More Gay Republican BS

Richard Grenell is the openly gay conservative hack political consultant Mitt Romney hired to be his national security spokesman. After one week on the job, Grenell resigned over pressure exerted by homophobes within the Republican party. Here’s what he had to say in a piece he wrote in the Wall Street Journal titled Marriage, Gay Republicans and the Elections.

The claim that gays should be barred from conservative activism is not only bigoted but is a bipartisan view. The intolerant assault comes from the far right, who object to Republicans who are gay, and the far left, who object to gays being Republicans. When the extremists on both sides are the only ones speaking up, the majority suffers.

What a load of crap. This ‘both sides do it’ bullshit is getting tiresome.

First of all, the intolerance is not coming from the “far right.” It’s coming from the mainstream part of the  Republican party. Intolerance, bigotry and homophobia are required staples for anyone hoping to attain office as a Republican. Grenell’s own choice for the White House is a guy named Mitt Romney who has pledged to support a constitutional amendment making same-sex marriage illegal.

I believe we should have a federal amendment in the Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman, because I believe the ideal place to raise a child is in a home with a mom and a dad.

Polls also indicate that Democrats and liberals favor same-sex marriage by a huge percentage over Republicans and conservatives.

You got that, Grenell? Seven out of ten Republicans hope you are never able to marry your partner.

And lastly, liberals have no objection to gays being Republicans. The LGBT community can support any party they wish. Liberals are simply asking why the hell would any sane gay person vote for a party that hates their very existence and views them as sexual perverts? A political party that strives to deny them the same civil rights afforded heterosexuals? Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?

Bottom line is that Richard Grenell is simply another conservative who needs to justify his party’s indefensible policies by spreading the blame over to liberals and Democrats.

Not this time buddy. On this issue, as on most issues, the assholes are all on your side.


Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

29 thoughts on “More Gay Republican BS

  1. For a 21st-century LGBT to be a Republican is like a pre-1960s southern Negro being Democratic.

  2. I have nothing against Gay people but there is more at stake here.

    From the 1963 Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
    The Communist Takeover Of America – 45 Declared Goals
    # 25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

    # 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

    # 27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

    Most of the 45 COMMUNIST goals have been achieved.

  3. This one is more accurate from Lenin,

    “The Capitalists will sell us the rope from which we will hang them”.

    China 2012
    The Capitalists will buy the rope from which we will hang them”.

  4. “What a load of crap. This ‘both sides do it’ bullshit is getting tiresome.”

    Why? Do you think he was lying about his experience.

  5. “What a load of crap. This ‘both sides do it’ bullshit is getting tiresome.”

    Why? Do you think he was lying about his experience.

    I thought I explained my reasons for that statement quite well. What part are you not understanding?

  6. Oh, so you’re not saying he was lying. You’re just saying he’s wrong.

    Here’s what he said,

    “The intolerant assault comes from the far right, who object to Republicans who are gay, and the far left, who object to gays being Republicans.”

    Here’s what you said,

    “What a load of crap. This ‘both sides do it’ bullshit is getting tiresome.”

    By denying him his experience, and calling it “a load of crap”, you’re displaying the same intolerance that he says he experienced from his own left leaning, LGBT community. You’ve demonstrated his point. The far left is just as intolerant as the far right. He’s right about that.

  7. You can be gay, and you can be a Republican. Just not one who’s endeared by the Party. They want your vote, for sure, but other than that you’re on your own.

  8. Mr. Pane:

    How did Mr. Piperni’s disagreement with Mr. Grennell’s statement become “denying him his experience?” Besides, Mr. Piperni is correct. It is a load of crap. Mr. Grennell knows the Republican Party is the party that doesn’t like homosexuals, so as a Republican himself, he feels the need to make the Democrats equally culpable.


    From the Congressional Record website: The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress. It is published daily when Congress is in session.

    Because someone in Congress brought up these 45 Communist goals in 1963 doesn’t make it true. Just a few weeks ago, Congressman Allen West of Florida said there were something like 18 to 21 Communists in Congress – members of the Congressional Black Caucus, if I remember correctly. That information is probably in the Congressional Record, too. Doesn’t make it true.

    Besides, when are you wingnuts going to give up your obsession with Communists? They lost the Cold War over 20 years ago.

  9. I think there’s a point being missed here – it’s not a matter of objecting to gays being Republican – it’s a matter of wondering why so many people of a group rejected by a party still supports it against their own interests. It’s the same with anyone else who supports the Republicans against their own interests…you know, middle class, poor, minorities, immigrant citizens…

  10. “I think there’s a point being missed here – it’s not a matter of objecting to gays being Republican – it’s a matter of wondering why so many people of a group rejected by a party still supports it against their own interests. It’s the same with anyone else who supports the Republicans against their own interests…you know, middle class, poor, minorities, immigrant citizens…”

    E.A. – I think that’s a fair question. I’ll propose that they’re thinking beyond their own, personal self-interests. Perhaps they’re taking the view that voting for someone who promises to take less away from everyone, is better for America than voting for someone who promises to give everyone more.

    i’ve long been facinated by the left calling “selfish”, those of us who promote living life based on “rational self-interests”, while the left bases their own politican expansion on convincing people to vote for their personal self-interests.

  11. Some values are specific to the nature of each individual, but there are also universal human values…

    “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
    Franklin D. Roosevelt

  12. Rational self-interest, is looking out for oneself, without harming another. Here’s what Ayn Rand had to say about it:

    “Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”

    A person is living within the context of rational self-interests, when they’re pursuing their own personal gains, without interfering in another person’s pursuit of their personal gains. Pursuing ones own self-interests is thus rational because it doesn’t harm society. Such responsible people help society by not demanding of society, and by having excess resources available if someone needs, and asks for help.

  13. Talking about ‘rational self-interest’, are you referring to rational ‘interests IN self’ or ‘interests OF self’ – or do you even recognize the distinction?

  14. BTW Mr. Pane –
    On Homosexuality Ayn Rand’s views were:

    “All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed,” she said in 1968. “I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults.”

    Though you haven’t stated such directly, can we clarify by saying you also hold the same views?

  15. Mr. Pane thanks for your response, I hope you didn’t actually feel that you were being “tested”, I asked because it helps me to understand what the mind frame, of a Libertarian like yourself may be.

    I have more than the average knowledge of the Democrats ideals and quite a bit of knowledge on the mistaken ideology of Republicans, but thus far Libertarians have been a mystery to me. Oh… I’ve listen to the opinions of many, but each one has a somewhat different view of being one.

    My thesis thus far is that they are, as individuals, ALL over the place, very vague and cannot be pin down, as a “party”, on any of their fundamental beliefs besides some “self-interested” view of “freedom” and what I describe as imagined “lone wolves of politics” – not needing others to make their “existence”, whole.

    It would a major help and I would appreciate greatly if you would answer the “first ” question I asked –
    “Are you referring to rational ‘interests IN self’ or ‘interests OF self’ – or do you even recognize the distinction?

  16. Thanks for your interest, GoldenSun. My experience has taught me that most questions from blog commenters are setups to help make the commenters’ point. I’ve been guilty of it too. I’m sorry for making that wrong assumption.

    With regard to your question, I honestly don’t see the difference. The first time you asked it, I didn’t want to look stupid for not understanding it. Now that I’m busted, maybe you can fill me in.

    As for libertarians, here’s my take. There’s no money in it. The money is in control. Anything that can be controlled can generate a profit for whoever holds control.

    Politicians make money (donations) by taking money from those who want to hold, or take, control. Democrats take money from unions, environmentalists, academics, minority rights groups, etc. All of whom stand to make a profit from the contributions of the people in their group. Republicans take money from big business, religious groups, gun rights groups, etc. All of them stand to profit in their own, obvious ways.

    Now, the argument is that people need to be under some sort of control. It’s widely believed that uncontrolled people will soon be out-of-control. But what does “out-of-control” mean? I believe that people appear to need control when they lack respect for the property of others.

    Fundamentally, libertarians believe that people don’t need to be controlled. That’s a message that goes against the teachings of both Democrats and Republicans. Both parties spread a message of “fighting for freedom”, but neither side defines what they mean by that. Their conflicts are usually only in response to the restrictions on freedom suggested by the other side. That people need to be controlled, is not in dispute. The method of controlling people is what they fight about.

    “Property” is more than just land and money. It’s also our beliefs, our speech, and our bodies. A libertarian believes that each individual has a right to own their own property, and that it’s the government’s role to protect our legal title to that property. We also believe each individual is responsible for making sure that their property doesn’t hurt someone else’s property.

    Libertarians believe that the right to own property is at the core of individual freedom. Communism limits private property ownership. How free are citizens living under communism? Dogmatic religions limit free thinking. How free are the citizens living under a theocracy?

    Imagine a world where every individual believed the same basic tenet.

    Take only with permission, give only with permission.

    Defining a crime would be pretty simple. Did the perp take something from someone without their permission?

    Granting everyone the respect to own their own beliefs would zero out religious conflicts.

    Look at government’s actions through the lens of that tenant. How often are they trying to take without permission, only to end up giving without permission?

    Try living your life filtering every decision you make, and every action you take, through the simple tenant; take only with permission, give only with permission. Only then will you know what it means to be a libertarian.

  17. Mr. Pane,
    Sorry for not responding earlier, Memorial weekend kept me busy.

    First, on the “rational self-interest”…
    “Rational” is a normative term, and I don’t like how it’s attached to “self-interest.” People aren’t terribly rational.

    People take shortcuts and procrastinate; our reasoning systems are somewhat ad-hoc and don’t always work perfectly.

    And “Self-Interest” can easily be twisted into a question-begging shape that is impossible to disprove.

    Attempting to defend morality in terms of “rational self-interest….

    It is not that this is wrong, but that it confuses people.

    There are two possible meanings of this phrase ‘self-interest’.

    One of the meanings works, and one does not work.

    Unfortunately, the meaning that does NOT work is the meaning that comes first to the mind of most who hear this term.

    So, we have confusion.

    The Distinction

    The two meanings are:

    (a) “Interests in self”

    (b) “Interests of self”

    Of these two, the second is a much larger set.

    Some of a person’s interests are “interests IN the self” — interests in having more money, in being happy, in having certain experiences.

    However, there are many “interests OF the self” that are NOT “interests IN the self”.

    A person may be interested IN the happiness of a friend, or IN the well-being of a complete stranger.

    He may be willing to sacrifice his life for the sake of a child, or a country, or a principle.

    Such a person is still acting on HIS OWN interests.

    However, these are interests OF the self that are NOT interests IN the self.

    In other words, human nature is complex. We are “self-interested”, but we also like to help others too.

    I don’t deny that rational self-interest has a lot of explanatory power. But to try and jam all of human experience into that box mangles us beyond recognition.

  18. Mr. Pane,

    On second issue re Libertarian fundamentals,

    You say that “Fundamentally, libertarians believe that people don’t need to be CONTROLLED.”

    Once again semantics get in the way of comprehension –

    In some minds, “control” may usher in the thoughts of being chained or enslaved to the whims of a powerful entity.

    But those thoughts are not universal, example –
    We can control the flow of water
    We can control the fire by dousing it with water
    We can control the skidding of our car”

    “controlled” – restrained or MANAGED or kept within certain bounds.

    Libertarians don’t believe IN controlling,

    But if you are a believer in the Bible – it is full of terminology, from “God”, that you may consider, attempts to “control” his own creations.
    From Adam and Eve – “do not eat from the tree of life” to the “Ten Commandments”.

    Weren’t these meant to “control” certain actions? Why did he set these controls? Perhaps because of the understanding that human nature may not have “rational” self interests?

    Even Founding Father James Madison, who was refered to as the “Father of the Constitution said:

    “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

    Therefore “control” must take a different meaning… a “standard” of comparison for checking or verifying what’s best in “promoting the General Welfare” ..for the United States.

    You say “Both parties spread a message of “fighting for freedom”, but neither side defines what they mean by that.”

    Basically and fundamentally, Democrats believe in the “freedom of choice” for all men, women and children (something I feel should connect with the Libertarian mind).

    Republicans believe in “controlling” certain actions of the American public because those actions are NOT in sync with their ideological beliefs and they oppose “choice” and on those grounds and somehow they consider that as “Freedom”.

    “Take only with permission, give only with permission.” you fail to mention “permission” from whom?
    When Republican state governments impose trans vaginal probes, impeding or eliminating long hard fought for rights of voters, workers, minorities and womens rights – whose permission did they ask?

    When Democrats fight to protect those rights, the “right to chose”, is it “controlling”?

    Libertarian beliefs, as you state them, is an “ideal” – but it is not a form of government or managing.

    “Granting everyone the respect to own their own beliefs would zero out religious conflicts.”

    Recent history disproves that statement on the simple issue that if you have insurance and are paying premiums for that insurance, and that insurance is primarily for the health of the individual, why was it objectionable when the administration said, it would be helpful heathwise and economic-wise to provide affordable contraception to women – IF THEY WANTED IT?

    Obviously it’s because someone somewhere will always believe, rightly or wrongly, that their “own” beliefs, “religious” or otherwise is somehow better than good old COMMONSENSE !

    James Madison 4th President of the United States also said “Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done.”

  19. Mr. Pane,
    I must voice my objection at your implication that of the two parties you have disagreements with Democrats are the “communists” who ” limits private property ownership” while the opposing party merely has “Dogmatic” religious beliefs who want to rule as a “theocracy” ?

    False and mistaken conclusions result in “COWPIE’S OF DISTORTIONS” !

    Why is it that those who promote “freedom of choice” and fight to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” for the American people, are referred to as socialists or communists ?

    While those that OPPOSE ALL OF THE ABOVE are rarely referred to as … the FASCISTS they imitate??

    Communists ! Socialists ! Shout Republicans –
    “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison Founding Father

  20. GoldenSun – Permission needs to be asked of whoever owns the property that you want to take.

    I’m a little disappointed that you see no culpability from the democrats. Let me ask you this; do you think the rich have too much money? Do you think they should be taxed more than they are now?

  21. Mr. Pane,

    That is not the response I expected from an educated man like yourself – it seems like we’re both used to being abused for our beliefs and are quick to stand up for them, but I was just expanding on your own thought process.

    I made no criticism on what you posted other than falling into the mindset of the grossly overused terms of “socialist and communist” to describe fundamental beliefs held by many of the Founding Fathers and promoted by Democrats.

    Are Democrats innocent of any political or governing errors ? Absolutely not, unfortunately people keep us too busy on addressing the outright misconceptions of Liberalism to communicate those “errors”.

    I will answer you question – but I want to give you time to reread my post – but this time with objectivity and the intelligence I have given you credit for.

    PS – you yourself said that the expression “property” goes beyond just material things – I was referring to thoughts, beliefs, ideals – things that can be taking away without being aware someone is trying to do so, yet property so “personal” that it forms the context of what it is to be the person you are.

  22. Ok, I reread your comment, GoldenSun. You still didn’t mentioned any failings of the Democrats.

    I didn’t express any defense of a perceived criticism, I just like to honestly look at both sides, and I wish more people would.

    So now, as for my questions…

  23. I’m disappointed Mr. Pane,

    In my attempt to understand the Libertarian philosophy, I encountered and expressed to you certain flaws, if you will, in it’s basic fundamentals.

    You offered no response to those flaws in reasoning. Either there is no answer to reason out these flaws or your comprehension of Libertarianism is not complete. In any case I feel my lesson into “Libertarianism” is over.

    So, yes let’s change the subject –

    Do I think the rich have too much money? –

    Honestly? I don’t know how to answer that – I imagine that would be up to the individual to decide.
    Some who read the Bible, and I agree, will say that having wealth, in itself, is not a bad thing. But….
    The Bible does tell the reader that it is the “love” of money, that is considered the root of all of evil.
    A person with great wealth has the ability to provide food, clothing, shelter, and meet other needs for those who are suffering.
    Or it can be use to promote greed and calamity throughout the land. I suppose it’s not HOW rich they are, but what they do, with their riches.

    Do I think they should be taxed more than they are now? – Simple answer – YES !

    A more detailed answer is actually given by the Founding Fathers such as George Washington:

    George Washington:

    “The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate:
    To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there ‘must be revenue';
    that to have revenue there ‘must be taxes';
    that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies”

    Thus, this establishes that “taxes” are necessary’. Who should get taxed more??
    Let me refer to the words of Thomas Jefferson in:

    Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
    28 Oct. 1785 Papers 8:681–82

    “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

    Sounds like the Founding Fathers established a progressive tax system.

    I think that the arguments “against taxation” are often misrepresented. The object of our consternation ought to be (and very often is) the “income” tax and its PROPER APPLICATION, not taxes in general, as they are both necessary and properly aligned with the limitations in the Constitution.

  24. GoldenSun – That taxes are necessary, you and I have no dispute. That the government has the authority to tax wealth, also is not in dispute.

    I’m trying to make a point about how easy it is for people to disregard a person’s legal title to something. Thieves do it when they break into our homes. Murderers do it when they take someone’s life.

    People with wealth, have legal title to that wealth. It isn’t society’s wealth, it’s the individual’s wealth. What’s disturbing to me, is how easy it’s become for people to take from others. The thought of having to take someone’s property, is painful to an [honest] [ethical] [moral] person. Yet, taking more property from the legal owners of that property, in the form of higher taxes, seems very easy for Democrats. It’s now part of almost every campaign speech.

    Politicians tell people that it’s ok to take the property of someone who has legal title to that property, and give it to people who don’t have legal title to it. All justifications aside, how can we ever hope to live in a peaceful society, if our leaders are teaching us we should all share the same disregard for legal title, that’s held by every common criminal?

    Libertarians believe that an individual’s body, soul, and material property are sacrosanct. But getting back to my original point, there’s no profit to be made from telling people that they should live their life’s responsibly. After all, if everyone lived their life responsibly, we wouldn’t need as much government. Think of all the government workers who would lose their jobs. We wouldn’t need as many church leaders. We wouldn’t need as many non-profit organizations. We wouldn’t need as many police or as much military, and all the infrastructure that supports them.

    Libertarianism hasn’t caught on because there are too many vested interests profiting from humanity’s control.

  25. Mr. Pane,

    I am in “shock and awe” over your last post. So much so that I feel shame for you. All credibility in your “reasoning” and libertarian beliefs have just been damaged hugely by your comparing those who are in support of the rich paying a few more dollars in taxes to “Thieves” and “Murderers”.

    I’m afraid you have shown that your whole basis of your so-called “Libertarian” views is money and a measure of greed and NOT “rational self interest”.

    You said NOTHING when I mentioned “state governments impose trans vaginal probes, impeding or eliminating long hard fought for rights of voters, workers, minorities and womens rights”, apparently none of those were in your “SELF INTERESTS” – even though “property” in the form of the fundamental rights of Americans were being aggressively eliminated.

    I am not religious but I assume you are of the Christian faith because you have never denied it, yet – You totally ignore biblical words as to “love for fellow” man, “do unto others” and examples of deep care and concern for all people set by Christ who gave his LIFE for all – apparently something a “Libertarian” would never do.

    And if you are NOT Christian, you still totally ignore the words of the Founding Fathers that show taxes are necessary and patriotic and good for the General Welfare of our country.

    “To impose taxes when the public exigencies require them is an obligation of the most sacred character, especially with a free people.”
    ~President James Monroe

    So far, Christianity or the words of the Founders of our government mean nothing to you.
    The only one you have agreed with is Ayn Rand a woman from Russia that believed “enlightened selfishness” and capitalism are the purest forms of individual freedom.
    Well, Ayn Rand collected Social Security to her dying breath.

    Therefore it can be assume, if YOU are an example of “Libertarianism,” your philosophy is based on nothing but man made fantasies and unreachable ideals mainly founded on personal GREED and NOT “self-interests” – rational or otherwise.

    When taxes were required of the wealthy at the rate of 90% – Americans were glad to give it because it is through those taxes that our country progressed into the great Nation it has become.

    The fight about the increase of taxes is aimed at the Bush tax cuts – which reduced tax rates from 39% to 35% for those above a certain income – mostly millionaires and up. So bringing them back up to what they were -as the LAW was written – is not some communist socialist plot. And no one is “stealing” anything from anyone.

    These “tax cuts” though they were spread throughout the nation – happen, historically and is fully documented – to favor the rich – doesn’t it make sense that in this time of massive Economic Crisis, that those that have benefited the most from these laws, be required to contribute a bit more to help the Country they are a part of?

    Apparently your narrow minded view, like horse blinders, make you ignore that…. the betterment of the Country and it’s people as a whole,..IS in YOUR better “self -interests” !!

    I’m sorry Mr. Pane – I am wholly disappointed in you, your “rationale”, your definition of “self-interest” and your “Libertarianism” .

  26. I’m perfectly happy with you believing whatever you want to believe, GoldenSun, just as long as it doesn’t stop me from doing the same.

Comments are closed.