File this under “Yep They Said It!”

The National Organization for Marriage facebook page and supporters were attacked with racial epithets by none other than the tolerance police of the left.  After being thoroughly shamed, the offending posters actually removed their own posts, but before they could bury the evidence, I was able to get some illustrative screen shots:

This is James “Equality” Troia and sidekick Ron Bachar, representing the face of tolerance in the gay movement:

So there it is!  Yep!  They said it!

The interesting thing to me is that this came after four threads of trolls comparing NOM to the KKK…. from a group of activists that claim they are the face of the new civil rights movement!

Irony bites doesn’t it?

—Beetle Blogger



  1. Troy said,

    December 9, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    So these must be the same people that always tell me that I’m a hateful bigot.

  2. Choice and Accountability said,

    December 9, 2009 at 10:35 pm

    Stunning display. But then with many involved in furthering gay-identity politics, it’s always been a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.” So glad you recorded this. Good work BB!

  3. beetlebabee said,

    December 9, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    Yeah, I love the line “I’m no racist, but you are a N****!!!”

  4. Chairm said,

    December 10, 2009 at 4:48 am

    Bigot: A person blindly attached to an opinion and bitterly intolerant of those whose opinion differs.

    Hardline SSMer: An individual obstinately, unreasonably, and inseparably devoted to the supremacy of gay identity politics.

    The SSMers provided no principled basis for their opinions; and no objective criteria for distinguishing SSM from other types of relationships; and they cheated against their own rules of argumentation regarding sexual orientation (there are over 30 such orientations) as per the questions that prompted their outburst. They each had time (15 minutes plus if I read the time stamps correctly) to calm down and yet they repeated the insults.

    Evidently, this is what they really feel about those who disagree with them. This is the emotivism that fuels their overwrought devotion to the first axiom of SSM argumentation far and wide: that to disagree is an act of bigotry.

    Yet they deleted their comments? Their not-too-subtle purpose in that discussion was to provoke marriage defenders to hurl insults.

    Andrew Doyle is to be commended for keeping his cool, for sticking to the line of inquiry that clearly follows from the assertions of the SSMers, and for demonstrating that their insults missed the mark.

  5. Chairm said,

    December 10, 2009 at 4:50 am

    Sorry for the typos.

  6. beetlebabee said,

    December 10, 2009 at 5:41 am


    They did indeed delete the comments. The conversation with the missing parts is still standing on the NOM facebook thread linked above. This exchange was on the first page of what ended up being over 300 comments. Never did any other successive SSM commenter ever apologize or attempt to do anything but defend the offensive comments. In fact, later in the thread they went ahead and added to it! Those comments may not still be standing either, I haven’t checked.

    I’ve seen Andrew debate in there before, he’s a good guy to let this kind of junk roll off like that. It isn’t the first time he’s been attacked for his color that I’ve seen either. Women and ethnic groups tend to get the worst kind of treatment from the SSMers.

  7. whattheXblog said,

    December 10, 2009 at 7:50 am

    Oh yay! I am famous!


  8. Chairm said,

    December 10, 2009 at 9:00 am

    Yes, a very large contingent of the SSM foot solidiers are very free with their animus toward marriage defenders — based on sex, ethnicity, ‘race’, and … sexual orientation.

    Obviously, if an SSMer assumes you are ‘straight’/heterosexual (they conflate the two all the time as a way of bookending ‘gay’/homosexual), then, expect lots of attitude that is openly anti-straight and anti-heterosexual.

    But, perhaps less seen in open forums, there is also a very strong tendency of SSMers to virulently attack (via blatant ad hom) any defender of marriage who is gay or lesbian or bisexual or ‘transgendered’ etc.

    It takes a thick skin and a sure heart to stand against the SSM merger if one identifies as liberal or as Democrat, also.

    It is akin to a declaration that the person is a traitor to her ‘race’. It is in these moments of conflcit that we see the mask removed. Whatever the form of identity politics, its assertion as a trump card is highly corrosive of public discourse, expression of one’s free conscience, and even freedom of association.

    It is also crude and rude and counter-productive since it detracts from the actual disagreement.

  9. December 10, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    The late Father Neuhaus wrote an awesome article on identity politics. I quoted the relevant portion here:

  10. beetlebabee said,

    December 10, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    The funny thing is James, you probably see what you did here as right and good and perfectly justified. Well, except for the deleting after the fact….

  11. James said,

    December 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Except for imibe thing, I don’t need to erase my comments on the NOM FB page, NOM admins remove anything they don’t agree with. Even NON members have their comments erased.

  12. beetlebabee said,

    December 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Sure they do.

  13. James said,

    December 10, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    You want me to put you in touch with NOM members that have had their comments deleted?

    Or are they deleting their comments too and simple not being able to remember it?

  14. beetlebabee said,

    December 10, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    James, with your record breaking lack of respectful dialogue on that site, I’m surprised they haven’t banned you from the forum completely, honestly. I thought you were all about equality James. That’s what you claim anyway. Why should you be surprised when those on your side of the argument are treated the same as any other? It appears that fairness wins on NOM blog.

    Regardless of your personal pet peeves, I’m interested to know why it is ok to racially attack a commenter on that site. Seriously, reading your comments I was transported back to those 1960’s documentaries, and yours were the sentiments on the wrong side of history friend.

    Chairm has given his analysis of your motives and thoughts, and you have not objected, do you agree? All’s fair in love and war if your side is “right”?

  15. JustSayin' said,

    December 10, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    WoW. Talk about tolerance FAIL. That’s about the worst one I’ve seen. It’s all good as long as you’re on the right side of history right James?

  16. Salome Rene said,

    December 10, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    Well. I have to say that this particular post has been quite enlightening. I’ve been reposting in likely places with quite a bit of satisfaction. I can’t make it right for Andrew, but at least people can know what kind of slugs the gay lobby has representing them out here.

  17. December 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by beetlebabee, beetlebabee. beetlebabee said: File this under "Yep They Said It!": […]

  18. L. Marie said,

    December 10, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    The thing that is baffling to me is why anyone would think this sort of persecution was ok. I don’t care who you are or what you believe, spewing racial epithets in order to intimidate and demean is wrong.

  19. James said,

    December 10, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Remind me again, how was I racist to Andrew? Elaborate.

  20. Giles said,

    December 10, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    James?? Are you the same James that attacked this Andrew guy? And you’re asking…… you’re unreal. No really. You’re right. It’s all good man. Next you’ll be saying he was asking for it right? Little andrew had it coming did he? Maybe you’ll go burn crosses on his lawn next? Good luck with that. You’re sick.

  21. James said,

    December 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    You really need to learn how to read. I said Andrew would be building crosses, not me. Do try again.

  22. Chairm said,

    December 11, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Sometimes a troll is just a troll, folks.

  23. beetlebabee said,

    December 11, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Looks like it!

  24. Choice and Accountability said,

    December 12, 2009 at 1:22 am

    I wonder if James and Ron would stand by their words if they were, say, displayed up on a bill board right in the heart of Trenton. Or how about if Bishop Harry Jackson, of WA D.C. were to pass around this exchange amongst his parish members? How do you suppose that would affect P.R. for the proponents of SSM?

    Suppose either one has enough character or integrity to issue an apology?

  25. Lahona said,

    December 18, 2009 at 9:15 am

    Issue an apology? I don’t see that happening. James and Ron would have to then admit that they were in the wrong, which is something that their ego centrism will not allow. I live in the south, you would have to have a death wish in order to say the things that James and Ron said while standing in the middle of a predominantly black neighborhood. James and Ron have proven by their words that good character and integrity are not part of the position they represent.

  26. James said,

    December 18, 2009 at 10:59 am

    Work on your spelling girlfriend and chances are hi I will take what you say more seriously.

  27. beetlebabee said,

    December 18, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    James, I’m not sure that is really the case, but if you all of a sudden sprout a conscience and decide that people are truly equal no matter who they are, feel free to send Andrew your apology directly. No need to post here first.

  28. James said,

    December 18, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    People equal?! That what’s the gay community wants, but a certain “Victorian” organization keeps getting in the way.

  29. beetlebabee said,

    December 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    All people are equal James.

  30. James said,

    December 19, 2009 at 7:46 am

    But where is the equality? in some states, gay people can still be fired from their jobs simply because they are gay, and you say people are equal?

  31. beetlebabee said,

    December 19, 2009 at 10:01 am

    In some states people can be taken to court and fined just for being Christian. Does that make Christians less equal? Or does that make the law wrong?

  32. James said,

    December 19, 2009 at 10:26 am

    Oh I think it makes the law wrong. But, tell me, what are your views on discrimination?

  33. beetlebabee said,

    December 19, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    Do you mean to say that your views on discrimination have already been displayed as evidenced by this post? My views are as already stated. All people are equal, and should be treated equally. Apparently you do not share that view as I’m sure Andrew can attest.

  34. James said,

    December 19, 2009 at 5:44 pm

    Well that’s just wonderful. Its great to know you think gay people should be able to get married too!!

  35. Lahona said,

    December 19, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Nice dodge there James, thank you for pointing out my spelling errors, I will be more observant of them in my future comments. However the point that I made in my last comment is still valid. You seem to be so assured of the rightness of your own position that nothing you do can possibly be wrong. The idea that you are infallible is flawed at best. Learn to recognize your own mistakes, seek to change them and you will become a better person in the long run.

  36. beetlebabee said,

    December 19, 2009 at 6:03 pm

    There is nothing in the law that bars people with SSA from marrying, James. Your point is moot.

  37. beetlebabee said,

    December 19, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    “James and Ron have proven by their words that good character and integrity are not part of the position they represent.”

    I agree with Lahona. This is not a position of tolerance. What James and Ron displayed in attacking Andrew simply for his race was wrong, and they have still not had the honesty to look their own bigotry in the face. They’ll accuse everyone who disagrees with their politics as bigots, but when it comes to differences that people truly can’t change, like race…..the bigotry of the gay activists on NOM’s page is apparent time and time again. The message is clear: Agree with me, or else. That’s just not a position of tolerance. I’m thankful to you James for being willing to reiterate through your silence your dedication to tyranny and true bigotry.

    As Andrew stated so well, your movement is a movement of force, hatred and intolerance, it has nothing to do with the great efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King. Thank you for the illustration.

  38. Chairm said,

    December 20, 2009 at 10:43 am

    Have they said why they decided to delete their own comments? No explanation seems rather damning.

  39. beetlebabee said,

    December 21, 2009 at 9:25 am


  40. James said,

    December 21, 2009 at 9:54 am

    Agree with me it else? Well that line reminds Of if the cathoilc church in DC, city starts marrying gay people ad we’ll start killing off the homeless.

    At least when it comes to the gay community, we DONT use thr poor and needy as ammunition.

  41. beetlebabee said,

    December 21, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    Really…. somehow I find it difficult to believe that Catholic Charities would be killing homeless people. I heard Equality California is organizing voluncations and all expense paid trips to D.C. to man the soup lines now that D.C.’s new religious litmus test has booted Catholic Charities from public service. I’m wondering how that will go. Will they have training sessions to keep your particular brand of “tolerance” from putting like minded activists on the wrong side of six feet under? I’ve heard the D.C. poor and needy have their own kind of tolerance for mouthy racists.

  42. James said,

    December 21, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    The Catholic Church had a choice, to keep feeding the poor and needy, or not. the Catholic Church chose not to. No one forced them to do anything.

  43. beetlebabee said,

    December 21, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    I applaud your reasonable stance with regard to supporting Catholic Charity’s freedom of religion where it conflicts with D.C.’s intolerant new law. It seems you want them to continue to serve the poor almost as much as they do. (What, you don’t like the idea of voluncations to D.C.’s soup line?) However, were Catholic Charities to continue to work with the city, they would be open to lawsuits based on the tenets of D.C.’s marriage law which has no room for anyone who disagrees with the promotion of homosexuality or SSM. The topic is wide open and easy to research. I would encourage you to do so if you are truly concerned about the discrimination against faith based groups in D.C. now occurring because of D.C.’s new SSM law.

    However, you still have not addressed the issues, and I await your response.

  44. Lahona said,

    December 29, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Again I see more table jumping from one topic to another. It seems that every time James finds himself losing ground on any given topic, he changes topics. I wonder what topic he will jump to next. The anticipation is building!

  45. Mike Müller said,

    March 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    James Troia and Ron Bachar are two of the people that pitched a hue and cry when I created Marriage America on Facebook and asked Serena Nino to be my co-admin. They called me a “traitor” among other things when I tried to open rational a dialogue. This merely goes to show that there are bad apples in every bunch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: