Whenever anyone — who happens to be a Republican — is suspected of being a homosexual (and is a Republican) and/or violates a law (or a few. and, is a Republican), homosexuals the internet-wide freak out.
They freak out in indignity, in sarcastic relish, in “delicious” (so I’ve read) delight that a Republican has been found to be homosexual. Or is accused of being homosexual, since it appears to homosexuals that proof or personal statements are aside from the point (it’s allegations that matter — not reality that does — when someone is a Republican, or so those freaking out say and they’re Democrats and most, from what I’ve read, are homosexuals).
Thus it went yesterday and continues this morning as to homosexuals freaking out about the news regarding Senator Larry Craig — who is a Republican. Craig was cited this past June in Minnesota for, as the police report says, “lewd conduct” in a public restroom in a Minneapolis airport. Craig says he pleaded guilty to expedite the situation — that’s his story — but later regretted that and recognizes that he should have had advice of counsel before making any statements during and after the incident (reasonable, to say the least), though none of this compensates for the situation itself, which strongly suggests that Craig’s not trustworthy:
…Craig denied the police account of what occurred and said he erred in pleading guilty.
“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions,” he said in a statement Monday afternoon. “I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.
“I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously…”
I make no statements whether or not the incident was correctly reported by law enforcement, or as to what Craig’s behavior was (I wasn’t there and I’m not eager to delve too much into what transpired, given the surroundings and behaviors of issue — I am, however, concerned about Craig’s possible moral compromises).
No one not present at the time and place knows anything other than what the public record says, but, meanwhile, the gossip — allegations, suspicions, mullings by the homosexuals freaking out — says that Craig was doing what he was accused of doing (Craig says he wasn’t, that the police officer present “misunderstood” Craig’s actions, which is certainly possible, while the police officer’s interpretations are possibly reliable, too).
Rumor and innuendo are nasty things. People fly off from reality and freak out, and homosexuals certainly are doing just that as to Craig, but in my view, as in times past when the issue of homosexuality has been publicized in relationship to Republicans, the outrage and freaking by homosexuals are about homosexuality. That homosexuals they target (or those who may be, might be or possibly could be homosexual) upsets them if they’re Republican. It’s what’s all over the internet in comments this morning as began yesterday, about Larry Craig: homosexuals ridiculing Craig because he’s possibly homosexual and a Republican, except there’s no limitation to “merely” ridiculing Republicans, only homosexuals (or possible homosexuals) who are Republicans. If Craig’s a homosexual, they’re upset that he is acting-out in homosexual behaviors; that he is a Republican adds elements to their protests and freaking, but the essence of the upset by homosexuals about other homosexuals is as to the other homosexual’s behavior if and only if they’re Republcans.
So I conclude the (Democrat, homosexual) “standard” is: –>do anything if and as a homosexual is a Democrat, equals “you’re fine and dandy”, while, –>do anything that suggests homosexuality if one is a Republican, equals “freak out and be condemned.”
It’s one way to force, or, rather, coerce other people into joining a political party. Moreorless like beating someone over the head or ruining their reputation or perhaps fouling their ability to earn an income, it’s a criminal method deployed to leverage another into submission, or, worse, ruin. It is the old and rotten “submit or be ruined” method used by criminal enterprise. In this case, by Democrats. By homosexual Democrats. Again and again, about homosexuals who are not Democrats but Republicans, the process is applied by other homosexuals and Democrat operatives. It was the same process used to force persons to “meet up” with Hitler and his Party: threaten others desperately until they submitted and relented. Rumor has it that Hitler was also a homosexual, and fact is that many of his key supporters were.
Meanwhile — remember James McGreevey, said to be engaged in random and quite public homosexual acts in bathrooms and other places, among other homosexual acts — Democrats who are homosexual AND who violate laws (and also standards of public and even private decency) are greeted with a standing ovation in Congress by other Democrats and rewarded afterward with leadership positions on Congressional committees (specifically, Representative Barney Frank, who was proven to be hosting a homosexual prostitution ring out of his residence, among other outrageous offenses).
Even more outrageous, Barney Frank went on to lecture the nation in his amoral indignity as to another homosexual member of Congress — who was a Republican — in some ploy for pity for homosexuality if and as they are Democrats. Frank’s ostentacious and audacious self-pity persists despite his own behaviors and background, and condescends upon the fact that homosexuals might be (and some are found to be) Republicans.
Because the behaviors Barney referred to in his pretensive posturing (“THE D.C. CLOSET“) are not unusual for homosexuals, nor apparently for homosexuals in elected office. It’s the party affiliation that is a problem to those such as Frank, as also those freaking out about Craig this morning and yesterday, or else it’s the woeful “prejudice against homosexuals” by homosexuals. Either option is a very low benchmark.
What’s being ridiculed as to Craig’s possible acts (as also as to previous upsets about homosexuals in public office behaving as they have) is homosexual behavior, not “elected office” behavior — it’s not behavior encouraged or produced by elected office, but by individual homosexual behavior, by individuals who are engaged in homosexual behaviors. It would be more hopeful if Craig’s alleged acts were ridiculed after proven, if they are accurate as alleged, based upon illicit behavior and bad ethics, but so far, the only framework for that possibility is within the homosexual/Republican context.
Meanwhile, Frank attempted to sell the nation — with the encouragement of other Democrats — on his position that the behaviors he objected to and persists in objecting to were relative to and only to Republicans in public office, not to homosexuals. Who may or may not be Republican. But in Frank’s case, he was (as a Democrat and as a homosexual) engaged in prostitution, the business of prostitution. His fellow Democrats stood and applauded his return to Congress afterward. And Democrats continued to vote for him, as they still do. McGreevey received “heartfelt” sympathy pleas as to his confusing, damaging, irresponsible confusion in his homosexual escapades of various kinds and conditions.
But from other homosexuals, who happen to be Democrats, not a peep about his illicit, unethical, vile and disgusting behaviors. In other words, for McGreevey, a Democrat, for Frank, a Democrat, whatever they did as homosexuals: not a problem for Democrats. And, applause and encouragement from other Democrats.
But a homosexual who is a Republican accused of soliciting homosexual acts with other homosexuals, that’s then a problem for Democrats: the greatest prejudice about their own kind, by their own kind: “homopolicide.”
Meanwhile, as to my opinions (as a Republican) about Larry Craig, I disagree (ardently) with his promotion of illegal immigration by various other words and phrases — he has and continues to be involved with Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein in promoting amnesty by workaround for illegal aliens by way of Feinstein’s and Craig’s mutual efforts to secure an ongoing stream of “workers” from other nations subsidized by U.S. taxpayers to benefit agribusiness in Calfiornia and Idaho. I reject Feinstein’s politics and behaviors just as I do Craig’s about this issue:
…The sweeping Senate immigration bill, which included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, was defeated by opponents who said it would reward knowing lawbreakers and the employers who hired them. But many legislators, including some who opposed the broader bill, see the student measure differently because it would benefit immigrant teenagers who are illegal only because of decisions their parents made when the children were young.
The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, says nearly a million immigrant students across the country could gain legal status under the bill, whose backers call it the Dream Act. Support has also re-emerged for the agricultural bill as labor shortages have hampered harvests this summer in states like California, Michigan and North Carolina. The bill’s supporters include growers, the United Farm Workers, conservative Republicans like Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The bill would expand and streamline the existing agricultural guest-worker program and offer legal status to illegal immigrants who are experienced farmworkers. At least 70 percent of the workers in agriculture are illegal immigrants, says the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, a national trade group…
But about sexual behaviors, I have yet to read any requirement on any political party registration form that an applicant state whether one is heterosexual (or not).
The point is, the only people to whom Craig’s alleged homosexuality is an issue are homosexuals. Who are also Democrats. The rest of us are concerned with political issues not rooted in homosexuality.
I’d have preferred not knowing about the foot-tapping code, though, the routine to launch homosexual acts with others in publc bathrooms. That they’ve actually developed a code such as this is sorrowful (for an explanation of this toe-tapping-code-thing, refer to the police report, though sometimes about some things — and this is one of them — they’re best left unlearned).