Duck Dynasty takes aim at gays

PhilRobertson2.jpg


Duck Dynasty star takes aim at gays. And boy oh boy is the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) having a hissy fit! “It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” said Phil Robertson, head of the Duck Dynasty clan. How dare he use logic.

This post was last modified on January 26, 2021

J.P. Travis: Born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976 graduate of University of Michigan, father, grandfather, husband, founder and CEO of Travelyn Publishing (http://www.travelynpublishing.com/), and passionate anti-government believer in individual liberty.

View Comments (80)

  • He stated things that I disagreed with like the bit about Jim Crow and so on. However he has the right to state whatever he wants as long as it is not speech that leads to violence against the people he disagrees with. Not all speech is protected as some speech violates the legitimate rights of others, but nothing he said violates the rights of others. There is no right to not be offended. People just need to back off. Where was the general outrage when a grown man said that people should do unmentionable things to a woman for stating her opinions on MSNBC? That speech was disgusting but one can say that it could have incited violence agains Sarah Palin that someone could have actually done as Bashir did advocate that someone should do something disgusting to her.

    • To be fair to Phil, he said not one word about Jim Crow. The reference to Jim Crow has been added by the character assassins attacking him. Here are his words exactly:

      "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

      Jim Crow lasted from 1876-1965. To suggest that Phil's comments about working the cotton fields alongside blacks was a commentary on Jim Crow is kind of a stretch. His experience in the cotton fields covers what? 2 or 3% of the Jim Crow era? But I can pretty much guarantee Phil knows more about Jim Crow than those idiots at the Huffington Post. Liberals are using the term "Jim Crow" to paint as negative a picture as possible of his comments, which were not about Jim Crow or racism at all, but rather about what makes people happy.

      What makes people happy is godliness, not affirmative action legislation from the government. That was his main point. And there is a further point you can read between the lines of what he said: everybody in the racism business conveniently forgets that wherever black people suffered as slaves, poor white people were generally suffering right alongside them. John Grisham has a great book based on his own experiences growing up on a cotton farm. He talks about his father gathering cotton pickers and generally ending up with 1/3 blacks, 1/3 whites, and 1/3 Mexicans. And nobody ever mentions that at the very beginning of this country's history, white indentured servants outnumbered black slaves and lived very similar lives, including lifetime servitude, children born into servitude, and being bought and sold as property. Most people think mixed offspring were strictly a result of owners raping slaves, but they forget about all the fraternization between white indentured servants and black slaves, who had so much in common they appreciated each other in spite of the racial differences.

      Wow, did I write all that?

      • It doesn't surprise me in the least that HuffPo mischaracterized what he said, it's all they have is lies and deceit, the truth doesn't work in their favor.

    • They're in a position, in my opinion, where nobody can really hurt them. They will do as they please, regardless of who doesn't like it, and go on with their lives. Oh, to be in that position.

  • I think it's hilarious that the sodomites are so up in arms over this and that the TV station would even care - the "offended" certainly don't watch that show, so who cares?

    • Glen Beck offered to run the show. IMO, the clan should go out on its own terms and leave the culture wars behind.

      • Many people are saying go with Glen Beck but I doubt it's that easy. I'm sure "Duck Dynasty" is copyrighted by A&E/Disney so at the very least they would have to change the name, and something tells me they signed a contract that doesn't let them go elsewhere and start a similar show. Maybe lawyers could make a case that A&E breached the contract but that would take years.

        • I think A&E learned their lesson from the whole Dog The Bounty Hunter debacle. Dog and crew finally got fed up with A&E's B/S and went to CMT, where they now have Dog and Beth On The Hunt. After that bitch-slap to A&E I'm sure they have revised their contracts so that whom ever they sign for a show, can not in any way take the concept of the show to another network.

  • Once again the leftist want their 1st Amendment right and deny them to everyone else who speaks out against what they think or wish to do.

    Phil Robertson comes across as a man who really could careless what the folks at GLAD think and surely could careless what the A&E management think. Flash back to last year when he gave A&E an ultimate. Leave us alone to do and say as we feel or just leave.

  • God is real and every man that looks at the world knows deep down that there is a Creator. Man separates himself from God through sin, desires of the flesh, which war against God. We are all born into a fallen world, a sin nature. As one man brought us all into that sin nature one man born of the Spirit, the Son of God can bring us back to God.

    Romans 8:3-9
    3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

    Romans 1:18-32
    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
    24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    Romans 12:1
    Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

    If we continue in our sin and teach the world to accept it are we not doing the work of Satan, the deceiver, the one who comes to steal, kill and destroy? Is it not OK to tell the world that sin separates us from God? Is that love of man or hate?

  • If being gay is genetic, how does one account for the " gay until graduation" craze that appears to be popular with coeds nowadays?

  • So much for freedom of speech in Hollywierd. I heard some of the so called producers at A&E practically soiled their pants.

  • I'm just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

    The menfolk are just no where near as good looking as them there womens. When I say that to women they say if i were a woman I would be on the hunt for sausage.

    • Haha, I know! How neat would it be to take advantage of all modern sensitivities and claim that you are a woman trapped in a man's body, but that you like that butch look anyway, and demand to be treated as a woman and a lesbian! And accuse any hot broad of being a "hater' if she told you to get away!

      /Sadly, most are NOT hot broads. There's an older gal in the bagpipe band I play with who is married to another gal, and they are like the most stereotypical pair you could picture. Our piper lady is the "butch" with the short hair and workboots, and the other is -- well, honestly, she looks like a drag queen.

        • Of all the lesbian couples I know, the ones that have been together the longest, and that I believe will stay that way, are the REAL stereotype. One of them I knew for a while before I really knew for sure she was a woman, the other is drop dead gorgeous.

          I love 'em both. They're wonderful people.

          • I have a bunch of research ready for a column on gays but so far I haven't written it. One thing that surprised me was the low level of permanence in lesbian couples. Everybody knows that gay males seldom stay together long, and I know even when they are together and callin themselves monogamous they are generally having sex outside the relationship, but what totally surprised me was that lesbian relationships are even shorter lived. There is this enduring myth that lesbians form rock solid enduring relationships without the violence of those nasty men, but they actually form very short lived relationships full of violence and domestic abuse.

          • There are lots of jokes around how quickly lesbians cohabitate, that come out of that community (e.g. what does a lesbian bring to a 2nd date? A U-Haul! ).. So maybe they tend to hookup too quickly and this contributes to higher degree of relationship fail

            baseless speculation though

          • That appears to be true of younger lesbians, the older ones I know have been together a long time.
            It probably has a lot to do with having to keep things on the QT back in the day. Now that it's open and largely accepted, they are much more likely to have shorter relationships.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015