Who in the flying hell is Doug Giles and why is he authoring syndicated columns? According to his semi-literate bio on TownHall (carefully proofread by some second graders) Doug is: "the creator and host of 'The Clash' radio shows, winners of seven Silver Microphone Awards and two Communicator Awards in the last three years. In addition, Doug is a popular columnist, minister and award-winning writer." Having never heard of this modern day Alexander Pope, I cannot attest to the veracity of these claims (or that he is "also an accomplished artist").
I can, however, attest to the fact that he is competing (poorly) in a very, very crowded market for right-wing histrionics in print. After considering Doug a candidate for the FJM a few weeks ago with the surreal "A Theology of Hunting: Why God Loves Hunting & Hunters" he made the decision for me by following up with "Obama’s Evangelicals: The Liberals’ New Useful Idiots." And away we go.
In less than a week after Obama’s swearing in, our nuevo POTUS unfurled his radically liberal abortion and family plans together with his juicy pro-homosexual agenda.
Seriously. I am being serious now. Seriously. Is this a joke? Is "Doug Giles" the pseudonym of a sociology grad student exploring conservative subcultures? A real columnist playing an inside joke on his colleagues?
"Our nuevo POTUS?" "Juicy pro-homosexual agenda?" "Radically liberal abortion…plans?" What in the hell does any of this mean? And clearly I missed these important parts of the new President's opening week. Should have paid more attention to that inaugural address. I tuned out for 30 seconds and missed the juicy pro-homosexual agenda.
Good job, all evangelicals who voted for Obama
Yes, all seven of them. Step forward to be awarded a medal bearing the image of an aborted fetus marrying another aborted fetus of the same sex.
So we're 1.5 sentences into this clusterfuck and it's about A) some non-specific but "juicy" pro-homosexual agenda that the rest of us missed, B) some new and "radically liberal" change in the laws governing abortion that the rest of us missed, and C) some Evangelicals who voted for Obama who quite probably do not exist. OK, black Evangelicals voted for Obama. Black Evangelicals always vote for Democrats. Are you, "Doug Giles," suggesting that the reason for Obama's victory was some substantial portion of white Evangelical Protestants voting for him?
as these aforementioned ditties—from a biblical perspective—are about as sanctified as the Antichrist French kissing a crack whore in Bret Michaels’ hot tub.
"Doug," as the master of the profane and inappropriate analogy, let me give you a few pointers. First, Bret Michaels? Bret Michaels? Pick someone relevant unless obscurity adds to the joke. Second, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Does the Bible forbid French kissing? Show me where. Show me where French kissing is forbidden. Please. You bill yourself as a minister, so this should be easy for you. Surely your knowledge of the divine word is encyclopedic. Third, the hot tub contributes nothing. Sanctification of these events is in no way dependent on whether they are performed in tepid water.
Yep, I wanna give a special shout out to all the “major” ministers who fawned and swooned over Barack and swayed their congregations to vote for him in spite of his anti-scriptural stances on life, marriage and sexuality.
Well, logically if they endorsed him they're pretty happy that he won. Anti-scriptural stances and all. Maybe they fail to recognize "Doug Giles" as the final arbiter of a political figure's compatability with a Christian worldview as defined by "Doug Giles."
Let’s take a look at Obama’s homosexual agenda for our nation:
OK, I need clarification on the use of "homosexual" as an adjective here. Is Obama's overall agenda homosexual (i.e., "OMG that agenda is SO gay") or is this a "homosexual agenda" (i.e., "Here's my black agenda. In a few moments I will speak about my homosexual one")?
I know it's early but I nominate "Obama's homosexual agenda for our nation" as the most nonsensical sentence of 2009.
My colleague and co-belligerent compadre right here on TownHall.com, Matt Barber, pointed out to me during an interview on my show last week that literally within minutes after President Obama took the oath of office Tuesday, the official White House webpage was updated—under the heading of “Civil Rights”—to detail Obama’s wholesale “support for the LGBT (homosexual activist) community.” His stated plans include the following:
"Doug," it's common for a Real Professional Writer to note when he or she adds something in an offset quote. See, the open and closed quotes (" ") suggest that you are "quoting" something directly, yet the term "(homosexual activist)" appears nowhere on the stated website.
Your chosen syntax indicates that LGBT means "homosexual activist." What exactly is a homosexual activist? If the term is defined as anyone who believes that gay people should have more rights than "Doug Giles" would like them to have, then I suppose LGBT really does mean homosexual activist. Otherwise, this is problematic.
Defeating all state and federal constitutional efforts to defend the millennia-old definition of natural marriage;
WOW! I had NO IDEA that the President had the power to do that. Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with John Yoo's theories of executive power, but even I didn't think it could go this far. Boy is my face red.
Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton—the only line of defense keeping all 50 states from being forced to recognize so-called “same-sex marriages” from extremely liberal states like Massachusetts and Connecticut;
I thought the last line of defense against same-sex marriage was not marrying someone of the same sex. Or the Coast Guard Reserve. One of those two.
Also, WOW! The President can repeal laws. I really should not be teaching the Presidency given the Gulf of Mexico-sized gaps in my knowledge of the inherent powers of the office.
Repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy;
Yeah, you really have to be out on a limb to oppose a law as brilliant, effective, and well-conceived as that one. Only the queerest of the queer could oppose it. Truman Capote. The cast of Queer Eye. Austin Scarlett from Project Runway. Those oiled-up guys in thongs who dance in cages. The Grand Marshal of the Key West Pride Parade. Ken Mehlman.
Passing constitutionally dubious and discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation, granting homosexuals and cross dressers special rights—denied other Americans—based on changeable sexual behaviors;
Granting homosexuals and "cross-dressers" "special rights" to have the people who murdered them because they were homosexuals or cross-dressers charged with an additional felony after they are dead. I find this to be a very questionable definition of a "right" let alone a special one.
All sexual "behavior" is changeable, "Doug." When you define things as behavior then they are, by definition, changeable. Locking someone in solitary confinement, for example, would change all of their behaviors. What you can't change is who people are. Let me give you an example.
You could move in with me, "Doug," and I could put it in your ass every night for the rest of your life. You probably would not like this very much (nor do I look forward to it). But you could force yourself to do it if you allowed yourself to be convinced that it is what you are "supposed to" do. So if your point is that gay people could force themselves do A) do something they don't want to do and B) abstain from doing what they want to do, then I guess I have to agree with you. They could. This would leave only the question of why.
Passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would force business owners (religious and otherwise) to abandon traditional values relative to sexual morality under penalty of law;
That's right, "Doug." Many people believe that an employer should not be able to fire an employee for being gay. Just like your employer can't fire you for being a loud-mouthed asshole who probably beat his children and a terrible writer.
Actually, I think you can get fired for that last one.
Creating intentionally motherless and fatherless homes and sexually confusing untold thousands of children by expanding “gay adoption.”
"Doug," I will make a sweeping claim with complete confidence here: your kids, and the kids raised by breeders who tune into your radio show every day, are without a doubt the most "sexually confused" children on the planet. The only question is where exactly they will fall on the continuum between "compulsive, self-loathing masturbator pinballing between sadistic porn websites and his local confessional" and "girl who ends up pregnant at 14 and/or finally moves away from home and ends up banging everything that moves until gonorrhea shuts down the party."
But maybe you're right. Children should all be raised by straight couples, an arrangement in which it has been proven utterly impossible to produce a maladjusted kid.
Barber went on to say, “While millions had hoped for a political ‘messiah,’ it’s rapidly becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of ‘change we can believe in’ is, in reality, ‘change we never imagined.’
Was the new President's position on these issues a secret prior to the election? In that case I'd call it pretty darn imaginable. Also, way to keep up the "extreme leftist"/socialist drumbeat. That worked REALLY well during the election, so make sure to stick with it.
“The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies. The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It’s a zero-sum game. When 1 – 2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviors, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority. People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats—it’s going to be a bumpy four years,” concluded Barber.
How much of your column consists of recapping or directly quoting this other genius's column? I'm estimating about 40%. Do you actually get paid for this? And yes, I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion. For people like "Doug" it is indeed going to be a bumpy four years.
And that’s just the tip of the pink iceberg, folks.
Naturally occuring pink ice is usually a result of billions of colored algae mixed into the freezing ocean water. So the only thing that's unclear is if the algae are supporters of the radical homosexual agenda or if homosexuals now control algae.
If it’s change you wanted, “Christian,” it’s change you’re about to get, as in more unborn babies are going to get offed, more Brad and Chad, and if things go Obama’s way, chunks of Scripture will officially get tagged as hate speech, your church will have to hire RuPaul or face punishment, and our military will have to make room for Chippendale dancers on the base partly because of you, the Obama evangelical, who voted for such a change.
That is one sentence.
"Doug" is the worst kind of right-wing jackass, the kind who thinks he is funny. Like, legitimately funny. The kind who arm themselves with Mesozoic Era pop culture references (There'll be gay Chippendales everywhere, dancing the Charleston atop flagpoles! How about those new Studebakers? I'd buy one if I weren't so committed to the new War Bond drive!) embedded in idiotic reductio ad absurdum arguments.
Social commentary should be either A) funny or B) true. You accomplish neither, Mr. "Giles." For instance, I don't think RuPaul ("Doug Giles," live from 1994!) is looking for church employment. Nor would any propsed legislation "force your church to hire" him or "face punishment." I think the Chippendales perform mostly for a female audience. And once again, what sort of law would require their presence on military bases? See, "Doug," this just makes absolutely no sense, which in a way makes perfect sense in a rant addressed to "Obama evangelicals" who may or may not exist.
And that is really the essence of being a right-wing columnist – unhinged shrieking about a threat that doesn't exist perpetrated by a ridiculous caricature of the opposition. Every day I inch closer to declaring "Fuck it" to all of my pursuits and becoming one of them. I can't imagine an easier job.