Connect with us

Do Gay Liberals Really Hate Gay Conservatives — Enough To Gay Bash Them?

Published

on

 
 

Gay conservatives, like LOGO-TV’s Taylor Garrett of the reality show “A-List: Dallas,” along with GOProud co-founders Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia have spent a great deal of time recently attacking gay liberals. Now, it appears, gay conservatives are themselves being attacked — physically — by gay liberals, according to stories they have reported to the media. But the question is being asked, do gay liberals really hate gay conservatives, and do they hate them enough to actually physically gay bash them?

“The Democrats want me to live on their plantation as their slave, because I’m a gay person… And I refuse to do that,” Taylor Garrett said, in an exclusive report he gave to Tucker Carlson’s “The Daily Caller.” Reporter Alex Pappas adds that Garrett “was punched to the ground and bloodied Friday night by someone vandalizing his car because he’s a gay conservative associated with commentator Ann Coulter,” and writes that Garrett “was attacked outside a birthday party in Dallas after finding a vandal scratching ‘F–k Coulter’ on the side of his car.”

This is the second time Garrett says he’s been the victim of an anti-conservative attack by a liberal.

Towleroad’s Brandon K. Thorp, in, “Gay TV Star Taylor Garrett Victim Of Anti-Republican Vandals. Again,” writes that “[a]lmost exactly one month ago, Garrett reported that a rock was thrown through one of his windows by vandals unknown, along with a note which read:

“Who the f*** do you think you are? You are not A-list. More like Z-list. You are nothing but a nelly twink trying to get attention by calling yourself a republican. You are nothing but an embarassment to the gay community. Watch your back you pathetic mother f***ing twink.”

Thorp notes that the “timbre of that message is not dissimilar to the one Garrett’s Friday assailant allegedly carved into his car, and adds, “After last month’s rock-throwing incident, it was widely speculated (including here at Towleroad) that Garrett had staged the vandalism to boost publicity for his show.”

Not everyone in the LGBT blogosphere is quite as delicate about Garrett’s assault reports.

Will Kohler at Back 2 Stonewall is quick to repeatedly state, “IF this is true, its a horrible thing. and of course we denounce it as anyone in their right mind should.  Physical violence should never be used against anyone. ” But Kohler also prods, “the question remains. Is Taylor Garrett and GOProud turning into ‘The Boy’s Who Call HomoCon Hate Crimes’?”

But this time once again there are many strange aspects to Garrett’s claim.

Garret claims that “”(he) went out to his car to get a birthday present that he left in it and a large man stood up and decked him in his left eye. Garrett fell to the ground. He also scraped up his body by falling into some glass that was next to his car”. But The Daily Caller claims that the pictures that they have, (and that they did not originally publish with the article) show “Garrett with a bloody ear and blood covering his white shirt.”

After initially reading about the “incident”  last night and Garrett’s claims, I checked  Garrett’s Twitter account as well as both Jimmy LaSalvia’s and Chris Barron’s of GOProud.  Garrett hadn’t tweeted in 24 hours, and LaSalvia and Barron had both only tweeted once about what had happened to Garrett and that was HOURS AFTER  The Daily Caller printed the story which is very unlike them.  And The Caller is also coincidentally where Chris Barron wrote an article called the “Gay Gestapo” just the day before whining about the intolerance of the “gay left.”

At this point who knows what to believe and I leave it up to you.

On Twitter, Kohler also writes, “Taylor Garrett of the A List: Dallas & #GOProud is this generations HomoCon version of Tawana Brawley.”

And London’s Daily Mail adds that “critics have claimed that Garrett staged the incident in an attempt to collect media attention.”

The Dallas Voice earlier this month profiled Jimmy LaSalvia, and his thoughts on the first Taylor Garrett incident:

As executive director of the national gay conservative (or “homocon”) group GOProud, LaSalvia said he’s grown accustomed to attacks from what he calls “the gay left.”

“The gay left is the most hateful, intolerant, disgusting group of people I’ve ever come across in my lifetime, and everything we do is criticized by them,” LaSalvia told Dallas Voice. “They hate gay conservatives more than anything in the world, and I don’t know why. It’s just a matter of time before violence like that happens.”

Coincidentally — or not, depending on who you believe — LaSalvia had lunch with Garrett in Los Angeles just prior to the rock-throwing incident being reported.

They were joined by conservative pundit Ann Coulter — who serves as honorary chair of GOProud’s Advisory Council — and Logo filmed the rendezvous for an upcoming episode of The A-List.

The timing led some in the gay blogosphere to suggest that LaSalvia put Garrett up to falsifying his report about the rock, which allegedly shattered a window at his apartment in the Dallas Design District — perhaps to generate hype prior to the premiere of the show.

Garrett is not the only gay conservative who says he’s been the victim of hate crime — from gays or straights. GOProud co-founder Jimmy LaSalvia himself in July said he was attacked in Washington, D.C. by a group of teens, one of whom yelled, “fucking faggot!”

“The attacker and a few of the others with him ‘puffed up their chests and were clearly ready to continue the attack’,” the Washington Blade reported LaSalvia told them. “But seconds later, the group fled the scene after he kept his hand inside his backpack, ‘allowing them to wonder if I was reaching for a gun’.”

LaSalvia used the incident to rail against hate crime legislation and gun regulation in the mainstream and LGBT press.

LaSalvia, and fellow GOProud co-founder Chris Barron have spent a lot of time in the mainstream and LGBT press also railing against gay liberals, and on social media sites like Twitter as well.

And while Chris Barron’s anti-gay-Left screeds on Twitter are frequent, for no apparent reason LaSalvia earlier this year lashed out at me, for no apparent reason, writing via Twitter, “the gay-left is the most hateful intolerant group in the country…it’s nothing new, just the way they are.”

Blogger Joe Jervis, aka Joe.My. God., has done an excellent job of documenting the GOProud group’s incessant attacks on the Left. Just search his blog for Chris Barron or Jimmy LaSalvia and you’ll see. Here one example from June 2, 2011:

“Let’s be honest, the left doesn’t hate me because I am mean or brash or too aggressive – the same label can be applied to many of my critics. No, the left hates me because I have the audacity to stand up to them. They hate me because I am a conservative who happens to be gay. They hate me because I won’t be bullied by them. They hate me because I have dared to wander off the liberal plantation, because I refuse to play the victim card, and because I have rejected their failed big government agenda. So if the left is looking for an apology for things I say on twitter or the things I write on my blog or for statements I make on TV, they won’t get one. Indeed, they can expect more of the same.” – GOProud chairman Chris Barron, writing on his personal blog.

Additionally, Towleroad quotes Chris Barron late last week, discussing the Brett Ratner Oscars issue:

“Instead of agreeing to be sent to GLAAD’s re-education camp, Ratner should have stood up to the gay Gestapo. He apologized for what he said, he admitted it was stupid, and agreeing to become the latest pawn in GLAAD’s never-ending ideological warfare is akin to negotiating with terrorists. Every time Ratner or another Hollywood idiot gives into GLAAD, they are simply encouraging GLAAD to continue its partisan jihad.”

And make no mistake. There are LGBT allies and supporters on the Right who are critical of the GOProud group as well.

Back in May, Pam Spalding of Pam’s House Blend posted a guest blog by Ron Hill of Republicans 4 Freedom. Hill writes a long screed against GOProud, which includes these comments:

GOProud seems to be in favor of everything conservative while also ignoring (or at least, strongly downplaying) anything related to human rights for GLBT Americans.

I also find GOProud’s support of Ann Coulter and Donald Trump disappointing, particularly when Ms. Coulter is part of the problem with her toxic rhetoric rather than being part of the solution. She contributes nothing to enlighten debate and apparently exist to throw verbal grenades to the cheers of her hyper-partisan readers.

Honorable ladies and honorable gentlemen should be able to disagree without being disagreeable – and this goes for gay activist on both the left and on the right.

GOProud’s criticism of liberal gay activist is both unnecessary and distasteful – it also makes it hard to focus on the real enemies of freedom. My quarrel is not with liberal activist who are also agitating for my freedom – and I will work with them if it will help secure freedom for all Americans.

But GOProud has not been behaving like civilized people. GOProud’s Chris Barron once tweeted “The Gay Left = The American Taliban. Hateful, angry and dumb as shit.” Chris Barron has also tweeted personal insults about fellow pro-gay rights conservatives Andrew Sullivan and Meghan McCain.

Chris Barron has become a serious liability to GOProud’s being accepted as a legitimate, credible, professional organization. It’s time for Mr. Barron to go. GOProud is in need of a serious reorganization. One simply cannot build coalitions when someone is tweeting personal attacks on our natural allies in the struggle for equality.

 

Lastly, one comment: Isn’t it a shame that two minorities, gay conservatives and gay liberals, can’t find common ground and work together on issues that affect both groups? Sadly, when one of those groups include GOProud, that seems impossible. Their initial, default conversation piece is always attacking the gay Left, as evidenced in this video. How long does it take Chris Barron to go after the gay Left, which has little to do with the topic at hand?

 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mfXH1DovoHQ%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

 

The Log Cabin Republicans have done a far better job of building coalitions.

So, does the gay Left, do gay Democrats and liberals and progressives, really hate gay conservatives, gay Republicans, and do they hate them enough to gay bash them? Perhaps that’s an answer for law enforcement officials to determine.

There certainly do appear, however, to be more attacks proudly hurled at the gay Left from the gay Right than from the gay Left at the gay Right.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

on

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

on

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

on

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.