Jeffrey Tucker says what I was thinking.

It's a dated article, 2001, but even 15 years ago, the LGBT were still playing the same cards as they are today.

Tucker writes about the supposed modern day victimhood status that the LGBT dearly and desperately want to keep alive and believe -

David Tuller writing for Salon Magazine, the left-liberal bellweather, reports that "Virtually every gay person I know is distraught at the rise of the Bush-Cheney presidency and the passing of the gay-friendly Clinton-Gore administration." Leave aside whether this guy personally knows anyone who isn't distraught at the Bush presidency, and suppose that he is right.

Why would gays be upset at Bush? Is the new administration plotting some grand crackdown that would jail people for homosexual acts? Is it planning to send out the BATF to gay clubs to crack skulls? Is it preparing tanks to mow down gay churches or burn them to the ground? Is it agitating for a law that would prevent or otherwise punish private businesses and associations from hiring gays?

Of course not. In fact, Bush went out of his way during the campaign not to offend the gays. He uttered no statements that could be pigeon-holed into the anti-gay category. However, it is instructive to see precisely what Tuller considers to be anti-gay political positions: 1) opposing the extension of hate-crime law to covering gays, 2) cutting back funding for AIDS research, 3) permitting public schools to bar pro-gay seminars for students in the guise of AIDS education, and 4) opposing the extension of "civil rights" to gays at the federal level.

It's an excellent read. Unfortunately, Tucker has "broadened" his views on legal rights since the time of this article and now supports civil unions. As one anarchist puts it, referring to Tucker's original stance on same-sex civil unions, "I may not agree with his stance on civil unions, as I support them as a halfway measure between state-sanctioned marriage and a stateless society."

You see, with anarchists is that they appeal to a moral order but then they play the whole "stateless society" bullshit card. And this anarchist is a Christian. 

"We’re not banning gay marriage."

As said by one internet poster.

What do I say? "Yes, we're not. But we should."

F*ck the Police? F*ck the Courts and ACLU!

The Supreme Court recently blocked the states of Wisconsin and Texas' bill to put in place voter identification come this November -- you just need to show a valid ID in order to vote (driver's license, state ID)  -- but that's controversial to the civil rights lawyers (like I didn't see this coming) that opposed it. 

According to the L.A. Times

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal from civil rights lawyers, who argued it was too late to put the rule into effect this year.

Lawyers for the ACLU noted that the state had already sent out thousands of absentee ballots without mentioning the need for voters to return a copy of their photo identification.

It would be “chaos,” they said, for Wisconsin to have to decide whether to count such ballots now because voters had failed to comply with the new law.

I'll psychoanalyze the emergency: "We can't enforce these standards on the illegal immigrants in the States. If that happens then it greatly weakens the chances of any (D) winning the election! We need the votes! Plus, it's their right to vote -- it's racism to make people (of color) to show a valid ID. It's totally non-progressive." The desperation smells like burning rubber. Oh the stench ... 

It just can't be anymore obvious why the ACLU "civil rights" lawyers did what they did. Their motivations and thoughts are bare.

Here are some of the things, in my city, where you need to show a valid ID:

• discounted opera tickets for students; valid student ID must be present when presenting ticket for entrance
• bars (21 yrs of age)
• entering certain building accessible only to its employees; guests need passes
• purchasing any student discounts for public transportation (need valid ID and working student e-mail address)
• teacher discounts at movies
• using a credit card (sometimes the cashier asks)
• paying by check 

But, for someone idiotic reason, ACLU and other like-minded "brights" think that enforcing a bill into law stating one must show proof of identification when voting wasn't all that important, that they left it off when sending out the ballets. Those law degrees are proving to be a waste when it comes to anything remotely cerebral; I wonder what type of logic courses they took in their college years, if any.