I told you yesterday about CNN anchor Don Lemon admitting over the weekend that he was gay. He’s still continuing his victory lap on CNN as his co-workers bask in the glow of diversity and shower him with praise and “support.” As if Don Lemon really expected to get anything but “support.” The liberal media can’t get enough of this sh*t. Being gay is about the biggest career booster someone in the media can have. Being friends with a gay guy means you embrace “diversity” which puts you at the top of all the cocktail party lists. And actually being gay is even better because you can claim minority status and receive special treatment. Again, you go right to the top of the cocktail party lists.

Some people mistake my snarky posts about this subject as being anti-gay. In truth, I’m not anti-gay or pro-gay — I just don’t care. Why do we need to know Don Lemon’s sexual orientation? But the real issue is how contrived the whole “coming out” process is in the media. It’s just silly. Don Lemon claiming he feared being ostracized at work for being gay is absurd. His liberal colleagues will be falling all over themselves to be his friend now.

The only legitimate story out of all this is the way gays are treated in the black community. He’s right when he says a gay black man is about as low as it gets in the black community. But this too is a great example of left wing hypocrisy. The radical gay left loves to target Mormons and Christians for being anti-gay, but they never lay a glove on the black church. You never see a gay protest outside a black church. That’s because blacks won’t put up with that crap. Violence would break out for sure. Gay activists go for the easy targets like Mormon churches because they know the Mormons won’t do anything.

If gays were really serious about being treated fairly they would man up (or butch up) and protest the black churches. But that will never happen.

Frances Fox Piven

The NY Slimes and other liberal media outlets are gonna ride this “violent rhetoric” narrative as far as they possibly can. Accusing Conservatives of inciting violence is just like accusing them of racism, it’s meant to intimidate and silence. Fortunately, it’s not working. But that’s not stopping The Times from trying anyway.

Glenn Beck often mentions radical Marxist professor Frances Fox Piven. She’s a 78-year old dingbat who teaches at City University of New York. The old bag has been trying to cause a violent revolution in this country for decades. Because of the radical student/union protests in Britain and throughout Europe recently, Piven has begun agitating once again. She’s been advising liberal groups to use the radicals in Europe as an example. She wants young people to get out in the streets and get violent.

Because Glenn Beck has pointed this out, The Times says he’s endangering her life. She’s allegedly received death threats.

The hypocrisy of the liberal media knows no bounds. Beck has to have round the clock security because of the hatred directed towards him. Whenever a left wing rag does a hit piece on Beck he gets an elevated number of death threats. Why is the liberal media endangering his life?

When the liberal media blamed the Arizona Massacre on Sarah Palin, she had to hire more security due to an unprecedented level of death threats. Why is the liberal media trying to get her killed? Why is Frances Fox Piven’s life worth more than Beck’s or Palin’s?

Here’s a small sample of the death threats sent to Sarah Palin via Twitter after the media falsely blamed her for Arizona:

When is the media going to stop inciting violence against Conservatives?

Glenn Beck fired back at The NY Times today on the radio:

“The Great One” Mark Levin exposes MSNBC buffoon Ed Schultz for the raging, moronic hypocrite he is. You won’t believe some of the vile crap Eddie has said.

(hat tip The Right Scoop)

If there’s one thing we know about American politics by now it’s this. If you’re going to make racial remarks of any kind make sure you’re a Democrat.

When Democrats are caught making racial comments they simply used a “poor choice of words.” When Republicans make similar comments they’re deemed “racist.”

So it was no surprise to see Democrats immediately forgive and defend Harry Reid for comments he made privately during the last presidential campaign about Barack Obama.

Reid told fellow Democrats privately that he felt Obama would be a good candidate because he’s “light skinned” and had “no Negro dialect” unless he wanted to.

Just imagine for a moment ANY Republican saying something like that in any context to anyone at anytime. Not only would they be forced to resign, but they would have to spend the better part of a year licking Al Sharpton’s boots.

It would be a NY Times front page story. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would fly in on helicopters, break out the bull horns, and call a hasty press conference.

But when you’re a Democrat, nothing like that will happen. You simply say you’re sorry and meant no harm, and everybody goes about their business.

I’m actually in favor of that approach. I think political correctness is out of control in this country. I don’t a public lynching is in order (that’s right Al I said it) every time someone says something slightly controversial.

However, I think everyone should be held to the same standards. If we are going to continue the public lynching route, then it should apply to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Ironically, Democrats get a free pass on racial remarks when it’s their party that has done more damage to communities of color than anything or anyone else.

It’s liberal Democratic policies that have created a climate of never ending poverty, crime, and lack of education in black communities.

You think it’s a coincidence that every single urban ghetto in the United States is run by a liberal? You think it’s by accident that every single city in America that looks like a third world war zone is run by a liberal?

It’s no mistake and it’s no coincidence.

The truth is Democrats don’t really care about black people. They take them for granted as a voting block and have no interest in improving their communities.

Harry Reid has said he has no intention of stepping down in light of his remarks, but I have no problem with that.

I’m glad he’s staying, because it’s going to be that much sweeter watching him go down in flames in the elections later this year. Like the rest of the country, Nevada is sick and tired of Harry Reid.

There’s a lot of phony outrage coming out of democrats and the liberal media over GOP congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst during the president’s speech last night.

Wilson stood up and rightly called Obama a liar when he said illegal aliens won’t be covered under his health plan.

I agree that his outburst was unacceptable and he was right to apologize. He should have waited until the speech was finished, then taken to the airwaves to call him a liar.

President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is wildly spinning the story to the liberal media saying “no president has ever been treated like that” which is of course — absurd.

Democrats treated Bush like shit during multiple State of the Union speeches with loud boos, hisses, and catcalls. So for democrats to be righteously indignant over Wilson’s outburst is laughable.

Here’s what Politico says:

Joe Wilson’s 15 minutes of infamy notwithstanding, Democrats were pretty rough on George W. Bush during a joint sessions a few years back.

Two examples:

In 2004, Democrats delivered a “Chorus Of Boos” during Bush’s Bush’s State Of The Union when he called for renewal of the Patriot Act., according to the Washington Times.

In 2005, Dems howled, hissed and shouted "No!" when Bush pushed for Social Security reform in the SOU:  "Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the coming debate, Democrats broke decorum and booed twice," according to the National Journal.

At the time, CNN’s Bill Schneider remarked,  “It was unusual. I had never heard it at least at that level before. The Democrats clearly were booing, heckling, saying no when the president talked about the crisis in Social Security."

Politico also confirms Wilson’s claim that Obama is a liar when it comes to illegals being covered:

Moreover, Obama’s claim that illegal immigrants won’t be covered — which sparked Wilson’s outburst — while technically accurate, doesn’t quite tell the entire story. Some of the bills being considered in the House and Senate contain provisions locking in local statutes that prevent providers from inquiring about immigration status prior to treatment. And illegals are treated, and are bound to be treated, in ERs, covered by local, state and federal uninsured pools.

Wilson was right that Obama is a liar, but he picked the wrong place to express it. Democrats on the other hand, have little room to be outraged. They treated Bush like shit and the media said nothing.

Barack Obama’s inauguration will cost at least $130 million dollars making it by far the most expensive in American history. That doesn’t particularly bother me given the circumstances except for one thing — the hypocrisy of it all.

Liberals howled after Bush’s re-election in 2004. His inauguration cost was a record $55 million which is chump change compared to Barry’s. Salon.com argued that because of the unpopularity and cost of the Iraq war it was inappropriate to have such a lavish event.

I would argue that because the economy is on the brink of collapse and the country is dead broke, it seems more than a little inappropriate to spend more than $100 million dollars on a glitzy star studded inauguration.

-Chris Jones

(hat tip Hot Air)