Most black Democrats know their place and act accordingly, and that also includes the clergy. So, when a so-called “conservative” pastor was invited to offer the morning prayer before the regular session of the Virginia House of Delegates, liberal Democrats clearly expected him to give an authorized invocation sympathetic to their politics.

Things didn’t go as planned….

Check out the following video, including a standing ovation for Del. Luke Torian, who forcefully denounced an anti-LGBT, anti-abortion prayer delivered this morning by a pastor.

P.S. You can watch the “prayer” here… or, probably a better idea, not.
— Blue Virginia, 2/11/20

The hypocritical outrage from the tolerant intolerants was predictable.

The ideological tension boiled over into Tuesday’s invocation in the House, where the Rev. Robert M. Grant Jr. of the Father’s Way Church in Warrenton gave a prayer that railed against abortion and same-sex marriage, prompting most of the Democratic caucus to walk out. Even a few Republicans retreated to the rear of the chamber.

“There is a time and a place for everything,” Del. Matt Fariss (R-Campbell) said afterward. “This is a time we need to work together and not be divisive.”
— Washington Post, 2/11/20

It must suck to have an event hijacked by someone who doesn’t agree with those present.

“Is this a prayer or a sermon?,” a delegate yelled from the Democratic side of the chamber as the prayer turned increasingly political. Democrats were sharply critical of the prayer’s tone, calling it a breach of the normal protocols for guest clergy. The pastor had been invited by Del. Michael Webert, R-Fauquier. Speaking to reporters afterward, Grant stood by his remarks and called the Democratic response “unprofessional.”

“I think that the statehouse belongs to all the citizens. And all the citizens have a voice,” Grant said. “If it’s my turn to have a voice, and I am a pastor, what do you expect from me? If you don’t want to hear what a pastor has to say, then don’t invite one.”
— Virginia Mercury, 2/11/20

Democrats have a long tradition of blatantly showing up in black churches, risking an IRS violation of their 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, purely for political purposes. Even if the Democrat politician may not say one partisan word, their very purpose is intended as a very visual endorsement.

While we’re constantly reminded that liberal Democrats embrace the free exchange of ideas, the action by Virginia Democrats once again proved that they only tolerate speech they agree with, and heaven help any black person who speaks out of turn.

We all know what Virginia Democrats did to uppity blacks not all that long ago….

Los Angeles’ KTLA and CNN covered the respectful attempt of a journalist who in 2009 tried to get a message to then-President Obama against gay marriage. One can only imagine the collective media screech had this happened to Kaitlan Collins.

The encounter between “Georgia Informer” reporter Reverend Brenda Lee and Obama’s Secret Service detail has been scrubbed from KTLA’s website, KABC’s, CNN’s, as well as other news sites.

As NBC News’ Chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson happily admitted, it’s good journalism to embarrass the President of the United States in front of foreign dignitaries, and in general, disrespectfully bark questions at him whenever her associates like.

And when a seasoned commentator like Wolf Blitzer gives such behavior his personal seal of approval, the entitled young white girls will continue their abhorrent version of journalistic professionalism; behavior few others could even dream of getting away without having the cops called on them.

But for many of us who’ve been politically aware before 2008, judges overruling the will of the people is nothing new, in fact it’s a tried-and-true, expected liberal reaction to anything they don’t like, so let’s go a few years back and you’ll see the pattern.

1994: Proposition 187

There actually came a time in the great state of California where the residents had enough of the Mexican illegal immigration-invasion, specifically the fiscal, social costs and crime ramifications taxpayers are forced to endure, and the topic was put to statewide referendum.

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal aliens from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum in November 1994.
— Wikipedia

Using the most direct optics as a gauge, one would think the proposition lacked support, as one mostly saw anti-187 bumper stickers everywhere. However that may have been because the few cars that did display “Yes on 187” stickers were vandalized to varying degrees. That looming threat to personal property had a visually chilling effect but it appears to also have galvanized and certified the resolve of those who were tired of living in the illegal Mexican culture.

This is NOT anecdotal. I lived in the San Fernando Valley during the 90s and witnessed this first hand.

Proposition 187 passed. The “will of the people” was heard, liberals didn’t like the result, so guess what happened? They found a judge to proudly nullify near nine million voices.

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill’s passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren. After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.

Ironic considering how liberal judges in Washington state today are infringing on the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.

2008: Proposition 8

Prior to events in Massachusetts, EVERY state that held a referendum on gay marriage voted against it and by healthy margins. The left, however, believed the popular vote was NOT a good barometer of public sentiment that should be respected and when such a referendum was offered in California, it was time to pounce again.

Prop 8, officially titled Proposition 8 – Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, was a statewide ballot proposition in California. On November 4, 2008, voters approved the measure and made same-sex marriage illegal in California.
— Ballotpedia

There were protests, many aimed at religious institutions that campaigned for the initiative, and this could also have been the birth of public shaming now widely used by what we now call the “gaystapo”, as those who donated to groups who campaigned for the initiative were outed, and many lost jobs and businesses as a result.

Of course, all it took was a friendly liberal judge and court to overturn the will of over seven million voters.

The proposition was almost immediately challenged and ultimately overruled by the Ninth Circuit and the opinion written by a proven liberal judge who just happened to be married to the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. But we all know that had absolutely NO influence on his independence as a federal judge because liberals and their integrity are beyond reproach….

On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1 majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.
— Wikipedia

By the way, blacks overwhelming voted against Prop 8 and as a result, gay racism became justified thus publicly acceptable.

In two very notable initiatives, the same liberals who decry the election of Donald J. Trump because they claim the popular vote was ignored in favor of an antiquated Electoral College, have used the courts to blow off the popular vote on numerous occasions when it didn’t go their way. Sometimes they observe the jurisdiction of the federal government and sometimes they don’t.

With that, it’s no wonder they’re freaking out. The world they’ve mandated us to live under is being torn apart, they’re technically powerless to stop it, so let’s not act like what’s going on now with the judicial obstruction to President Trump’s “extreme vetting” of refugees attempting entry into the United States is unprecedented.

The only obstruction club they have left are the judges, for now….

The homo/transphobic Mike Pence has graciously invited us to shake our booties and bodies in front of/around his house in Chevy Chase. We plan on leaving behind [biodegradable] glitter and rainbow paraphinalia that he can NEVER forget. #WeAreQueer #WeAreHere #WeWillDance That’s right, get ready to WERK it and tell Daddy Pence: homo/transphobia is not tolerated in our country!

WERK for Peace and DisruptJ20 are teaming up to bring you the best dance party in the nation, so you betta’ show up and weerrrrkkk! We will meet at the Friendship heights metro and make our way via carpooling or dance to Daddy Pence’s neighborhood. Bring your flyest rainbow gear and your booty/body shaking skills!
— “Queer Dance Party at Mike Pence’s House” FB page

“Daddy Pence, drop dead….”

This was not a protest, but another excuse for (mostly indoctrinated college students) an in-your-face, excuse to disrupt, inconvenience, drink (there was that reek of beer in the air once the main “party” arrived) in public, and be a relatively safe space for those who refuse to accept the election of Trump and Pence. Note the issuance of the pink “pussyhats” handed out to and worn by children.

The Drudge Report is currently running the USA Today, sanitized version of what happened Wednesday night, and by doing have effectively censored out the lewd public behavior performed in front of local families with children.

BTW — While they will not divulge their personal political views on duty, it’s clear many police officers (black and white) are looking forward to the presidency of Donald Trump.

Since forgoing a third presidential bid in January, Romney has insisted he has no interest in being a kingmaker in the 2016 race. But as the contenders jockey for his favor — and, in some cases, chase his lead on thorny issues — it’s beginning to look like the 2016 Romney primary is well underway.

It is an ironic twist for a man once criticized as the very definition of the vanilla candidate, calibrated and cautious at every turn when he was the Republican presidential nominee in 2012.

As we all know, Mitt Romney had Barack Obama down and battered and just needed to deliver a third-round knockout punch. But in what we know as that proud Republican tradition of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, Mitt let Obama get back up and the rest is history.

Of course, the 2016 Republican primary field is littered with high-priced ex-Romney advisers polluting the heads of candidates and authoritatively speaking for us to a hostile media, as if they KNOW the path to victory, conveniently avoiding the fact their guy tried twice, couldn’t seal the deal and their expertise was for shit.

Now, the Romney brain trust act like he’s a voice of value to the Republican Party.

“Given the chaos that’s going on on the Republican side of things, he has some ability to bring some order to the chaos and help remind people what big issues actually do matter — and to be a little bit of a rudder for these candidates, who he recognizes can sometimes get seared by the winds of the primary process,” said GOP strategist Katie Packer, who was Romney’s deputy campaign manager in 2012

Chaos? Rudder? Remind people? This is from a hack who twice-advised the two-time loser.

Mitt Romney is clearly an example of an egotist who has that need to fulfill what he believes is his (and I’ll again use the word again) birthright, and even though HE couldn’t get there, he still considers himself important.

Romney was one of the first prominent Republicans to bluntly call for taking down the Confederate flag in front of the South Carolina state capitol after the racially motivated massacre of nine people at a Charleston church last month.

The Confederate flag became an issue because a young crazy killed black people in a church and previously was pictured on Facebook with the flag. Had Dylann Roof also had pics next to a box of Corn Flakes, would the left be calling for a liquidation of the Kellogg’s company?

Romney just had to take the bait and added his opinion which perpetuated a liberal narrative while keeping himself feeling relevant. And he just couldn’t stop there….

Over the weekend, he denounced Donald Trump’s suggestion that immigrants coming across the border from Mexico were rapists and criminals, saying the remarks were harmful to the image of the Republican Party.

“I think he made a severe error in saying what he did about Mexican-Americans and I feel it was unfortunate,” Romney said.

Besides the fact he again perpetuated a false liberal media narrative, Romney should know about campaign errors because we haven’t seen that many since the ’63 Mets.

The emergence of Donald Trump and subsequent reception by the base of his message shows many Republicans want a real change in direction, and certainly don’t want or need the advice of someone who clearly didn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag. Romney had his chances, blew them, and needs to head off to Lake Winnipesaukee and leave the 2016 primaries to those who are active participants.

We won’t even get into the internals of Massachusetts politics where it was all about Mitt, no matter how he adversely affected Republicans within the commonwealth, and how his “moderate” reach across the Beacon Hill aisle eventually gave us first-in-the-nation legalized gay marriage and the prototype for ObamaCare.

We don’t know how the primary process is going to play out but we really don’t need to have the wisdom of Mitt Romney bollixing up the works. We all saw how well that worked out in 2012.

On a Friday evening, days before gay marriage was legalized, Ambassador Alan Keyes went to Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall and shared his impression on how we got here, why, and where we may be headed as a society.

Considering where we find ourselves today, some of his observations in 2004 were quite prophetic.

Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org has quit as Mozilla’s CEO, forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot measure against gay marriage. There’s no record of Eich discriminating against gay employees—”I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness”, says the company’s chairwoman, Mitchell Baker.

It’s beyond old being lectured on the virtues of “tolerance and inclusion” by the very people who routinely exhibit the most intolerant of traits.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
— Geoffrey, a black, gay, UCLA student, 2008

Many of us have said we’d like to have witnessed that WeHo showdown.

For all the talk of inclusion, there’s nothing that makes me believe the gay left is any less inherently racist than progressive Democrats, and those on the ground in 2008 kind of backed that up.

There’s nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven’t been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).

“Purging” society of those who disagree is the kind of obsession that can only be fueled by hate and only a crazy person believes their hate is nobler than someone elses’ or an even crazier person who doesn’t believe their hate is hate at all.

Let’s hope the LGBT activists are happy Mr. Eich resigned. They seem even more happy witnessing the pain of others even after achieving their victory.

Just what does that really say about them and their “movement”?

Flashback 1994: Prop. 187 Approved in California
Flashback 1999: CA’s Anti-Immigrant Proposition 187 is Voided
Flashback 2008: California Votes for Prop 8
Flashback 2012: Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules…

When the left wins, it’s called the “Will of the People”. When they lose, it was because The People were either uninformed (too stupid) or too narrow-minded (bigoted) to know how they should have voted, thus the results must be challenged and the “Will of the People” be overturned.

See how this works and why we are where we’re at today?

A conversation with Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director, GOProud

BOB: Hi Jimmy, just wanted to touch bases and find out what your thoughts were about the rather rude outburst by that punk at CPAC. I was getting ready to videotape a following speaker and found the kid’s comments rude and uncalled for.

JIMMY LaSALVIA: It was unfortunate that happened. You know there was a little controversy when we signed on as co-sponsors back in December, but I thought all of that had blown over. I was surprised when Ryan Sorba made those remarks, but it was heartening to see and hear the crowd boo and voice disapproval.

BOB: Why was there controversy? I can imagine but let’s hear it from you. Considering we’re all Republicans and we probably vote close to each other on the issues, what was the problem?

JIMMY: There are some on fringe, some single issue groups, who disagree with GOProud on an issue or two. They threatened to boycott CPAC, but in the end most everyone was there. It was the biggest CPAC ever. I always tell people that there is a difference between policy and principles. We can disagree on some policies, but we share the same conservative principles.

BOB: Specifically, where was the agreement and disagreement?

JIMMY: We happen to believe that it’s a conservative position to be in favor of marriage equality for same sex couples. We believe that marriage is good for society and that gay and lesbian couples should be included in civil marriage. Some disagree with that position. They also may disagree with our position that gay and lesbian servicemembers should be able to serve openly and honestly. Human Events Magazine’s “Conservative of the Year” Dick Cheney agrees with us. We are proud to stand with him.

BOB: Okay, let’s tackle these one by one. Marriage. First of all, I’m glad you didn’t use the activist line equating gay marriage to the black experience when interracial marriage was discouraged. But here’s my take on this.

JIMMY: First let me say that the vast majority of conservatives agree with most of our legislative priorities, outlined here, then, we can get to marriage.

BOB: I know of few conservatives that have an issue with civil unions for the obvious legal reasons. Should I and a woman decide to get married tomorrow and then we filed taxes, the IRS wouldn’t recognize the marriage because we didn’t get a marriage license, the equivalent to a civil union. Marriage is, in my opinion, what the fringe decided to use to basically give a middle finger to the church that’s almost always opposed gays. “Marriage” is totally unnecessary to the legal remedies gays sought.

JIMMY: I would disagree in that I know VERY few conservatives in elective office who would sponsor or even vote for civil unions. The fact is civil unions are available to many people in this country. Second, you know that there is a big difference between civil marriage and religious marriage… and there should be….religious institutions should be left alone to come to their own conclusions on the issue. But you are right, that most of the legal issues revolve around taxation, immigration, and inheritance. There are some private contracts that help with some of those issues, but legislative remedies are required for the vast majority of them. There are conservative solutions that would uniquely help gay and lesbian couples navigate some of those problems. For instance, if we did away with the IRS and instituted the Fair Tax, that would take care of a lot.

There are countless other examples of that type of solution that we can pass today. Then, we can continue the dialogue on marriage. That’s an issue our country will be debating for some time to come.

BOB: I mean, I’ve heard people like Sean Hannity on television argue that gay marriage minimizes the sanctity of marriage and no disrespect intended, but there’s no gay man or lesbian woman who can diminish what I would have with a woman, and if it can someone else’s, then that’s their problem.

JIMMY: I agree. Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage gay or straight! Again, we should be mindful that civil marriage is a government institution, no sanctity in government.

BOB: Let’s move on to gays in the military.

JIMMY: Cool.

BOB: While serving in the Navy, I had a supervisor who was gay. He wasn’t in your face about it, and because he was (and everyone knew it), he had to be doubly squared away. Through him, I became a much better writer and journalist and our department won two Chief of Information 2nd Place awards for excellence amongst 600 ship and shore commands. With that, why would there be a need for him to come out and force his sexuality on his shipmates?

JIMMY: I don’t think it’s a matter of forcing his sexuality on anyone. It’s a matter of whether he has to lie about it or not. Listen, conduct should be appropriate in the military no matter who you are. But gay and lesbian servicemembers are forced to lie everyday, just to serve their country. It can be significant, like who should we inform if you are killed or wounded? or somewhat trivial just in conversation like “what did you do when you were on leave?” In 2010, our fine servicemembers are more than capable of doing their jobs as professionals whether straight or gay…we shouldn’t make some of them lie in order to do it.

BOB: See, I served before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, so no one had to “lie” because it was nobody’s business.

Here’s the issue. I think the average civilian would be shocked if they saw just how cramped living conditions are on a ship. I can’t speak for shore or ground commands as I spent 85% of my time at sea, but when you’re in such close quarters, there’s no need for any sexual distractions, whether it’s with gay men or hetero women. The military is a business; a business carrying out and winning war, not social experimentation.

JIMMY: You probably knew which of your shipmates were married, or who had a girlfriend, or any other number of facts about their personal lives. It is a fact of life that we get to know our colleagues in the workplace. Again, the military has strict rules of conduct that should be followed.

I think that we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I suspect that there is a lot more that we will agree on.

BOB: Yeah, you should read some of my discussions with and or about the Paulies. Disagreement, big time.

Black folk ask me why I’m a Republican and I can cite civil rights history, as badly rewritten as it’s been. When asked why you’re a Republican, what do you say?

JIMMY: I say that I believe in limited government, free markets, strong national defense, less regulation, etc,,,, I understand that the GOP hasn’t always followed those principles, but I find myself more closely aligned with Republicans than Democrats. A lot of gays and lesbians can’t understand me either! It’s sometimes hard to defend to gay people, because in recent years there have been some prominent Republican politicians who have said horrible things about us. As you know, they are in the minority, but they don’t make it easy on us gay Republicans.

I don’t know about you, but when I see Republican candidates winning elections all over the country (McDonnell, Christie, Brown, et al) by focusing on the priorities of the American people – jobs, economy, national security, I am very encouraged. I think more and more gay people will take a look at conservative candidates when they focus on those issues. Do you feel the same about black voters?

BOB: No. Being black and Republican is not an everyday decision made. While politicians encourage people to become active, black Republicans are routinely harassed and demeaned, and I can see why blacks who have Republican leanings stay in the closet, as it were. I’ve been doing this long and publicly enough that my skin is very thick, but I understand why some people just don’t need the hassle.

Now, I have a question I’ve been dying to ask a gay person.

JIMMY: Shoot.

BOB: How do you feel about gay pride parades. Personally, I cringe when watching rap videos because of the impressions it leaves on others of who black people are. Do you see gay pride parades, as lewd as some can be, as a serious PR blunder?

JIMMY: Certainly in this day and age, as more and more gay people have come out and live their lives openly and honestly, the stereotypical images of pride parades don’t accurately portray the reality of the lives of the vast majority of gay Americans. For the most part, we are just like everyone else…sitting at home on the couch as boring as most other folks watching those nuts on TV! Yes, I suspect it’s very similar to your reaction watching stereotypical images of black people. The best thing that gay people can do (from a PR point of view) is just live your life like any other person, and the rest of America will realize that we are no different than them.

BOB: Jimmy, let’s do this again. I will say this: I respect the fact that not once during this conversation did you liken the present-day gay experience to what blacks endured decades, if not centuries ago, as many liberal gay activists do. As we both know, there is no comparison and I’m very happy you didn’t go there. This would have been a very short conversation.

JIMMY: While I think that there are certainly things that gay people can learn from the struggle of black Americans, we are different and should respect those differences while working toward our common goals. Thank you for spending time with me this evening. I look forward to working with you in the future to achieve our common goals.

In a cover story for the Advocate magazine titled “Gay is the New Black,” Michael Joseph Gross wrote,

“These past few years we’ve made so much progress that we’d begun to think everybody saw us as we see ourselves. Suddenly we were faced with the reality that a majority of voters don’t like us, don’t think we’re normal, don’t believe our lives and loves count as much or are worth as much as theirs.”

“… we’d begun to think everybody saw us as we see ourselves.”

Been to a gay pride parade lately?

Yet even some gay leaders are reluctant to directly tie their fight to the African-American legacy. They acknowledge significant differences in the experiences of gays and blacks, ranging from slavery to the relative affluence of white gay men to the choice made by some gays to conceal their sexual orientation, which is not an option for those with darker skin.

“I believe we are very much in a modern-day civil rights struggle,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights organization.

Here’s yet another unfortunate result of the Democrat Party’s ongoing whitewash of history, both politically and academically. Some gay people are totally clueless, thus foolish in making the comparison between the American black versus gay experience.

Gays were not legally enslaved for centuries. Gays were never segregated in education, in the military, or socially overall up until the last 50 years. Again, the comparison is ludicrous.

I would never want gay people to have to walk in my shoes, but until they have, they have no right to demand a share of our legacy. They demean the black American experience and now that some feel empowered to say “Goes to show that Negroes truly are the most underdeveloped race when 70% are homophobic. Kind of funny because that’s also their IQ”, it shows some were never our friends and don’t deserve whatever support they had.

Let me provide a couple of prominent examples of the left using black people for politically-correct posturing.

A few years ago, there was a movie produced by the Farrelly Brothers called “Shallow Hal” which was protested by obesity advocacy groups who, rightly or wrongly, felt discriminated in employment and in public perception. In order to prove their point, they used black people….

The organization asserts that movies like Shallow Hal, American Sweetheart and The Klumps not only reinforce stereotypes and myths about fat people, but underscore the prejudice against fat people in this country.

‘Putting thin performers in fat suits is no different than putting white performers in blackface’, says Maryanne Bodolay, executive administrator of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance.

Considering the “thin epidemic” plaguing Hollywood for years, thin actors are placed in fat suits because of a lack of larger actors; not because fat actors are barred from employment opportunities as was the case with blacks decades ago.

There was the now-infamous PeTA exhibit…

Continuing along the Animal Liberation Project, an exhibition recently launched by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), there are pictures of black men and women being branded, bloodied and burned, contrasting with shots of various domesticated animals in similar positions.

One of the most provocative images, however, is that of an African-American’s chained foot opposite the equally shackled limb of a circus elephant.

While animal rights activists today argue that animals were the “first slaves”, one could argue that even then, they were treated more humanely than blacks and the ongoing comparison between blacks and animals is what got the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in trouble in the first place.

Then again, as we ARE talking about liberals who are the last to admit they’re ever wrong, using blacks is always their prime go-to…

During the whole Proposition 8 debate, a fascinating amount of gay racism was exposed.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
— Geoffrey, a student at UCLA who joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood, and was called the n-word at least twice

“How to deal with the black community”….

Scapegoating blacks for the passage of Proposition 8 may be convenient, but is fact-challenged.

While blacks make up only around 10% of California’s population and the 2008 turnout high, not all turned out. The 70% that voted against gay marriage can’t be singled out with any sense of fairness, and slurring all black people is the very thing gays complain is done to them.

Other demographics voted against the proposition, so they are all homophobic haters (which is what the activists would prefer to believe). But to use racial epithets against one isn’t exactly the tactic we’ve all been instructed by the left to tolerate.

And using the safety of Internet forums to declare that hate is cowardice at the very least. Staging huge protests in front of the Church of Latter Day Saints is safe. Taking those protests to South Central and Compton while using racial epithets there would take courage.

Unlike the civil rights protests where people risked, in some cases, life and limb to participate, gays are not putting all on the line with theirs. The tactics used thus far shows just how courageous these pro-gay marriage activists have chosen to be and who the real haters are.