Gay NYTimes OpEd Complains… That ‘Gay Marriage’ Is Legal?!

Liberals are miserable people and will always find something to complain about, and this New York Times OpEd “–Historic Day for Gays, but Twinge of Loss for an Outsider Culture“–is a perfect example. After a lifelong fight about acceptance and being treated like everyone else, now people are lamenting that they are losing what made them different? No, really…

The Supreme Court on Friday expanded same-sex marriage rights across the country, a crowning achievement but also a confounding challenge to a group that has often prided itself on being different. The more victories that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals and markers are fading out. And so just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, overtaken by its own success.

“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”

“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron, who wrote the book and lyrics for “Fun Home,” a Broadway musical with a showstopping number sung by a young girl captivated by her first glimpse of a butch woman. “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection. That felt magical and beautiful.”

Liberals are beyond self-parody. If they aren’t oppressed and calling you a bigot for oppressing them, they have nothing to talk about.

So… how about that new… non-oppression, oppression huh? Yep…

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

After The Attack On The Confederate Flag Is Over, This Piece Of American History Will Be Targeted

It is fast becoming open season on symbols, images, statues, monuments, plaques, and people important to, or representative of, the Confederate States of America. The politically correct crowd and the PC enforcers who amplify and intensify its demands are quickly gaining both prominence and power in their accelerating effort to cleanse the South of artifacts and emblems of the Confederacy.

Over the course of the last week or so — as calls for removal of the Confederate flag from public property in South Carolina have grown louder in the wake of the Charleston church massacre — Western Journalism has reported frequently on the controversy. After the White House reiterated President Obama’s belief that the flag belongs not on a public pole but “in a museum,” Rev. Franklin Graham shared his conviction that “it’s time for this flag to be set aside as a part of our history.”

Now, proponents of the PC purge of all things Confederate are widening their sights and expanding their range of targets. Not just in the South but elsewhere across the country, those who view any reminder of the Confederacy as a symbol of hate and a representation of a racist culture are on the march.

NPR reports that in Missouri, two Civil War memorials that honor those who died fighting for the Confederacy “have become flash points” in the discussion of whether it’s appropriate in today’s America to maintain those reminders of the losing side in the War Between the States.

The NPR report also points out there’s “a looming monument going up near the Texas-Louisiana border” that angers a local NAACP leader named Paul Jones.

“‘It’s glorifying, to me, white supremacy — and the institution of slavery,’ he says.”

An Associated Press article posted on Yahoo! News notes that, in a half-dozen states, vandals have set about defacing monuments dedicated to soldiers and leaders of the Confederacy.

“The graffiti reflects the racial tension that permeates post-Ferguson America, more than a week after a white man was accused of shooting and killing nine black congregants at a Charleston, South Carolina, church.”

Among the spray-painted slogans on those markers is the now-familiar phrase that you might say has become a battle cry of racial agitators, “Black Lives Matter.”

One leader of the Confederacy who is coming under fire — some might say the most important military commander for the South and possibly one of the greatest American generals of all time — is Robert E. Lee. David Brooks, the so-called “conservative” columnist for The New York Times — a man who makes frequent appearances on network talk shows — is asking whether Lee’s name should be removed from the many schools, buildings, streets, and public spaces where it is memorialized.

Lest you think that this is one man’s curious questioning, Brooks’ opinion in such matters is often the shot heard round the media world and a weapon turned on any conservative with a differing opinion. His writing can become a first cut into controversial issues that eventually bleed out as more and more empowered and emboldened critics take a stab at what Brooks’ has turned into an open wound.

While praising Robert E. Lee for his quality of character, the Times op-ed columnist condemns the famous general for his loyalty to the South.

In theory, he opposed slavery, once calling it “a moral and political evil in any country.” He opposed Southern secession, calling it “silly” and a rash revolutionary act.

…while Lee may have opposed slavery in theory he did nothing to eliminate or reduce it in practice. On the contrary, if he’d been successful in the central task of his life, he would have preserved and prolonged it.

The conclusion that David Brooks draws will, no doubt, serve as an opening volley in the assault by an angry army of others intent on climbing aboard the PC bandwagon that’s now on a fast roll toward its goal of shaming a large segment of America — shaming them into removing any sign or symbol of what Barack Obama continually claims is a nation still sullied by its racist past.

Writes Brooks: “My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.”

What do you think? Do you believe remembrances of Robert E. Lee should be relegated to a far lesser place in American history? Join the conversation by commenting below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

SHOCK VID: Lib Jon Stewart Just Destroyed Lib Newspaper As He Defends This GOP 2016 Candidate

It’s undeniable that comedian Jon Stewart has risen to a level of prominence and prestige in the world of big league politics — an achievement underscored by the fact that what The Daily Show host just said about The New York Times and a certain Republican contender for president is being played up big-time on Politico. Stewart’s unique brand of offbeat (and often profane) analysis wrapped in go-for-the-throat humor gets the attention of a lot of folks, even those who roam the halls of power.

As the Politico piece by Nick Gass notes: “Jon Stewart tore into The New York Times’ coverage of Marco Rubio on The Daily Show Wednesday night, mocking the Gray Lady for its reporting on the senator’s traffic violations and financial issues.”

Twice over the course of a week, the Times published what it apparently felt were significant exposes about the senator — a story on the handful of traffic tickets he’s gotten in his home state of Florida and a front page article headlined “Marco Rubio’s Career Bedeviled by Financial Struggles.” Critics of the newspaper’s targeting of the popular GOP lawmaker have scoffed at what they call the Gray Lady’s hysteria in an attempt to smear Rubio with trivia.

On his Comedy Central show Wednesday night, the generally liberal Jon Stewart joined the chorus of critics of the consistently liberal New York Times…but in his own inimitable style. You can watch the hilarious segment by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

NY Times Caught Scraping The Absolute Bottom Of The Barrel To Attack A 2016 GOP Candidate

The New York Times Friday scolded presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and his wife Jeanette for a less-than-perfect driving record, noting they have “spent more than $1,000 paying traffic penalties over the years.” The report has been met with considerable backlash.

The Times reported that the Rubios have been cited for traffic violations a combined 17 times, Marco four and Jeanette 13, referring to court dockets from Miami-Dade and Duval counties.
The ‘paper of record’ highlighted a 2011 incident when Sen. Rubio’s license was nearly suspended after a traffic camera caught him driving through a red light. His attorney, Alex Hanna, paid the $16 fine to have the suspension delayed, which was ultimately dismissed.

“Senator Rubio’s license has always been in good standing. This matter was resolved by the court system and at no point was the license suspended by the DMV,” Hanna said in a statement given to The Times by the candidate’s campaign. This is how The Times’ report concludes:

Earlier this year, Ms. Rubio, a former cheerleader for the Miami Dolphins, sideswiped a Porsche Panamera while driving her husband’s Ford F-150 truck to a donor event at the Delano Hotel in Miami Beach. According to the Miami Herald, the police declined to take a report on the incident because it was a ‘minor’ fender bender.

If Mr. Rubio is fortunate to make it as far as the White House, there will be many perks that come with the job. Chief among them, however, might be having a driver.

The Washington Free Beacon reported the facts from The Times’ report were pulled in person last January by left-leaning group American Bridge; but the paper denies that accusation, insisting they came across the facts themselves, Politico noted.

As a result of the report, #RubioCrimeSpree has been trending on Twitter in the United States, with some humorous and poignant results:

h/t: Fox News

Are you sick of media bias? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

NYT Just Said It Wants Thousands Of Syrian Muslims To Move To This U.S. City

The headline of a recent New York Times editorial suggested that allowing foreign Muslims to “settle Detroit” is an ideal way to restore the largely destitute city. Authors David D. Laitin and Marc Jahr offer some theories to back up their hypothesis, including the fact that Detroit’s economic crisis and Syria’s civil war are potentially complementary humanitarian crises.

In the authors’ opinion, largely Muslim refugees from Syria would make an “ideal community” to assist in restoring Motor City, since “Arab-Americans are already a vibrant and successful presence in the Detroit metropolitan area.”

Based on evidence suggesting those currently here are often successful in business, the editorial posits that another influx of thousands from a similar culture could fare just as well. While they admit that we “cannot know for sure,” Laitin and Jahr cite anecdotal evidence that victims of violent crime “become more active citizens than similar compatriots who have not suffered from these traumatic events.”

Laying out the various federal agencies that would need to work in tandem to make such a project work, the authors concluded that their plan is “eminently feasible.”

To foster the diversity often exalted above all other considerations, the editorial also emphasized the role of “African-Americans and Latinos” in the future of Detroit.

The authors did address some of the concerns they acknowledged opponents might raise upon hearing their plan. For critics of any plan that would facilitate such a rapid immigration, however, the explanations were insufficient.

Readers left a variety of comments in response to a Right Wing News article about the editorial. Reaction ranged from a denunciation of the authors – and the Times – to assertions that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with American values.

At least a few pointed out that Laitin and Jahr seem to be addressing Detroit’s problems without acknowledging their root cause.

“You still need to get rid of the liberal idiots ‘running’ the city,” one reader insisted.

Should Syrian refugees be dropped off in Detroit? Let us know in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth