she was still a host on The View. Despite this, she alternated between taking shots at Trump and his family and then playing the victim. Of course, during all this time which she spent criticizing Trump and his children, she neglected and even abused her own adopted children culminating with her kicking her daughter Chelsea out of her home in August of 2014, then claiming that Chelsea was mentally ill and had run away a week after she had kicked her out. In her mind, Trump is a bad father even though his children adore him and he has a relatively normal relationship (for celebrities anyway) with his children. She calls him mentally ill despite her behavior at home and what she did to her eldest adopted child. This is an example not just of the double standard far leftists like her have, it is an example of how low the bar dropped.

What is this bar I speak of? As the title says, it is the bar of common decency and it is a hard target. For example, in the 90’s many people accused Fox Network of lowering the bar with shows like Married with Children and The Simpsons, claiming that they were raunchy and taught no valuable lessons. I can’t really argue with that, they were purely for entertainment and went for the easiest inappropriate jokes. Those however were something one viewed voluntarily and nobody could exactly say they were dragged into watching these. When liberals decided to drop the bar themselves, however they did it by being vicious and dragging other into their drama.

In recent history, Liberals have made it a habit of lashing out at others and dragging them into a larger conflict in their minds. From Hillary personally attacking her husband’s rape accusers to Chuck Schumer using James Comey to take down a Bush Era Official with a fabricated narrative that he tried to take advantage of John Ashcroft while he was in the hospital to authorize an NSA Program, The American Left has dragged down other people with lies and threats. And in the last 8 years, they have added personal attacks to the menu, more ad hominem. And as they drop this bar lower and lower, they keep themselves and their followers unaware with the narrative that they are “The Anointed” of this country.

Now, what does their Anointed narrative consist of? Well the first thing, they believe they are morally superior because they claim to advocate for the downtrodden, even though the policies they advocate hurt minorities and the working class. They also take pride in reflecting the “Enlightened” European lifestyle, despite the fact Europe has fewer freedoms than our own country and that Europe is run by a Quasi-Fascist governmental body. And the Anointed never turn down a chance to force secular values down the throats of Christians and those hicks in the Midwest. By pretending they have this superiority and they know better, they enable themselves to be totally shitty towards anybody who disagrees with them and write it off as them “Putting an ignorant Unwashed in his/her place”.

This is what has divided our nation. Liberals use this mindset to justify their ignorance and intolerance and even their violence. And somehow they were shocked when they lost the 2016 elections? This was bound to happen when they hold a double standard for everything including decency towards other then it will always backfire. And yet the still keep doubling down on this mentality.

What will happen if they keep this up? A civil war? That is one possibility, but what is more likely and indeed is already happening is that youth of our nation are rejecting their party and their values. They have also alienated anybody in their party who is a decent human being and self-aware. So keep it up with that sleazy behavior that spits in the face of common decency Liberals. Those of on the Right aren’t quite sick yet of all the winning we have been doing. Maybe you can claim Russian Hackers made you act like douchey human garbage?

The Left Wing Art of Disunity

Here is the article that inspired this piece. It got me thinking of the lies liberals tell, the violence that they engage in, and the negative effect on society. It is rhetoric like this that creates groups like Antifa not just in the modern day but also in the past. It is a rhetoric the Democratic Party has always relied on. In the past, it was Blacks and Republicans, then Asians and eventually Jews. The only difference between then and now is that Democrats have removed race or creed from the rhetoric and brought it down to a simple formula of, “Everybody who disagrees with me must be hated and treated with violence and contempt”. What is equally alarming isn’t just that individuals who don’t agree with this ideology sadly get sucked into it, it is that the Liberals are surprised when their venomous hatred is reciprocated.

Now I cannot stress how extremely hard this is for me personally. I am a person who tries to judge people fairly and be tolerant of others beliefs, and on top of this, I have many family members who I love dearly that subscribe to varying extremes of the left wing ideology. Yet very often when I read the news or sit down to write I find myself harboring a nearly violent hatred for people who hold the left wing ideology myself. I don’t mean typical hatred either. For example, today I read an article about a far left policy just passed in Ontario, and my first thought (which I expressed in a comment on Facebook) was that we needed a worldwide violent revolution to tear these freaks out of power and that after that since Democracy has clearly failed that we needed a feudalist government to ensure only the strong can rule and prevent weakling freaks like this who hold these ideas from ever having a voice in society again. In that moment the last thing on my mind was that some of these “Freaks” could possibly be members of my own family who I care for. This isn’t simply a matter though of being afraid of “sinking to their level”, what truly scares me is how I can allow these things to arouse that amount of anger in me that I lose my rational faculties.


A wonderful message I once received from a “Tolerant” liberal.

Now if you want to know why this happens, the article answers it clearly. After facing so much abuse, people can naturally form resentment for the abuser. And make no mistake, even I have faced abuse from far leftists, so much so that I have grown susceptible to thinking the way they do and dehumanizing people who disagree with me and associate their opinions with this same hostility. You can only be called “Racist” or “Faggot” or “Self-Hating” gay so many times by these kinds of people before you begin to react like a bitten dog. I feel like if liberals understood this then the majority of them might change their attitudes. Honestly, a simple apology from the left and a gesture showing an interest in civil dialogue would go a long way in fixing societies issue with civil discourse. Sadly at this point, there seems to be a huge issue on the left with accepting responsibility.

Now I hate the blame game but honestly, the party responsible needs to be identified and that party is the Democrats. Their claims that Trump is responsible for divisiveness are total crap, the divisive culture is a result of the Obama Administration and to a much lesser degree the Bush Administration, and if you are open to the truth then you should consider and accept that Trump is the result and not the cause of this. I cannot speak for the times before I was a self-aware young adult, but in my time I have seen all of this animosity created and encouraged by the Left for years, the worst example of this having been when a kid I went to school with accused Bush of being responsible for Hurricane Katrina because “He has a button on his desk that creates Hurricanes”. This vitriol came to an utter peak during the last 4 years of the Obama Administration with scandals like the Lois Lerner IRS Scandal at the top of the chain and the at the very bottom the practice of labeling anybody who criticized the president or the left wing agenda a racist. This message that Democrats sent, the message that if you are on their side you are above the law and you don’t need to defend your beliefs because anybody who disagrees’s is (Insert Hostile Label), this is the one reason we are at the place we are today.

To really highlight the difference between how we right wingers behave and the left wingers you need look no further than the news. Conservatives, we mostly keep our criticism confined to appropriate areas such as the internet, the public square, the university campus and the state house when it is possible. Recently, however, liberals have taken their fights to more personal places they do not belong. Like for example the front yard of Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), where his 11-year-old daughter discovered a vulgar sign trashing her father and his political affiliation.  It is unacceptable when vicious political criticism and backlash not only leaves the realm of a constructive verbal argument but also is taken to somebody’s home or work. (with the exception of a statehouse.)


Antifa Terrorist at Berkeley setting fire to a Trump supporters sign promoting free speech

Along with taking their issues to unacceptable places, there is also the huge issue of Democrats attempts to use violence against a person’s body or livelihood to censor opposing opinions now that the ad hominem claims of racism have lost all effectiveness. Of course, there is the issue of Antifa whose efforts to censor opposing speech using violence or attempts at intimidation. They are stoked on by the aforementioned mentality of being above the law (and they most often act out in jurisdictions where the officials are less likely to aggressively pursue them) and the delusion that not only is anybody who disagrees with them a Nazi, that they have no obligation to engage in discourse with them or respect the rights of others to engage in discourse with people holding a view opposing their worldview. But more insidious is the current culture of firing or refusing to employ people with opposing views at so-called journalistic institutions on college campuses. Take for example the case of Andy Ngo who was fired from his newspaper for being “Islamaphobic” because he posted a video on social media of a Muslim student characterizing her own religion at a speaking event on religion. Another campus issue since we are on this track is the habit of teachers like Greg Thatcher to enlist students in helping him censor students opinions that he does not approve of, ignoring the rules of the college and the ruling of college administrators.

Now I am by no means biased. Conservatives have been guilty of being similarly shitty towards liberals. However, we have been pretty quick to condemn this kind of behavior. Liberals, however, encourage this kind of hatred and discrimination. The current liberal ideology which is pushed by the liberal elite feeds upon this adversarial “us or them” mentality, to the point where they show special viciousness towards those they claim to advocate for but who deviate from their beliefs. And as the article that inspired this piece indicates, we are reaching a societal breaking point.


In the 90’s Hilton pursued the idea of an orbital hotel. Sadly this never came to fruition.

Despite all these bad signs though, some part of me is still optimistic of course, probably because I got to grow up in the 90’s. The 90’s were by no means perfect, but I still remember the years leading up to and after the year 2000 very well. We were at the turn of not just another century but another millennium, and people were so full of hope and optimism for the future. That lasted for a year and a half sadly, but it was a time when we had gotten past most of our prejudices and looked forward to something better. Those years leading up to the new millennia were full of talk about hotels among the stars and other heady ideas. Instead of human progress however, we have spent 17 years focusing on what divides us ideologically. In fact, some of us just created new things to divide us or brought back the specter of things we have gotten past or were nearly resolved, and now because of this every day we inch closer to another Civil War.

Is there any way we can pull ourselves back from this brink? I think there is and it starts with understanding. The first thing we need to do is pull the bugs out of our asses, when we are about to lash out unreasonably at someone with opposing political beliefs we need to take a second and think of our loved ones who share those opposing beliefs whether they are conservative or liberal. The second is that we need to reject extremism, from the right or left. Part of that is opening dialogue and trying to understand where the other person is coming from, we may not ever agree even then but it is better than dehumanizing someone who disagrees with you by accusing them of being hateful, because if we are being honest again we have to accept that most people are not, in reality, that hateful. And the third thing is to find the common ground that brings us all together. For some this is family and for others, this is patriotism in its varying forms and notwithstanding those, there are millions of other things in between that bring us all together. What all this adds up to in the end is a general tolerance for other people, people we need to live and work and exist beside.

A Discussion about Homophobia

Now honestly we all know what homophobia is right? So why even have this conversation. We all know homophobes are backward fools who run around the streets with signs. The only problem is that is not the case anymore. I mean that is one form homophobia takes but it is not the most dangerous form, only the most obvious.

Democrats have pushed the image of the loud rednecks in the street for a long time so they could claim Republicans are anti-gay. While that is not totally untrue (as some Republicans are very anti-gay), the real reason Democrats so painstakingly try to sell this narrative is that they, in reality, are the bigger homophobes. Homophobia is more rampant on the left than the right, that is just a fact. And it is more dangerous too. Allow me to explain.


Anti-Gay Protest by a Baptist organization.

A Choice Between a Train and an 18 Wheeler

When the few homophobic Republicans manifest their homophobia it is a public thing we all see. Liberals however are roundabout in their homophobia, it is more overt and insidious coming from them. The perfect analogy for this, it the difference between being able to see the 18 wheeler about to run you down as opposed to not noticing the freight train about to flatten you. In this scenario, conservative homophobes are the 18 Wheeler and the liberal ones are the freight train. While the few conservative bigots do their thing in public, the many and numerous Left Wing homophobes are homophobic behind closed doors and commit over but damaging acts. And they really are more dangerous.


A wonderful message I once received from a “Tolerant” liberal.

Okay here is a good example, we all know Liberals love to virtue signal. When it comes to gay people that’s all we are to them, an opportunity to virtue signal and nothing more. And what should happen if one of us doesn’t agree with them using us as an opportunity to showcase their hollow and non-existent moral superiority? Well, that is when you get to see their true colors because these people are not our allies. They are huge bigots, bigger bigots than the people who walk through the streets with their signs and screaming because unlike those bigots the left wing bigots are not content just to hate us, they also use us like objects and indeed view us the same way Democrats view African Americans as Slaves.

Now some can argue that my example from above is reactionary but it isn’t. Much Liberal homophobia happens when they think nobody is looking. The DNC Leaks are a prime example, many of these emails had wonderful hidden gems like “No Homo“, or “Daddy Vibes“, or how to determine who is a “Good Gay” which by the way is my personal favorite. Can you imagine if these had been RNC leaks how much the media would have wailed about “Homophobic Culture in the Republican Party”? Unsurprising though as their last presidential nominee was a woman who took money in exchange for a weapons deal for a country that kills gays in an official capacity.

Cyanide & Unhappiness

That is only really the tip of the iceberg though because now we delve into their dangerous homophobia. See the upside to the few homophobic conservatives being outspoken is that if they are encouraging hate crimes or violence we know who to watch out for and we see it coming. Liberals however commit their violence under our noses or even manipulate LGBT individuals into acting against their own best interests. After all, they view us as property which they hold in utmost contempt.  And so they cater in a most disgusting goulash of fear and lies to hurt and control us.

2016 was a year full of examples of this starting with the Pulse Nightclub Shooting. The immediate aftermath was not outrage over the shooting. The first thing Liberals did was try to claim that Islam was not involved even though he pledged allegiance to ISIS over the phone during the attack, and that apparently the shooter did it because he was a closeted homosexual. And beyond trying to place the blame on us, they even tried to deny the publicly known fact that the shooter was a registered Democrat while they tried to warp this into an anti-gun issue. And the cherry on top of all of this is that a week after these shootings the Florida Democratic Party held a banquet featuring an outspoken anti-gay imam. This makes it clear that the left is okay with killing gays when the murderer is Islamic. And I bet they get a big laugh when they get a bunch of gay uncle toms to march for the very people trying to kill them.


This parade in Britain is an example of the left manipulating gay men and women to act against their own best interests and to act as left wing political pawns

Now you of course wonder how Democrats can trick millions of LGBT individuals into acting like lemmings? Well in the most disgusting act of homophobia on the part of the left, they routinely lie to gay men and women and distort the truth. Not just little white lies either, they tell lies meant to instill earth-shattering fear in the hearts of impressionable gay men and women and then paint themselves as saviors who will deliver them from this fate. In reality, however, they deliver them closer to a fate of death and misery each day. The oldest lie is of course that it is the Republicans who are the homophobes who want to kill them (I have heard these exact words come from the mouth of a gay man before) and true to that tradition they have crafted a new lie about the vice president in that grand tradition of making gays scared so they can be controlled.


These do not sound like the words of a homophobe

Far Leftists last year started a malicious and wholly untrue rumor about Vice President Mike Pence in order to paint him as a danger to gay men and women. They made a ludicrous claim that Mike Pence supported taking federal money for HIV Research and directing it to the public funding of Gay Conversion Therapy. They claim that a passage from his 2000 Campaign website for the senate which mentions directing funds to institutions which “provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior”. In reality however, Mr. Pence was referring to funding programs that promote abstinance to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, which was in line with his rhetoric. Sure there was other questionable material on the website but then again this was the year 2000 and since then some things have become settled issues.


Mike Pence summarizing his attitude on discrimination.

Not to be outdone though, liberals compound their lies by bringing up their further lies and hysteria over the RFRA. I admit the law did not explicitly specify what is and isn’t grounds to refuse service but Mike Pence obviously did not intend his state level reflection of a Clinton Era federal law to be used to deny LGBT couples everyday service. It simply gave certain businesses the rights to deny specialty services if being obligated to provide them grievously violated their 1st Amendment Freedoms. Any half wit could figure out that was the point of it and why not? Personally, I think people in those industries should have a right within reason to refuse service, namely that a Christian should be able to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake and a gay man should be able to refuse to bake a cake that says “God Hates Fags”. That should be their choice as it is their business that involves close involvement with the event and they should have a right to say no considering that we live in a free market with many choices. Actually, I think the Image below, as well as this article, characterizes this better than I can.

Pence Excerpt


More of what the left labels “Anti-Gay Rhetoric” from Pence

2 things you need to take away from this now. The first, Liberals are not concerned with truth or other people’s rights. They want to further their agenda and score brownie points at the cost of stirring up further animosity. The Second, to control gay people they will lie and turn anything into an existential crisis so they can swoop in and pretend to be their saviors. Sadly this kind of homophobia is so effective.

A Needle or a Bullet

Why is all of that important though? Surely yelling god hates fags in the street or calling a guy faggot on the internet is more harmful? Well if you think that you are so totally wrong. Calling one person fag only harms that one person and yelling in the streets only harms the people present usually. Telling lies to scare an entire minority into doing a group’s bidding and gaining their trust just so act against their best interests is so much more damaging.

This insidious homophobia is an actual hate crime if we are being honest here. These lies are actions motivated by hate and greed which cause harm to their victims. And unlike the Isolated incidents of hate crimes by conservative homophobes, this broad and sweeping hate crime does not hurt just 1 or 2 or 10 people. This crime against LGBT individuals hurts every gay person, not just in America but the entire world over. This is why I am a conservative even in the face of little morons saying I am a self-hating gay, I mean Republicans have done some not so good things but they have never tried to support people who want to kill us nor have they told lies meant to scare us into doing their bidding. If you are a gay Liberal it is, in fact, you who is the self-hating gay and sadly there are a lot of them these days. And if you are a gay libertarian or something along those lines then you are just freaking amazing beyond words cause you’re able to say eff you to both extremes that do these things.

The bottom line is this, the left is not a friend to gays. They are actually our worst enemy. These monsters have found a way not just to cause us harm like regular homophobes, but to also control us despite this while tricking us into thinking they are our allies. They benefit from our misery, and that is inarguably the worst manifestation of homophobic behavior. Scarily enough some of them might actually have internalized their hatred of gays so much that they think their harmful behavior is actually good for us. Buying their own hype would be a really macabre twist to this. In general though my hope is that soon LGBT people and the people who really do care about us will wake up to all this before we are hurt too much, though we might already be too late for that.

No, The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Authority: 10 Times the Court was Overturned.

Okay, so for some reason after about 227 years since it was founded, some people have gotten this totally deluded idea in their head that the Supreme Court is some kind of supreme authority that is infallible. Anytime someone debates me about Supreme Court decisions the predetermined conclusion is that after I give them the overwhelming evidence they are wrong, they will use an appeal to authority and claim that because I am not on the court my opinion is wrong. Let me state this for the record though, even with my mere 2 years in pre-law I am still more fit to serve on the Supreme Court than certain justices. Just to give a specific example so I don’t look like a braggart, a certain Justice while speaking about abortion claimed the right to privacy is found in the 14th Amendment however as any first-year law student or a kid with a Pocket Constitution can tell you, that is completely wrong. The right to privacy is guaranteed by the 4th Amendment, and before we get to the “one-time mistake” argument, she has repeated this inaccurate claim more than once.

That aside, there have always been periods where the Court has made questionable decisions. People routinely choose to ignore the political aspect of the court when a decision matches their political sensibilities. But as I said, The Court is not infallible and its members are not some legal gurus. These are officials appointed by other politicians with lifetime tenures. They do not have to even be qualified and they are not accountable to the people of the United States. Literally, anybody could conceivably be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice if one party has the white house and a majority in the Senate. (Prior to the tantrum thrown by Democrats earlier this year it required a super majority of 60 votes)

Luckily decisions made by them are never totally absolute. This is a good thing since some past decisions have deprived people of their rights based on politics. In 227 years there have been a total 188 cases have been overturned on some serious constitutional issues, that means an average of .01 cases a year overturned or 1.2 cases overturned for each year the court has existed. 188 sounds small in the grand scheme of things, but that is just the number of decisions overturned to date. And considering it is a question of fundamental rights, 188 is 188 times too many. Here are 15 of these decisions and a brief explanation of them. Let’s see if you still have the same faith in the court after reading these.


The Facade of the United States Supreme Court. Image from britannica.com

Lochner vs The State of NewYork (1905)

This was considered a “Landmark Labor Law Case” at the time it occurred. The Plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Lochner, claimed that the Bakeshop Act of 1885 violated the 14th Amendment by limiting how he could enter into a contract with his employees. Mr. Lochner had been found guilty of violating this act twice and he appealed the second conviction on this basis which is why it made it all the way to the court. Both times he had violated a provision of the law which prohibited him from letting any employee work more than 10 hours in a day or 60 hours a week. NewYork State claimed that this was for the health of the workers since in 1885 Bakeshops were not a very healthy working environment. Mr. Lochner’s Attourney Mr. Henry Weismann argued that the modern Bakeshop was a marked improvement and that with the introduction of proper ventilation it was comfortable to work there in the summer or the winter. He claimed that the enforcement of the law was an unreasonable exercise of the state’s police power.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, citing that the law regulating workers hours did not constitute a legitimate exercise of state police powers, rather favoring the freedom of contract. They disregarded the argument that the workers did not have equal bargaining power. The main flaw in the case is that the Constitution did not guarantee any freedom of contract. This precedent was overturned in another 5-4 ruling in West Coast Hotel Co. vs Elsie Parrish. In this case, the court decided that the Constitution did indeed permit the state to restrict the right of contract when such restrictions protected community, health, and safety, or vulnerable groups.

Alexander Chisholm vs The State of Georgia (1793)

This was considered one of the first major Supreme Court cases and tested the concept of federal jurisdiction and the ability of an individual from one state being able to sue the government of another state. Alexander Chisholm was the executor of the estate of Robert Farquar, and in this capacity, he sued The State of Georgia for payments due to him for goods that Robert Farquar had supplied Georgia during the Revolutionary War. The State of Georgia however claimed that the lawsuit was invalid, as that Georgia was a sovereign state and had to consent to be sued. In a 4 to 1 decision (at this time the court had only 5 justices) the court ruled that Section 2 of Article 3 in the Preamble to the Constitution meant that the jurisdiction of the federal courts superseded the sovereignty of the states. This ruling however was later overturned by the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Donald Saucier vs Elliot M. Katz (2001)

This is another, more recent case that also deals with government immunity, this time the Qualified Immunity of a Police Officer from a civil rights case brought by a Bivens Action. In 1994 during a celebration for the conversion of a former military base into a national park, at which the Vice President was a keynote speaker, Elliot M. Katz who was part of a group named “In Defense of Animals” unfurled a banner protesting the possibility that Letterman Army Hospital might be used for animal experimentation. Donald Saucier who was on duty as an MP that day along with his colleague Evan Parker had been warned of the possibility of demonstrations and having identified Katz as a demonstrator, they grabbed him from behind and escorted him to a nearby military van where Katz alleged they shoved or threw him into the van. Katz brought a case against the soldier invoking the Bivens decision and claimed the officers had violated his Fourth Amendment Rights and had exercised excessive force against him. Mr. Saucier appealed the case citing that he had qualified immunity as he felt his actions were at the time justified.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the court determined that Saucier was entitled to qualified immunity and that in the determination of qualified immunity the court in question must establish two facts. The first is whether the facts presented show that an officer’s actions violated a constitutional right, and then whether or not the right that was allegedly violated was clearly established. It was clearly stated that the steps were to be followed in that exact order. This precedent stood for 8 years till it was partially overturned in Cordell Pearson vs Afton Callahan. In Pearson v Callahan the court then ruled that the Saucier decision was not mandatory, and rather that the procedure was up to the discretion of lower courts.

Clemente Martinez Perez vs Herbert Brownell Jr (1958)

This in an interesting case involving the authority of the government to revoke citizenship. Mr. Perez was born in 1909 in the town of El Paso Texas and resided there till about 1920 when his family moved to Mexico. During the second world war, he was permitted to enter the United States under the premise that he was a Mexican alien Railroad Worker and had been born in Mexico. In 1947 however, he returned to Mexico and applied again for entry to the United States, this time citing that he had been born in Texas and was indeed a US Citizen. Upon entering the country again he was immediately charged for failing to sign up for the military draft. Under oath, Mr. Perez admitted that he had returned to Mexico between 1944 to 1947 to avoid military service and that during that time he had voted in a Mexican Presidential Election in 1946. In 1953 Perez surrendered himself to immigration officials in San Francisco as an unlawful immigrant but also claimed he was a citizen of the United States by birth and was entitled to remain here.

In 1958 the court upheld earlier rulings that Perez had lost his American Citizenship with a 5 to 4 vote. The argument was that Congress had the authority to revoke citizenship and that Perez’s voluntary choice to vote in a foreign election was grounds for loss of citizenship. In my opinion, this was the right decision considering all of the mitigating factors. Sadly in 1967, the court overruled its previous opinion in the case of Beys Afroyim vs Dean Rusk. In Afroyim v Rusk they ruled that according to the 14th Amendment, Congress did not have the right to revoke the citizenship of an individual without his or her consent.

Michael J. Bowers vs Michael Hardwick (1986)

This case kinda hits close to home for me since it was a case involving a law prohibiting Sodomy, or sex outside of the vagina. A Law Officer named Keith Torrik was delivering a then defunct warrant to Michael Hardwick, who due to a clerical error had missed a court case over a citation for public drinking. Mr. Hardwick’s roommate invited Officer Torrik into the apartment and showed him to Mr. Hardwick’s room where Officer Torrik observed Mr. Hardwick engaging in consensual oral sex with anther man since the door to the room was open. After Mr. Hardwick threatened to have officer Torrik fired for invading his privacy, Officer Torrik arrested both men on Felony charges of Sodomy.

Even after a district attorney declined to prosecute the charge because of the expired warranty along with his own personal objection to the law in question, Mr. Hardwick still decided to sue the Attorney General of Georgia for a declaratory ruling that the sodomy law was invalid. He argued that as an active homosexual he was liable to be charged for engaging in sexual activity. After the first court dismissed his case, a Federal Appellate Court overruled the lower court’s decision and found in favor of the plaintiff, Mr. Hardwick. The Georgia Attorney General however appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. In a 5 to four decision the court upheld the anti-sodomy law citing their belief that homosexual acts are not protected under privacy law, with one Justice even citing the moral repugnancy of the act as a reason to rule in favor of The State of Georgia.

It is interesting to note a heterosexual married couple was also listed as plaintiffs in this case, they argued that even though they wished to engage in sodomy the Georgia law prevented them from doing this. They however failed to prove the standing for their claim and were dropped from the suit. I mention this because it proves the point that this decision had negative implications even for heterosexual couples. In the end, the ruling was overturned by the 2003 decision from John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner vs The State of Texas. In a 6 to 3 decision, the court ruled that the Bower decision violated the right to due process.

Lester J. Albrecht vs Herald Co., DBA Globe-Democrat Publishing Company (1968)

Taking a step away from social politics, I turn your decision to this 1968 Anti-Trust law case. Lester J. Albrecht was an independent newspaper carrier who had been acquired by Herald Publishing Company, an outfit that printed the St. Lewis Globe-Democrat. According to an agreement between the publisher and Albrecht, there was a maximum price he was not allowed to exceed. Exceeding this limit meant that the publisher could terminate his distribution territory and arrange for another carrier to serve those customers. Albrecht had failed to adhere to this agreement though, and after a period of protest Herald proceeded to inform his customers that they would distribute the paper at a lower price causing 300 of Albrecht’s 1200 customers to terminate their service with him.

Albrecht brought forth a complaint that the Herald Companies actions amounted to price fixing which was prohibited under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. After an initial jury found in favor of Herald Company, Albrecht petitioned for the court to issue a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict which the court declined to do. Albrecht then appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals which upheld the lower court’s decision. However the Supreme Court in a 7 to 2 decision the court ruled in favor or Albrecht stating that the actions of the Herald Company’s actions were not unilateral but concerted, and that price fixing was not illegal per se. The second half of this decision was overturned by a unanimous decision in State Oil Company vs Barkat U. Khan when the court ruled that vertical maximum price fixing is not inherently unlawful and should be handled on a case by case basis using Rule of Reason.

Austin vs Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)

This is one of my favorite cases not only because it occurred the year I was born but also because it was later overturned with the help of my favorite Supreme Court Justice. In 1989 the Michigan Chamber of Commerce challenged the constitutionality of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. This law made it illegal for corporations to spend treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections. There was a loophole however if the corporation held an independent fund solely for political spending it was exempt from this law. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce argued that the law violated the 1st and 14th Amendments by violating corporations rights to free speech and also their right to equal protection under the law. Their opponents however claimed that corporations did not have the same rights as individuals. In a 6 to 3 decision, the court ruled against the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

In an opinion written by Justice Marshall, he stated that the court recognized the State of Michigan’s interest in combating a “different type of corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” While I have great respect for Mr. Marshall and agree with the sentiment of what he said, I do not agree with its legality. If indeed there is no correlation between the public’s ideas and the corporations then there is no need to stop the corporations spending for promoting their interests as any amount of money would not sway the public opinion nor the results of an election if indeed there is no correlation between the opinions of the public or the opinions of the corporation. This decision was overturned 20 years later in the case of Citizens United vs The Federal Elections Committee. In that case, the court ruled that the FEC had violated the 1st Amendment rights of Citizens United when they intervened in their plans to air “Hillary: The Movie”.

Frank Palko (Palka) vs The State of Connecticut (1937)

In some ways, this case is tragic as it was not overturned in time to help the plaintiff. In 1935 Frank Palka (his name was misspelled as Palko on court documents) broke into a music shop to steal a phonograph and then shot and killed a police officer while fleeing. Palka was tried for 1st Degree Murder but was only found guilty of 2nd Degree Murder so he was given a Life Sentence. Prosecutors however appealed in accordance with Connecticut law and won a new trial at which Palka was found Guilty of 1st Degree Murder and sentenced to Capital Punishment. Palka appealed this, however, claiming that the second trial violated his right to due process and constituted Double Jeopardy and that it violated the 14th Amendment as it deprived him of due process.

At this time the court had been ruling on a case by case basis whether the 14th Amendment could be used to force compliance with the Bill of Rights, in the words of Benjamin Cardozo, the 14th Amendment Equal Protection only applied to rights that were essential to facilitate “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.” Unfortunately for Mr. Palka, the court decided in an 8 to 1 decision that Double Jeopardy protections were not essential to the preservation of that “scheme of ordered liberty” and they upheld his conviction. Frank Palka was executed on April 12th, 1938 using the electric chair. It wasn’t until the case of John Dalmer Benton vs the State of Maryland in 1969 that the decision was overturned when the court recognized that Double Jeopardy applied to states as well. However, this was 31 years too late to help Frank Palka.

Charles J. McNally and James E. Gray v. the United States of America (1987)

After Julian Carroll (D) became Governor of The State of Kentucky in 1974, Howard P. Hunt became director of the Kentucky Democratic Party. When the state purchased workman’s compensation insurance from Wombwell Insurance, Hunt conspired with the Vice President of the insurance agency to award the state’s contract to Wombwell in exchange for kickbacks that were to be sent to other insurance agencies selected by Hunt. $200,000 of that money was given to Seton Investments Incorporated, which was publically run by Charles McNally, but in reality was a front company that was really run by Hunt and Carroll’s Secretary of Public Protection and Regulation, James Gray. McNally received $75,000 for acting as a front man while Gray and Hunt spend the rest of the money on Florida condominiums, automobiles, and other luxuries. It is unknown whether Governor Carroll was in on this scheme as well.

In 1983 when the scheme was exposed, McNally, Hunt, and Gray were all brought up on federal charges of Mail Fraud, Tax Fraud, and Conspiracy. Hunt pleaded guilty to the Mail Fraud and Tax Fraud and was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Grey and McNally were found guilty on charges of conspiracy and fraud. The lower court also stated that the defendants had deprived the Citizens of Kentucky of “their right to have the Commonwealth’s business and its affairs conducted honestly, impartially, free from corruption, bias, dishonesty, deceit, official misconduct, and fraud,” as well as “money and other things of value.” They appealed the decision claiming that it was not legitimate services fraud because Hunt, who they had been charged with abetting, had no fiduciary responsibility to the state and that their due process had been violated since the lower court failed to inform the jury of this. The Six Circut however noted Grey’s fiduciary responsibility as a government official and decided that Hunt had the same de facto responsibility due to his extensive involvement in government affairs and his involvement in the allocation of the insurance contract to Wombwell.

In June of 1987 however, the court overturned their convictions in a 7 to 2 decision. In the majority opinion, Justice Byron White stated that the fraud statute did not protect the public’s intangible right to honest government, only protected money and property. In a dissenting opinion however, Justice John Stevens argued that “nothing in the words ‘any scheme or artifice to defraud,’ or in the purpose of the statute, justifies limiting its application to schemes intended to deprive victims of money or property.” Congress seems to have agreed with Justice Stevens. A year later Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, a provision of which overturned the ruling of the court that corruption didn’t constitute fraud.

Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sandford (1857)

This is the most famous example of a grossly unjust Supreme Court Decision that was later overturned when those in power acknowledged that it was totally contrary to the spirit and letter of Constitutional Law. Dred Scott was born in 1795 to a female slave in Virginia. After moving to St. Louis Missouri in 1830, Mr. Scotts “Owner” sold him to a US Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson. When Doctor Emerson moved to Fort Snelling in 1836 Mr. Scott was married to another slave, Harriet Robinson, in a civil ceremony performed by Robinson’s “Owner” who was also an officer of the peace. The next year Emerson was reassigned and rather than bringing Scott and Harriet with him, he decided instead to leave them in Fort Snelling and rent them out. In 1830 after Emerson was reassigned again to Louisiana, he sent for Scott and his wife who proceeded south to serve their “master” and his family. Along the way, they gave birth to their Daughter Eliza in what was considered free territory between Illinois and what would become Iowa. This made Eliza a free person under state and federal laws and the Scott’s could have sued for their freedom upon entering Louisiana. For some reason, they chose not to.

Between 1838 and 1840 the Scott’s moved twice, once when Dr. Emmerson was reassigned again to Fort Snelling and once more when Mrs. Emmerson moved returned to St. Louis with the slaves while her husband served in the Seminole War. In 1842 Dr. Emmerson retired from the Army and later died in 1843 while in the Iowa Territory. His wife Irene inherited the Scott’s and leased them out till 1846. Then in 1846, he attempted to purchase his families freedom. Irene Emmerson however refused which prompted Scott to pursue legal recourse.

It was at first expected Scott would win the case as legal precedence stated that slaves who spent extensive time in free states had a right to be emancipated. Scott also had a sympathetic Judge in Alexander Hamilton (No apparent relation to the founding father) who was known to be sympathetic to slave freedom suits. His Legal Council was being funded by the daughter of his former owner as well, who had married a banker. Everything looked like it was going good for Dredd Scott. However in June of 1847, the case was dismissed on a technicality, Scott had failed to prove he was enslaved by Irene Emmerson because the witness who testified had never actually seen the lease documents since his wife handled those matters.

In December of 1847, Judge Hamilton granted Scott the second trial. Sadly due to an initial appeal by Irene Emmerson which was overturned and then a series of local disasters (A fire and Cholera outbreak), the new trial did not begin until January 1850. During this time Scott and his family were leased out under the custody of the St. Louis Country Sheriff who was instructed to put the profits in an escrow account to be paid out to the winner of the case. At the second trial, the Scotts overcame the Hearsay technicality by having the wife of the previous witness testify and thus they won their freedom. Emmerson however was unwilling to accept the loss of the slaves, and even though she had transferred ownership of the slaves to her brother John F. A. Sanford and moved to Massachusetts she appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. In 1852 the court reversed the trial court’s decision and declared the Scotts were still slaves. They based their decision on the reasoning that the Scotts should have sued for freedom in a free state.

In 1853 Scott again sued for his freedom, however this time he did not have the financial support of his former owners family as the financial burden had become too substantial for them. However, since John Sanford had returned to NewYork State the Scotts were able to take the case directly to federal court. Also in addition to their earlier complaints, Scott also claimed that Sanford had assaulted his family and held them captive for six hours on NewYears Day 1853. However, in 1854 the federal court judge instructed the jury to judge the case by Missouri law. Since the Missouri Supreme Court had decided against Scott the jury upheld that decision.

Scott appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and was represented pro bono by Montgomery Blair and George Ticknor Curtis, whose brother Benjamin Curtis was a Supreme Court Justice at the time and was one of the dissenting votes. In a 7 to 2 ruling split between party lines, The Court ruled against Dred Scott. The 7 Democrats drafted an opinion stating that Scott should not have even been entitled to a trial as he was a slave and could not be considered a citizen, so he had no legal right or standing in the courts. They went on to also claim that the Missouri Compromise was Unconstitutional and that territories or states that had abolished slavery still had no right to free slaves. Some point out that 2 of these Justices were encouraged by James Buchannon to make a decision that would put the question of slavery beyond political debate. Knowing the policies of the Democratic Party it is clear he intended for the members of the court to rule against Scott, and it is even speculated that Taney informed Buchannon of the planned decision shortly before his inauguration. This kind of communication is considered inappropriate by today’s standards and even by standards at the time.

In their Dissenting Opinions, Justices McLean and Curtis heavily criticized the decision. McLean illustrated that there was no basis for the claim that blacks couldn’t be citizens as at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, black men could vote in 5 of the 13 states. In his words, the decision made by the Democrats was “more a matter of taste than of law”. Judge Curtis was a lot harsher, claiming that most of the majority opinion was Obiter Dicta. Both Justices attacked the overturning of the Missouri Compromise as well, citing the continental congresses addition of anti-slavery provisions to the Northwest Ordinance and other subsequent acts that barred slavery north of 36°30′ N.

Luckily it only took 11 years to totally overturn the Dred Scott Decision. In 1865 the 13th Amendment was ratified which totally abolished slavery and also involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime. Then 3 years later in 1868, the 14th Amendment was ratified which guaranteed equal protection under the law for freed slaves, as well as barring participants in a rebellion from running for office and said that no state would be paid for the loss of slaves or any other debt incurred by the Confederacy. Sadly Dred Scott did not live to see this as he died November 7th, 1858 only 18 months after being voluntarily freed after Irene Emmerson’s second husband who was an abolitionist and had come under criticism for his wife’s actions. Scott’s Wife Harriet died 18 years later on June 17th, 1876, but she died a free woman who got to see her late husband’s struggle vindicated.



These cases make a very stark point. In all areas of law, the court that rules on the constitutionality of laws has made unconstitutional decisions. And an alarming number of them have to do with our fundamental rights and freedoms. People put way too much weight in the decisions of the Supreme Court, especially States and Courts which can simply ignore these decisions so they can be brought up again and hopefully corrected sooner. There are a great many decisions made in recent years by the court that need to be overturned as they have no basis in law.

Why does this happen so much? There are many reasons. There is the political nature of how the Supreme Court is selected, the lack of restrictions on them compared to other judges, the lifetime tenure with little chance for impeachment, the fact they do not answer to voters at all. Maybe this could be fixed by having some committee of judicial review for the court or by making it easier to impeach a justice if they do something wrong. I think the most important thing that can be done though is for everybody to face reality and stop treating the court as some sort of god. Certainly, the cases I cite above are reason enough to change that view.

Ad Hominem, Moral Equivalency, and Democrats who Have a Hard Time Understanding These Concepts


A wonderful message I once received from a “Tolerant” Democrat.

I felt the best way to open this article was with this little number here. This was a nice little message sent to me after I admonished a bunch of Democrats for some bigoted crap they were mouthing off about. I made it a point to let them know that their bigotry is why I am a gay republican and this little girl here decided to give me a cemented example of the bigotry I speak of. This represents the true feelings of Democrats who claim to advocate gay rights and fight against “Homophobic Republicans”. The thing is, I have never met a Republican who spoke to me like this. In fact, ever since I have come out the only homophobic remarks directed at me have been from Democrats and other liberals. That is because Democrats only protect those who are obedient to them. Their party is about obedience rather than progress as they claim.


A moronic Antifa who does not understand the definition of fascism.


Phil Robertson came under fire from the left for saying he didn’t support gay marriage nor understand homosexuality. However, the remark they publicized was cherry picked. This was the second half of his quote they excluded.

In case you are a liberal reading this who is going to claim that an isolated incident doesn’t mean anything, Liberals calling me Fag or Faggot or other slurs is actually a regular occurrence. In the mentally ill mind of the common liberal however, these actions are justified and don’t make them homophobes. Meanwhile, when their political opponents say anything that doesn’t amount to total support of their views they are instantly attacked by the left and called a bigot or some variation. Please, dear reader, compare these two individuals and their statements. Which person here seems like the actual homophobe? Is it the city-dwelling Antifa who calls anybody right of center a fascist or homophobe but then resorts to gay bashing? Or is it the redneck from the back country who admits he doesn’t understand homosexuality and is against gay marriage, but all the same respects human dignity and expresses a wish that people would just get along with each other and love each other like his Christian God teaches?

Seriously though, I invite you to share your answer in the comments of this article. Let the world see if you passed the test of moral equivalency. That is, of course, the problem here though, leftists never pass this test. Leftists suffer from an extreme ignorance and lack the understanding that their actions speak louder than their words about their beliefs. And let me clarify when I say ignorance I mean actual intellectual ignorance which in many cases is intentional.


A description of the characteristics of actual fascism from Wikipedia.

Let us return to our homophobic Antifa friend. He is a prime example of this intentional ignorance, he felt the need to call me a fag cause I pointed out fascism is not exclusively tied to conservative ideology and rather is conditional on the behavior of any movement regardless of ideological alignment. I also aptly pointed out that Antifa is, in reality, a fascist movement. Indeed through their actions and support of authoritarian left wing ideology, they undeniably fascists according to the definition to the right. Let me attempt to summarize this for you.

Antifa claims to fight fascists. In reality, they attack any group with an opinion that is in dissent of the views of their party. They attempt to justify this violence as legitimate and they have repeatedly made it clear they despise the US system of democracy because it put Donald Trump in the presidency rather than Hillary Clinton. Their ideal vision would be a nation under the rule their one party and hope that their violent efforts to stifle the views of others will lead to that outcome. Just like previous fascist parties such as the Nazi’s, they use violence and fear in the hopes of advancing their totalitarian agenda which is their idea of national rejuvenation.


There is too much “Tolerance” in this to cover it all.

Now the ironic thing is that this idiot also doesn’t know the definition of Communism either. Communism advocates the abolition of social classes and the concept of private property and promotes wealth redistribution. He claims Antifa are anarchists, however Anarchism promotes a voluntary departure from government and the formation of a society based on voluntary cooperation. Anarchists rebel through art and music, and someone who resorts to violence is by definition not an anarchist since by using violence as a form of coercion they immediately violate the voluntary nature of the society Anarchism wishes to establish. But then again I should not be surprised as leftists routinely display ignorance along with bigotry.


Liberals seem to have a hierarchy of hypocrisy, at the top of which lays the violent ideology of Islam. (c) 2016 Dixon Diaz

Now with Democrats in particular, they resort to the most basic of ad hominem name calling which appears also to be a form of deflection for their own crimes. What they say doesn’t really match up with what they do. For example, they claim Republicans are homophobic and don’t care about women, but it seems that they are the ones who don’t care much for gays or women. After all, they have an unhealthy obsession with defending Islam, a religious doctrine that subjugates women and promotes killing homosexuals like myself. The worst example of this overt homophobia was characterized by their behavior involving the Pulse nightclub shootings. Not only did the Democrats deny and cover up anything that indicated the shooting was even remotely inspired by the shooter’s belief in Islam, they held a banquet dinner a week after the event where the guest of honor was a Muslim Imam who blamed the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean on homosexuality. Meanwhile, those homophobic Republicans only showed outrage that the shooting happened and committed to taking steps to ensure there isn’t a repeat of the tragedy.


Literally nothing has changed about Democrats attitudes towards African Americans since 1860. (C) skscartoon

But I should not spend time harping on the issue that directly affects me. After all, Democrats have been screwing over African Americans for over 150 years and have spent a little over 40 years convincing them that the Republicans are their enemy. Last time I checked, Republicans don’t call African Americans names when they don’t vote Republican. And last time I checked the inner cities which have the highest death rates for African American men have been managed by Democrats for nearly 50 years, not Republicans. It was a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, who signed a bill into law that allowed police to purchase military equipment. Democrats have a long history of this kind of “tolerance” towards minorities which for the past 40 years ended up voting Democrat anyway. Then again when you have the media in your pocket, you can keep claiming the party that passed the 13th and 14th amendments, as well as the civil rights act, are huge racists and it will stick eventually.



A campaign poster for the Democratic Party from the 1800’s

To those of us savvy with history, their lies cannot be covered up and this image to the left is how we think of Democrats. The only evolution they have done over the years was from a party obsessed with gaining the power to oppress black people to a party obsessed with gaining power and oppressing all people. Sadly for us, the Democratic Party has learned how to better manipulate people and a substantial part of the population has fallen for it. They have successfully ruined the psyche of an entire generation of Americans by manipulating the media and the public school systems in areas they hold power. And this is where we enter the subject of Moral Equivalency.


Samantha Bee is a moron on TBS who uses comedy to spread fake news. Earlier this year she did a segment about AIPAC where she joked about the hairstyles of those in attendance and garnered outrage when it came to light one of these men that had the particular haircut which her show referred to as a “Nazi Haircut” because he was receiving treatment for brain cancer

Democrats have successfully warped their follower’s perceptions of reality and moral issues. Take this Samantha Bee thing as an example. If a comedian made this kind of joke about a Democrat then there would be a ton of publicity and calls for him to be fired which would be answered. With Samantha Bee, there was no coverage and despite some calls for her to be fired, she has still kept her job despite the horrendous joke she made. In the well trained and mentally ill minds of Democrats, it is okay when they do these things but it is not okay when Republicans do them.

To the rational mind no matter who made this type of joke, it would be an outrage and they would demand action. And no matter who makes a bigoted remark it would be unacceptable. That is Moral Equivalency and it is something mentally healthy adults possess, equal reaction to an incident no matter which parties are involved. Democrats however are extremely mentally ill and suffer from a delusion of exceptionalism, they believe they are instantly superior, everything they say is right, and that what is not okay for everyone else to do is still okay for them because of their perceived superiority. Anybody who disagrees with them is instantly some kind of predetermined pejorative term and any established fact that contradicts their belief doesn’t matter because you are the aforementioned pejorative term.


Democrats thrive on division, and they frequently attack conservatives like Allen West based simply because he is an African-American but not a Democrat. (c) Turning Point America

Democrats thrive on this kind of division and foster an environment for these warped views to take form. From the very start of their party, they have been dependent on a “Us vs Them” mentality to garner a support base. In the 1800’s they used “Us vs The Blacks”, and now they use “Us vs ________”. And they have so many things to fill that blank with now, “Us vs Whites”, “Us vs Christians”, “Us vs Israel (jews)” and of course the quintessential “Us vs Republicans”. Democrats are the kind of vile human beings who want power but don’t want to earn it by working hard for the citizens of this country, so they instead resort to dividing people into groups and set them on each other in a destructive and unproductive war of ad hominem attacks.


Hillary Clinton, who claims to advocate for the middle class, currently owns 4 luxury residences and gets most of her financial support from Wall Street. – Image from the Associated Press

It is truly saddening that this has been allowed to happen for so long. It should not be shrugged off that democrats think it’s fine to call people like me a fag because they claim to support gay rights and despise homophobes. Or that they can refer to African-American Republicans as “Coons” or “Uncle Toms” because they claim to hate racism and care for African-Americans. Or the really ridiculous one, that they care about the middle and working class even though their elite own multiple mansions and Democratic Policies have ruined the economic condition of our country and placed a financial burden on workers and employers. But it is instantly okay for them to give the bare minimum and then claim the moral high ground because they are Democrats, at least that is the narrative going around.

But you know what really makes me sad? At least in the case of my generation, some Democrats are aware of this and that is why they are Democrats. It is truly the party of the mentally lazy and corrupt. So remember this well, these are the people who call people Nazi while promoting National Socialism and call people racist while they kill African-Americans and take away the tools to help them succeed. In their sick minds, the names they call you are a valid argument and reprehensible behavior is tolerable when they engage in it because of their delusion of superiority. That is what the Democratic Party is, not an ideological group but rather a collective mental illness. I just wonder how long it will take for the sane ones they exploit to wake up to this reality.