Top 10 search results for my blog this year and the top 10 strangest search results

People come to my blog from searching Google or other websites like Bing or Ask and the terms they use are usually forwarded to me on my stats page.

This year, at the end of the year, I’d like to mention the top 1o most searched phrases that led to my blog.

go forth and multiply bible verse

i believe in sherlock holmes

twentieth century motor company

twentieth century motor company atlas shrugged

20th century motor company

christmas songs that aren’t about christmas

top 24 christmas songs

taylor swift slut shaming

ezer kenegdo

is se cupp gay

peter singer’s solution to world poverty

.

Also, on occasion, I will do a double take on a search phrase that someone has used, because I’m not A.) sure why someone is searching for that or B.) why it led them to my blog.

is se cupp gay

sherlock fanfiction

watson sherlock slash

sherlock and watson gay fanfiction

gay snark

cant_have_nice_things

once more with feeling (episode soundtrack)

super meat boy 1080

my roadtrip with my gay friends

what is a hetero shindigs

twitter i can’t figure out who is talking to who

.

Yeah, I don’t get it….but that’s my blog’s year.

I’ve had an awesome year as far as hits on my blog go. November 7th was my blogs highest day of hits on the blog, as depressing as that day was for all of us.

Basically, this blog is on it’s way up the rungs of the ‘blogosphere’ and I like it.

There is a Reason Why No One in The Walking Dead Suggests a “Zombie Free Zone” to Protect the Group

I watched the first season of The Walking Dead and I have to tell you that there was a lot of gun use in that show, they all must have been a bunch of racists. For some reason not a single person came up with the revolutionary idea of taking their group inside a house and nailing a sign to the door that said “THIS IS A ZOMBIE FREE ZONE. NO ZOMBIES ALLOWED.” Surely that would have been a much simpler way to survive the zombie apocalypse.

“That’s crazy!” I hear you cry.

Why is it crazy?

“Because zombies don’t care about rules!” you shout.

Bingo.

Gun free zones just don’t work.

Why?

Criminals don’t care whether someplace is a “gun free zone”. In fact, that usually leads them to go TO those places to commit crime, because they are a “soft target”.

Ann Coulter makes that point brilliantly in one of her recent Townhall articles.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

- We Know How to Stop School Shootings (Ann Coulter)

So gun free zones don’t work.

It’s time to try something new when it comes to protecting our children.

Or something old, apparently Rahm Emmanuel, David Gregory, and Barack Obama consider armed guards in schools are good enough to protect their kids. Even if they think the idea is “outrageous and unsettling” when the NRA suggests it for other other schools.

That’s right, the school Rahm’s kids go to has an armed guard, Obama and Gregory send their kids to school at Sidwell Friends, which has no fewer than 11 armed guards on campus.

So why shouldn’t other kids have the same protections? Either in the form of armed guards or armed teachers. Maybe Obama thinks his kids are somehow more important than the other children in the United States. Wouldn’t really surprise me.

Leaders in my state of Arizona are working toward better protection in schools at the moment, such as Tom Horne’s plan.

Arizona’s attorney general proposed arming one principal or employee at each school to defend against attacks such as the recent Connecticut school massacre.

“The ideal solution would be to have an armed police officer in each school,” Attorney General Tom Horne said in a news release Wednesday. But budget cuts have limited the number of Arizona schools with “school resource officers” on campus, he said.

The “next best solution,” Horne said, “is to have one person in the school trained to handle firearms, to handle emergency situations, and possessing a firearm in a secure location.”

- KVOA Tucson

Until some sort of option of this type can be worked out, there has been a plan put forward by Sheriff Joe Arpaio (who I have met!) who has decided to send some of his volunteer posse out to guard school’s in the area.

“I have the authority to mobilize private citizens and fight crime in this county,” Arpaio said. Arpaio first started using his posse to protect malls during the holiday shopping season in 1993 in response to violent incidents in prior years. Since then he said malls where his posse members are on patrol have had zero violent re-occurrences and patrols by his all-volunteer squad during the 2012 shopping season netted a record 31 arrests. Arpaio said since the program has worked so well in malls he believes it will work just as well protecting schools. “We’re not talking about placing the posse in the schools right now but in the outlying — the perimeters of the school — to detect any criminal activity.”

- Breitbart.com

Sheriff Joe gets a lot of hell from liberals for any number of his positions here in Maricopa country, from his tent city jail (making criminals uncomfortable, how kooky) to his views on illegal immigration (where he actually views illegal immigrants as criminals, shocking right?) but he keeps getting re-elected.

Someday Sheriff Joe will need to stop running for re-election and back someone new for the position of Maricopa county Sheriff, but for now I cheer him on and hope that more locales take a harder stance on protecting our children.

Neither criminals or zombies are likely to follow the rules and laws you set out. Sometimes the best protection of innocent life, is an armed guard to blow their brains out…in the zombies case. I suppose you could just shoot to wound if at all possible in the case of the criminal.

While We Were Celebrating

Far be it for me to take away from the joy of Christmas.

I love Christmas, it’s my favorite holiday of the year.

Christmas Eve we open presents, Christmas Day we get gifts from Santa and cook enough food to feed a small army.

But while we are celebrating and arguing with our relatives over politics (don’t deny it, the number of hits this blog got and the google searches that led you here gave you away) the news cycle keeps going and some big stories broke and some merely heartbreaking ones.

The Big

Midnight Mass at a church in northern Nigeria was interrupted by a group of Islamists who shot and killed six Christians before torching the church. So very non-violent.

A “newspaper” in New York  has apparently published the names and addresses of every person in New York  who has a concealed carry permit. The people who should be REALLY pissed right now are those who AREN’T on the list, because this is basically a guide to all burglars on what houses to NOT rob. Thank LoHud.com for suddenly increasing the likelihood that you will be robbed if you don’t have a concealed carry permit. *thumbs up* Not really sure what they were trying to accomplish here, but I’m pretty sure whatever it is, they failed at it.

Chicago, one of the bastions of strict gun control, suffered a rash of shootings on Christmas Eve. Yes, there is something wrong with our society and gun control isn’t going to help that.

DC police are investigating David Gregory of Meet the Press for possibly violating part of DC gun control laws. Whoops. I guess you CAN still buy assault weapon magazines regardless of gun control.

Hamas is planning to break that pesky ceasefire thing with a resumption of suicide bombings in Israel. Merry Christmas!

President Obama is still in Hawaii. 

Bushehr Nuclear Plant, in Iran, is paying the Russian women working their to put on a Hijab. I guess the men can’t get anything done with those women’s hair and forearms distracting them. I know I just lose all focus when I see some pretty forearms. Drives me wild. Iran is, apparently, perplexed that Russian women aren’t keen on doing this, despite the extra pay.

Netflix went down on Christmas Eve, which caused understandable outrage. I would be mad too if I was trying to avoid my relatives by watching old episodes of Seinfeld and then I had no Netflix to use as an excuse to avoid family gatherings.

In China a man rammed a car loaded with a gas tank and firecrackers into a crowd of middle school kids, injuring 13. I guess we need to ban cars, gas cans, and firecrackers, as well as guns. Damn, that’s basically 4th of July weekend for my family.

Feminists might want to take a look at Swaziland. The king (who had 13 wives) has banned miniskirts, low slung jeans, and tank tops because they make it easier for a women to be raped.

The Heartbreaking

In Britain, Children are asking Santa for a dad.

And one child called in to NORAD asking if Santa could bring extra presents so they could give them to the family’s who lost family in Newtown.

These stories actually made me cry, I’m not kidding here. Not as hard as I cried at Les Miserables, but there was sniffling and tears.

____

So that’s what happened while were celebrating our Christmas.

Let’s keep fighting for our freedom and our values in the coming year.

Spoiler alert: Don’t Read This if You Believe in Santa Claus (AKA if you are a member of American Atheists, turn around now)

Apparently Santa is real…or atheists are just confused and trying to be witty.

I wasn’t home last night, and even when I am I rarely turn on Fox News for anything other than The Five or Red Eye, but when I got in it was to hear from my dad that Hannity had been talking to the President of American Atheists on his show, about a billboard they have put in in Times Square.

Thanks to The Blaze for putting up this photo.
Credit goes to American Atheists for the photo itself.

Apparently atheists are operating under the idea that Santa is a real person or something.

Technically I suppose they were trying to be witty and reference how the secular trappings of Christmas are a-okay with them, but cut out the religion right this very minute because they can’t stand one myth being talked about…but the other myth of the jolly fat man in a red suit is perfectly fine.

Can we just take a moment to recognize how utterly ridiculous this is?

No really, does American Atheist understand how stupid they are for implying that only one of those images is a myth?

Santa and Rudolph and the sleigh with all the toys are a myth. They know that right?

Last year I wrote a post about Nativity scenes on public property and this was part of it.

So why is it that a holiday that is based on some fictional account of a baby being born in a barn, is so offensive to an Athiest or Liberal’s sensibilities?

I know that Star Wars is just a story, completely fictional. However there is an entire religion based on The Force. There are huge groups of a devoted fan base that worship The Force and even those that don’t follow the religion still collect relics, dress in odd clothing, and attend huge gatherings to, essentially, worship the films. Do I ask that Star Wars conventions be shut down? No, absolutely not, because while I’m not a Star Wars fan (I’m a Trekkie okay) I know that it’s just a story, that some people enjoy and maybe put a little too much of their lives into.

So if I don’t demand that Star Wars conventions be shut down (which are both more physically and olfactory offensive than Christmas and probably much less healthy for the convention attendees) why is it that a bunch of plaster fictional characters on a lawn can invoke such irrationality?

Atheists reject one myth, because it’s more popular or believed by more people, but completely accept another myth as socially and politically acceptable in the public forum, simply because they believe it’s secular.

I have news for you. Nothing about Christmas, from it’s name right down to the elements of the celebration, is based on secular ideas.

Okay, possibly Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph are purely secular and capitalistic creations, but the core traditions are religious, whether they are Christian or not.

Let’s break this down shall we. What are some of the key ‘secular’ parts of Christmas.

Christmas Trees: Extreme pagan and Christian religious symbolism.

The use of evergreen trees, wreaths, and garlands to symbolize eternal life was a custom of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews. Tree worship was common among the pagan Europeans and survived their conversion to Christianity in the Scandinavian customs of decorating the house and barn with evergreens at the New Year to scare away the devil and of setting up a tree for the birds during Christmastime.

The modern Christmas tree, though, originated in western Germany. The main prop of a popular medieval play about Adam and Eve was a “paradise tree,” a fir tree hung with apples, that represented the Garden of Eden. The Germans set up a paradise tree in their homes on December 24, the religious feast day of  Adam and Eve. They hung wafers on it (symbolizing the host, the Christian sign of redemption); in a later tradition the wafers were replaced by cookies of various shapes.

- Encyclopedia Britannica

Lights: Lights on the tree and elsewhere came from a Christian practice, as well as pagan practices.

Candles, symbolic of Christ, were often added [to the Christmas tree].

- Encyclopedia Britannica

The Celtic fire festival of Yule was a time of renewal and rebirth, celebrated by lighting fires to welcome back the lengthening days. The remnants of this practice may be found in the charming tradition of the Yule log, still enjoyed by many people at Christmas even today.

The lighting of candles and modern Christmas lights is also a relic of this ancient need to bring light to the darkest time of the year, and even in this era of electric lights that dispel the gloom all year round, many people still enjoy the warming feeling of seeing a beautifully lit tree or an array of lighted candles.

Decorations

The circle of the Yule or Christmas wreath represents the pagan “Wheel of the Year” or “Circle of Life” that marks the annual changes in the seasons at the Festivals celebrated at the solstices and equinoxes.

The Germans set up a paradise tree in their homes on December 24, the religious feast day of  Adam and Eve. They hung wafers on it (symbolizing the host, the Christian sign of redemption); in a later tradition the wafers were replaced by cookies of various shapes.

Jolly Ol’ Saint Nick: Literally a Catholic saint and the basis for the modern Santa Claus that was so wittily placed on a billboard mocking Christianity. Brilliant move American Atheists!

Santa Claus, legendary figure who is the traditional patron of Christmas in the United States and other countries, bringing gifts to children. His popular image is based on traditions associated with Saint Nicholas, a 4th-century Christian saint. Father Christmas fills the role in many European countries.

- Encyclopedia Britannica

Giving gifts:

“The giving of presents at the midwinter feast almost certainly began as a magical more than as merely a social custom. Saturnalia presents included wax dolls, given to children. A charming custom, no doubt, by times of record, but with a macabre past: even contemporaries thought this probably a vestige of human sacrifice, of children, to aid the sowing.”

- History Today

We have many recorded events in history that show the giving and receiving of gifts dates back at least to the 4th century. St. Nicholas, a Christian Bishop, was known for his generosity in giving to those less fortunate than he, as well as giving to children of all backgrounds simply because he felt they needed to savor their childrood, and have joyous times to remember.

- Wiki Answers

These really aren’t that secular after all then. So I guess what your real problem is, is that Christianity is involved (in which case, no Santa for you either, he’s a Catholic Saint).

If you have a problem with religion in general, then keep in mind that those lights you are hanging, that tree you are decorating while singing secular x-mas carols, and those gifts you are giving out, all have religious connotations.

So you should probably ask your job if you can come in on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, to let other non-Scrooges enjoy a day with their family, since you can’t stand any religions at all. Since you totally reject all religions that believe in “magical sky daddy’s” or whatever mocking phrase atheists are referring to god by these days.

Look Up The Word Douchebag in the Dictionary and Piers Morgan’s Photo Will Be Next to it

This post really should have been up yesterday, but I was spending the day without a computer, unfortunately.

Wednesday night I was at work, minding my own business when a friend posted THIS on her facebook timeline.

I had to do a double take and go hunting through twitchy to see if it was real, since it was no longer on Piers’ twitter feed. No doubt deleted when he realized that he looked like a massive tool and not even his CNN time slot could disguise that fact after a tweet like that went public.

Of course Piers has consistently underestimated the power of the new media and his tweet had already been screen captured by John Nolte, over at Breitbart, and saved for posterity. Yet another reminder that, especially if you are a left-wing moron, once you put something on the internet it’s there for good. (You would think after the Anthony Weiner scandal that liberals might be watching what they post a little more, no such luck.)

Anyway, Morgan took personal offense at having his douchebaggery saved for future generations apparently.

And this exchange took place.

And Nolte updated his original post on Breitbart to include this note.

Piers Morgan responded to this article on Twitter, personally accusing me of smearing him and twisting his “obvious sarcasm.” I responded by asking how straight-forward reporting and quoting what he said constitutes twisting or smearing, and will update this post if there’s an answer.

For some reason Piers has yet to address how it is “smearing” to directly quote something someone said. My guess is the answer would be something along the lines of “but Jooooohn it’s not FAIR!” whined in a voice that could make even ME hate a British accent.

I almost feel sorry for Piers, since Nolte loves to expose him for the d-bag he is, through Morgan’s own words. Then again, he sort of deserves it for making light of a tragedy, whether he meant it in a sarcastic manner or not.

Here’s a good rule of thumb, if you don’t mean it, and it’s going to make you look like an asshole if people cannot obviously discern that you are being sarcastic, then don’t press send.

There should be an app for twitter that will read your messages back to you before you send them. If that existed, Piers might have hesitated. Maybe not — maybe he is an asshole with a chip on his shoulder and an agenda to promote, no matter who has to die to promote it.

He’s certainly been on a tear about gun control on twitter lately, judging from the tweets that twitchy is archiving.

Twitchy seems to think that he was obviously being sarcastic.

Morgan was being sarcastic, of course. But his ghoulish sense of humor and his tasteless timing failed to amuse.

- Twitchy

I don’t think there was anything obvious about it, no matter what he said in follow-up tweets.

Morgan was incredibly offended at Nolte, piling on accusations and outright lies. One in which he stated, essentially, that Breitbart would be ashamed of Nolte’s posting a photo of his tweet for the world to see (check in the dictionary next to “Hah! Not likely” for my reaction that one) and that he “admired” Breitbart.

That’s a tall tale from someone who said (and I quote, which Morgan hates apparently):

Morgan: “Andrew let me go to you, as I said before the break, you are notoriously evil about almost everybody so what do you think of the new politics where everyone just whacks everybody else.”

Breaitbart: “Well I don’t think you know me Piers Morgan. I think we maybe spent eight seconds together.”

Morgan: “It was a long eight seconds.”

- Townhall

Oh well, it’s not like Morgan doesn’t have a penchant for ignoring the facts, or his own past words, when it suits him.

Maybe, as Nolte supposes in this article, it’s time for CNN to understand that Piers is just one of the many reasons their ratings are tanking.

I think ‘sensitive’ is the last thing I want to be when it comes to pedophilia

I just wrote an article the other day that said this:

Look, the fact that you disagree with the words I say is not license for you to beat me up…That’s how civilized people function! We disagree, we argue, we possibly insult each other’s intelligence, but we don’t hit people. That’s one of the first things you learn in kindergarten…

- Link

Now we know which kids grew up to be to draft Army handbooks on ‘tolerance’. They were the kids that never actually learned that hitting wasn’t an acceptable way to deal with someone disagreeing with them. These are the kids who blamed their victim constantly and they’ve grown up to be the people telling our soldier’s that their opposition to pedophilia and support of women’s rights are the reason they are being attacked in Afghanistan and, well…they should just stop that.

American soldiers should brace for a “social-cultural shock” when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women’s rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

….

The draft handbook offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

- Wall Street Journal

Umm, no. Someone needs a visit from their sassy gay friend right about now.

This wouldn’t have happened if this group of Army researchers had a sassy gay friend.

It’s not like we are trying to advocate for democracy or equality in other countries.

No, we only do that here in the United States. Women’s rights in Afghanistan, that’s not our thing, these politicians say.

Strangely similar to how liberals will claim to support gay rights and equality and then turn around and support Hamas and other regimes in the Middle East that execute and imprison gay people. Not hypocritical at all, nope.

So now we are institutionalizing blaming the victim when it comes to our troops.

Blaming the victim because they dare to advocate for equality for women or homosexuals or stopping pedophilia.

Our troops are just SO horrible aren’t they? How dare they tell a backwards culture that they are, well, backwards. How dare they institute their morality on these people, they have their own culture,  just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

But wait, it’s not my morals that say that killing gay people, subjugating women, and having sex with children is wrong (well it is my morals, but there is more) it’s my belief in individual liberty. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

These are the things our military are protecting and personally I want our military to stand up for the our rights and project those rights onto everyone around them, so they can protect those people as well.

What is going to happen in the future is that a soldier is going to protect a woman from being beaten, a homosexual from being murdered, or a child from being raped and when they are murdered for it, our oh so wonderful government will…apologize for that soldier not being sensitive to that culture/religion’s differences.

That soldier? He just shouldn’t have been where he wasn’t liked. That is, after all, the same lesson the left wants Steven Crowder to learn. Why not apply it to soldiers too.

COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!

In case you weren’t aware, yesterday Steven Crowder of Fox News, was physically assaulted at a Right to Work rally in Michigan.

Misfit Politics has been keeping their readers updated on the situation with several new videos coming out of the events that occurred at the rally. I seriously recommend checking those updates periodically in case they receive new videos or information on the situation.

I would also recommend reading the comments on their article, because they contain real gems like this one from liberals.

Three cheers for the guy who whacked your hate-filled buddy though.

Conservatives are such pussies, they talk the Macho talk when they are hiding behind their keyboards, but squeal like little piggies when somebody has the guts to stand up to their bullying.

That’s right, they cheer on people who physically assault people who dare to use their first amendment rights.

This sounds familiar.

Yup, looks familiar.

Only Steven got punched and assaulted much more violently.

But maybe he was asking for it, as Leah from Misfit supposes.

Let’s use the Left’s logic for a moment and see where it takes us, shall we?

Steven Crowder was assaulted. But it’s not that big of a deal, because he was asking for it. After all, he knows that everyone in Detroit hates him and he should have known he’d be threatened if he went there.

Hypothetical situation: A woman is raped. But it’s not that big of a deal, because she was asking for it. After all, she knows that when she wears low-cut tops, short dresses, or high heels, that men will think about banging her. She should have known she’d be threatened if she did that.

Steven just shouldn’t have been there. He was asking for it, obviously.

The tent that the AFP had put up was just asking for it.

Those women and men who were there in that tent were just asking for it.

By entering the vicinity of that protest they were consenting to have physical assault and property damage done to them.

Because that’s a thing that people do.

That makes sense.

Please tell me you can here the sarcasm inherent in my voice?

Look, the fact that you disagree with the words I say is not license for you to beat me up.

I would not hit you for your opinions.

That’s how civilized people function!

We disagree, we argue, we possibly insult each other’s intelligence, but we don’t hit people. That’s one of the first things you learn in kindergarten, right up there with don’t eat paste and stealing people’s crayons is wrong, even if they do have a box of 100 crayolas and you mom only bought you a 15 count roseart set.

Liberals, if you can’t be more mature than a 1st grader then please exit the ring of rational discourse.

If you defend those that are less mature than a 1st grader, then you have lost any chance to earn respect from independents or conservatives.

From Occupy Wall Street to this. You still haven’t grown up.

Reagan, AIDS, and Liberal Lies

Rock Hudson poses with Nancy and Ronald Reagan at a White House state dinner in 1984

Rock Hudson poses with Nancy and Ronald Reagan at a White House state dinner in 1984

 

 

 

Recently on my political tumblr I’ve been dealing with an onslaught of messages from liberals, criticizing my respect for Ronald Reagan, because, in their words A significant source of Reagan’s support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. and Do you think that Reagan refused to do anything positive for aids stricken people because they were gay?

I can only be led to believe that, tumblr being a hive of liberal misinformation (like repeatedly posting links to satirical news sites as ‘proof’ that Romney wants to ban tampons), that this liberal lie has come around on the guitar again as a favored talking point.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this is bullshit.

The first ridiculous idea here is the Reagan was some sort of homophobe.

First of all, the man worked in Hollywood and as Martin Anderson, a high level adviser to Reagan, said “I remember Reagan telling us that in Hollywood he knew a lot of gays, and he never had any problem with them,…I think a number of people who were gay worked for the Reagans,…We never kept track. But he never said anything even remotely like that comment in the movie. His basic attitude was ‘Leave them alone.'”

Reagan, in 1978, publicly opposed Proposition 6 in California, which called for the dismissal of teachers who ‘advocated’ for homosexuality.

“Whatever else it is,” Reagan wrote, “homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” He also argued: “Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher’s personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes ‘advocacy’ of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher — should it pass — be considered advocacy?”

That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan’s opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.

- Deroy Murdock (Anti-Gay Gipper: A lie about Reagan.)

Then there is the fact that Reagan’s own family denies that he was some sort of homophobe and they were none to pleased by hatchet job portrayal of the former President in the Showtime tv movie The Reagans.

According to the screenplay for “The Reagans,” my father is a homophobic Bible-thumper who loudly insisted that his son wasn’t gay when Ron took up ballet, and who in a particularly scathing scene told my mother that AIDS patients deserved their fate. “They who live in sin shall die in sin,” the writers and producers had him say.

Not only did my father never say such a thing, he never would have. If you have any doubts, read the recently published book of his letters. They reveal a man whose compassion for other people is deep and earnest, and whose spiritual life is based on faith in a loving God, not a vengeful one.I was about eight or nine years old when I learned that some people are gay — although the word ‘gay’ wasn’t used in those years. I don’t remember what defining word was used, if any; what I do remember is the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way in which I was told. The scene took place in the den of my family’s Pacific Palisades home. My father and I were watching an old Rock Hudson and Doris Day movie. At the moment when Hudson and Doris Day kissed, I said to my father, “That looks weird.” Curious, he asked me to identify exactly what was weird about a man and woman kissing, since I’d certainly seen such a thing before. All I knew was that something about this particular man and woman was, to me, strange. My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn’t really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn’t reserved just for men and women.

You should know this story because it’s something the producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron won’t tell you. They have exhibited astounding carelessness and cruelty in their depiction of my father and my entire family. They never consulted any family member, nor did they speak to anyone who has known us throughout the years.

- Patti Davis (‘The Reagans,’ From One of Them)*

Then there comes this fantastical idea that liberal subscribe to which is that Reagan was happy that AIDS existed and did everything he could to stop it from being cured, because he was a homophobe who thought gays deserved to die of AIDS.

*cough*Bullshit*cough*

In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan’s proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.

Table 5 of Johnson’s report shows annual federal AIDS spending during Ronald Reagan’s watch. This is hardly the portrait of a do-nothing presidency:
Government Spending on HIV/AIDS

Fiscal Year ($ Millions) % growth over previous year
1982 8
1983 44 450.00
1984 103 134.09
1985 205 99.03
1986 508 147.80
1987 922 81.50
1988 1,615 75.16
1989 2,322 43.78
Total 5,727

Source: Congressional Research Service

- Deroy Murdock (Anti-Gay Gipper: A lie about Reagan.)

Funding for AIDS research went up 128.92% between 1982 and 1989!

That’s a lot of money folks, a LOT of money.

Could he have spent more? Yeah, probably. I mean were in hard economic times, but if it would have done any good to have more money spent on the research, I’m sure Reagan could have found the money somewhere.

But it wouldn’t have helped.

“You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole,” says Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World. “There were no anti-virals back then. The first anti-viral was AZT which came along in 1987, and that was for AIDS.” As an example of how blindly scientists and policymakers flew as the virus took wing, Fumento recalls that “in 1984, Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler predicted that there would be an AIDS vaccine by 1986. There is no AIDS vaccine to date.”

Reagan had no interest in letting gay people die. He had gay friends, ones that did in fact suffer from AIDS. He held no evangelical, Westboro Baptist, style hatred for gay people, as liberals want to make us believe.

We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.

- 1986 State of the Union address

*Please read the entirety of that article, it is fantastic and I had trouble choosing as little as I did to quote.