where does the insult end?

white liberal gay activists say "gays should get married because interracial marriages are ok i.e. if you let minorities intermix then why not let men intermix. " needless to say that's insulting and racist (see my previous posts) I ask myself when will such insult end? It's forseeable that in 5 years when white liberals want to have underage marriages (60 yr guy marries a 5 yr boy) then they will again use minorities to justify their festish. In another 5 yrs when they want to legalize beastiality marriage they'll again say "gee if you let blacks , hispanics , and asians intermix, then why not let humans and dogs intermix?".....when will they stop insulting us? when will they stop using minorities and civil rights movement as their tools to justify their festish?

what would malcomX and martin Luther King say

Gays are MOSTLY white liberals. That's a fact. They compare themselves to blacks. i.e. gay movement = civil rights movements, gay marriages = interracial marriages, etc. In short, they say " if blacks get to do this then we get to do this also"

I often wonder if Malcom X and Dr. King were alive and see and hear this kind of propaganda, what would they say? ......I strongly believe that both of them will see this as another example of insensitive and degrading racial attack against blacks. I only hope the civil rights leaders today won't be so complacent and cowardly that they will speak up against such racist and ignorant comparison.

Minorities are NOT white liberal's political slaves

Often times white liberals try to portrait themselves as minorities' friends and advocates. Until recently I believed them. But after a couple of incidents and some deep thinking I have come to the realization that while some of them are really our friends but many (approaching most) of them actually think of us as their political slaves who beg for their friendship, sympathy, welfare money, and affirmative action. And in return we "voluntarily" became their political peons and do any of their whimsical biddings.

I was once on a march to show support for traditional marriage in San Francisco (the epicenter of liberals and gay movement). While I was standing on the street many cars passed by slowly since the street is a very congested road. Many of them honked to show support and many of them gave me thumbs down, yell at me, and even flashed middle fingers. So that's fine on the surface, some ppl can get agitated over difference in opinions. Then afterward I realized that people who honked to show support are racially mixed (blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, etc.) and people who gave me thumbs down are also racially mixed. However ALL of the people who yelled at me angrily and showed me middle fingers were WHITE (about 15 of them)....yes ALL of them are white liberals. Why is that? Wouldn't you suppose ppl who gave me middle fingers should be also be racially mixed just like ppl who supported me or ppl who gave me thumbs down? So I reached the epiphany that white liberals get EXTRA angry because they have taken for granted that minorities are their political servants and slaves. To them we are like little puppies rolling on the ground to gain master's favor and get some table scrap in the form of affirmative action or welfare money. The master loves the little puppies since they do what he wants them to do. But when the puppies decide to not roll around and fetch sticks, then the master gets extra angry and kicks them. That explains perfectly why white liberals in that incident will get extra mad to use obscene gestures to show their disgust of our rebellion.

The message to white liberal is that the age of white liberal domination is OVER. We minorities, whether white, black, asian, or hispanics are NO longer your puppets or slaves (physically or politically). Don't expect us to vote however you want us to vote. In the case the gay rights, we will review our own conscience, culture, and religion and make decision accordingly instead of blindly succumb to your sexual fetish. White liberal always make the statement that "...if blacks get to marry whites, then men and men can get married too..." This shows clearly that they really think of us like trash in their mind that if we can get married interracially then anything goes. The only reason they smile at us is because we give them votes. Just ask yourself, if one day minorities vote for republicans instead, will white liberals still treat us the same way? African Americans in California voted overwhelmingly for prop 8 and just do a search on google and you will see tons of hate and racist blogs targeting african americans all because of that. Get the picture?

Some whites also asked me how I can explain that some "educated and affluent" minorities are on the side of gay movements. After all , still overall 30% of minorities in California voted for gays. Just watch this video and you'll the answer. I am a field negro too. And we minorities are FREE from the white liberal shackles!

king's new dress story

I think one of the major reason why gay movement is gaining momentum was because gay activists realized and successfully capitalized on the stupidity of the liberal Americans population by putting out this perception that if you are smart and open minded then of course you should see why gay movement is legitimate. And being liberals, they all wanted to look smart and open minded at ALL COST. So in order to show off their smartness and openness liberals embraced homosexuality without reservation. This reminds me of the king's new dress story where con arts claim that they are weaving a suit for the king that only smart people will be able to see. so to avoid being labeled stupid the king's servants all made up stories about them being able to see the new suit and how it was the most beautiful suit ever. This went on and on until the king was in a parade naked thinking he was really wearing the beautiful suit. And everyone cheered as if he was really wearing something in order to show that they are also smart. Until an innocent boy who is not full of shit told the truth that the king was actually naked. I think this deceitful campaign ran by gays is a much bigger hoax than king's new dress and it will take more than 1 person to speak up to reveal the truth.

Gay Marriages V.S. Abortion

Here is a startling and troubling observation.

Liberals and gay activists say gays are human beings and they are equal human beings, and they deserve ALL rights including the right of marriage.

The same group of people (liberals and gay activists) then turn around to say hey unborn babies are NOT human beings and they do not have ANY rights including the right to survive.

Isn't that hypocrisy to the extreme? On one hand they are criticizing half of American people about taking their rights away, and at the same time they are promoting taking the rights from unborn babies to just live. They say the words "F*gg*t" dehumanize homosexuals and is hateful and I agree, but then they turn around and call unborn babies "fetus" in order to dehumanize them to facilitate their abortion agenda i.e. abortion will be banned if everyone start to call fetus "unborn babies". They also asked sarcastically to Americans that "what right do you have to strip away my right to marriage?" but then I ask them "what right do you have to strip unborn babies' right of survival?" Gays say " I am genetically gay thru no fault of mine and why should I be a second class citizen?" ..good argument... then I ask " babies are conceived thru no fault of theirs and why should they be treated not even as a second class citizen and get killed at will?" Gays asked is it the right of majority to strip the minority of equal rights? Then I ask why are you liberals and gays support abortion that allow mothers to kill babies? Isn't genecide 1000 times more hateful than not giving equal marriage rights?

Some people attempted to explain such double standard by invoking the buzz words "a woman's right to her body". Well, is it really a woman's right to kill her baby? Can a mother exercise the right of her body by going to nigh clubs and not come home for days leaving her child at home starving to death? This is what we call child endangerment, abandonment, and child abuse. Can the woman tell the judge "hey it's my body and I can decide if I don't come home to care/feed my baby" well the argument is not going to fly because the judge will say your exercise of your right to your body has endangered your baby and plus you are a mother and your responsibility of taking care of your child supersedes your urge to go partying". If you don't want to get a baby then do not get pregnant. It's a woman's right to tell the guy to use condoms. it's a woman's right to her body to say "unless you put condoms on I won't have sex w/ you." Once you are pregnant, you have a living human being under your care and killing it through "exercising the right to your body" is murdering your child. The fundamental argument by abortion activists is that baby is not a human being and is only a piece of tissue therefore killing that "tissue" is ok. How would you feel if people say gays are not human beings and it's the right of anyone to discriminate them or even kill them? How would you feel?

Some people say "well if the baby is in uterus then it's ok to kill him/her but once it's out then it's not ok to kill" well, why does it matter if it's in uterus or not? it's a living human being. How would you feel if people say "hey, if a human being is heteralsexual it's not ok to kill him/her but if that same human being is a homo then it's ok to kill him/her" wouldn't you say the same thing that I say that "why does sexuality matter"? Isn't a human being a human being regardless of heteral or homo just like a human being is a human being regardless of inside or outside of uterus? You see, every argument gays use to support their cause and fight "discrimination" can be used to support prolife movement and fight abortion. But yet the same group of people (liberals) who support gay movement are against prolife movements. How double standard!!

If martin luther kings civil rights movement only included blacks and stated that only blacks are worthy miniority and deserves equality and rest of the minority (aisnas, hispanics, native americans, etc.) are not human beings. Do you think there will any legitimacy in such movement? Do you think civil rights movement will be as successful as today? The answer is NO. Because no one will join it because they find it double standard and insincere. The same holds for gay movement. Gay activists promotes "human rights" and equality but at the same time dehumanizing unborn babies and taking all rights including the right to survive from babies. That's why most of americans see gay movement as insincere and double standard.

Now is abortion ok for cases of incest and rape? that is in gray line and requires more thinking and debate. But I want to point out that overwhelming percentage of abortions performed today are not related to incest or rape or even life threatening condition to mothers. So please don't let these minority cases distract the main issue. I for one supports abortion IF the preganacy is threatening mother's life. To me a life threatening preganacy is like an innocent child holding a loaded pistol aiming at the mom's head. Now the child doesn't mean harm but is just about to pull the trigger. As a police man, you have no choice but to shoot the kid to protect the mom. But again, this is a minority cases and should not be used as an excuse to convolute the main issue.


I am interested in hearing from gays or liberals readers how you can on one hand ask for human rights and full equality but at the same time promotion genecide and label unborn babies as not human beings? who are you to say they are not human beings? Remember 300 years ago, white racists said black, asians, and other minories are not human beings the same way liberals and gays say today that unborn babies are not human beings. Remember unborn babies are as human as gays. If you help to contribute to their death thru abortion then why are you surprised that you are treated the way you are today?

To me gay movement propoganda is like listening to KKK members whining about how they are discrimated. Wouldn't normal listeners say "what the heck are you talking about...... well, stop murdering and committing hate crimes before you complain about being 'discriminated'...so double standard."

Letter from a Reader

Here is some excerpts from a letter from a reader who also faced persecution from gay activists.

....what is the choice when a human being like me is faced w/ intimidation from homosexual bigots? One must stand up and continue the fight for freedom of speech and democracy even when threatened by physical violence by gay activists... we must let American people hear our side of the story and let Americans learn the disgraceful tactics employed by gay activists....we should contact the media and use grassroots to let people know that we should not be afraid of hate and threats from gay movements and stand up and be able to speak our minds...... Americans should not be forced to recognize something they don't fundamentally believe based on people's cultural, moral, social, and religious background. Gays use black lists to target Americans whether day-to-day citizens or politicians who dare to oppose their agenda. How can one call himself progressive and open minded if they put people of different opinions on a blacklist? Isn't it the essence of democracy to allow difference of opinions and isn't the meaning of open mindedness to respect and accept of others who disagree with one's opinion? This type of balcklist should not exist in US. This vehicle of hate only exist in oppressive regimes such as cuba and north korea. It's so shameful to see gay activists using the same tactics used by totalitarin regimes.....

"Gay genes"

After seeing the success of civil rights movement championed by martin Luther king and Malcolm X gay activists tried to mimic it by declaring gay being an identity just like race. They claim that they are under unchangeable "gay genes" that propelled them towards homosexuality.

That claim is illogical. Why would evolution ever create such gene? There have been various attempts to explain the gay gene. One of the more prominent theory is that in cavemen time when time is bad the less dominant males will turn gay in order to stop reproduction so that his relatives (nephews, nieces) can have better chance of survival and at least those males can pass on their genes partially. The obvious question is if the time is bad and additional reproduction is not wise then why don't those male not reproduce i.e. because abstinent from sex? Most of the mammals only mate during a certain season so there is already a gene in mammals to turn off sexual urge and activities for an extended period of time. In many cases where external environment becomes too harsh, many mammal would skip a reproduction year/cycle. In order words the theory gays offer does not logically support gay genes. And their scenario mentioned above can only lead to periods of temporary abstinence rather than turning full out gay permanently.

And in animal world, gays claim, that you can find homosexual behaviors. That's true. However they always and intentionally did not mention the 2nd part which is those behaviors are temporary and are results of confusion, lack of experience to pin point a female, lack of dominance to fight and get a female, or a complete lack of female in a breeding population. There has NEVER been observed and proved of any instance where a male mammal knowing that he has full access to a mating female but deliberately choose a male to practice homosexual actives because it prefers male. NEVER has there been such observation. Once a mating female is introduced the male mammals in all such homosexual observations turned heterosexual. There has NEVER been a documented case of permanent homosexuality either. In other words homosexuality in mammal world in the wild is basically males can get females to have sex and they had to find some replacement such as trees or other males to hump. This is similar to having a un-neutered dog try to hump every guests that come to your house and also the sofa pillow. We've all seen and heard about things like this. Such behavior obviously does not mean bestiality is OK. If there is truly a gay gene then we should see this very evidently in primates where we should be able to scientifically observe that a significant percentage of primates (10-20%) are permanent and fully homosexual (i.e. intentionally reject a mating female in preference for a male instead) . Now since primates don't have any moral doctrine or church teaching so if this gay gene is present then it will show up in every primate groups i.e. everywhere you look. But as you all know there has NEVER been any documented mass OR permanent homosexuality in primates. So this means the gene is NOT present in primates as gays claim. Almost all human genes can be found in mammals so the lack of permanent gay genes in mammal is a good indication of no such gay gene in human.

third, it is politically incorrect and dangerous for anyone to fund researches that state gay genes do not exist. If I were to apply for a government grant to prove that gay is not genetic but rather a behavioral issue. Do you think I can get the grant? whoever giving the grant will be afraid of being called bigot, homophobic, hateful, use tax payer's money to fund intolerance, etc. that he will NEVER give me grant. In other words, the reason why you only see research paper that implies that there is a gay gene is because the research that show otherwise could never get any funding. And one must review carefully of those gay gene research to see the political bias of the researchers (for example, if the researcher is a big time liberal or even a gay), who's funding the research (don't tell me it's the GLBT organization), the type of research method (if their survey is done in san francisco, then of course 20% of male according to their "research" is gay), etc. Do NOT take any research paper on face value. Sadly scientific research now a days are being heavily influenced by political pressure. And also if a professor writes a research that states there is no gay gene, aside from lack of funding, he will get protested against and labeled as hate and bigot and get kicked out from his university. So there is alot of intimidation and that's why few dares to object or even provide research to prove that there is no gay gene.

You know in the early centuries when white people claim they have a superior traits or the white race is of superior breed. There were "scientific" research to show such crap. Anyone who object would be mocked, and precluded from the upper society. But now we know there is no such superior race/breed/traits. Same thing today, gays state there is a gay gene. Anyone who object will get mocked, protested against and "destroyed" politically and career-wise. But I bet in 10 years once the people are less eager to be politically correct then true science will show that there is no gay genes.

And so some may ask then "what about those studies that show there is correlation between some genes and being gay". Firstable assuming those studies are valid (see my point above about political driven or unscientific studies) we have to ask are those gene gay genes or personality genes that put individuals in situations where they are more likely to be gay. Let me explain. If I come up with a study stating that I found a CEO gene that if you have this gene then you are made to be a CEO and you are destined to be a CEO from the moment you are conceived. Anyone with common sense will know there is NO CEO genes. Rather the genes I isolated are most likely to be personality genes such as genes that make you stubborn/persistent (important quality to be successful), or genes for being very eloquent in talking (ability to bullshit your way up), or genes that make you like to delegate work to others (manager type). Having those genes PLUS the right environment and opportunities could significantly increase your chance of becoming a CEO but by no means it's a irreversible CEO gene that destine you to be a CEO. Same thing with a "pilot" gene. Well, there is no pilot gene but there are genes that make you much less prone to motion sickness, genes that suppresses fear for height, etc. that those genes, again, when combined with proper environment can increase your chance of being interested and becoming a pilot. So same thing I believe holds true with the "gay" gene and those studies that show correlations between being gay and have certain genes. For example, those genes they found could very likely be genes that makes a person very sensitive to rejection. So this group of guys who were rejected harshly by girls developed this fear and distaste for girls. But this by no means make them gays. But unfortunately due to lack of family support, common sense, or religious support, etc. some of them choose to approach males instead. That's why those scientists observed higher likelihood of being gay in those people , not because of an irreversible gay gene but rather a personality gene that combined with right situation (rejected by girls harshly, dysfunctional family, no friends, no religion, no community, hang out with certain group of people, etc.) can increase your chance turning into homosexuality. The other possibility is for that gene to be a personality gene of trying to be unique or trying to be someone else. You see many white boys trying to act black by dress up and talk and walk and act like African Americans all because they want to be "cool" like them but they actually look ridiculous. Well, people with this gene may also develop admiration for gays being so fashionable, so unique and different, so educated , and so rich that they intentionally or unintentionally tried to mimic them or even join them. Again, this is not a gay gene but a personality gene when combined with other personality traits and situations may significantly increase your change of going the wrong way. So you see those studies do NOT conclusively show that there is a gay gene but rather they show (if those studies are valid) that there care genes when combined with certain situations and opportunities and personalities could expose you to situations that may lead to homosexuality in today's society. If we live in 100 yrs ago these genes could just as likely to lead you into totally different things such as a monk or communists, who knows. So we must learn not to look at things superficially, but instead we need to take any findings and think beyond the obvious. I blame our public school systems for not teaching our children to think thoroughly or even think at all. That's why we ended up today with all those arrogant liberals who think they are smart but in actuality and in the eyes of people from other countries those liberals think very superficially.

Gay gene or no gay gene is really the minor point. the major point is that human beings have self control. I may have alcoholic genes but it does not excuse me for drinking excessively. I may have a violent gene but that will be no defense in court if I assault someone. I may even have a fat gene but being fat and heavy is still wrong. The point is the entire argument of gay gene is a moot and illogical approach to justify gay behaviors. Some liberal readers will say at this point that people all have different moral standards. True. That's why gays should not and cannot make a law to legalize gay marriage to force everyone who comply in their moral standards and their moral doctrine. You see? The message is: hey gay actistists, leave us americans alone!