Rowdy Cluckers: The Chick-fil-A Rebellion

Well, the anti-Chick-fil-A thing sort of backfired, now didn’t it? Yep, the rabid gay crowd thought they were going to shut CFA down, but instead their fascist demands that Chick-fil-A’s Presidente Dan Cathy repent of his free speech actually catapulted the fast food chain into record profits. Cha-ching!

I have one word for that homo faux pas of trying to stifle a private company’s free speech, it’s: Ahahaha. Boy, you guys really read the pulse of the American people … Not.

Now, I will give the onerous gay activists this: Aside from the huge boom in ammo sales since Obama was elected, their boycott of Chick-fil-A actually spurred the first definitive economic stimulus of the Obama era. Muchas gracias.

Look, I knew this anti-free speech/chicken sandwich protest was going to go south when frickin’ Rahm Emanuel and Edwin Mah Lee got out in front of it. They represent America about as much as I represent PETA. I kept waiting for Mugatu from Zoolander to pop out and join them by slaughtering live chickens in a Foghorn Leghorn outfit while dancing to “Do You Really Want to Hurt Me” in front of some Chippendale boys. But, alas! It didn’t happen. Who can I sue?

If there’s one thing I know about Americans it’s that they love Chick-fil-A and free speech. I guess that would be two things. And Americans peacefully showing up in the hundreds of thousands last Wednesday to Chick-fil-A restaurants from sea to shining sea showed anyone with a lick of sense that Americans are not quite ready to bow and kiss the ring of a special interest group that wants to mitigate other people’s rights to freedom of expression just because they don’t kowtow to theirs.

Which brings me to this query: What’s up with this BS that we’ve got to agree with someone’s view of gay sex before we can buy or sell chicken sandwiches? When did that edict get passed? We’re damn close to making Seinfeld’s Soup Nazi look like the most rosy, easygoing consommé ladler around.

And finally, how come the gay activists got their national dander up over Chick-fil-A’s exec not being down with Brad and Chad getting engaged, yet I haven’t heard them say diddly squat about their intentions to stage a national “Kiss In” at any American mosque or give the hundreds of black pastors who vehemently oppose gay marriage the same crap they’ve been giving Chick-fil-A. What’s the matter? You’re not scared to take them on, are you? You’re not chicken, are you?

I think this past August 1st is a foretaste of what’s coming this November 6th. It’s all about freedom for all, baby, and you dudes don’t get it. But Americans do. And they showed up in droves and waited in hot lines for hours to demonstrate they will not be bullied.

Check out my latest video: “An Immoral, Lazy and Stupid Church Helps America’s Enemies.

Obama panders to Hollywood on gay marriage

President Barack Obama has changed his mind about same-sex marriage again, partly after discussing the issue with his daughters Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10.

Nice. Now we wait for the Congressional Medal of Honor to be awarded to the “awesome cute guy” from One Direction. Can you imagine how the media would have reacted if Obama had said he’d decided to preserve the definition of marriage after chatting to the kids, or if a Republican president had used a similar line to justify a policy?

It’s all sheer nonsense, of course, just a folksy attempt to disguise the fact that Obama’s Hollywood buddies told him the donations and fundraising parties would disappear unless he did something for their favourite cause. Most Americans don’t care about same-sex marriage. Many gay people don’t care about it. Equality, tolerance, a clumsy but vital co-existence. That’s what is essential to a civilized handling of sexuality. Marriage is not an entitlement but a social institution, not a human right but a child-centred entity based around natural law. Someone’s sexuality is their own business, and they should never be denied a job, home or respect because of it. That, however, is the sort of appalling behaviour now being projected at people who disagree with same-sex marriage, which is one of the bitterest ironies of contemporary politics.

Back to Obama. He can’t be re-elected without the almost unanimous support of black and Hispanic America. Not going to happen, Mr. President. You’ve done nothing for African-Americans, and their overwhelming objection to same-sex marriage is less important to you than the obsession with it among the chattering classes, in particular those moral champions of the world in Hollywood.

How gruesome it is that when Iranian protesters are slaughtered or when Africans in Sudan are massacred in legions, people like Iron Man Robert Downey Jr. and Spider-Man Tobey Maguire say nothing, but when their gay friends want to marry their other gay friends, they demand the president change the country and alienate millions.

Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who has hardly mentioned the issue, referred to marriage being between one man and one woman at an address to a Christian university last weekend, and was immediately described on CNN and elsewhere as making marriage a political issue. Mind you, Mitt doesn’t have any superheroes in his camp, so this sort of hilariously one-sided and dishonest approach is rather inevitable.

The Obama-loving media also managed to find some story about Romney playing a prank on a classmate when he was a teenager, and maybe even — good God, can it be true? — using the word “gay” in a less than positive context. In the universe of liberal authoritarianism, I suppose this disqualifies someone from ever holding public office, but to me it means someone acted like a kid when he was a kid. Then he grew up, and realized that such innocuous but dumb behaviour was not appropriate.

Unlike Obama, who thinks bullying churches and cutting away at religious freedom when it comes to health care is entirely OK. The difference then is Romney grew up and has put away childish things, but Obama is still playing with them.

Newsweek hits bottom of ditch, keeps digging.

I detect a child-like giddiness in the editorial room at the left-wing’s so-called news magazine Newsweek, and from their editor’s big office. Wait. They do still have grown-up editors over there, right? I’m not real sure.

Newsweek cover - May 2012 - Obama supports gay marriageAnyway I’m thinking the editorial discussion about this week’s cover, or at least the out loud thinking, went something like this: Hey groovers, Obama came out in favor of gay marriage. So, yay. We live for these moments. Not because we give a crap about gay marriage other than the fact the we’re ideologically “for it” on account of the fact that it seems to still be among the latest liberal-leftist things to glom onto, and it seems like the young cool cats still dig it, and because it’s another fantastic distraction away from Obama’s almost complete failures as president, but because this choice we’re making for our latest cover will just drive those conservatives a**holes and the “Christian right” simply mad. They will openly exhibit more of their hilarious moral outrage, and we liberals and progressives on the left will all have a great big laugh at their expense. (Hopefully nobody will notice how un-”inclusive” we all are, am I right?!) And all the other club members in the liberal media will hail us as heroes  –  not because we’re prepared to sacrifice the journalistic standards of Newsweek and journalism generally even more than we already have, but because ultimately, our brave choice will help the progressive cause, and in the process, Obama will come out looking like a saint to us liberals and progressives (we’ll craft is such that is does, with that Godly halo thing that all the idiots fall for!), and it may help him win back the rest of our voting block. And also, all the other idiots in the media will plaster our cover all over the place and raise our May newsstand sales for us!

And then after all that “thinking,” and “journalistic integrity,” they take a two-hour organic lunch break followed by a yoga break.

And each time they do one of these opinionated, overtly side-taking, troll-like covers (remember “WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW”?), I know that Newsweek has failed again. They make the wrong editorial and marketing choice, it backfires (or will backfire) on them at least over the long term, it makes all the liberal media look all the more stupid, partisan, divisive, in some cases petty, and as some of us would see it, literally drunk or high on crack while at work. Simply not taking their journalistic jobs seriously. Behaving like idiot children of idiotic, careless, rich liberal parents.

That’s mostly what I get out of their covers.  Not the desired effect, huh Newsweek? But then we are all suckas now, aren’t we?

And the actual effect is that the magazine, among others like it which are already in the ditch, sinks deeper into it as a result of their constant digging.

Newsweek asked 'why are Obama's critics so dumb?' On its cover. I ask: Who's dumb now?In the latest Newsweek cover story, Andrew Sullivan, whose previous Newsweek cover story asked: “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” inserts himself into the news story and writes about his own visceral emotions as much as the actual news story about Obama’s decision. He was apparently so darn struck by the Obama’s big announcement, that he had to write about how he cried and cried. Because that’s hard news that we all need.

“…when I watched the interview [on ABC during which Obama made his announcement], the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity—and the humanity of all gay Americans—was, unexpectedly, a watershed…”

– Andrew Sullivan in Newsweek

Oh dear. That is some pretty strong emotions for such a news story. Tears “flooding down” … “utterly unprepared” … “psychologically transformative” … “affirm my humanity” … “a watershed….”.  All this while watching Obama on TV stutter through another fawning liberal media interview, saying he’s now suddenly “for” gay marriage? (And only to be decided at the state level, not Obama’s level, so like how awesomely courageous of the president, huh?!).

But then he let the tears roll again. This time for the cameras. This time on the far-left’s very own MSNBC’s Chris “I fee a chill up my leg when Obama speaks” Matthews’ show, which is aptly described as an Obama love-in and a conservative hate-on, so imagine my shock when they booked him as a guest.

Andrew Sullivan and his husband on MSNBC's Hard Ball with Chris Matthews.

Screen-grab of Andrew Sullivan and his husband, from MSNBC's Hard Ball with Chris Matthews.

And this from a guy who gives out his hyper-sarcastic annual “awards” for such things as the “Poseur Alert,” which is supposedly awarded for writings that stand out for their pretension, vanity and what Sullivan thinks is really bad writing designed to look like profundity. Not that he sees the hypocrisy, but awards for writing much like his own writing often is. See above. Oh “the humanity.”

But let’s wipe off our tears, shall we? Obama’s miraculously-timed, and oh-so “evolved” switch-up in…wait… his very core principles of life? Yup!  –  is actually little more than a wily, calculated political move, perhaps pushed into the public eye a little sooner than his own campaign team would have liked, by a bumbling, near-idiot of a Vice President, Joe Biden. But even Sullivan admits this “evolve” will help the campaign cash bundlers get more Obama-cash. So that’s not just a coinkidink. Still, he cried.

(Notice that whenever a liberal totally changes position on something to a more liberal position it’s called “evolved,” but when a conservative changes position it’s called a “flip-flop”? Just wondering. Because I think America does notice.  But nice try, liberal media!)

Obama’s possible re-election might prove to be a little bit more than merely personally “psychologically transformative” for America and even the world. It might advance Obama’s stated mission to “fundamentally transform America.” And that’s watershed stuff.

.

Cross-posted at ProudToBeCanadian.ca

.

 

Cuomo Phobia

Dear Governor Cuomo:

I am writing to express my deep disappointment with your recent decision to push for an expansion of the definition of marriage – one that allows for marriage between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Most of your recent critics are writing because they think your crusade on this issue has gone too far. I’m writing because I don’t think it goes far enough. In fact, I think your approach to this issue reflects a fundamental narrow-mindedness that is almost as distasteful as your Pharisaic moral posturing and your constant media grandstanding.Before I continue, let me introduce myself. I was born in Mississippi in the 1960s. I am a former atheist and Democrat and who voted for Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton. I also have a younger sister named Jennifer who is single and bisexual. In other words, I have had some exposure to other ideas, cultures, and lifestyles. I’m no bigot. In fact, I was the first kid on my block to own a Flip Wilson record. That should count for something.

But let me get back to my original purpose for writing. In your recent campaign to allow same-sex marriage in New York you presented yourself as one who supports “marriage equality.” But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you favor a narrow definition of marriage that is based on your own irrational fears and prejudices. And it is time to show real moral leadership by embracing moral relativism fully, not half-heartedly as you have done so far.

Governor Cuomo, I want to get married. And I want to move my new wife to New York City so we can pursue our respective careers in education and art (she is a painter). But, unless your state becomes more welcoming and affirming, we won’t be able to do that because the woman I want to marry is my younger sister Jennifer.

It may shock you to hear from someone who openly advocates incest. But that is the way people used to react to homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality, the remedy for such a puritanical reaction has not been silence. It has been openness. Just as we talked about homosexuality constantly – beginning in the early 90s – we must now do the same with incest. There simply is no other way to make our lifestyle seem normal.

Under my plan tolerance of incest must begin in the public schools. We must then extend our efforts to the national media. In fact, I envision a day when every Hollywood sitcom will have at least one incestuous couple. But, at some point, we must take the fight into the political arena. And that is why I am writing you today.

When people attack you for your recent success in legalizing same sex marriage they are likely to use scare tactics. They are likely to say that you have opened the door for incestuous and polygamous marriages. I want you to resist the temptation to dismiss their remarks as homophobic. To do so would actually reinforce phobias against incest and polygamy. So, instead, please show some courage and admit that the same logic that allows for same sex marriage also allows for incestuous and polygamous marriage.

Governor Cuomo, once you have committed to the idea of marriage equality you have to see it through. And that means you should do more than simply tolerate my decision to marry my sister Jennifer. You should affirm it with the full force of the law.

Some have asked me whether I am concerned at all about the implications of marrying Jennifer. Specifically, they worry that once married to me she will try to bring a third party – one of her girlfriends – into the marriage. But I am okay with a three party marriage. I’m committed to marriage equality even if it means sharing a lover with my younger sister. Sharing is an integral part of the progressive vision.

In conclusion, Governor Cuomo, I think you have been acting like a real hypocrite. You speak of equality but, in your heart, you consider some animals to be more equal than others. And that is offensive to those of us who crave public affirmation compelled by the force of law.

Note to Readers: The author of this satire doesn’t have a sister. Nor does he own pets. But he does own a copy of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift.