Liberals let the truth out

Mika insults the homosexaul community in an argument against Pompeo

Mika Brzezinski uses an anti-gay slur to challenge Mike Pompeo into attacking the Sauds

In a 13 December 2018 Washington Post article, we find that Mika thinks so little of the gay lifestyle that she can use it as a slur against those with whom she debates. Specifically, the article quotes her in the following way:

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski is facing growing backlash — including criticism from President Trump — after calling Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a “wannabe dictator’s butt boy” Wednesday during a segment of the show “Morning Joe.”

The homophobic and vulgar remark was triggered by a less-than-impassioned response from Pompeo about the murder of Saudi journalist and Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Pompeo had ducked questions in a “Fox & Friends” interview about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the killing.

(Read more at the Washington Post>)

Several things come to mind:

  1. Although Mika likely outwardly adheres to the liberal orthodoxy concerning the importance of paying holmage to homosexuality; however, inwardly she thinks so little of it that she uses it as a curse word.
  2. Rather than arguing for her point, she strikes out with name calling. Therefore, it seems as though she has no argument that will stand against Mr. Pompeo.
  3. Over the years, liberals have lectured Americans that we cannot impose our morality on other societies (or so they argued while we fought wards in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq). However, now that we are talking about Mr. Khashoggi, a citizen of Saudi Arabia (and a vocal critic of the current leadership), now they want to apply Western values to the kingdom.
  4. Even though Ms. Brzezinski has purportedly offered a heart-felt apology to the LGBT community, I would question its sincerity. If it took her three days to formulate it, it probably was not from the heart (but from the pocket book).


A set of Alec Baldwin tweets using anti-gay slurs

Yeah, Alec Baldwin Really Is a Bigot

In keeping with his on-screen, tough-guy persona (but in contradiction to his off-screen, ultra-left activist persona), the New York Daily News reports in a 3 November 2018 article on a 2018 attack over a parking spot.

Actor and President Trump impersonator Alec Baldwin was arrested for allegedly sucker-punching another man in a fight over a Greenwich Village parking spot, cops said

Baldwin was charged with third-degree assault, misdemeanour harassment and physical contact, officials said.

(Read more at the New York Daily News)

Odd thing is that, while one or two early-published articles mentioned the language used by Baldwin, none of them stayed up. In fact, very few articles on the 2018 confrontation remain. Most articles that turn up from a Google search of “Alec Baldwin, photographer, sucker” return links that cover a 2013 brawl Baldwin forced on a photographer.

For example, one 2013 article in The Atlantic offers a defense of Baldwin’s anti-gay rants.

Responding to Andrew Sullivan’s argument, and my own, that Alec Baldwin is—in fact—kind of a bigot, Wes Alwan offers the following defense:

For calling a photographer a “cocksucking fag” in a blowup caught on video, and another journalist a “fucking little bitch” and “toxic queen” on twitter, Baldwin has been roundly condemned as a “bigot” and “homophobe,” despite the fact that he has been a vocal supporter of gay rights. …

These condemnations are grounded in a number of highly implausible theses that amount to a very flimsy moral psychology. The first is the extremely inhumane idea that we ought to make global judgments about people’s characters based on their worst moments, when they are least in control of themselves: that what people do or say when they’re most angry or incited reveals a kind of essential truth about them. The second is that we are to condemn human beings merely for having certain impulses, regardless of their behaviors and beliefs. The third is that people’s darkest and most irrational thoughts and feelings trump their considered beliefs: Baldwin can’t possibly really believe in gay rights, according to Coates, if he has any negative feelings about homosexuality whatsoever. The fourth, implied premise here – one that comes out in the comical comments section following Coates’ post – is that we are to take no account whatsoever of the possibility of psychological conflict. We refuse to allow ourselves to imagine that a single human being might have a whole host of conflicted thoughts and feelings about homosexuality: that they might be both attracted to it and repelled by it. …

(Read more at The Atlantic)

It just contradicts logic that liberals will circle the wagons around someone who continually abuses others by using anti-gay slurs.

Dim bulb Colbert

Colbert’s Gay Trump Joke Went Too Far

One 3 May 2017 article in Time at least carried a title (“Colbert’s Gay Trump Joke Went Too Far“) that suggested this media outlet recognized Colbert had taken a step too far. However, when you read the body of the article (and especially the next two paragraphs), you will see that no such recognization came to Time.

Which brings us to Colbert’s recent, controversial monologue in which he directed a homophobic slur at the President, suggesting sarcastically that he engages in penetrative sex acts with Vladimir Putin. What’s most striking about the monologue, which aired Monday night, is how remarkably unmotivated it feels. Notionally angry at Trump for having treated CBS’s Face the Nation host John Dickerson unfairly, Colbert builds up a head of steam in an instant. It’s just as ginned-up as Fallon’s enthusiasm for the lip-syncing abilities of every one of his guests. “You’re not the POTUS, you’re the Bloatus!” Colbert intones, the umbrage in his voice rising. “You’re the glutton with the button. You’re a regular Gorge Washington!”

It’s not hard to see why Colbert ended up defaulting to a joke that presumes the worst thing you can call a man is gay—the rest of his material wouldn’t get him booked as a guest on The Late Show. The show, like all late-night shows, is structured to privilege Colbert’s sensibility and his wit abone all. But Colbert has little to say beyond broad, bland puns about Trump’s physique, intelligence, and relative popularity.

(Read more at Time)

By the time that Colbert made his “c**k holster” comment in 2017, I had been ignoring his show for a year. Now, I make a point of turning to the Travel channel if I get a hint that his show is about to hit the air.

Since the mainstay of comedy comes through the capacity to laugh at one’s self — not the capacity to crassly bash the “other.”

Although Trump has held the place of “other,” the LGBT community might look to the history of his humor to know that they are not being used.

Several oversights concerning a report on a Chechen program to eliminate gays

The Guardian reports on the Chechen program to eliminate gays

A 13 April 2017 article in The Guardian details how Chechens have started on a campaign to eliminate gays.

“At least once a day, Adam’s captors attached metal clamps to his fingers and toes. One of the men then cranked a handle on a machine to which the clamps were linked with wires, and sent powerful electric shocks through his body. If he managed not to scream, others would join in, beating him with wooden sticks or metal rods.

As they tortured him, the men shouted verbal abuse at him for being gay, and demanded to know the names of other gay men he knew in Chechnya. ‘Sometimes they were trying to get information from me; other times they were just amusing themselves,’ he said, speaking about the ordeal he underwent just a month ago with some difficulty.

Adam’s testimony, as well as that of another gay Chechen man with whom the Guardian spoke, backs up reports that a shocking anti-gay campaign is under way in the Russian republic of Chechnya, involving over a hundred and possibly several hundred men. Some are believed to have been killed.

Adam was held in an informal detention facility with more than a dozen other gay men, who were all subjected to torture on a daily basis. A similar ‘mop-up’ campaign by governmental security forces took place in towns across the republic.”

Since the Tsarnaev brothers hailed from Chechnya and Islam in Russia identifies 93.5% of Chechens as Muslims, it seemed odd that The Guardian would overlook these facts on Chechnya and fact that many traditional Muslims look down on the gay lifestyle.  Could the growing Muslim minority in England or the attack on Westminster Bridge have a dampening affect on providing the entire picture in this article?

Since this blog tries to balance between providing news that might be important to Christians, adding a Christian perspective to events, and supplying the hope integral to the Christian life — it seems only right to point out that I don’t advocate for the gay lifestyle. Just as I would not encourage married people to destroy their lives through adultery or suggest people take life as if they were God, I don’t suggest that anyone get involved in a lifestyle that misses the mark. Rather, I would point to the hope of Christianity.

I’ll explain more in a separate post comparing Islam’s reaction to homosexuality to Christianity’s reaction.

The Moral Direction of America #2: Calling Good "Evil" and Ignoring the Commission of Evil

Thanks to Fox News for this photo of Sgt. Martland.
Call Congress to insist the Sargent be reinstated.

Obama Policy supports Child Rape over Offending Muslims

Sargent Removed Without Pay for Beating Afghani Pedophile

In a new low for the Obama administration, a 20 September 2015 article in the New York Times revealed that the Obama administration has ordered US soldiers to ignore child abuse occurring at the hands of Afghani officials. Brought to a head by the forced retirement of an Army Sargent who beat a pedophile Police Captain,

“In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

‘At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,’ the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. ‘My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.’ Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally ‘boy play,’ and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.

‘The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,’ said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. ‘But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.’

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

Four years later, the Army is also trying to forcibly retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in beating up the commander.”

True to the New York Times habit of covering for the Obama administration, it should be noted that several sources (, the Daily Beast, and others) have asserted that the Sargent is being removed without pay or benefits (far from “retired”).

Homosexual Rape of Men within the Military Becomes an Issue in Obama’s Military

Since Obama’s 22 June 2011 repeal of Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the instance of male-on-male rape within the military has been a larger problem than many will admit as evidenced by articles in:

  • on 20 December 2013

    “But because male service members greatly outnumber females, officials believe the majority of sexual assault victims — 53 percent in 2012are men.”

  • The Washington Times on 20 May 2014 revealed

    “When the Defense Department released the results of its anonymous sexual abuse survey this month and concluded that 26,000 service members were victims in fiscal 2012, which ended Sept. 30, an automatic assumption was that most were women. But roughly 14,000 of the victims were male and 12,000 female, according to a scientific survey sample produced by the Pentagon.”

  • The Daily Mail on 15 September 2014 where they shared:

    “Though women are more likely to be the victims of rape in the military, male-on-male rape is still a serious problem sweeping the U.S. armed forces.”

Obama Appoints First Openly Homosexual Secretary of the Army

As reported in the following 21 September 2015 Fox News video, Barack Hussein Obama appointed the first openly homosexual Secretary of the Army.

Although I would not suggest that Christians violate God’s commandment regarding loving our enemies, I also would not suggest that any person who is unrepentant of known sin (whether it is a pastor who has used prostitutes or a layman who has participated in the just one of things named in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) should be lifted up and celebrated as Obama celebrates Mr. Fanning.  Having said that, I also would not ally myself with anyone who would assign the death penalty to homosexuals or even suggest that homosexuality might be an unforgivable sin.

Churches in the Presbyterian Church Stand Up for Biblical Concepts

Thanks to the Christian Post for this photo.

Hundreds of Churches Leave the PCUSA after It Accepts Gay Marriage

Over 200 churches have taken measures to leave the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) due to their increasingly strident support of homosexuality according to a 21 August 2015 article in the Christian Post.  The article shared:

“The Rev. Andrew Chaney, senior pastor at First and Calvary, told The Christian Post that his congregation voted following months of consideration.

‘First and Calvary Presbyterian Church voted to disaffiliate from the PCUSA because it felt that the PCUSA has drifted from its Reformed theological moorings. … Political and theological controversies of the PCUSA led to a congregational survey which resulted in a majority wanting to leave the PCUSA. The leadership decided to have a formal vote on its denominational affiliation.’

Over the past few years, over 200 congregations have voted to leave PCUSA in large part over the Mainline denomination’s increasing acceptance of homosexuality.”

Locally-Published Paper Confirms First and Calvary Decision

In a 21 August 2015 article, the Springfield News-Leader from Springfield, Missouri confirmed:

A church that has 130-year-old roots in Springfield has voted to split with a specific denomination of the Presbyterian Church, citing changes in that denomination’s theological views.

The vote, in which 72 percent of First and Calvary Presbyterian Church members in attendance Sunday voted to separate from Presbyterian Church USA, comes after more than a year of discussion and a recent restraining order to keep the local governing body from meddling with First and Calvary’s operations.

A Third Confirmation of the Shrinking Presbyterian Church

The Blaze mentions both First and Calvary Presbyterian and megachurch Menlo Park and their reasons for leaving the denomination:

“The vote — which came in at 493 to 185 among a congregation of 1,700 — was held just months after Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) changed the definition of marriage to include gay couples.

First and Calvary Presbyterian Church Pastor Andrew Chaney told the outlet, though, that the vote to leave was held due to the denomination’s’changing attitudes on the divinity of Christ, the authority of the Holy Bible, and the trend of higher governing bodies to increasingly use institutional power to exert control over local churches.’

As TheBlaze previously reported, other churches have also had qualms over these issues, with Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, California, agreeing to pay millions to separate from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) denomination back in 2014.

The document published by Menlo Park cited a 2011 survey of pastors in the denomination who were asked for their level of agreement with the following statement: ‘Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.’ While 41 percent said they agreed or strong agreed with the statement, 45 percent said they disagreed or strongly disagreed — something Menlo Park leaders lamented.

As for Chaney and First and Calvary Presbyterian Church, it was the salvation issue that the pastor said drove the church to seek an exit, with worries that Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is abandoning the belief in a sole conviction in Christ — the core of Christian doctrine.

‘Without ‘theological conviction,’ what do we have?’ Chaney told the Springfield News-Leader of new language in a denominational statement that he felt was too vague. ‘This statement can lead to the position that we don’t have to have personal faith in Jesus Christ in order to be a Christ-follower, which heads down the path of universalism.’ “

Christian Leaders’ React to Supreme Court

Some Christians Speak Out

After SCOTUS declared all state laws banning gay marriage illegal (including the 30 states whose citizens passed constitutional amendments banning on same-sex unions), Christian leaders have scrambled to respond both correctly and lovingly to the situation.

On 1 July 2015, leaders from 11 Christian groups and denominations gathered at the steps of the Supreme Court to discuss the implications of the decision.

John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews said:

“We have seen (from same-sex marriage decisions) the repression of religious freedom, of freedom of speech, and freedoms of parents to guide the education of their own children.”

He also pointed to what has already happened to opponents of gay marriage in countries where gay marriage has been adopted:

“In Ireland, when it (gay marriage) passed, same-sex registrars were told that they could be jailed for six months.  Churches faced fines for denying same-sex ceremonies.  In France, they forbid negative speech against homosexuality.”

Some suggested that the Feds could intimidate Christians into going along with the new view of marriage.

“Christian America is under siege by the forces of secularism.  There is no doubt that the advocates of same-sex marriage will attempt to use the full  force of the U.S. government to force Christians to secularize.”

Westen finally suggested that Christian churches and colleges protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits by showing their resistence is not about homosexuality.  It is about defending God’s teaching on sexuality as a whole.

“(Churches and Christian colleges need to demonstrate a) principle of being against pornography, sex before marriage, promiscuity, and everything like that.  Those policies, at least if they’re up front and known, will show that we are for the whole teaching of God’s design for human sexuality.”