Nation’s top lesbian-gay-transsexual Republican group endorses Sarah Palin for Congress

67
455

The Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s largest group of Republican lesbian, gay, bisexual and transexuals, has endorsed Sarah Palin for Congress. Palin reported the endorsement on her social media.

“Palin is a trailblazer who paved the way for the America First movement. Her commitment and dedication to Alaska is unparalleled and admirable. Palin will protect individual liberties for all Americans!” the group wrote. The group, in 2016, withheld its endorsement from President Donald Trump, but did endorse him in 2020.

The announcement received a lot of pushback from gay, lesbian, bisexual and transexual social media accounts.

67 COMMENTS

  1. Coming down the stretch its Nick, Its Sarah, its Nick now in the lead, but watch out Sarah nudges ahead, and Nick catch’s up, again Sarah takes the lead, November election finish line and Peltola clobbers them both by 10K votes.

  2. Well! Even the homosexual national group knows if america is cooked, the homosexuals admit they are toast. No where in
    the world are homosexuals more tolerated than America. You can
    thank our founders building america on a christian foundation. Eventhough homosexuality it is wrong.

    • Never mind that our Constitution is a godless, secular document, and that isn’t by accident. Even John Adams, one of our founding fathers said that the United States is in no way founded on the Christian religion. The only time the Constitution mentions religion is by way of limiting or constraining it. I get that homosexuality is wrong for you, but for the millions around the world born that way, its right for them. How about you live your life the way you want to and let them live theirs? Although, I must say, there aren’t many contradictions much bigger than a “gay Republican.” That’s rich.

      • “……our Constitution is a godless, secular document……”
        Gee, so is the instruction manual that came with my new tree trimmer. Is that somehow noteworthy?

        • Yes, it is because many on the right claim that it isn’t secular and that somehow religion should play a part in our government and vice versa.

          • Got any brilliant comment on the reverences to God in the Declaration of Independence? Ever notice that the Declaration and Constitution are two completely different documents with completely different purposes? The Constitution is an instruction manual. Religion has no business in government operation, and government operation has no business in religion, but the religious very much have business in and about government operation just like everybody else, and they don’t have to lock it in a locker upon entry through the gate.

      • C-Man, you are a walking contradiction. I’m a Republican, I’m Gay, which means , Lighthearted, carefree and happy, are you gay? I hope so! I am also a Heterosexual. Got that? Good!

        And let me know when you want to be enlightened more on the subject of our nations founding and the thoughts of it’s founders and Biology and Social interaction through out History and the proper use of words and their meanings.

        • Many of the founders were deists and much of their objections to religions involvement in our system of government were held privately (and revealed later in personal letters) for fear of people like you alive at their time accusing them of all number of sins. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the only document worth discussing regarding the founding of our republic. The 1st Amendment is perfectly clear about any establishment of religion and Jefferson himself said there would forever be a “wall of separation” between church and state. I don’t need you to enlighten me but thanks.

          • “……The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the only document worth discussing regarding the founding of our republic…….”
            Well, there go the private letters the founders wrote afterwards.
            So what were you saying about their “privately held beliefs”?……..

          • C-man, is that for “come on Man? like Joe Biden…
            Where to begin with you, hmm, ok the separation thing, apparently you have read little of Jefferson or know less about what his statement regarding the Separation of Church and State meant in the letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. It was in regards to an Official State Church, the Baptist being a minority sect in Connecticut and the Calvinist under color of law claiming to be a “State Church”, Like the Church of England.
            Seems Hugo Black back in 1947 used the statement out of context, kind of like one judge lies and another swears to the lie and anon it is precedent!

            Bone up C-man lets talk again.

      • The presence or absence of one gene in a person does not objectively create a fact that a person is born one to become one way or another. Whether it’s homosexuality, sociopathy, or any other trait.

        If you mention genetics and use it to prove or disprove a point, educate yourself in the history of science and the scientific method.

        The science of genetics is in it’s relative infancy compared to others, and there is much work to be done with sequencing.

        You may not realize it, but you just offered a defense to latent sociopathy and latent psychopathy also. You also defended any other behavior that defies current social norms…”she was born that way.”

        Contrary to some poorly informed beliefs, with the exception of a few fringe elements Christianity, Judaism, and Islam generally embrace modern science.

        There is value in long held cultural beliefs, and not saying that every one should apply in modern culture, you shouldn’t dismiss beliefs that have withstood the test of time just because someone published something contrary that is comfortable to hear.

        So yes, maybe some people are born with primitive homosexual latencies just as some people are born with schizophrenic or sociopath disorders…the mere presence or absence of one gene does not create a moral burden for others to accept it as correct behavior when it’s manifested.

        • OK then. At what age did you choose to be a heterosexual? Objections to homosexuality are usually religiously based, and therefore based on faith, which is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. Most that are against homosexuality are usually Christians, despite the fact that Jesus never said a word about it. All of that language is in the old testament which also endorses rape, genocide and all other number of immoral injunctions.

          • At what point does one transition from burning ants to strangling pups or beating spouses? Your question is specious at best, farcical at worst.

            As for what’s in the books, you display the depth of your knowledge there also.

            Jesus was a Jew, and by accounts, quite exemplary. The Christian bible consists of a New and Old Testament (Torah)…the Old Testament is quite explicit regarding homosexuality and other behaviors…you know, other little things like Don’t Lie, Don’t Steal, Don’t Murder, etc.

            Now, if you choose to decide for yourself to act in a modern manner of “if it’s good for me, then it’s good. Right and wrong are only if it helps me or hurts me.” Well, that’s almost the clinical definition of sociopathy.

        • Yes the worlds monotheistic religions NOW embrace modern science after centuries fighting it tooth and nail. It took the Vatican until 1992 to admit that Galileo was right about the earth revolving around the sun for goodness sake.

          • Oh my, now you’re confusing the Vatican with Christianity.

            Pretty sure they didn’t teach the “Earth is flat” in Catholic schools.

            Oh, and the Golden Age of Islam? Look it up.

            Was Albert Einstein a good Jew? Look it up.

            Was Sir Isaac Newton a good Christian and did he also write religious tracts?

            Well, gee.

            Here’s a hint for you, some personal advice…

            you’ll never get far in life being a one-trick pony…maybe you’re figuring that out.

            probably not though😆

          • “……It took the Vatican until 1992 to admit that Galileo was right about the earth revolving around the sun for goodness sake.”
            Clearly, your grasp of history is as faulty as the rest of your ideology. Pope Urban VIII (previously Cardinal Barberini, a friend and admirer of Galileo) had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in his book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism since an Inquisition found the theory to be heretical. The Pope was trying to help Galileo advance the theory in the face of opposition, not just from the clergy, but from other astronomers. The Italian translation of the book character Simplicio (in Latin), who was the defender of the Aristotelian geocentric view (which was pasted to the Pope) means ‘simpleton’. In short, a poor choice in the printed word insulted his best ally, who also turned out to be the guy who put him on house arrest for the remainder of his life with no more publications.
            The Church not only didn’t repress science, it is the origin of science, elevating humanity out of the Middle Ages. It was the center of knowledge from the end of the Roman Empire until the military/industrial age. The Papacy established the Observatory of the Roman College in 1774.

      • John Adams also said that our Constitution was only suitable for a moral and religious people. Also there are plenty of gay and lesbian conservatives out there (Dave Rubin, Tammy Bruce, Guy Benson to name a few) so perhaps you shouldn’t paint people with such a broad brush.

  3. Sorry folks! With the narrative l! My brother was a gay conservative, republican! As was his partner of marriage! In their 60’s! They couldn’t stand
    Sarah Palin!

    • Oh, that does it for me, then. If your gay brother and his male partner can’t stand Palin, I will now vote for Peltola. How could I do otherwise now that I know?

  4. Peltola will take 38% of the vote in November. The two Republican candidates will split 62% and lose to Peltola thanks to RCV. Why are Republicans so stupid? Why do we have RCV which will allow a vote to be given to the weakest candidate? Why did Alaskans vote for this mess in the first place and how do we restore sanity to elections in Alaska?

    • Why is Palin even in the race? She isn’t stupid, so she understands she has no chance of winning and must realize her presence merely cements a Democrat’s victory.

      Oh, I forgot. She gets off on attention and she gets plenty of it this way.

    • I am convinced that Alaskans did NOT in fact vote for the travesty of Rank Choice Voting — Dominion chose it, instead.
      .
      I have zero confidence or trust in our voting system nowadays. Zero.

      • Here here. People actually think they can beat the rigged system. BTW, devide and concur is another way they win I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t hurt people or property we are Americans and a constitutional replublic. I am not a fan of Sarah Peelin but attacking folks that want America first is not a good look.

      • Statistically speaking, Ranked Choice Voting should not have passed in our last election. It was a big fat statistical anomaly. Why is it that wherever the name Dominion is involved , voting anomalies seem to follow?

    • We have RCV because Murky funded it with dark money from the shadows. Alaskans voted for it with a 50.45 to 49.5% after democrats spent $ millions to get it passed. The combination of lies from the left and media and a very limited campaign to stop it is why we have it.
      We restore sanity but dumping the democrat’s state-wide.

    • “…….The two Republican candidates will split 62% and lose to Peltola thanks to RCV…….”
      Actually, RCV offers the opportunity NOT to split the vote. Ranking the red overcomes that stupidity, if only the stupid will take advantage of it.
      But they cannot, because (obviously) they’re stupid. Nothing overcomes stupidity.
      Nothing.

    • Once again you demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of how RCV works. There is no “vote splitting” if everyone ranks Palin or Begich first and the other Republican second, but Palin is so unlikeable with certain people that they will vote for Begich first and either Peltola or no one second out of stubborness.

    • We will win if people rank nick begich ahead of Sarah Palin. He would have won in the last rank choice tabulation had he come in 2nd. Palin needs to drop out, and she’s acting like a painful Hemorrhoid by staying in.

    • I’m not a Palinhead. Never voted for her and never will.

      However, your concept of Christianity needs development.

      I mean, ALOT of development.

      I suggest you go visit and pay close attention…churches of every faith welcome sinners.

      • You have zero clue about my faith.

        You, however, have shown me much about you and yours. You’d do well to take your own advise.

        Matthew7:3-5 comes to mind here.

      • Why are you even on a political blog if you don’t vote? Why do you even care who wins if that’s the case? I wouldn’t want you to vote anyways, you don’t seem very bright.

    • “The Palinheads are sure quiet on this……..”
      I am? Or are you just deaf (and blind) to fit reality to your imagination…….again?

  5. Lol. She deserves that. Where’s the Bible thumpers there Sarah, declaring a demon is in them and screech for it to leave?

  6. If you care about Alaska, rank the red. Read up on Mary Peltola’s policies on her website. She is strong on the “Build, Back, Better” plan, which is bad for Alaska in the long run. Vote Begich and/or vote Palin, but please don’t vote Peltola in spite.

  7. Obviously, it is necessary to inform those who believe Biden stole the 2020 election that there is some serious mudslinging going on with respect to Sarah in an effort to interject and compound the political confusion before the general election to smear her through hyped innuendo and programmed “association!”

    There is nothing that the two other camps wouldn’t do to try beat her! I’d gladly get into an-all out barroom brawl for Sarah where whiskey bottles, beer mugs, and cue sticks “morph” into implements of friendly persuasion! No more Mr. Nice Guy! We’re now in an ugly, political ground war!

    • Edit: “I’d gladly get into an all-out barroom brawl for Sarah where whiskey bottles, beer mugs, and cue sticks ‘morph’ into implements of friendly persuasion!”

    • Lets go bro ….. where’s the bar fight gonna be? Mugshot Saloon?
      Are you going to have the Palin clan (apologies Todd) in the bar that day?

  8. The Log Cabins suffered a bit of mission creep over the years, morphing from gay rights to trans for kiddies, hardly a positive lifestyle choice. I predict this won’t work well for Sarah and the evangelicals backing her. Cheers –

  9. Hmm, so gays and lesbians don’t support Begich because he must obviously not support individual freedoms to live life as one chooses. Interesting, as a lot of Begich supporters tout his inclusive nature. And there he goes alienating a voting bloc that was probably all in on his candidacy!

  10. Of course they did. Govenor Palin was praised in the gay press when she signed a bill handing free, State paid, benefits to the unmarried “partners” of gay employees at the State level.
    Gay people admire her for this …. especially the drag queens (in OUR schools)

Comments are closed.