• Democrats Expose Their Creepy Extremism at Disastrous CNN LGBT Town Hall

    Surge Summary: At a recent CNN Townhall gathering, Democratic presidential contenders shamelessly expose their radicalism and pandering on LGBTQ issues.

    It’s sometimes befuddling, with all that is going on in the world at the moment, that certain topics become the focus of the present-day political cycle.

    Maybe more than befuddling? Maybe unsettling …

    Over at National Review, John McCormack writes:

    A few days after Donald Trump committed the worst foreign-policy blunder of his presidency by betraying America’s Kurdish allies in northern Syria, former vice president Joe Biden, the elder statesman and co-frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary, was on a national stage talking to CNN’s primetime audience about “round-the-clock sex” at “gay bathhouses” in San Francisco.

    Biden was bumbling his way toward making a point that old stereotypes aren’t true, and he concluded that “gay couples are more likely to stay together longer than heterosexual couples.” Biden’s conclusion was not, you know, actually true according to social-science studies.

    Again, it needs to be emphasized his last assertion is false — but here is the man who wants to serve as Leader of the Free World passing it along on a major public forum anyway …

    What is relevant, according to McCormack, is that here we behold the Democratic field catering undeniably and obeisantly to a domestic special-interest group on CNN for several hours. Meantime, war is breaking out between Turkey and the Kurds in northern Syria – a development goosed along by the sitting Republican president. You’d think the Donkey Party candidates would want to be lasering in on Trump and Syria and Ukraine.

    Nope. The Human Rights Campaign is America’s most powerful LGBT special-interest group. They’d partnered with CNN for the event. Seems like they own the current Democratic field. So … the previously scheduled show had to proceed as planned.

    Every Democrat on stage pledged fealty to the Equality Act, a bill that would “crush” religious liberty, according to liberal law professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia. The Equality Act “goes very far to stamp out religious exemptions,” Laycock told National Review in May. “It regulates religious non-profits. And then it says that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] does not apply to any claim under the Equality Act. This would be the first time Congress has limited the reach of RFRA. This is not a good-faith attempt to reconcile competing interests. It is an attempt by one side to grab all the disputed territory and to crush the other side.”

    At New York magazine, Andrew Sullivan has written about the extremism of the Equality Act:

    “According to British Columbia’s definition of human rights . . . female-only salons have to accept every woman, including those with balls. And according to the proposed Equality Act, the gay lobby’s chief legislative goal, backed by every Democratic candidate, it would be a human right in America as well.”

    Democrats, predictably, were not forcibly interrogated about the Equality Act. But, notes, McCormack,

    even under friendly questioning by LGBT activists and CNN hosts, Democratic candidates managed to climb very far out on a limb.

    These panderers voluntarily made groveling fools of themselves, exposing their radicalism for anyone who’d bothered tuning in – which we can happily assume was not many since we’re talking about CNN on the same night there was an NFL game and Trump rally being broadcast on competing networks.

    Candidate Beto O’Rourke was asked if “religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities” should forfeit their tax-exempt status if they fail to tow the LGBTQ, pro-same-sex-marriage line:

    “Yes,” O’Rourke replied without a beat.

    “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so as president, we’re going to make that a priority and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

    Elizabeth Warren, the Dem party’s other primary co-frontrunner, engaged in her own LGBTQ-intoxicated looniness. She apologized for opposing taxpayer-funding of sex-change operations for prisoners during her 2012 Senate campaign.

    One questioner asked Warren what she would say to a religious supporter of hers who opposes same-sex marriage: “A supporter approaches you and says, ‘Senator, I’m old-fashioned and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman.’ What is your response?”

    “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that and I’m going to say, ‘Then just marry one woman. I’m cool with that.’” The audience laughed and applauded. “Assuming you can find one,” she added. Zing!

    McCormack gloomily observes:

    Long-gone is the Democratic party of the 2000s that tried to unite blue-staters and red-staters under the Obama-esque rhetoric of hope and change. You’re a supporter of Elizabeth Warren but respectfully inform her your religion teaches you marriage is a union between one man and one woman? Candidate Warren would like you to know she thinks you’re probably an incel. Not merely a cuck.

    Another debate audience-member asked the Massachusetts senator about taking nationwide California’s gender identity and sexual orientation curriculum. “In California, we’re already starting those kinds of teachings and parents have been very upset and outraged,” the questioner said. “How would you feel about it for the rest of the country?”

    “I believe this is about teaching children about our world,” mewled Warren.

    “[O]f course we should teach them about our world. We should teach them about people. We should teach them about differences. So I strongly support this. And I support doing this in age-appropriate ways from the time they’re very young,”

    This is the modern, Democratic party’s iteration of reasonableness, I suppose?

    To be clear, the curriculum Warren is favoring encourages teachers to instruct the concept of gender fluidity to … wait for it … kindergarteners.

    McCormack’s close is biting:

    Do any of the Democratic presidential candidates know how they sound? Do they have any respect for local control or parental rights? Do they have any respect for religious liberty? The questions answer themselves.

    H/T: National Review, John McCormack

    Image Adapted from: Robin Higgins from Pixabay 

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend