I never intended this blog and it's counterparts to be purely Gay Issue oriented. However a number of Gay related news stories at present demand rebuttal. So the next few posts will be posted on all three blogs verbatim.
In no particular order:
Ann Coulter; her column of Sept. 28th "Does Rick Perry Have a Performance Problem". Coulter makes some very bizarre statements.
a) We already had a Republican president and both political parties try to foist amnesty on us. The country erupted in rage, forced Congress to withdraw Bush's "comprehensive immigration reform" and rewarded Bush with a humiliating defeat in the 2006 midterm elections.
It wasn't Perry's delivery; it was his policy that Republicans -- and apparently a lot of Democrats and independents -- don't like. Hispanic citizens who have undergone the arduous process of becoming citizens the legal way aren't crazy about the idea either. (my italics)
This final sentence structured to imply an overwhelming consensus of opinion from legal Hispanic immigrants. I think a statement like that requires some statistical back-up. A quick on-line search today showed overwhelming consensus. The best (or worst) I could find was a Denver Post poll of 3,000 Colorado voters showed a majority of Hispanic respondents, 62% supported strict laws similar to Arizona's and an odd extrapolation by another blogger:
It shows that most Hispanic-Americans understand the Arizona law isn't about racism or even opposition to immigration. It's about a state trying to curb illegal immigration only. (my italics)
b) When the audience booed Gov. Perry, it wasn't booing a former Air Force captain. It was booing in-state tuition for illegal aliens.Similarly, the audience was not "booing a soldier" during one of the video questions, ... The audience was booing the soldier's demand that Republican presidential candidates commit to not overturning a sleazy partisan vote taken in the twilight days of the heavily Democratic 2010 Congress. (my underlines and italics)
Be careful Ann (You don't mind if I call Ann?), such elastic analogies can snap very easily.
For example there is a Brobdingnagian (Cool word huh!) difference between a political office holder, running for higher office who happens to be a veteran and an active serviceman serving in wartime. I really hope no further explication is required on that point.
What would you and fellow conservative commentators be saying if the soldier asked the same question worded from a conservative viewpoint and the same number of audience members booed? The uproar would be deafening!
c) The audience was booing the soldier's demand.... (my italics again)
Serviceman Stephen Hill: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job.
My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?
I'm hard pressed to find anything approaching a demand in the above quote. If I'm somehow missing it would someone please point it out to me.
Serviceman Hill, thank you for your service to our nation and BRAVO for your courage in coming out as you did.
The only word that comes to mind to describe the breakdown of the question and inclusion of interjections is cunning. You managed to give a perception of length and pause to the question that wasn't there and invent an exaggerated sense patience on the part of the audience while magnifying the specificity of the booing to suit your purpose.
d) It is beyond absurd to demand that Republican candidates pledge not to consider altering a recent rule change overturning a military policy that had been in effect from the beginning of warfare until the last few weeks of the 111th Congress.
From the beginning of warfare! come on Ann, that's downright pitiful.
see DOD Directive 1332.14, January 28, 1982, Part 1, Section H
A quick search of Amazon or Abe books will reveal an avalanche of books countering that sentence!
e) This is not an anti-gay position; it's a pro-military position. The basic idea is that sexual bonds are disruptive to the military bond. Soldiers, sailors and Marines living in close quarters who are having sex with one another, used to have sex with one another or would like to have sex with one another simply cannot function as a well-oiled fighting machine.
It just keeps getting worse and worse. Proofs? Statistics? Studies?" Legitimate ones that is.
f) A battalion of married couples facing a small unit of heterosexual men would be slaughtered. (My italics)
Epaminondas, The Sacred Band of Thebes
Need I say more!
g) But liberals enjoy engaging in wild social experiments (my italics) with other people's lives, safety and money in order to feel better about themselves. So now the next Republican president is going to have to repeal open sexuality in the military along with Obamacare.
"Wild social experiments" like equality and the franchise for woman and blacks, or maybe Truman's desegregating the military or Eisenhower's use of federal troops and the National Guard to intervene on behalf of the nine students in Little Rock etc., etc., etc.,
h) Let's just hope the Germans don't start feeling militaristic before then. ( my italics)
The dig about the Germans is cute-I'm sure that'll help our relations with Germany and improve our image overseas!
Most of the rest of that particular column is grist for another time, except to remark on Coulter's claim of Liberal bullying tactics. I'll have to let that one by, for if there's one thing Conservatives in this country know it's bullying tactics!
So much more to come.......