In my post below, "The NRA, the Lairds of Fairfax and the 'Homintern': Wayne and Chris out of the closet? A tidbit of information that could explain much" I apparently offended a number of people who are worried that even mentioning the subject of someone's sexual orientation can be used to discredit the Three Percent and me, not necessarily in that order.
Let me make plain something I did not say directly but hinted at. IF the report about LaPierre and Cox is true, the command decisions made by them on behalf of NRA membership may not only be influenced by the fact that they are wanting to avoid confronting fellow homosexuals, but more likely by the blackmail potential of living in the closet and having a natural fear of being outed.
In the 90s there were rumors that the NRA leadership (again, LaPierre and Cox) were much more amenable to Clinton administration "reasonable regulations" after the IRS took up residence at NRA headquarters during some rough audits. After considerable scrutiny, the IRS just quietly folded its tent and walked away one day without pursuing the matter. It is certain that at the same time LaPierre walked back quickly from his "jack booted thug" period remarks and became the federal gun cop law enforcement officer's best friend. They went from "keep the government thugs away from our doorsteps" to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals (and we don't particularly care how you define that)." They lost any taste for agency oversight and routinely refused to help victims of ATF abuse legally or financially.
Recall, at about the same time the Clintonistas tamed Newt Gingrich, who had exposed himself to blackmail by taking a mistress.
So why do you think that the NRA "Lairds of Fairfax" learned how to love the Clintonista ATF?
THAT is the question that needs answered.
One thing which cannot be argued, and compelling enough to keep me (a former Marine and lifelong shooter) from being an NRA member is Larry Craig being on the board of directors.
It is beyond comprehension why a sitting US senator, cruising for illicit homosexual sex in public bathrooms would be on the board of directors for anything not connected to the democrat party.
Craig is a disgusting, amoral, hypocritical POS.
It speaks volumes to the morals and standards of what used to be a premier American gun right's organization.
So, are LaPierre and Cox homosexuals? I guess until Brietbart outs them, we won't know.
But we DO know what sort of behaviour is acceptable for their executives.
I'll start with the conclusion: don't hint when you write these sorts of things. Say it plainly. Also, you might want to reformat a posting like this. Your point was about blackmail, yet that was buried.
Now, onto my fellow Threepers: y'all need to take a good hard look in the mirror, and then take a good hard look at the reality around you. You don't like homos. I got it. So what? The Constitution doesn't mention them, so what's the point? The ACLU with the collusion of the court system has been driving Christianity out of the public arena for more than half a century, and any argument against the *gay community* has a religious basis, and is therefore a non-starter, so give it up already.
If some of us aren't free, then none of us are. Railing against the lefties (and their policies) whilst endorsing your own set of infringments isn't helping. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Railing against gays and pot, to name just two issues, hurts us more than it helps us. The real enemy are our so-called "betters" who constantly presume to tell us how to live our lives. Enabling them in any way, shape or form merely encourages them to act against us when they think they can.
If the blackmail thing is really what's going on, then our best response is to make it a non-issue. A threat to expose someone evaporates when the blackmailer is told "so what?"
Lastly to all of you who use Christianity to justify your prejudices: who do you really worship? If you revere Leviticus or Paul of Tarsus, then fine; carry on. However, if you worship the Christ Jesus, Son of God, you need to look a bit more closely at your New Testament. Jesus never said anything about the homos and claiming otherwise reeks of arrogance and presumtion.
I, too, have had friends whom I later found to be homosexual, but it did not alter our friendship; they did not flaunt their tastes by screaming, Look at ME! I'm gay!, any more than I tout my heterosexuality. The problem that I see from the comments is that being homosexual seems to have taken on the same "Don't DARE question me, you homophobe!" attitude as being black and saying, "Don't DARE point out my theft / adultery/drug use, you racist!!"
In other words, we should, as Dr. King said, look not at the color of a man's skin but the character within... and that sword cuts two ways. A man should not live in an evil or corrupt manner then hide behind his skin color, his sexual practices or his family name, a la Kennedy, and then villify those who reveal the ugly truth.
Unfortunately the NRA board hasn't the stones to fire LaPierre and crew. How many board members have direct or less than arms length business with the organization?
I was just thinking about those boxes and boxes of missing FBI dossiers the Clintons claimed to have no knowledge of, and then they suddenly reappeared in Hillary's office one day.
And now she's the freaking Secretary of State. Even after Whitewatergate, Fostergate, Cattlegaten and Filegate.
Leverage. Politicians understand it above all else.
Must be some mindbending stuff in those surveillance files.
I too have several homosexual relatives and friends, both male and female. I also have several relatives and friends, male and female, who are democrats, republicans, masons, methodists, members of other races and ethnic backgrounds, even folks who are not comfortable with guns. The list goes on. For some reason, guess it was just the way I was raised, I’m not very concerned as to another person’s sexual, religious, political, or other lifestyle proclivities as long as that person doesn’t rub those preferences in my face and attempt to convert me or mine to those particular life choices. I figure my freedoms end at the other person’s nose as do his at my nose. I have no problem discussing differences with others as long as they are able do so in at least a semi- reasonable, civilized manner and understand that we may differ without declaring war.
Some of the wildest, most entertaining arguments I’ve ever had the pleasure to engage in have been with some of my best friends.
Post a Comment