Politics & Public Opinion
Well, I finally did, and I debunked it here:https://t.co/A5Eh1ONeXX— Brad Polumbo 🇺🇸⚽️ 🏳️🌈 (@brad_polumbo) October 14, 2020
Meanwhile on the Democratic side there is no criticism and outrage https://t.co/0YlS5B7Arp— AC (@4ng3lica) October 14, 2020
More. Via National Review:
Joe Biden used the term “sexual preference” in May 2020, and the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used it in 2017. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Dick Durbin — both Judiciary Committee members — have used the term in Senate floor speeches over the past decade.
Added: The Spectator USA also noted:
>>To prove its case, HRC has compiled a constantly-updated ‘Timeline of Hate’ to memorialize Trump’s ‘dangerous and discriminatory agenda’. It has yet to update one of the very first entries, however, concerning Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The jurist’s past opposition to ‘crucial medical treatment for a transgender person’, HRC declared in January 2017, led it to take the unprecedented step of opposing a Supreme Court nomination. Yet in June, Gorsuch wrote one of the most comprehensive pro-LGBT rights decisions in court history when he ruled that the workplace discrimination protections within the 1964 Civil Rights Act encompass gay and transgender people.<<
Via The Spectator USA: Worse than “Dwight Eisenhower, whose executive order preventing those guilty of ‘sexual perversion’ from holding government jobs led to the firing of an estimated 10,000 people”?
Or how about George W. Bush, who called for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage (or Bill Clinton, whose campaign commercials touted his support for the Defense of Marriage Act)?
Reagan’s legacy is more nuanced than The Spectator would have it, but still, as they write, he “waited years to even utter the name of the disease which was killing thousands of gay men during his presidential term.”
Also, the worst anti-Semite ever? Netanyahu: ‘Treaty could end Arab-Israel conflict.
This is embarrassing for these gay guys!— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) September 20, 2020
They are being harassed by BLM and yet they keep pleading “but we are with you…”
Grow some. We aren’t victims. @hrc is teaching gays to surrender to the mob. Never! @getoutspoken20 https://t.co/4m9WN5wD3Y
Tucker Carlson has the top-rated show during prime time on Fox News. The message here to Fox viewers is clear — welcome gays as part of the coalition — and a huge break from years past, before marriage was a settled issue.
The Left, which now includes LGBTQ activists allied with BLM and the Democratic Party’s assurgent progressive wing, has embarked on a path to upturn all that is old and corrupt. This usually doesn’t end well. The American republic, built on a foundation of representative democracy and competing powers, fueled by freedom of speech treated as a sacred right, is less than 250 years old—a baby, still—and the fact that we assume it could not be toppled and replaced by a very different order is extremely naive.
Andrew Sullivan’s looks at what’s likely to following the achievement of all of the gay-rights movement’s original nondiscrimination goals.
There are political matters on which Sullivan and I disagree, but also many on which he is spot on. And in looking forward, it’s hard to disagree with what’s coming for LGBTQ+ activism. As Sullivan writes:
If current trends are any indication, [the Human Rights Campaign and similar groups] will simply merge into the broader intersectional left and become as concerned with, say, the rights of immigrants or racial minorities as they are with gay rights. In the political climate on the left at the moment, singling out gays as a separate category is increasingly impermissible.
Despite my reservations about judicial over-reach, the political response is certainly worth noting. This would be sure to drive the GOP-haters and the Trump-demonizers up the wall, if they bothered to consider it:
these types of photos always used to be so bizarre, alien, other worldly, had zero points of reference, couldn’t understand how on earth this could have happened. All makes 100% perfect sense now. Unbelievable how easily tipped into this society can be. pic.twitter.com/YvyIzQaqjB— animal life (@BasisOf) June 6, 2020
cultish https://t.co/B3O25NwqyO— Brad Polumbo 🇺🇸 🏳️🌈 (@brad_polumbo) June 7, 2020
The Religious Right was never even this obscenely authoritarian and demanding.— Chad Felix Greene (@chadfelixg) June 7, 2020
On the moment when ‘anti-racism’ becomes racism: https://t.co/JE3gosqwyZ— Douglas Murray (@DouglasKMurray) June 5, 2020
NY Mag won’t run Andrew Sullivan’s column, the New York Times can’t run a sitting senator without a woke freakout, the Lancet published a fake study about HCQ, and public health officials have now supported protesting during a pandemic https://t.co/7ACb241mah— Arthur Bloom (@j_arthur_bloom) June 5, 2020
“The New York liberal press, once home to the most exciting journalism in the world, is being ruined — not from without but within. Its institutions are being taken over and dominated by a new-media generation who don’t care about free speech; who…👇🏻 https://t.co/lLJB7Q8VAA— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) June 6, 2020
If you think there’s momentum for institutional purges now, wait till some of the most zealous purge promoters are working with triple the budget and staff thanks to corporate guilt and celebrity bandwagon funding.— Walter Olson 😷 (@walterolson) June 8, 2020
Bruce Bawer, reviewing David Horowitz’s latest book, writes:
“One demographic study after another has shown that the Democrats would never win another presidential election if they lost most of the black vote; and they richly deserve to lose the black vote, because their policies over the last half century have devastated black communities, black families, black schools, and black jobs.”
I think this goes a long way in explaining what we’re now seeing.