Friday, June 22, 2012

Another Reason Why Gay "Rights" Advocates Set Back Their Cause

You know, I know that the gay community is not anymore monolithic than any other group.
But the following shows why for every step that homosexual rights advocates take toward gaining acceptance, things like this show the immature, and just plain childish approach not becoming of a movement that wants to take itself seriously.
Apparently our Dear Leader, President Obama, invited a slew of homosexual rights advocates to the White House for reception celebrating Gay "Pride" month.
And a couple of the advocates could not control themselves.
Like the children that they are, a couple of these homosexual rights advocates decided to stand in front of the portrait of President Ronald Reagan and proceed to give him the bird.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama thinks that he is so persecuted.
The two suspects, Matthew Hart and Zoe Strauss, were moved to such a mature expression about Mr. Reagan because of an old canard. Well, let me show you the words of Mr. Strauss:

"Yeah, f– Reagan. Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the White House as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.”

Really?! Yeah, I am certain that Mr. Reagan was rubbing his hands together with glee, maybe saying something like "Well, another faggot died from, what is it called? Oh yeah, AIDS." Hey, maybe Mr. Reagan had a list of all the homosexuals that died from AIDS.
That is the canard.
That Ronald Reagan did not care about the outbreak of AIDS. That somehow, he and his administration did not care about AIDS because it affected overwhelmingly homosexual men.
No, Mr. Reagan was concerned like all of us about AIDS.
Like so many people at the time, there was such a limited knowledge about the disease.
But I want to cite this column from Deroy Murdock from a 2003 issue of National Review concerning Mr. Reagan and his response to AIDS.
One thing that is important to note about AIDS. That it was not even identified as what it was until 1982. And roughly $8,000,000 was part of the federal budget in research and the like concerning the disease. By 1984, federal funding for research and a possible vaccine and or cure rose a staggering 694% to $103,000,000. By the time Mr. Reagan left office, the federal government was spending $2,232,000,000.
But, Mr. Reagan did not care about the epidemic.
What a lot of people do not realize about Mr. Reagan is that he came out against a controversial propostiton in 1978 that would have barred open and "activist" homosexuals from teaching in the public schools. It was his opposition that led to the measure's crushing defeat.
I guess Mr. Hart and Miss Strauss must have forgotten about that. Maybe if he was for the measure, it would have passed. And many teachers would have probably been fired. And many may have not even been homosexuals themselves.
Mr. Reagan had a live and let live attitude about homosexuals. After all, the man was in Hollywood all those years. And I am certain that he and everyone else knew who was and who was not a homosexual.
But one should never have expected Mr. Reagan to push the homosexual left agenda. And he did not. And that is why these two dim bulbs will not "forgive" him for "letting" all those homosexuals die in the early days of the epidemic.
But to suggest that Mr. Reagan was openly hostile to homosexuals is wrong. He was not hostile and probably knew quite a few in his day.
So, what does it gain for these two to give the portrait of Mr. Reagan the bird? Nothing. But it once again spotlights the worst in the activist community and what makes many people that may be more like Mr. Reagan, live and let live, have doubts about their maturity. Politically and socially.
And the response from the White House? Rather pathetic if you ask me. Here is Shin Innoye's tepid comment:

“While the White House does not control the conduct of guests at receptions, we certainly expect that all attendees conduct themselves in a respectful manner.  Most all do. These individuals clearly did not. Behavior like this doesn’t belong anywhere, least of all in the White House.”

My question is that this is not something that happened out of plain sight. These two could not have been walking on their own around the White House and flipping off the former president's portrait. There HAD to be other people around if not high level White House personnel. So, where these two shown the door? And if not, why not?
While I, as a conservative, am told constantly how we are the problem in regard to discourse in politics today, what about these two dirt bags? What about the total disrespect that they showed to Mr. Reagan? Actually, to all the presidents that have served this nation? Maybe Mr. Reagan was their wrath, but what about the one that comes by in the future and feel like maybe flipping off Franklin Delano Roosevelt's portrait? You know, the one that ushered in the socialist era in the United States. Oh, I can go on and on.
Here is the thing.
If these activists want to be taken seriously, hey act like it! Be like the rest of us and show some respect. You do not have to like any president's policies, but you don't lower yourself and your cause by doing such a douchebrain thing like these two did. And by not doing anything about it, Team Dear Leader tacitly approves of such behavior.
None of us should tolerate any behavior like this. Left or right.
And if homosexual rights advocates want to ingratiate themselves with middle America, they need to purge douchebrains like this from their ranks.

No comments: