The past of Cpl Sanchez

posted at 10:48 pm on March 7, 2007 by Bryan

If you haven’t heard the story, here’s the gist. Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez, recent winner of the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award at CPAC, was once a gay porn, erm, actor and escort. But apparently he isn’t anymore.

The left is making this revelation a Jeff Gannon redux.

What they’re actually showing is that, once again, the left loves the sin but hates the sinner (if the sinner is a Republican). Because you won’t find many if any denunciations of what Sanchez did on its own merits; they’ll just slam him for “hypocrisy” for being a Republican with a past.

But what about his present? Take a minute to read a letter from a Columbia student (that’s where Sanchez has risen to fame as a student taking on the anti-war thugs on campus) posted at Michelle’s blog.

I’m a freshman at Columbia and I enrolled in the USMC PLC officer training program as soon as I got here. After Matt discovered that I was involved with the program he made it his personal mission to ensure that he closed some of the gaps between my (hopefully) future as a Marine officer and the lack of support offered by the fools here in Columbia’s administration. He has been in the gym with me, often three to four times a week, despite taking classes and working full time, offered his advice as a current Marine and opened up considerable opportunities for myself, including two appearance on FOX News. Simply put, he’s a great guy who goes the distance for anyone that asks and never asks for anything in return.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing, and the whole post. Sanchez would have done well to inform CPAC of his past and let them decide whether or not to honor him with the award, but he didn’t and it’s not difficult to understand why. Who wants to bring up something like that, once a group of distinguished people have decided that you’re honorable?

For our friends on the left who will tar the entire conservative movement over the past of one man, you’d do well to consider something that GayPatriotWest reminded me of — at the heart of the Christian story is a prostitute, Mary Magdalene. At the heart of the New Testament is a book called Corinthians, in which Paul describes some of the early Christians thus:

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

“…and such were some of you…” He’s talking to some of the first Christians. Those people had histories. But change is possible. Based on his actions at Columbia and in joining the Marines, I’d say that change has happened.

That’s not to excuse or defend anything, just to put it into perspective.

Update: Sanchez speaks:

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don’t like it. That’s not hypocrisy talking; that’s just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn’t like porn’s liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today.

Read the rest. Good can come from awful things. Every human, somewhere in your life, holds proof of that.

Update: There’s more to being human than just scoring political points.

Update: I’ll be on Kevin McCullough’s show, WMCA 570 & 970 AM in NYC, at 2:30 to talk about Matt Sanchez and who the real hypocrites are. Click the link to listen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Libby did nothing wrong. Dick Armitage admitted that he was the one who “outed” Valerie Plame. Joe Wilson is a proven liar. Read up on the case.

foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Just a suggestion–you may want to steer clear of the threads discussing the Libby verdict. Unless by accountability you mean pardon…
honora on March 8, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Non. I want an appeal. I want a bunch of other people looking at this. Very closely. Yes. Funny what often comes out in appeals. New evidence … etc. etc.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 11:14 AM

BTW: honora – you can read all about the Libby case on HuffPo. Apparantly one of the jurors – who just happens to be a lefty journalist (go figure!) whipped some 10 pages of “notes” in about 10 minutes after the trial and posted it there. And yeah, I hope Bush does pardon him.

foxforce91 on March 8, 2007 at 11:15 AM

I’m disgusted with many things I did in my past. Does that mean I have to be a liberal? Is there no hope for me? Can I not change? “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?”

armyvet on March 8, 2007 at 11:22 AM

This is worth bringing back to the fore:

I hate to be one of those nasty nuanced Democrats, but try this on for size: repent of your past sins, turn your life around, and oh yeah, don’t put yourself front and center in the shall we say less than gay friendly conservative movement–with all the attendent publicity–without advising the good people who are feting you of your past.
It’s this last part that is the rub–this guy is either a con man or monumentally stupid.
honora on March 8, 2007 at 9:26 AM

This sums up essentially the hard Left “UNFORGIVEN” position. We all must pass a litmus test and defer to the Left power elite. Our past will be held against us, to humiliate us if we step out of line.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM

at the heart of the Christian story is a prostitute, Mary Magdalene

There is not a shred of evidence for this but certainly, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Valiant on March 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM

So should we call him “Dirty Sanchez”?

Sorry, had to be done.

TexasRainmaker on March 8, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Bryan,

The scripture from Corinthians really does say it all. Beautiful. It is at the heart of what liberals don’t understand. Forgiveness and compassion are for all of us, even the worst of us. For some strange reason the liberals think that because we conservatives espouse honor and integrity that that means we are without the stain of sin. Which is ridiculous of course.

In the end, it is in stories like this (and Foley) that we see the real hypocritical and hateful face of the Democratic party faithfuls.

Rightwingsparkle on March 8, 2007 at 11:26 AM

TexasRainmaker on March 8, 2007 at 11:25 AM

No. He’s getting enough from the Left who really know how to turn a vulgar phrase.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 11:28 AM

i celebrate the manlove between ace and ap.

jummy on March 8, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today.

I hope he realizes how many will be stealing that line.
I have never said it better. As a recovering Dem-a-holic, I take it one issue at a time.

CBarker on March 8, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Check out this MSNBC question: “do you think it makes much difference to conservatives whether you are good at being gay, or bad at being gay?” with regards to Sanchez:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imH_J2fcp4Y&mode=related&search=

digitalintrigue on March 8, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Check out this MSNBC question: “do you think it makes much difference to conservatives whether you are good at being gay, or bad at being gay?” with regards to Sanchez:
digitalintrigue on March 8, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Change that one letter and you make a better grouping with “G-a-y” to “G-u-y”. Now, good guys go kill and kick butt to destroy fascist regimes that stone or hang young men. Bad guys sit home and whimper that everyone is so mean to them. In this case, it’s not important whether the “guy” is “gay” or not. What is important is, what’s he doing with his life?

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I am trying to figure out what Sanchez did in his past that was so wrong.

Being gay is not ilegal.
Being a straight man who is being paid to “take one by the team” up the back door for money is not ilegal (considering I had my annual physical yesterday I can relate to a degree).
being Bi is not ilegal.
Adult pornography is mostly no ilegal.

It may be against some peoples beliefe system. But to be honest, if a guy likes another guy thats none of my business or any ones elses, unless he grabs my arse.
If your god does not like it then your god will take care of it. Leave the judging to a higher power.

The true story is that Sanchez lived a life that he found shamefull and got out of it. He is now living a life that he is proud of, and a life that is honorable. Thats the true story here people. And it is an inspirational story. Is he a hypocrite? Hell no.
He is a man that lived his life, found problems with it, and corrected them. He is living a life that suits him. I for one, am happy for him. Few people have the courage to change their life.

Wyrd on March 8, 2007 at 11:51 AM

i celebrate the manlove between ace and ap.

jummy on March 8, 2007 at 11:34 AM

I won’t argue with ya there!

RightWinged on March 8, 2007 at 11:53 AM

honora, should Mr. Richardson have revealed his ‘fingering’ activities to the Kerry camp?

Btw – I have absolutely no skeletons in my closets. They are lacrima cristi. I know yours are too, after today, and that’s admirable.

Entelechy on March 8, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Entelechy, it’s now Saint honora.

KelliD on March 8, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Again Ann Coulter was way ahead of the curve. She has been one of the most influential conservatives taking on the homophobic liberals ever since Treason. Her joke at CPAC that so many conservatives, like MM and Bryan, missed was a jab at the Left, not at gays.

Now we can see, with the Left’s outing of Matt Sanchez, who the real homophobes are.

The Right, on the other hand, shows that they are lot less judgmental than the Left, as always.

januarius on March 8, 2007 at 1:59 PM

To the libs, don’t you have a leader that writes child porn into his books? How endearing.
The left embraces what is happening now, and condemns what has happened in the past. What a strange way of thinking.

You are here because you want to be us, but you can’t. Like any other leftist that aspires to be great, they must first tear down what is in their way.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 2:04 PM

at the heart of the Christian story is a prostitute, Mary Magdalene

There is not a shred of evidence for this but certainly, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Valiant on March 8, 2007 at 11:24 AM

No shreds? It’s at least an educated guess based on reasonable assumptions. It’s stated in the NT that she was a demoniac from whom 7 demons were cast out. She was the one who annointed Jesus’ feet just prior to the last supper (with perfume worth a years’ wages) and was also reported to have supported his ministry out of her own resources.

Luke reports a very similar perfume-on-the-feet annointing which may or may not be the same event reported in the other gospels. His account states that the woman who annointed Jesus had “led a sinful life.”

The educated guess is that it would have been tough for a demoniac woman to have been economically successful to the degree indicated in Mary Magdelene’s case, unless she was a prostitute. No proof, but it’s not totally whack either.

TexasDan on March 8, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Non. I want an appeal. I want a bunch of other people looking at this. Very closely. Yes. Funny what often comes out in appeals. New evidence … etc. etc.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Is this true? Again, not a lawyer, but I thought an appeal looked at the “fairness” of the proceedings, not new evidence per se? I’m probably mistaken?

honora on March 8, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Oh you’re still (and by you I mean the RW in general) far too supportive of him, at least according to the polls. And why don’t you read the site: the big insult hurled at Bush? He’s not a real conservative. Clever in a sort of way.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 11:01 AM

I’m almost 100% certain that he was talking about Ann Coulter.

1) You cannot be serious! You don’t have to be famous, the obscure are making it onto YouTube daily. Come on.

2) Having this sort of past and making appearances on news programs and appearing at CPAC–hey, I’m not defending it, but how could this guy not think being uncovered (no pun intended) was a very real possibility?

3) I don’t know what the protocol is, but I’ll bet that from now on, the protocol will be a thorough check on any awardees!!!

honora on March 8, 2007 at 10:47 AM

1)Oh course I can. Even though people are getting on YouTube, it doesn’t mean we’ve become our own personal Big Brother. (Ironic isn’t it? Big Brother was supposed to come from the government, but we’re doing it to ourselves.)

2)How could anyone think it was relevant? You’ve yet to explain how it is. Didn’t someone just run for office after having been a male prostitute? And we’re talking about someone who won an award?

3)Why should they? In fact, if they do, I will completely lose respect for them. A person’s past should have nothing to do with receiving ANY award unless it’s a lifetime achievement award. Any attention given to a candidate’s past should be suspect. If you deserve the award on your own, current merits, then you should get it.

Esthier on March 8, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Is this true? Again, not a lawyer, but I thought an appeal looked at the “fairness” of the proceedings, not new evidence per se? I’m probably mistaken?

honora on March 8, 2007 at 2:20 PM

I believe they only look at the fairness when deciding if you get an appeal, not during the appeal itself.

I’m not a lawyer either, but I remember hearing the phrase “grounds for an appeal,” which is where I implied the above.

Esthier on March 8, 2007 at 2:28 PM

honora, should Mr. Richardson have revealed his ‘fingering’ activities to the Kerry camp?

If true, yes. If not true, yes–to the extent of making the allegations known. How can this not be the wise course of action?

Btw – I have absolutely no skeletons in my closets. They are lacrima cristi.

Entelechy on March 8, 2007 at 1:17

PM

I am really, really sorry to hear that! Saints are dreadfully boring, which is why I choose not to completely believe you!!

honora on March 8, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Crikey, honora – it was you who said “if sarcasm has to be noted as such…” or something to this effect :)

Entelechy on March 8, 2007 at 2:34 PM

No proof, but it’s not totally whack either.
TexasDan on March 8, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Thanks for the arguments in favor if the theory. It is one of those things like the “apple” in the Garden of Eden being the fruit of the tree. The Bible really does not spell it out.

Valiant on March 8, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I believe they only look at the fairness when deciding if you get an appeal, not during the appeal itself.

I’m not a lawyer either, but I remember hearing the phrase “grounds for an appeal,” which is where I implied the above.

Esthier on March 8, 2007 at 2:28 PM

From Wikipedia FFIW

In an appeal on the record from a decision in a judicial proceeding, both appellant and respondent are bound to base their arguments wholly on the proceedings and body of evidence as they were presented in the lower tribunal. Each seeks to prove to the higher court that the result they desired was the just result. Precedent and case law figure prominently in the arguments. In order for the appeal to succeed, the appellant must prove that the lower court committed reversible error, that is, an impermissible action by the court acted to cause a result that was unjust, and which would not have resulted had the court acted properly. Some examples of reversible error would be erroneously instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case, permitting seriously improper argument by an attorney, admitting or excluding evidence improperly, acting outside the court’s jurisdiction, injecting bias into the proceeding or appearing to do so, juror misconduct, etc. The failure to formally object at the time, to what one views as improper action in the lower court, may result in the affirmance of the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that one did not “preserve the issue for appeal” by objecting.

So I remain confused, but the scope of my confusion has expanded…

honora on March 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Unamused, I too, have things in my past that I am ashamed of and I believe if we all look into our hearts there is probably something we would have done differently no matter how large or small that something is. So, Cpl. Sanchez has a past-who doesn’t. I guess the left would not care about it one bit if he was in their camp.
He can guard my wall anytime as well. I feel sorry for him having to put up with those fools at Columbia University. I’m sure Alexander Hamilton would be appalled at his former stomping grounds.

Catie96706 on March 8, 2007 at 3:36 PM

So I remain confused, but the scope of my confusion has expanded…

honora on March 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM

The understatement of the year.

KelliD on March 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM

The understatement of the year.

KelliD on March 8, 2007 at 3:57 PM

It’s only March, keep your powder dry.

honora on March 8, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Wait a minute Bryan, I remember when Honora was taken apart for her, well let’s just say “wrong” statements…and she swore she would never post on one of your threads again.

A promise is a promise…except when a liberal makes it.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Wasn’t one of the editors or something of Wikpaedia (sp) just nailed for lying about his credentials? With that kind of oversight, I would be careful quoting them.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Where is that famous RW dedication to taking responsibility for one’s actions?

honora

What “actions” does he need to take responsibility for? Consensual, legal sex? So what? This is not an issue the left should even care about, not to mention the right. But I guess people take any opening for attack, eh? I have to say I’m with the Right on this one (except for the ones who keep telling me I’m eeeeevil for my political affiliation.)

SouthernDem on March 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Wait a minute Bryan, I remember when Honora was taken apart for her, well let’s just say “wrong” statements…and she swore she would never post on one of your threads again.

I remember that too, even before I posted in response to her. Let’s just say that I was being…forgiving.

Bryan on March 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM

I remember that too, even before I posted in response to her. Let’s just say that I was being…forgiving.

Bryan on March 8, 2007 at 5:12 PM

And for giving you the opportunity to be so virtuous, you’re completely welcome!

;^)

honora on March 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Its kind of weird, because I’d be willing to bet that if this guy had come out and said, “I am a Marine who is also a gay porn star and I am proud of it”, he’d be a hero in the eyes of the left.

Fatal on March 8, 2007 at 5:31 PM

SouthernDem on March 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Your not evil, not you, we just don’t want someone so nice as you to hang around those bad influences.

When I speak of Democrats, I speak of the “new” democrats. I consider you a follower of the original democrats, the JFK kind. The ones that were working for a better nation, better life, better government. Not one that wants to keep people uneducated, biggoted, or full of hate for our leaders.

The “new” demos just want to fight, destroy their enemy’s, spit on soldiers, deface our monuments, keep people victimes, etc., and those that say they aren’t like that, support by omission those actions. You can tell by their DNC talking point posts.

You are not one of them. Others that post, are.

My respect to you.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 5:49 PM

So I remain confused, but the scope of my confusion has expanded…
honora on March 8, 2007 at 3:14 PM

honora,
If I was confused about law, I wouldn’t go to Wikipedia. “Reliable” isn’t quite the word to describe that odd repository of a mish-mash of fact and boffo opinion.

naliaka on March 8, 2007 at 5:56 PM

honora on March 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Only a leftist goes back on their word, and then thanks themselves (with pride) for being a liar.

Pretty much explains a leftist thought process.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 6:01 PM

For our friends on the left who will tar the entire conservative movement over the past of one man

You called that one right. The left is famous for forgiving people who support the left and smear the left, and they are notorious for attacking any right winger the left thinks is easy prey, just like they are doing here to this man. This is just another ttempt to smear someone the left feels is a threat. I mean, what if this man runs for office some day? HE’S A REPUBLICAN, so we need to nip this in the bud befor it can grow so lets smear him all we can. BUSH WAS BUSTED FOR POTY IN THE SEVENTIES! HE”S NOT W

RedinBlueCounty on March 8, 2007 at 6:33 PM

opps, dam’t refresh got me

RedinBlueCounty on March 8, 2007 at 6:33 PM

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 5:49 PM

High praise indeed!
/bow

SouthernDem on March 8, 2007 at 7:04 PM

SouthernDem on March 8, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Sounds good now, but wait till I sober up.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 7:55 PM

And for giving you the opportunity to be so virtuous, you’re completely welcome!

;^)

honora on March 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM

But Bryan, your virtue is nothing, if you don’t expose all your skeletons to us, in order to be awarded the “Virtuous Man of HA”. We are your CPAC :)

(except for the ones who keep telling me I’m eeeeevil for my political affiliation.)

SouthernDem on March 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM

SD, as an adult, you, and us, are free to affiliate in any which way we choose. Those who’d tell you otherwise are dead wrong. I wrote to you before on HA – it’s an honor and a privilege to have a true Kennediesque/Trumanian Democrat here. We don’t have to agree all the time either. Regards,

Entelechy on March 8, 2007 at 10:18 PM

The words of Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez and his life story are moving.

Thank you for posting this, Bryan, and gathering all the information together. You nailed it with the phrase, “the left loves the sin but hates the sinner.” I thought the JunkYardBlog post, Backfire and redemption, was also excellent.

If I could add a little clarity, or at least a little more information, about Mary Magdalene. Luke records the story of the woman who was a sinner (most think a prostitute) in Luke 7:36-50. Luke doesn’t name her, and the story is a great contrast between the humble, repentant immoral woman and sanctimonious, self-righteous Simon.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned in the next chapter in verse 2 as having been delivered of seven demons. I did some reading this afternoon and one author said that if the two were the same person Luke probably would have named the woman in chapter seven. He was a careful writer.

In his gospel in chapter 12, John states that the anointing of Jesus shortly before His death occurred in Bethany. This is the town of the sisters, Martha and Mary, and their brother, Lazarus, whom Jesus had recently raised from the dead (recorded in chapter 11). In John 12, he mentions Martha, Lazarus and then Mary. Because of this it seems that this Mary who anointed Jesus is their sister, Mary of Bethany.

That passage from Corinthians is one of my favorites. I never get tired of grace and forgiveness.

INC on March 8, 2007 at 11:57 PM

The “new” demos just want to fight, destroy their enemy’s, spit on soldiers, deface our monuments, keep people victimes, etc., and those that say they aren’t like that, support by omission those actions. You can tell by their DNC talking point posts.

right2bright on March 8, 2007 at 5:49 PM

You’ve nailed just about every right-wing caricature of the left, save maybe flag burning.

You’re wrong of course, but by the looks of your post you won’t be convinced otherwise.

Nonfactor on March 9, 2007 at 1:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2