Connect with us

The Rise And Fall And Rise Of Ann Coulter And The Business Of Anti-Gay Hate Speech In America (Part One)

Published

on

Ann Coulter has made it her business to ridicule gays. By ridiculing straights: 

Bill Clinton “show[s] some level of latent homosexuality”, Al Gore is a “total fag”, and “I’d say that’s about even money” on Hillary Clinton “[c]oming out of the closet” in 2008.

“…but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I’m – so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about [John] Edwards…”

It turns out, calling someone a “faggot”, or “faggy”, or even “gay” even if they’re not, can be a hate crime. Even if they’re only kidding. But it turns out you can get away with it. Because the Right has made a business out of hate speech. Yes, that’s right, hate speech. 

Hate speech is defined as “Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.”

And it turns out it sells books. And ads on blogs, television and radio shows. And ads in newspapers. And conservatives have a far greater reach, and are far more likely to use it to demonize gays than liberals. Here are a few quotes from conservative radio host Michael Savage:

“I don’t like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. … I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it’s child abuse.”

“…the family unit is…the strongest bond on Earth, which is why homosexual marriage is such a threat to civilization itself.”

“…you may say, ‘Why should we care about homosexuals trying to destroy families through the mock marriage that they perform in order to mock God, the church, the family, children, the fetus, the DNA of the human species? Why should we care about it while we have a financial meltdown?’ Because the spiritual side of the downturn on Wall Street is directly related to the moral downturn in the United States of America.” 

Does that match the definition of “hate speech”? Most certainly. And yet, the Ann Coulters, Michael Savages, and Michelle Malkins of the world are allowed, even encouraged, to continue their venomous attacks on the millions of gays in America. They are rewarded for their hate and hostility. It has become a circus, entertainment, a game, to drive ratings and sell books, advertisements, and speaking engagements. And it seems the harder we fight against the business of homophobia, the more the hate-mongers win.

Perhaps one of the most vicious, homophobic attackers is Michelle Malkin. Although less well-known than Coulter, she has crystalized her brand of venomous hatred into a position at FOX News as a commentator, and as a syndicated columnist and blogger. Malkin seems strangely obsessed with homosexuals. I wrote last month an open letter to Malkin, wondering why, “the word “homosexual” appears in 45 of your blog posts, and … the word “gay” appears in well over 150 of your blog posts.” 

After California’s anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, Proposition 8, passed, Malkin went into full force against the millions of angry gay marriage supporters across the country, calling them “tolerance bullies“, characterizing their anger as “insane rage“, and creating a homophobic panic which might lead any reader to think large numbers of gays, what she called the “mob response to the passage of Proposition 8“, were daily attacking every church and business or individual who supported Prop 8. (For the record, there were not.)

Which brings us back to Ann Coulter. Speaking about the 2006 California gay marriage debate, Coulter said,

“…these black ministers would come on TV and say things no white conservative would say. ‘Sodomy? You’re going to burn in hell for that!’ And I realized to my delight that if we can get blacks to be conservatives, we have an entire race of Ann Coulters. “

Early in the spring of 2007, during the Democratic presidential nominee campaign, Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot”. She received harsh rebuke, primarily from the Left, for it. And she lost advertisers. Lots of them. Via Towleroad:

Net Bank, Verizon, Washington Mutual, AT&T/Cingular, Dollar Rent-A-Car, SmileTrain.org, University of Phoenix, Sallie Mae, LasikPlus, Power Chord Academy, Gulf Shores.com/Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ulta.com, and Yellow Pages.com have all abandoned the right-wing pundit’s site…

The Human Rights Campaign mounted an effective effort to impact her reach by urging the public to “Help put an end to the politics of hate. Tell the Universal Press Syndicate to stop carrying Ann Coulter’s column!” And it worked. At least eleven newspapers did drop Coulter’s column. But it also drummed up attention. And attention is what feeds the bank accounts of the homophobic hate-mongering crowd.

Ann Coulter is back on top. After losing ground, advertisers, and reach, Coulter has risen to new heights of popularity. The media have catered to her tactics and shenanigans and desperate pleas for attention. All of which have helped her publish books. Seven books, actually. Her current publisher, Random House’s Crown Forum, “is the latest addition to our growing family of targeted imprints. Serving a conservative readership, it includes books from Ann Coulter, Michael Medved, Daniel J. Flynn, Kenneth Timmerman, and others.“ Her latest bestselling book, “Guilty”, has been characterized by Media Matters as “filled with falsehoods“. But it is those falsehoods, like characterizing Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Edwards all as gay that sell her books, and the books, TV appearances, radio talk shows, and public speaking engagements of the conservative Right that keep these hate mongers in business. And we have to stop them.

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.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

GOP Congresswoman Saying She Would ‘Do Anything’ to Protect Her Grandchildren, Even ‘Shooting Them’ Sets Internet on Fire

Published

on

U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) in a speech denouncing a House bill on gun safety, appears to inadvertently have declared that to protect her five grandchildren, she would “do anything,” even shoot them.

“I rise in opposition to H.R. 2377,” Congresswoman Lesko says in the video. “I have five grandchildren. I would do anything, anything to protect my five grandchildren, including as a last resort shooting them if I had to, to protect the lives of my grandchildren.”

NCRM has verified the video is accurate. Congresswoman Lesko made the remarks on June 9, according to C-SPAN, while she was opposing a red flag law.

The Congresswoman presumably meant she would as a last resort shoot someone threatening her grandchildren.

One Twitter user, Ryan Shead, posted the previously ignored video to Twitter, where it has gone viral and is trending.

Lesko, who some social media users note is running for re-election unopposed, went on to say: “Democrat bills that we have heard this week want to take away my right, my right to protect my grandchildren. they want to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect their own children and grandchildren. and wives and brothers and sisters,” which is false.

“This bill takes away due process from law-abiding citizens. Can you imagine if you had a disgruntled ex or somebody who hates you because of your political views and they go to a judge and say, ‘oh, this person is dangerous,’ and that judge would take away your guns?”

Lesko’s hypothetical claims are false. Red flag laws are designed to protect both gun owners and those around them.

Some social media users noted that Congresswoman Lesko reportedly “attended meetings about overturning the election,” while others are having fun with the Arizona Republican’s remarks:

Watch Congresswoman Lesko’s remarks above or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

Separation of Church and State Is a ‘Fabrication’ Says Far Right Activist Charlie Kirk: They Should Be ‘Mixed Together’

Published

on

Far-right religious activist, conspiracy theorist, and founder of the right-wing organization Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk has falsely declared that separation of church and state, a bedrock principle on which American society is based, is a “fabrication” not in the Constitution.

Kirk is a member of the secretive theocratic Council for National Policy., a close friend of Donald Trump, Jr., and spent years promoting President Trump – even interviewing him at one point. Turning Point USA has had repeated challenges. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer in 2017 write a piece about TPUSA titled, “A Conservative Nonprofit That Seeks to Transform College Campuses Faces Allegations of Racial Bias and Illegal Campaign Activity.”

Former TPUSA communications director Candace Owens has praised Hitler, saying “the problem” with him was that he wanted to “globalize.”

RELATED: Watch: Charlie Kirk Calls for Texans to Be ‘Deputized’ to Protect ‘White Demographics in America’

On Wednesday Kirk declared, “There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication. It’s a fiction. It’s not in the Constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.”

That’s false.

The claim separation of church and state is not in the Constitution is a religious right belief that has been debunked by countless legal experts.

“Of course we should have church and state mixed together,” Kirk continued. “Our Founding Fathers believed in that. We can go through the detail of that. They established – literally – a church in Congress.”

That too is false.

RELATED: ‘When Do We Get to Use the Guns?’: TP USA Audience Member Asks Charlie Kirk When Can ‘We Kill’ Democrats? (Video)

“It’s a good thing Charlie Kirk doesn’t go to Wheaton because he would fail my Constitutional Law class,” writes Dr. Miranda Yaver, PhD, a Wheaton College professor.

As most public school students know, Kirk’s claims are belied by the First Amendment to the U.S., Constitution, which states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s the Establishment Clause, legal experts say, that debunks Kirk’s falsehood.

In reviewing the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, Reuters last month noted: “It was President Thomas Jefferson who famously said in an 1802 letter that the establishment clause should represent a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state. The provision prevents the government from establishing a state religion and prohibits it from favoring one faith over another.”

Jefferson is also considered the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.

Watch Charlie Kirk below or at this link.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Pat Cipollone Is ‘A Greatest Hits Package of Crazy Statements’ by Donald Trump: Legal Expert

Published

on

Former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone has agreed to speak to the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on Congress on Friday.

Former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Harry Litman told CNN that Cipollone has carefully negotiated the testimony and he will likely “steer around down the middle” of the attorney/client privilege. However, former President Donald Trump is not the client of a White House counsel, the White House is. President Joe Biden has waived executive privilege for anything involving Jan. 6 or the 2020 election.

“He is a greatest hits package of crazy statements by Donald Trump,” Litman said of Cipollone. “He is the one who says to Mark Meadows, ‘You know, if you do this, you’ll have blood on your effing hands.’ He’s the one who says to Mark Meadows about [Mike] Pence, ‘You’ve got to stop it’ and Meadows says, ‘You’ve heard him. He thinks the rioters are right.’ He’s the one who has to go to Cassidy Hutchinson, a 25-year-old, and plead with her because Meadows won’t speak to him. ‘Please try to keep him from going to the Capitol.’ He’s the one who says, ‘if I go to the Capitol, it will be every effing crime imaginable.'”

READ MORE: Longtime friend of GOP’s Eric Greitens calls him a ‘broken man’ and accuses him of lying about his beliefs

“Now, they’ve negotiated it up, and probably what he wants is to say he’s not piercing attorney/client privilege. But all these statements I’ve said to you, Trump’s nowhere around. So, attorney/client has to be with the client for the purpose of getting legal advice, so he’s got tons to say without that.”

As Litman explained, Cipollone is in “everything.”

See the discussion below.

Image: Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks  via Flickr:
President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump talk with Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, her husband Jesse Barrett, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, his wife Virginia Thomas, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, and Deputy White House Counsel Kate Comerford Todd in the Blue Room of the White House Monday, Oct. 26, 2020, after attending Barrett’s swearing-in ceremony as Supreme Court Associate Justice.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.