Connect with us

Opinion: Anti-Semitism Also Part Of NOM’s Hateful Wedge Strategies

Published

on

When a judge ordered the release of the so-called National Organization for Marriage’s anti-gay, race-baiting strategy documents, the towering civil rights leader Julian Bond said, “It confirmed a suspicion that some evil hand was behind this.”

The NOM strategy document said, apropos of NOM’s obnoxious “Not a Civil Right” gay-bashing campaign: “The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks— two key Democratic constituencies.”

NOM’s hate document also stated that “Fanning hostility” — between anti-gay African-Americans, and LGBTers — (many of whom, of course, are African-Americans) — is “key” to its War on Gays.

The deliberate, shameless, disingenuous lying that NOM officials have been doing about their wedge strategies since the documentation was released only confirms that those officials are absolutely despicable gay-bashing bigot monsters.

Just as NOM’s race-baiting strategies involving African-Americans and Hispanics were manifest and evident before the release of that documentation, it has for a long time been manifest and evident that NOM uses similar, ruthless tactics involving other minorities.

NOM is not entirely antisemitic per se — NOM co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Robert George‘s wife was born to a Jewish family — but National Organization For Marriage bigots exploit antisemitic sentiment in parts of the population, when doing so advances NOM’s War on Gays.

Often, NOM is confined to using dog whistles for Jew haters, because in some parts of the U.S. today, antisemitism is viewed as unacceptable, so can not be spoken forthrightly out loud, in the manner NOM gay bashes daily at the top of their lungs.

What is the historical background of anti-Semitism in the United States? How is NOM able to profit from hatred of Jews?

In colonial Maryland, it was illegal not to believe in Jesus; the third offense got non-believers the death penalty. Jews did not have the vote in the state until 1826, and even then, to vote, they had to sign a paper saying they believed in an afterlife. The reason the United States first had “Jewish” hospitals, was that most Anglo-Saxon-led hospitals would not hire Jews. In the 20th century, most top universities placed maximum quotas on Jews permitted to enter, so there would not be “too many.” The stereotype by which all Jews are rich — and not coincidentally, viewed with suspicion — in this society, that all too often views with contempt the plight of its poor — distracts from the fact that there are indeed poor Jews living in the United States.

My point would be that while antisemitism is far from being the most severe of anti-minority bigotries in America, it exists. The white supremacist vote is a key swing Republican vote; you will almost never hear a Republican candidate unambiguously condemning white supremacists. And, white supremacists hate Jews at least every bit as much as they hate blacks. There are many such groups, with enough supporters that former KKK Grand Wizard and Republican Louisiana State Representative David Duke has been able to make a career off of Jew haters.

President Richard Nixon frequently disparaged Jews. He was especially fond of pointing out that among American conscientious objectors who would not fight in his dirty southeast Asian war — (where innocent men, women and children were maimed and killed with napalm) — Jews were “disproportionately” represented. Understand what Nixon was doing; he was cultivating support for his dirty war among antisemitic Americans — who already thought of Jews as being “not really American” — by leading them to think that the Jewish conscientious objectors were “anti-American.”

On an international level, Jews have been maligned — and often still today are maligned — as the masterminds of world capitalism, socialism and communism.

NOM, of course, is eager — very eager indeed to exploit antisemitism towards anti-gay political ends.

During Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, South Carolina’s Senator Lindsey Graham made a point of asking the Jewish nominee where she had been on Christmas. That was a dog whistle for anti-Semites. Nothing about Graham’s question was relevant to her qualifications.

NOM, too, uses dog whistles for anti-Semites. Last week, when the First Circuit court found DOMA unconstitutional, NOM’s Brian Brown said: “It’s obvious that the federal courts on both coasts are intent on imposing their liberal, elitist views of marriage on the American people.”

“Coast,” “liberal,” “elitist;” Brown was using the dog whistles to suggest “Jews.” Notice that Brown talked about the “coast,” “liberal,” “elitist” judges “imposing” equality “on the American people,” (as though gays were not part of the American people, and as though “coast,” “liberal,” “elitist,” (bigot dog whistle code for: Jews) were not part of the American people; this is similar to Nixon’s dirty trick of hinting that Jews are not real Americans, or even perhaps, that they are anti-American, simply because of a progressive human rights-related view.

Brown and NOM have few if indeed any evidence-based, constitutional arguments to make against equality — (in talking about “elitist coast liberals,” they conveniently forget to mention that Iowa judges ruled for equality) — but now NOM seeks to identify — in their gay-bashing bigot followers’ minds — federal court votes for equality with “Coast,” “liberal,” “elitist;” — you know, like Elena Kagan. Where was she on Christmas?

Sometimes NOM subcontracts the antisemitism to its best friends, in hopes of avoiding having the accumulated stench of all of it sticking only to NOMzis. In the Kagan confirmation matter, for example, NOM was raucously beating the drums against Kagan. One NOM online donation form actually allowed donors specifically to give money to “expose” Senators who were supporting Kagan. Notice 1) that Vision America’s Rick Scarborough has appeared at conferences together with NOM’s Brian Brown and Jennifer Roback Morse, and then notice 2) that NOM friend Rick Scarborough published a piece titled Elena Kagan and the War Against Christianity.  Get it? Kagan equals Jew equals a war against Christianity. Nice! Logical!  Here, if you can bear to look at them, are photos of a conference attended by NOM’s Maggie Gallagher and John Eastman along with their very close anti-gay bigot ally Phyllis Schafly.  What did Schafly say to demonize nominee Elena Kagan? Schlafly used, as a weapon against Kagan, that Kagan as Dean of the Harvard Law School once had invited — as a speaker — former Israeli Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak, who favors equality.  Schafly, obviously, calculated a value to smearing Kagan with her association with another Jew who not only favors equality, but also happens to share, with the man who nominated Kagan, the Middle Eastern-sounding name Barak/Barack. And, there was a broader, fraudulent effort among U.S. Christian, anti-gay reactionaries to tar-and-feather the Jewish Kagan with the Jewish Barak and the Jewish Barak with the Jewish Kagan.  It was a giant “Where were you on Christmas?” festival. Despite Kagan having once referred — for reasons of her own — to NOM’s Robert George as one of the country’s “most respected legal scholars,” NOM was busy ripping Kagan a new one, accusing her left and right of “sabotaging” a DOMA-related case as Solicitor General. (Meanwhile, after House Speaker John Boehner appointed Robert George to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, he was sworn into that office by the Jewish woman his Catholic NOMzis had pursued with unrelenting vengeance, Justice Elena Kagan).

How else is NOM willing to exploit hatred and resentment of Jews in order to further its War on Gays?

Maryland State Senator Anthony Muse, an anti-gay African-American minister, works closely with NOM, who have made robo-poll calls for him. The stated aim of the robo-polls was “to identify marriage equality opponents who they can push to support Mr. Muse in the Democratic Primary.”

Look what Muse did here. He created a campaign flyer that suggested President Obama had endorsed Muse in the 2012 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, when in fact, Obama had endorsed the incumbent Senator Ben Cardin, a Jew who has co-sponsored legislation to repeal DOMA. The Muse campaign flyer shows the “Composition of the 112th Senate,” purportedly broken down by race. There are no African-American U.S. Senators. On whom does Muse pin the blame for that? On the Jews. His racial breakdown gives “White” and “Jewish” as separate races. The Muse hate document shows that there are 84 “white” Senators, and that “whites” are 62% of the U.S. population, and it shows that there are 12 Jewish Senators, and that Jews are 1.8% of the population, while blacks are 12% of the population.

This sickening, cynical hate document has NOM’s fingerprints all over it. We know that NOM actively planned to “drive a wedge” between other minorities; we know that NOM said that “fanning hostility” between minorities is “key” to its strategy. The Muse pamphlet very conspicuously sought to “drive a wedge” and to “fan hostility.” Remember; NOM’s goal in the Democratic primary was “to identify marriage equality opponents who they can push to support Mr. Muse in the Democratic Primary.” Having identified Democratic marriage equality opponents — many of them African-Americans — Muse sought to stoke African-American resentment and/or hatred of Jews by separating whites from Jews as “races,” and showing that while there are fewer Jews than blacks in the population, there are 12 Jewish U.S. Senators, but no African-American ones. Of course, the Jew-clobbering strategy was dependent on Muse’s opponent, Senator Ben Cardin, being a Jewish LGBT equality supporter.

Cardin won the primary, but NOM’s involvement in the Muse campaign left the area poisoned with elevated antisemitic feeling and enhanced hatred of gays and lesbians.

NOM’s boycott of Starbucks, because of Starbucks’ support for equality, also manifests appeals to antisemitism. Microsoft and Apple are at least as dedicated to LGBT equality as Starbucks, but Bill Gates and Tim Cook are not Jewish, while Starbucks’s Chairman Howard Schultz is. Do you get it? “Coast,” “liberal,” “elitist;” “Schultz.” The NOMzi gay-bashers simply can not get enough of saying his name, either, because in American Jew haters’ minds, the words “coast,” “liberal,” “elitist,” and “Schultz” just naturally are a fit for negative stereotyping and resentment. Maggie Gallagher — who has deliberately and shamelessly lied about NOM’s race-baiting strategies — published an article about Schultz and Starbucks in the National Review. It’s title? Church of Starbucks, with the conspicuously Jewish-sounding complete name Howard Schultz mentioned twice.  Do you get it? Jews don’t go to churches — and Gallagher is mocking Schultz’s heritage, beliefs and philosophy by talking sarcastically about Schultz’s Jewish, pro-gay-rights “Church of Starbucks;” this is another NOM antisemitic dog whistle. “Starbucks is no Christian church,” Gallagher seems to be telling her readers, “and this homosexuals-loving Jew Howard Schultz sure as hell doesn’t go to any other Christian church, either,” she seemingly implies. If Gallagher now attempts to deny that she was making a calculated appeal to the anti-Semites in her NOM base, just tell her to shut her lying mouth.

Does this mean that NOM will not now come up with one of its outlier nutbag gay-bashing Jewish supporters to say they do not mind all of this intentional appeal to antisemitism?  Meet NOM’s loony friend Yehuda Levine, who says that acceptance of gays causes God to send earthquakes. Not exactly consensus Jewish-American thinking.

NOM’s international presentation of its Starbucks boycott, too, relies on appealing to hatred of Jews. That NOM has translated its anti-gay hate materials into Arabic and placed them online, for consumption in those countries that have barbaric, murderous anti-gay attitudes at the official government level, is in itself detestable.

Yet additionally, the complicated Starbucks corporate picture in the Middle East must be taken into account. Firstly, it is essential to know that standard-issue Arab propaganda says that all homosexuality in the Middle East is the “fault” of Jewish Israelis. There are no Starbucks in Israel. You can find some anecdotal reports, not necessarily credible, alleging that the Israelis simply did not take to Starbucks coffee. It is possible, meanwhile, that in order to gain entry to the wider Middle East market, Starbucks entered into tacit agreements not to set up shop in Israel. However that may be, NOM has stepped into the Middle East picture, identifying Starbucks as a Jewish-led company that — horror of horrors — supports gay rights.

Get it? NOM is hoping to simultaneously stoke resentment of Jews and Israel, to Middle East populations that widely allege that all homosexuality in the Middle East is the “fault” of Jewish Israelis. NOM’s malevolent intent to deal Starbucks fatal blows, no matter what it takes, is evident. Extremely troubling is NOM’s publication of maps showing the precise locations of every Starbucks in Saudi Arabia, and other such places, with instructions for gay-bashers — who in those environments, could eventually turn out to be suicide bombers — to go to those mapped locations to protest Starbucks’s support for gay marriage.  There is no chance that Saudi Arabia is about to institute marriage equality; so think about NOM’s broader, evil goals in pushing its Starbucks boycott in such a place.

Additionally, it is hardly a coincidence that in its fund-raising video starring the “Spirit Day” gay basher Daniel Glowacki, NOM prominently featured this gay Jewish reporter’s articles about the lying Glowacki.

NOM of course also is stoking anti-Muslim bigotry in order to advance its War on Gays; that will be the topic of a future article.

NOM is comprised entirely of monsters.

And oh — I almost forgot. NOM’s founder Robert George also is founder of the American Principles Project. George sent Thomas Peters — also involved with both NOM and the American Principles Project — to attend a conference in Poland hosted by the notorious anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Father Tadeusz Rydsyk. Rydsyk’s “Radio Marija” once mounted an on-air defense campaign for a cleric charged with child molestation and anti-Semitism.

This tells us everything we need to know about Robert George’s and NOM’s “Principles.” And the amoral Mitt Romney has a lot to answer for, as regards his signature on the hateful NOM pledge.

Remember what Julian Bond said about the document — had only through court-ordered release — that confirmed NOM’s despicable tactics:  “It confirmed a suspicion that some evil hand was behind this.”

New York City– based novelist and freelance writer Scott Rose’s LGBT– interest by– line has appeared on Advocate .com, PoliticusUSA .com, The New York Blade, Queerty .com, Girlfriends and in numerous additional venues. Among his other interests are the arts, boating and yachting, wine and food, travel, poker and dogs. His “Mr. David Cooper’s Happy Suicide” is about a New York City advertising executive assigned to a condom account.

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.

News

‘Couldn’t Care Less if He’s Upset’: GOP Senator Slamming Trump’s Budget Bill Has Company

Published

on

U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is blasting President Donald Trump’s budget reconciliation legislation that passed the House early Thursday morning. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune will need to cobble together at least 50 votes to pass the massive bill that experts say will add trillions to the deficit, kick eight to thirteen million Americans off health care, gut Medicaid by $800 billion and Medicare by $500 billion, along with many other controversial provisions.

Fox News Senior Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram reports that one MAGA Republican Senator, Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson, may be bucking the President and his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

“Johnson calls the Big Beautiful Bill ‘completely unacceptable.’ When asked if he thought that would upset the President, Johnson replied ‘I couldn’t care less if he’s upset. I’m concerned about my children. My grandchildren,'” Pergram wrote.

READ MORE: ‘Didn’t You Say That?’: Democratic Senator Decimates FDA Chief

Senator Johnson’s issue appears to be not the millions who will lose health care, but the deficit. In other words, the bill, he believes, does not cut spending enough.

Ten days ago Johnson wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed, and commented, “At a bare minimum, the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ shouldn’t INCREASE the annual deficit. With the meager spending reductions being discussed, I’m afraid it actually will.”

“In the House, President Trump can threaten a primary, and those guys want to keep their seats. I understand the pressure,” Johnson said, according to The Daily Beast. “Can’t pressure me that way.”

“I know everybody wants to go to Disney World, but we just can’t afford it,” he added.

Politico reported on Thursday that Senator Johnson “said there are sufficient votes to block the bill if his party doesn’t bend in his direction on spending reductions, including setting up a bicameral process for going ‘line by line’ to find a total of roughly $6.5 trillion in cuts over the coming decade.”

Johnson appears to have company.

RELATED: ‘Cut, Rip, Gut, Kill, Cruel’: Top Republican Lashes Out Over Dems Using These Words

Several other Republican Senators have voiced distress over the House bill: Lisa Murkowski, Rick Scott, and Rand Paul, among others. Four “no” votes would mean the end of the bill, but it’s not clear that any of them will end up voting against the bill.

“I think there’s nothing conservative about having deficits of $2 trillion a year,” said Senator Paul.

“Most Republicans view Paul as a hard ‘no’ and acknowledge Johnson might be, as well,” Politico also reported.

“We have to get our fiscal house in order. We have no choice,” complained Senator Scott.

The concerns of some may be easily fixed. U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn opposes a provision of the bill that bans states from imposing regulations on artificial intelligence.

Meanwhile, CNN notes that more than half a dozen Senate Republicans have voiced concerns, and NCRM currently counts even more who have expressed varying degrees of unease—yet this is still far from signaling they will oppose the bill.

Last week Senator Johnson explained his concerns on Trump’s bill.

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Sovereignly Appointed’: Trump Praised in Pentagon Prayer Event Led by Hegseth and Pastor

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

‘Didn’t You Say That?’: Democratic Senator Decimates FDA Chief

Published

on

The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Marty Makary, came under strong criticism for his inconsistent remarks before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee after the accuracy of his claims related to terminated scientists and others was called into question by U.S. Senator John Ossoff (D-GA).

“You were asked on April 17th whether any of the personnel reductions had included personnel responsible for food safety or infant formula safety,” Senator Ossoff told Commissioner Makary. “You said, quote, ‘There were no cuts to scientists or reviewers or inspectors—absolutely none’. You were asked on April 23rd on CNN, and said, quote, ‘Again, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors’.”

“But then just two days later, an HHS spokesperson confirmed that in fact, scientists had been fired, and that you were scrambling to rehire them,” Ossoff continued. “Did you, in fact, say on April 23d, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors? Just before we get into the details, is that an accurate quote?”

“No scientific reviewer was cut as part of the reduction in force,” replied Commissioner Makary.

READ MORE: ‘Cut, Rip, Gut, Kill, Cruel’: Top Republican Lashes Out Over Dems Using These Words

“You said there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors. Didn’t you say that?” Ossoff pressed.

“My understanding,” Makary replied, “was that there were no cuts to the scientific staff, but specifically the scientific reviewers is what I was referring to.”

“But you said there were,” Ossoff responded.

A similar back and forth continued for several minutes, then, Senator Ossoff asked, “Had, in fact, scientists who study outbreaks of food related illnesses and the safety of infant formula been fired?”

“The reason it’s not accurate, Senator, is that people were not fired, they were scheduled for the reduction in force, and when that was before I got there. When I got there, we did an assessment, and so some of those individuals out of the 19,000 were restored,” Makary replied.

“Have all scientists responsible for food safety and infant formula safety, been rehired or reinstated?” Ossoff asked.

“Look, we have not reduced in force the scientific review staff. I know where you’re going with this,” Makary replied.

READ MORE: ‘Sovereignly Appointed’: Trump Praised in Pentagon Prayer Event Led by Hegseth and Pastor

“You said there were no cuts to scientists, and then the HHS spokesperson said, actually, there were cuts to scientists, and now we’re trying to rehire them. I mean, so it gives the impression you’re not sure about the personnel actions ongoing in your own agency,” said Ossoff.

After more back-and-forth, Ossoff wrapped it up: “You were very specific. You said there were no cuts to scientists. And then five days later, there were no cuts to scientists. Those are your direct quotes. There were no cuts to scientists, but there were cuts to scientists.”

Again, more back-and-forth and then Makary appeared to grow frustrated.

“I mean, this is the problem in government. Somebody has a fancy sounding name like, ‘Infant Formula Safety,’ and no one can ever touch them, even if they’re not doing their job.”

During his testimony, Dr. Makary also declared to another Senator, “By the way, America doesn’t want COVID boosters.”

And a third chastised him, saying: “You’re prepared for a question that I didn’t ask … I’m asking you what are you doing about bird flu! Just answer that. Please. Don’t give me a runaround about other stuff.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Get Out of Here’: Trump Erupts, Calls for NBC Probe After Reporter Asks About Qatari Jet

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Cut, Rip, Gut, Kill, Cruel’: Top Republican Lashes Out Over Dems Using These Words

Published

on

During the House’s marathon markup of President Donald Trump’s historic budget bill, the Chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee lashed out at Democrats for plainly describing the legislation’s sweeping consequences. Officially dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act,” the measure narrowly passed in the early hours of Thursday by a 215–214 vote. It removes $800 billion in funding from Medicaid, would lead to $535 billion in cuts to Medicare, and is projected to cause an estimated 8.6 to 13.7 million Americans to lose their health care. It will also add $3 trillion to the federal deficit—fueled by tax breaks heavily tilted toward the wealthy and the nation’s first-ever $1 trillion defense budget.

“I am concerned about what has been said about this bill and what it’s going to do,” Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) told the members of her committee Wednesday night. “The extreme comments that have been made about it, and how I believe that it is scaring people out there in the country unnecessarily.”

“The words I’ve heard, particularly today, are ‘cut,’ ‘rip,’ ‘gut,’ ‘kill,’ ‘cruel,’ ‘stealing food,’ ‘losing coverage,’ ‘jammed through,’ ‘biggest transfer of wealth from vulnerable to wealthy people,’ ‘irresponsible’.”

“That is not the way we ought to be talking about this bill.”

READ MORE: ‘Sovereignly Appointed’: Trump Praised in Pentagon Prayer Event Led by Hegseth and Pastor

Many appear to disagree.

MSNBC columnist Michael A. Cohen, just after the bill passed Thursday morning, wrote:  “What we do know about the legislation the GOP is calling the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ is genuinely terrifying.”

“What makes this situation even worse is that Republicans, from the president on down, are consistently lying about what the bill would do,” Cohen charged.

“The House Republican budget plan would eviscerate Medicaid and food assistance and shift resources toward the wealthiest Americans,” the Center for American Progress (CAP) warned ten days ago, adding that it “would implement the largest cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in history—kicking millions of Americans off their health insurance and taking food away from hungry children.”

“It would raise household electricity costs while trapping most middle-class and poor students in greater student loan debt to afford a higher education,” CAP’s Bobby Kogan, Senior Director for Federal Budget Policy wrote. “And it would make all these changes as a means to partially offset tax breaks that disproportionately go to the richest Americans, giving households in the top 0.1 percent a multihundred-thousand-dollar tax break on average while increasing deficits by trillions of dollars. Taken as a whole, the bill would add trillions of dollars to structural deficits despite these enormous cuts to critical services.”

“If enacted,” Kogan warned, “this would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.”

READ MORE: ‘Get Out of Here’: Trump Erupts, Calls for NBC Probe After Reporter Asks About Qatari Jet

“Taken as a whole, this bill would harm Americans—particularly the most vulnerable people—and leave the country worse off. It would lead to preventable deaths by taking health care away from millions of people. It would worsen food insecurity by taking food away from the hungry, particularly kids.”

“Budgets showcase our morality because they force governments to decide how to prioritize limited resources. The House Republican budget plan would shift funding away from the sick and hungry and, instead, toward the wealthiest Americans.”

U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) responded to Foxx, saying, “In other words, ‘please don’t call this bill what it is or say what it does’.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Full MAGA Lobotomy’: Rubio Rebuked by Senate Dem — ‘I Regret Voting for You’

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.