Click here to view this media The hackery over at Fox just never stops. With the economy in the tank and millions of people out of work and fed up with what’s going on in America — the rich getting richer and income disparity we haven’t seen since the Gilded Age — someone gets fed up enough to start lighting rich people’s homes on fire, and of course it’s all the Democrats’ fault. Their sin, in Megyn Kelly’s eyes, is having a “class warfare narrative”. Obviously no one in the Democratic Party is advocating for people to go out there and burn down rich people’s houses. Kelly is ridiculous as she attempts to paint any Democrats who have been honest about the fact that there is class warfare going on, and the fact that the upper class is winning it, as the cause for civil unrest. Pointing out what’s painfully obvious already to the people suffering is not what causes someone to lash out like this. The suffering is. That, or just straight-out mental illness or both, which we won’t know until they catch the suspect[s]. In the meantime, of course, “Fair and Balanced” Fox anchors are free to speculate as wildly as they like. Kelly rounds out her coverage with telling her viewers to go check out Bernard Goldberg’s op-ed, which I already posted about here: Bernard Goldberg Attacks Senator Sanders and Calls for ‘Big Bronze and Granite Monument’ to Honor the Rich Yeah, that’s the ticket, Megyn. I’m sure reading that op-ed will just turn around every American who didn’t realize that their biggest economic problem is that they weren’t building enough monuments to rich people. h/t Media Matters and here’s more on the arson from The Boston Globe. Arson suspected in 2 Cape Cod incidents : State fire officials are investigating a connection between two separate incidents of arson in two Cape Cod towns, authorities said yesterday. In both instances, someone apparently left messages at the scene condemning wealthy people, officials said. State Fire Marshal Stephen D. Coan said evidence found at both locations has led investigators to believe they might be connected. “There is some commonality to both incidents,’’ Coan said. “There was offensive graffiti that was written and very visibly displayed at both sites.’’ On Nov. 24 at around 3:30 a.m., fire crews responded to Boulder Brook Road in Sandwich, where a heavy fire ripped through an unoccupied home and garage that was still under construction. Coan said State Police assigned to his office and personnel from the Sandwich police and fire departments concluded the blaze was intentionally set, based on physical evidence found. More than a week later in Barnstable, someone attempted to burn down a residence on Trotters Lane in the Marstons Mills section, Coan said. Barnstable police Detective John York said authorities discovered incendiary devices at the home, and someone had spray-painted expletives on the fence. A similar message was found at the house in Sandwich. York said the incendiary devices, which officials would not describe in detail, appear to have burned out before setting the Barnstable home on fire Dec. 2. “Fortunately, no one was injured in either incident,’’ Coan said. He declined to say how investigators determined the incidents to be arson, citing the ongoing investigation. Coan urged anyone with information about either incident to call the state’s 24-hour arson hotline at 800-682-9229.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media There have been all kinds of obituaries already written for the DREAM Act — most recently the WaPo’s dubious report Sunday declaring the DREAM Act had been “shelved” : “The measure that passed in the House on Wednesday is unlikely go anywhere in the Senate,” it claimed. Well, maybe, maybe not. Fact is, the DREAM Act at this point is still very much alive, and there are rumblings from some Republicans — led by Richard Lugar — that they too are going to do the right thing and vote for it. After all, as Laura Ingraham pointed out on Fox & Friends this morning, the DREAM Act was originally sponsored by a Republican Senator — Orrin Hatch of Utah. Now, of course, like his pal John McCain (who also championed it for years), he’s nowhere to be found. Still, these rumblings make Ingraham nervous, and she warned all good Republicans out there that they need to remember what they got sent to Washington to do, which apparently is: Block and obstruct any and every measure or policy championed or proposed by Democrats, regardless of its actual merits. And make no doubt: Democrats are working to pass the DREAM Act, because they recognize it’s a one-time opportunity to get it right. Here’s Harry Reid today at his press conference: REID: We have made some progress since we visited with you last Thursday. We still have the same number of things to do, but we have made some progress. We’ve got — we must complete the tax bill. We hope to do that as early as sometime this evening. We’re going to move as soon as we can to the START treaty. We may have to go back and forth a little bit, because we have to fund the government. There’s going to be a staff briefing on the work that Senator Inouye and his members have done on the funding for the government. That’s sometime this afternoon, over in the Dirksen Building. Once we complete those three major things, we have other things to do that are extremely important. We’ve got to make sure that we complete work on the DREAM Act. There were some very impassioned presentations made in our caucus today on that. Right now, it appears that supporters of the act are four votes short. Four Democratic senators in particular need to be reminded of the importance of this legislation: Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who was originally elected with strong progressive support, and is currently a ‘no’; his Montana Senate-mate, Max Baucus, who’s sitting on the fence; Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, another fence-sitter; and Sen. Kaye Hagan of North Carolina, who, as Kos acutely observes, owes her seat to black and Latino voters. Some other fence-sitters who could use similar reminders are Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri; Joe Manchin of West Virginia; Kent Conrad of North Dakota; and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. They’re being persuaded, evidently, by people like Dana Rohrbacher, who thinks it’s a plot to harm white people: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) was not joking when he took to the House floor Wednesday to warn that voting for “the Affirmative Action Amnesty Act,” as he dubbed DREAM, will “relegate the position of non-minority American citizens to behind those who are now in this country illegally.” Appearing on Radio America with Greg Corombus yesterday, Rohrabacher expanded on the dangers to white people of DREAM, explaining that the “real zinger” is that it puts minorities “ahead of every American child who’s not a minority.” “[T]hey can get into college before our kids,” Rohrabacher said on behalf of white people everywhere, warning ominously at the end of the interview that “if Americans aren’t alerted to this, we’re going to lose our freedom”: ROHRABACHER: And one thing that people don’t talk, and this is the real zinger. … So they go to college, they finish, they get their legal status. Well, if that person happens to be a minority, which many, as we know, illegal aliens are Hispanic in background and other minorities, they then are immediately eligible to all the preferences we have written into our laws. So we’re not only putting them in the line, so to speak, but we’re putting them ahead of every American child who’s not a minority. You put them at the front of the line for government education program, for jobs, for all the other preferences that we’ve written into our law. This is outrageous! Not only are we paying them money, that should be going to our kids education, but we’re making it so they can get accepted to college before our kids can get into. Please alert the people, if Americans aren’t alerted to this, we’re going to lose our freedom and we know it’s in jeopardy right now. Maybe instead they should be listening to Linda Chavez : A number of Republicans who previously supported the legislation – including one of its chief authors, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah – have decided it is too risky to vote for it now. But the real risk is to the future of the Republican Party. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently called for a “zone between deportation and amnesty” for illegal immigrants, which would allow them to work in the country. Gingrich is a rock-hard conservative, but he recognizes that the hard line that has come to dominate the GOP’s stance on immigration poses problems for the future of the party, and he’s recently launched an outreach to Hispanics. That zone should encompass a path to legalization for the most worthy among illegal immigrants. The refusal of all but a tiny handful of Republicans to vote for the DREAM Act will become a future nightmare. Hard-line anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric has already cost Republicans at least two U.S. Senate seats, Nevada and Colorado, even in a GOP landslide election. It could well cost Republicans the White House in 2012 – the Democrats are betting on it. I’m betting that most of them ignore such advice. But it would be unconscionable for Democrats to do so.
Continue reading …These guys enjoy a good deal of pampering as it is, and thus, President Obama apparently felt no remorse in enlisting Kobe Bryant and his fellow NBA champs from the Los Angeles Lakers to spend a day serving the D.C. community rather than resting on their nest of laurels. Related Entries December 14, 2010 Tax Cuts According to Barbara Boxer December 13, 2010 Afghanistan Envoy Holbrooke Dies
Continue reading …Above-it-all politico Joe Scarborough whinges that judiciary scandals never seem to describe the judge involved as “Clinton-appointed”. Hmmm…..wonder why that is? I don’t know, Joe. Maybe it’s because the most controversial activist judges come from appointments from Republican presidents? I’m just sayin’… Of course, Scarborough and his sycophant Jon Meacham could just be pulling facts out of their whiney asses. I quote from Heritage.org : In Log Cabin Republicans v. United States , the Obama Administration sought to win a policy victory by losing a case. By failing to adequately defend the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) statute—a bipartisan act of Congress that provides that members of the military are subject to separation for engaging in a homosexual act, stating that he or she is a homosexual, or marrying a person of the same sex—President Obama is able to undermine or do away with a statute that he opposes. He can do so while shifting any blame for the change in policy to the courts. And a Clinton appointee , Judge Virginia Phillips, proved more than willing to accommodate the Administration, issuing an activist opinion that reads more like a press release than a legal judgment. And from the NY Times : The Senate on Wednesday found Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench, the first time the Senate has ousted a federal judge in more than two decades. [..] Mr. Porteous, 64, was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been suspended with pay since 2008. As a result of his removal from the bench, which took effect immediately, he will not receive his annual federal pension of $174,000. Maybe Joe, you should focus on why there are so many judicial scandals surrounding Republican appointees next time.
Continue reading …California Sen. Barbara Boxer is one of a group of purportedly left-leaning politicians who is choosing to throw in with President Obama in his plan to preserve Bush-era tax cuts that give the wealthy a break along with Americans hailing from lower income brackets. Here’s what she had to say for herself Tuesday.
Continue reading …NBC's Peter Alexander, on Tuesday's Today show, decided to explore the softer side of WikiLeaks founder and purveyor of U.S. state secrets Julian Assange as he interviewed an investigative journalist from Oxford University who found him to be “funny, intelligent” and “not at all…rigid ” and also aired a clip of Assange's mother speaking up for her son as she demanded that the world “stand up for my brave son.” In fact Alexander never aired a clip or interviewed any one who had a negative word to say about Assange but he did reveal some postings Assange allegedly made to an Internet singles site as Alexander reported: “He writes, 'I am Danger.' And describes himself as 'passionate and often pig headed activist intellectual seeks siren for love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy.' That he's looking for a 'spirited, erotic non-conformist,' concluding 'Do not write to me if you are timid. Write to me if you are brave.'” read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Rachel Maddow highlights some of the points Bernie Sanders attempted to make during his 8-1/2-hour long speech on the Senate floor that most of our Beltway media have chosen to ignore, like just who benefits and how much from lowering the estate tax for billionaires. Rachel is exactly right about the media doing their best to ignore all of what Sen. Sanders had to say in his speech and not just the points he made about the estate tax. He got very little coverage and what coverage he did get showed him up there speaking while some talking head gave their opinion about what was going on instead of allowing viewers to actually hear what he was coming out of his mouth instead of theirs. Rush Limbaugh goes to C-PAC and they’re giving him commercial free coverage on CNN. Sarah Palin goes to speak to the teabaggers and the media covers her flame throwing speech. But Bernie Sanders gives this amazing almost eight and a half hours long speech and they shrug their shoulders.
Continue reading …Now that they’ve been drummed out of their party by the purity police tea partiers, moderate Republicans are creating their own party, the “No Labels” party, hoping to bring some independents and disaffected Democrats with them. Good luck with that. Have you heard about the new national political organization called No Labels ? It’s a ragtag collection of journalists, pundits, and politicians who claim they support civility in campaigning and bipartisanship in government. That sounds great, though it’s mostly an exercise in vanity – nowadays the biggest pat on the back you can give yourself is publicly announcing: “I am a centrist independent, above the ugly fray of politics.” So far, No Labels does not endorse specific solutions to big problems. Instead, it will hover on the sidelines like a surly Catholic school nun, rapping the knuckles of any candidate or elected official it deems to be extreme. Since it’s not taking a stand for anything besides a vague idea of “common sense,” how does it decide what’s beyond the pale? Most people already know that Tea Party activists who compare Obama to Hitler are idiots. But the radical anti-Obama crowd likely won’t be joining No Labels, so the “Can’t we all just get along?” mantra will go unheeded by the extremists. That means liberals must move even further to the right to appear conciliatory. And that is exactly the problem I have with these “No Labels” joiners (and a quick glance at t he founding leaders show such Republican stalwarts as David Frum and Mark McKinnon, with no similar big names from the left) and it makes me think this is essentially another Republican front group with added bonus of immediately labeling anyone not part of their group as an unreasonable partisan. It is simply not a viable third party option and the only potential candidate it had was Mike Bloomberg, who emphatically denied any ambition to run for the presidency in 2012. So instead, we have commenters on the side, without skin in the game of governing, able to remark and undermine principled politicos actually fighting to move legislation and do so with the veil of civility and being above it all. Anyone seeing this as a constructive thing in the divisive political atmosphere we have?
Continue reading …Click here to view this media [Full disclosure: I write for the SPLC's blog, Hatewatch.] When right-wingers got wind of the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center had designated a number of Religious Right organizations who specialize in rhetorically bashing gays and lesbians as hate groups , they and their allies on the Right came more or less unglued. Now, rather than face up to the substance of the accusations, they’re choosing to demonize the SPLC and their critics. Par for the course for this crowd. What was especially noteworthy about the SPLC report was that it zeroed in on the fundamental falsity of the material attacking people in the LGBT community that these so-called “Christian” organizations distribute maliciously and knowingly. That is, they are lying baldfacedly, and they frankly seem not to care. Evidently, that 9th Commandment about bearing false witness and all that is now a disposable rule. Jeremy Hooper noted that the Family Research Council — one of the largest of the groups named — launched a counteroffensive called “Stop Hating/Start Debating,” with a press release that begins thus: The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that. The hypocrisy, of course, is not just a laughable bug, but a definitive feature of these groups. Alvin McEwen at Pam’s House Blend enumerates just how many ways the FRC’s opening salvo is a farce. Their political friends leapt into action too. Cliff Kincaid called the SPLC’s hate-group designation a “racket” by conniving liberals. And Peter LaBarbera at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality — also one of the designated groups — complained that the SPLC never seems to pick on mean gay groups that fight back against the fundamentalist assault. Meanwhile, of course, he doubles down by claiming that all the lies against LGBT folks enumerated by the SPLC are in fact actually true. Uh-huh. Perhaps the funniest attack came from Ed Meese at CNS News : Former Attorney General Edwin Meese says it is “despicable” for the Southern Poverty Law Center to classify the Family Research Council and a dozen other top conservative organizations as “hate groups” similar to the Ku Klux Klan. “I think it’s ridiculous,” Meese told CNSNews.com about the list published by the SPLC. “I know about seven or eight of those groups. I know the people very well. I know the groups very well, I’ve worked with them over the years, and I think it actually undermines the credibility of the Southern Poverty Law Center to make such a statement.” Last week, the Southern Policy Law Center announced that it was going to classify the Family Research Council and 12 other organizations as “hate groups” because of their positions on homosexuality. Among the groups being designated by the SPLC are the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Coral Ridge Ministries, Family Research Institute, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, Illinois Family Institute, Liberty Counsel, MassResistance, National Organization for Marriage and the Traditional Values Coalition. The SPLC said these organizations will be named to its “hate group” watch list. But Meese said the Southern Poverty Law Center had cited no evidence whatsoever to show that the FRC or the other major pro-family conservative organizations were hate groups. “I think it is attacking them for exercising their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion,” said Meese, who served as U.S. attorney general during the Reagan administration, and is currently the Ronald Reagan distinguished fellow in public policy and chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. “I know that none of these groups, in anyone’s wildest imagination, could be thought of as hate groups,” Meese told CNSNews.com. “All of the groups that I know of–and that’s about half of them–take the traditional biblical views of homosexuality, which is not at all unusual,” he said. “And I think it is despicable of an organization that purports to be a civil liberties organization to make those kinds of attacks.” The CNS story then goes on to include similar whining from Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, whom similarly “said the announcement contains nothing that even hints at why the groups are being compared to the KKK.” Evidently, neither Meese nor Gallagher bothered to actually read the report. Because it lays out quite a bit of relevant information about these groups. For instance, here’s the entry on the FRC: *Family Research Council Washington, D.C. Started as a small think tank in 1983, the Family Research Council (FRC) merged in 1988 with the much larger religious-right group Focus on the Family in 1988, and brought on Gary Bauer, former U.S. undersecretary of education under Ronald Reagan, as president. In 1992, the two groups legally separated to protect Focus on the Family’s tax-exempt status, although Focus founder James Dobson and two other Focus officials were placed on the FRC’s newly independent board. By that time, FRC had become a powerful group on its own. Headed since 2003 by former Louisiana State Rep. Tony Perkins, the FRC has been a font of anti-gay propaganda throughout its history. It relies on the work of Robert Knight, who also worked at Concerned Women for America but now is at Coral Ridge Ministries (see above for both), along with that of FRC senior research fellows Tim Dailey (hired in 1999) and Peter Sprigg (2001). Both Dailey and Sprigg have pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia: Sprigg has written that most men who engage in same-sex child molestation “identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,” and Dailey and Sprigg devoted an entire chapter of their 2004 book Getting It Straight to similar material. The men claimed that “homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses” and similarly asserted that “homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.” That’s the least of it. In a 1999 publication (Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys) that has since disappeared from its website, the FRC claimed that “one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order,” according to unrefuted research by AMERICAblog. The same publication argued that “homosexual activists publicly disassociate themselves from pedophiles as part of a public relations strategy.” FRC offered no evidence for these remarkable assertions, and has never publicly retracted the allegations. (The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”) In fact, in a Nov. 30, 2010, debate on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” between Perkins and the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok, Perkins defended FRC’s association of gay men with pedophilia, saying: “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children. So Mark is wrong. He needs to go back and do his own research.” In fact, the college, despite its hifalutin name, is a tiny, explicitly religious-right breakaway group from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 60,000-member association of the profession. Publications of the American College of Pediatricians, which has some 200 members, have been roundly attacked by leading scientific authorities who say they are baseless and accuse the college of distorting and misrepresenting their work. Elsewhere, according to AMERICAblog, Knight, while working at the FRC, claimed that “[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. … [T]hey want to promote a promiscuous society.” AMERICAblog also reported that then-FRC official Yvette Cantu, in an interview published on Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s website, said, “If they [gays and lesbians] had children, what would happen when they were too busy having their sex parties?” More recently, in March 2008, Sprigg, responding to a question about uniting gay partners during the immigration process, said: “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.” He later apologized, but then went on, last February, to tell MSNBC host Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied. At around the same time, Sprigg claimed that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military would lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults. Perkins has his own unusual history. In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican State Rep. Louis “Woody” Jenkins of Louisiana, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Klan chieftain David Duke. The campaign was fined $3,000 (reduced from $82,500) after Perkins and Jenkins filed false disclosure forms in a bid to hide the link to Duke. Five years later, on May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation. In 1999, after Republican House Speaker Trent Lott was embroiled in a national scandal over his ties to the group, GOP chairman Jim Nicholson urged Republicans to quit the CCC because of its “racist views.” That statement and the nationally publicized Lott controversy came two years before Perkins’ 2001 speech. Here’s an even more detailed file on the FRC’s hatemongering. And here’s the report’s entry for Maggie Gallagher’s outfit: National Organization for Marriage Princeton, N.J. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which is dedicated to fighting same-sex marriage in state legislatures, was organized in 2007 by conservative syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher and Princeton University politics professor Robert George. George is an influential Christian thinker who co-authored the 2009 “Manhattan Declaration,” a manifesto developed after a New York meeting of conservative church leaders that “promises resistance to the point of civil disobedience against any legislation that might implicate their churches or charities in abortion, embryo-destructive research or same sex marriage.” NOM’s first public campaign was in 2008, supporting California’s Proposition 8, which sought to invalidate same-sex marriage in that state. It was widely mocked, including in a parody by satirist Stephen Colbert, for the “Gathering Storm” video ad it produced at the time. Set to somber music and a dark and stormy background, the ad had actors expressing fears that gay activism would “take away” their rights, change their lifestyle, and force homosexuality on their kids. The group, whose president is now former executive director Brian Brown, has become considerably more sophisticated since then, emphasizing its respect for homosexuals. “Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,” NOM says on its website, “[but] they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.” For a time, NOM’s name was used by a bus driver named Louis Marinelli, who drove a van for NOM’s “Summer for Marriage Tour” this year. Marinelli called himself a “NOM strategist” and sent out electronic messages under the NOM logo that repeated falsehoods about homosexuals being pedophiles and gay men having extremely short lifespans. In homemade videos posted on his own YouTube page, he said same-sex marriage would lead to “prostitution, pedophilia and polygamy.” But this July, NOM said it was not associated with Marinelli. Maybe Maggie Gallagher and Ed Meese don’t understand that the chief way the Ku Klux Klan operates these days, a la David Duke, is to claim disingenuously that it is only “standing up for white culture” while doing so by expending most of its energy demonizing and attempting to disenfranchise anyone who is not white. Similarly, these anti-gay hate groups claim that they’re only standing up for Christianity, but they do so by demonizing and attempting to disenfranchise anyone who is gay. That alone is why your fundamentalist friends are considered to have organized hate groups. Likewise, we heard from Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel — the guy who described gay relationships thus: “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love’ ” — in the Moonie Times , arguing that the SPLC was attacking these groups because it is a liberal outfit dedicated to promoting the gay agenda. And besides, he says, if you think about it, they’re trying to make gay-bashers out to be Nazis: Of course, the tired goal of this silly meme is to associate in the public mind’s eye mainstream conservative social values with racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism. The ironic result, however, is that, as typically occurs with such ad hominem and hyperbolic attacks, the attacker ends up marginalizing himself and galvanizing his intended target (I’m rubber, you’re glue and all that). Hence, beyond a self-aggrandizing liberal echo chamber, the SPLC – and by extension the greater “progressive” movement – has become largely, as it stews in its own radicalism, just another punch line. It’s often said that the first to call the other a Nazi has lost the argument. Congratulations, conservative America: They’re calling you a Nazi. Carry on. This is pretty ironic, when you think about it: as Warren Throckmorton points out, the canard that gays are Nazis is in fact one of the common myths bandied about by fundamentalist gay-bashers . As Throckmorton — himself a dedicated Christian advocate, but not a hater — explains, the people on this list should be working to repair their badly damaged reputations as Christians that the hate-group designation represents, rather than simply doubling down by insisting that their lies are true and telling even MORE lies: The groups which now populate the SPLC list specialize in ad hominem and hyperbolic attacks. Claims that gays die 20+ years early, that they are child abusers, that they are inherently diseased, and responsible for the Holocaust are the kinds of ad hominem and hyperbolic attacks which lead thoughful people, liberal and conservative, to question the credibility of those making the claims. Christian groups should care about nuance and bearing honest witness. They should avoid misleading stereotypes and strive for accuracy in fact claims. When they don’t, they hurt the church and the good work that others are doing. Being designated a hate group is a serious matter and one which should cause reflection about the charges and not reckless defensiveness. This is not the only serious Christian response I’ve seen. A woman named Kathy Baldcock, who writes a Christian blog called Canyon Walker Connections, wrote a devastating post examining the Religious Right’s lies about gays and lesbians : I listened to Tony Perkins, President of FRC, on Fox and Friends as he responded to the dishonor announced last week on being place on the SPLC’s Hate Groups list. I talked to my computer screen and boiled at his smiling, what-me? attitude. No, Mr. Perkins, FRC is not on the list because you are a conservative group. Your actions have placed you there. No, Mr. Perkins, the left is not trying to shut down the debate or take away your freedom of religion. GLBT people are fighting for what the mascot-version-God aside you says they deserve—equality. Religious straight conservatives (and I am one) will still be able to get married, have children, serve in the military and attend houses of worship of their choice. No one wants to strip us of any of those rights; they just want the same rights, not special rights, not more rights, not gay rights—the same rights. Mr. Perkins, you drag God into your battle as an accomplice and, to me, that is even more despicable than your messages. You use God as your validation, saying you are fighting to protect His Judeo-Christian values. You and FRC deserve to be called dangerous and hateful; you and FRC have earned it. Indeed they have. And they’re doing nothing to escape the condemnation that follows.
Continue reading …