Connect with us

Tony Perkins: Being Compared To The Klan? That’s Manna From Heaven!

Published

on

Editor’s note: This guest post by Scott Wooledge was originally published at Daily Kos and is published here with his permission. Scott Wooledge writes at the Daily Kos under the handle Clarknt67.

So what would you do if a well-respected organization that was instrumental in shutting down the Ku Klux Klan called you on the carpet?

Well, if you’re Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council, you embrace the opportunity as Manna from Heaven! Sunday, I pointed out how ginning up hatred for gay people is a great cash cow for the rabid Fundamentalist crowd. And yesterday, the FRC proves me right by gleefully fundraising off the Southern Poverty Law Center’s naming them a hate group, imploring their followers to give, give, give, give, and of course, give.

The Letter

Tony’s beside himself because people figured out his hate speech sounds a lot like hate speech and categorized him with Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis. But it’s a totally different thing, because Tony is only saying hateful things about gay people, and we all know that’s OK. The letter asks:

How do you feel about you and FRC being lumped in with neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, racist skinheads, and other radical organizations?

In fact, there is good reason to associate Tony Perkins with the Ku Klux Klan, and it’s not just because he talks about gays in the same manner that Klansmen talk about blacks. It’s because the KKK is in fact, apparently a serious part of their target market for outreach. From Southern Poverty Law Center:

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.

Wow, so he does outreach activities to Klansmen, and then lies about it to the Federal Election Council resulting in a $3,000 fine. Is lying on FEC filings “bearing false witness?” Just asking.

So, Tony’s full of “outrage” from this “malicious” association with people that are, in fact, his business associates.

Tony’s panties are also in a bunch because he’s being lumped in with “other radical organizations.” But as I recall, the dude has defended the Uganda “Kill The Gays” bill. Federal Election Council filings show Family Research Council spent $25,000 lobbying on the bills behalf. What exactly would be a bridge too far for Tony Perkins if rounding up and executing gays is kosher? That sounds like a radical agenda to me, maybe I’m out of touch with the kids are saying these days?

But what to do about this? He offers,

“We can let the Left intimidate us into silence. Or…”

Or…? You could take it as a sign from God? You could take a thoughtful moment of quiet prayerful reflection? You could search your soul, and consider if your words and actions are, in fact, hurtful to kind, innocent people and not in keeping with God’s plan and Christ’s teachings for man on Earth? You could have an Epiphany?

No, of course not. Tony had a different reaction. And he’s got a plan, a better plan, the perfect remedy for this is, of course… I love this… wait for it….

Now I urge you to show you won’t be intimidated into silence. Please follow this link to take your place alongside these leaders and others in defense of FRC by making a tax-deductible donation to support our work.

Give, Give, Give, Give, Give!

It’s hard to miss the great big button saying “Consider Donating Today To Stand With FRC” But just in case you do, they offer not one, not two but FOUR additional hotlinks to their donation page.

Yes, give. Donate! Tax-deductible yet. Wait a minute? My tax dollars are subsidizing a hate group? I don’t remember signing on to that!

What So What Is The Truth That Must Not Be Silenced?

Perkins is encouraging folks to “sign the Statement of Support to join the many who are protesting this attempt at censorship.” So, what is this truth that the “ultra-liberal” SPLC is trying to “censor?” Here are some of the messages they need help to continue spreading (all from SPLC):

“homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses”

“homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys.”

Huh. Even the lesbians?

“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.”

Now, I’d been told the primary goal was destroying straight peoples’ marriages. I’m very confused right now. Did I miss a memo?

Mark Potok of the FRC very recently appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” to claim:

“If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.”

Of course, the American College of Pediatricians is not the respected, mainstream American Academy of Pediatrics, (which says nothing of the kind) but rather a discredited, Christian Fundamentalist breakaway fringe group with no creditability among doctors and scientists or anyone. But quoting junk science from junk scientists is what they do best, when not quoting the ancient Book of Leviticus.

“[t]here is a strong current of pedophilia in the homosexual subculture. … [T]hey want to promote a promiscuous society.”

And Family Research Council’s Yvette Cantu has shared these serioius concerns about gays parenting:

“If they [gays and lesbians] had children, what would happen when they were too busy having their sex parties?”

Silly, everyone needs a night off from the kids, sex parties are just like Bridge Night to the gay community. No problem, you just call the Nanny Service. We’re all so rich, after all. Help is easy to hire.

So what are FRC’s thoughts on gays’ fight for immigration equality? FRC’s Peter Sprigg told Matthews:

“I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them.”

To Uganda no doubt. How about here in the US? Should gays be jailed or executed? FRC’s Peter Sprigg told 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.

I wish Matthews had thought to asked Sprigg to weigh in on whether they should be capital offenses.

Seems Family Research Council longs for the good old days. Like when we jailed great artists like Oscar Wilde or heroes like Alan Turing, who may well have saved the free world in WWII, and was thanked by the oppressive hand of government meddling in his love life, until he finally killed himself.

So Is The Family Research Council Bearing False Witness?

In truth, the American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

Dr. Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. from UC Davis University of California fleshes out what is the consensus of psychological and medical community in on the University of California website, he says:

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

So wait, they aren’t child molesters by default?

But Why Would They Want To Repeat Such Awful Lies Over And Over?

Herek says it’s all about demagoguery:

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority’s most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.

Ah, yes, that would be that whole “blood libel” thing.

So that’s why they’re always imploring us to “think of the children!” And why Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage and other anti-gay groups are always featuring children in their ads! They call that a dog-whistle, don’t they?

Though, oddly, these paragons of propriety didn’t seem to be very thoughtful of the children when they used the kids’ images without permission in their hateful propaganda prompting outrage from the children’s parents.

So Why Is Family Research Council Always On Respectable News Programs?

That’s a really good question, why is a hate group welcomed onto MSNBC? Why are they allowed to go on the TV and spread this nonsense? They wouldn’t invite a well-known Klansman on to discuss affirmative action or neo-Nazi to discuss immigration reform, would they? So why are Tony Perkins and his friends the go-to for gay issues “balance?” Why are the media complicit in helping him spread lies, hate and misinformation from their junk scientists? Why are they helping him bamboozle the ignorant and hateful out of their money?

How about we tell MSNBC to stop inviting them?

Tell CNN too.

Tell ABC here.

Tell CBS here.

You can tell Fox News too, I hear they’re very responsive!

The dude can fundraise to his little choir all he wants off his hateful rhetoric, but he shouldn’t be allowed to weigh in, as though he’s a sane, rational person on matters that concern my civil rights. These snake-oil salesmen demagogues have no place in polite society or the table of serious discussion.

Updated by Clarknt67 at Tue Feb 22, 2011, 12:54:11 PM

My friend David Badash cross-posted my similar article on Maggie Gallagher to his blog. The Maggster herself deigned to post a comment (he assures me it’s authentic). Fun times! Join it here, if you’re inclined.

Related Topics:
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

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

Published

21 mins ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

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

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

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

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

News

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

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

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

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

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

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.