ELDER PATRIOT – Once again the hypocrisy of the gay rights movement was on display after the owners of a gay hotel and wedding facility – The Out – met with Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz.  Co-owners Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner also own a significant percentage of a beach resort – Fire Island Pines – that caters to gays.

As though the pair’s bona fides within the gay community wasn’t securely established, they are now the targets of a boycott amid mounting criticism of their attempt to reach across the aisle.

Gays would do well to consider their plight if the heterosexual community acted in the same fashion.  Frankly, introspective gays would do well to seize this moment to consider Ted Cruz’s motivations.

If Cruz is really a fringe candidate appealing to knuckle-dragging right-wing extremists he did himself no good in meeting with Reisner and Weiderpass.  The fact that Cruz has met with no such criticism suggests his backers are much more tolerant and understanding than those who are now condemning Reisner and Weiderpass.  A more serious consideration of the facts suggests Cruz is reaching out to find common ground as a proper statesman is bound to do.

For his part, Weiderpass admitted to finding common ground with Cruz on national security issues only.  Regardless, this begs the question “should gays cast their vote only with the singular consideration that they are gay?”  May I suggest that they are doing themselves and their country a disservice?

A few years back I was involved in a political conversation with a fairly successful black fellow.  During the course of the discussion he said that he believed all of his people should vote the same.  My response caught him off guard, “If white people voted along those lines you’d still be calling me Massa.”  I followed that with, “If for the purpose of the great American debate you have defined yourself as a black man why do you have the right to ask me to see you as anything else?”  The conversation cooled after that but a few weeks later we met again at a business function where he engaged me in a serious discussion about truly important issues.

For their part gays have achieved what is most important – the right to conduct their lives, as they want.  The fact that there are hotels and resorts catering to them, specifically, illustrates both the freedom they have and the economic clout that they wield.

Reisner and Weiderpass should be applauded by the community they have invested so heavily in.  Instead, they are facing a boycott by the extreme fascist elements within their movement.

All groups have the right to boycott any enterprise, as they deem necessary.  Americans will judge accordingly.  When gays tried to make a statement against a privately held belief by the owner of Chick Fil A it backfired in resounding fashion as same store sales soared.  In other areas they have gained ground as in the case of the horrific actions of the Westboro Baptist Church.  Mainstream American usually gets it right in the end.  Americans don’t need a politically motivated justice department to tell them what is right and what is wrong.

The extreme wing of the gay movement is a wholly owned subsidiary of the progressive movement.  It may be time for politically moderate gays to consider where they’ll be if the progressives achieve their goal of a one-size fits all new world order.


Earlier this week we chronicled the story of two owners of a hotel that caters to gays.  Their decision to have dinner with Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz apparently enraged certain activist members of the gay community to the degree that they called upon their fellow gays to boycott their business.

The boycott compelled one of the owners to apologize on Facebook:

“I am shaken to my bones by the e-mails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake. I was ignorant, naive and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights. I’ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz’ statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgement. Again, I am deeply sorry.”

Seriously, I don’t know what is worse. The apology or the fact that is hasn’t been accepted.

No person should ever feel the need to apologize for reaching across the aisle.  Especially, given the opportunity to do so with a person who may be the next President and, who under any circumstance, will be at the least an influential Senator.  To apologize by verbally groveling in such a submissively repentant manner makes my skin crawl.

More despicable, if that’s possible, is the reaction of the militant sect of the gay community who resoundingly told the hotel owners that their apology isn’t accepted.  Never mind their investment in the gay community.  Forget about their donations to gay causes.

Such gay militantism extends itself to outing those in their community who choose to live an otherwise straight life.  To them, it doesn’t matter that innocent people might get hurt in the process.

Apparently, this virulent strain of gay activists is demanding the severing of any and all discussion with people of faith.  Why does such discussion scare them?

Gay people who align themselves with this radical sect of their movement should be very afraid lest one day they run amok of their extreme form of gay orthodoxy.  Come to think of it, anyone who aligns themselves with them runs the same risk.

HERE Is WHAT WILL HAPPEN If The DEEP STATE TAKES DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP & It’s NOT PRETTY … FOR THEM “The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson ELDER PATRIOT – Corrupt politicians ignore Jefferson’s directive to their own detriment. It’s no longer political, it’s personal. Americans have had their eyes opened by the ascension of Donald Trump and no amount of leftwing money can put the Freedom Movement genie back in the bottle. Conservative Senator Ted Cruz made that observation after reviewing the results of the 2016 elections and the expectations of the voters. Cruz, who had the most high profile personality clash with Donald Trump during the Republican primary process nevertheless embraced Trump’s America First agenda and said, “If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver, I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets. And I think quite rightly.” Candidate Trump promised many things – border control, lower taxes, fairer trade relations, a balanced budget, healthcare that puts the people first not the government, safer communities, and – to the extent possible – an end to foreign wars. What, among those promises, should any Republican, nay any American, have a problem with? After four months without a single legislative achievement, Congressional and Senatorial Republicans – notably John McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham – have joined the Democrats in investigating President Trump absent a single shred of evidence that an underlying crime has been committed. So, what gives? Well, there was one additional promise that Trump made on his way to the White House that has some Republicans joining with Democrats and quaking in their boots, Trump’s promise to “Drain the Swamp.” As we reported yesterday, “An F.B.I. agent with ‘intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case’ told us that they uncovered evidence of such massive corruption that the agents involved realized that damned near the entire government could be brought down.” The criminal co-conspirators in both parties realized almost immediately that the new sheriff wasn’t interested in joining them in the swamp so they launched, what can only be characterized as, a coup attempt. Democrats are well schooled in such things probably because of their close alliance with Marxist regimes that can only gain power by seizing it through bloody civil wars. It should be noted that the Democratic Party has already done this once before. One Hundred and Fifty-Seven years ago the Democrats waged a war against the First Republican President Abraham Lincoln for giving Blacks their freedom. That war came at a high price, as many as 700,000 Americans died fighting for what they believe in. To put that in perspective, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam. Today, Americans are still prepared to fight and die to protect their children’s God-given freedoms. Despite what you are reading and hearing in the mainstream media, they aren’t the leftwing-funded rioters, the pussy hat-wearing feminists, or the cuck bois that cant handle a micro aggression. No, the Americans that back Donald Trump are well armed. Donald Trump’s presidency will move forward politically lest the sixty million patriots who voted for him, that are comprised of the large majority of military voters, police, and NRA members, move it forward by force. These patriots are armed, trained, prepared, and have proven their discipline. They have grown disgusted by the corruption in Washington and will do whatever is necessary to make sure Trump’s Freedom Agenda moves forward and under the direction of Donald Trump himself. No amount of fake news based on unsubstantiated charges by unnamed sources is going to change that. The battle lines have been drawn and no amount of finger pointing is going to convince these patriots to let anyone overturn the election results. So why are establishment politicians courting a bloodbath on the streets of America that will also threaten them personally when they could be part of Making America Great Again? It’s because they have been caught red-handed and up to their eyeballs in a worldwide criminal conspiracy that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with defrauding the American taxpayers. And, now that they’ve been caught robbing the world’s largest bank – the U.S. treasury – they have chosen to go out in a blaze of glory rather than try to defend the indefensible at trial. Washington’s criminal elites have chosen to go to war to unseat our duly elected president. It’s time to make our voices heard before this turns very ugly. Buckle your chin strap, America is counting on you. EDITORS NOTE: THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ARMS BUT RATHER AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DEEP STATES OVERTURNS A DUELY ELECTED PRESIDENT. HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’