The Terrorist Gays
by Big Dog on Aug 16, 2012 at 16:22 Political
Janet Napolitano of Homeland Security is quick to label people who are affiliated with the TEA Party or right wing as terrorists even though none of these people have been shown to cause violence against government or any group of people. TEA Party rallies have been peaceful and the places where they gather are always left in better shape than when they arrived.
The violence committed has been committed by the left. The recent violence has been caused by people with leftist beliefs.
Despite this, the Democrat media contorts itself to make some connection to the right. They will falsely claim that a right winger is the cause or blame Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh for the violence when the truth is that left wing nut jobs cause the problems. The left loves to try and make right wingers out to be terrorists (the DHS calls them potential terrorists).
The latest terror attack was against a conservative group by a radical gay activist who has taken the violence of the gay movement to a new level. The gays have been physically violent and verbally abusive when they do not get their way. They have been known to attack little old ladies just because those ladies disagree with the gay agenda.
Now, gay activist and terrorist Floyd Corkins II of Virginia is the latest left wing nut job to commit violence and this time the violence was against a conservative group. Corkins walked into the Family Research Council and opened fire after denouncing their policies. He shot a guard who was able to subdue him despite his injuries.
The media that is quick to label anyone as a right wing terrorist when the target is a left wing entity has remained relatively silent about this shooting. Perhaps this is because the media is happy about it. The left wing groups have labeled FRC as a hate group so it only stands to reason that those who attached the label are responsible for the violence.
After any other shooting involving a left wing victim the media goes out of its way to blame Palin, Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity and any other right wing public figure. It is their “hate speech” that incited the violence, they say.
If that is the case then it stands to reason that the various liberal entities that have labeled the FRC as a hate group are responsible for the FRC shooting.
Though I doubt you will hear anyone in the liberal media jump to make that claim. Hell, I doubt they will ever make that claim. If anything the media will claim that the gunman was pushed to it by the right.
When a nut uses a gun to cause harm the liberal left is always ready to ban guns and blame the right (even though most of the violence is caused by the left) so I want to know if the FRC shooting shows we need to ban gays…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: conservative, dhs, gay activist, liberal violence, media, terrorist
That last question is an interesting one. WWFFOD (What Would Flip Flop Obama Do?)
I personally do not care what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms but this whole GAY AGENDA thing is really getting on my nerves. Why does the entire country have to bow down and capitulate to a relatively small (although flamingly loud) group of its citizens? As far as I’m concerned they have equal rights and do not deserve any special treatment because of their sexual preference. But this group is neck and neck with illegals in trying to push our country around to get their way.
This is outrageous that someone would do this over an organization believing in the traditional and fundamental values that our country was founded on. If a person who was really against homosexuals went into a gay bar or one of “their” organizational headquarters and opened fire the whole entire world would be screaming hate crime and death penalty before the smoke cleared.
And I said this long ago and I am seeing it come around now slowly but surely. We know that homosexuality is not a completely genetic trait. Therefore it is a preference and not an orientation. We are going to see other sexual “preferences” start to demand “rights” for their own particular group and things are going to slip down that slope real fast. This is going to include rights to marry – and it is going to get ugly. How can you deny one if you have sanctioned another? Pedophilia is a sexual preference so they are going to want to marry ’em young. So is beastuality (although I believe that is technically considered a fetish – one could make the argument for a preference). So next, I’ll be able to marry my dog. Or a sheep or whatever. When are we going to say enough and start barking back at the loud mouths who are screaming hate and ignorance???
It is a sorry state of affairs when a minority can dictate to the majority what to do, how to act, or what to think.
Personally, I find homosexuality rather funny, in a sad, pathetic way- they cant justify marriage on the grounds of procreation, although they can kill themselves trying- it is just so futile in a lifestyle sense.
I wonder- do they ever feel incomplete, having to adopt a baby that was “naturally” made by “breeders”?