Connect with us

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



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.

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.


Trump An ‘Enemy of the Constitution’ Declares Nicolle Wallace, Blasting Call to ‘Terminate’ Nation’s Founding Document



MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace slammed Donald Trump as an “enemy of the Constitution” on Monday after the ex-president, over the weekend, called for the U.S. Constitution to be terminated.

Trump demanded “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” in light of his most recent – and false – claim the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

That was Saturday, on his Truth Social account.

On Monday, Trump denied having ever said it, despite the post still being up.

Wallace characterized Trump’s call to terminate the Constitution “an extraordinary statement even by the standards of a failed wannabe autocrat who plotted a coup against his own government and recently dined with white supremacists.”

READ MORE: ‘Venom’: Experts Shocked as Gorsuch Angrily Accuses Colorado of Forcing Anti-LGBTQ Baker Into ‘Re-Education Program’

“The disgraced ex-president made his contempt for our democracy as clear as ever, when he called for the United States Constitution to be ‘terminated.'”

Quoting The Washington Post, Wallace said: “Trump’s message on his Truth Social platform reiterated the baseless claims he has made since 2020, that the election was stolen, but he went further by suggesting that the country abandon one of its founding documents.”

She also played a clip of Republican Congressman Dave Joyce of Ohio from Sunday’s ABC News.

Rep. Joyce in the clip twists and turns but ultimately admits that if Trump is the GOP nominee for president in 2024 he will vote for him.

READ MORE: Anti-LGBTQ Slurs on Twitter Up Over 800% as Musk Allows Thousands of Previously Banned Users Back: Reports

“Well, again, it’s early I think there’s gonna be a lot of people in the primary I think at the end of the day, you will have — wherever the Republicans tend to pick up I will fall in behind because that’s –”

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos interjected, asking,”Even if it’s Donald Trump, as he’s called for suspending the Constitution?”

“Again, I think it’s gonna be a big field. I don’t think Donald Trump’s gonna clear out the field like he did in 2016.”

“I will support whoever the Republican nominee is,” Joyce added.

“And I don’t don’t think that at this point he will be able to get there because I think there’s a lot of other good quality candidates out there.”

“He says a lot of things,” Joyce continued, refusing to denounce Trump.

“Let’s not speed past that moment,” Wallace urged. “This is exactly how Trump happened. All the Republicans in Washington and around the country said, [Trump] ‘says all sorts of stupid you know what. Dorsn’t mean he’s going to do it.'”

“He did all of it, all of it. And then some,” she chastised.

Watch below or at this link.

Continue Reading


‘Venom’: Experts Shocked as Gorsuch Angrily Accuses Colorado of Forcing Anti-LGBTQ Baker Into ‘Re-Education Program’



U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared angry and even hostile at several points throughout Monday’s oral arguments in a case brought by a Colorado right-wing evangelical Christian website designer who is suing the state because she wants to be able to discriminate against same-sex couples who are getting married.

The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, promises to be one of the most important of the term, and arguments extended more than two hours.

During one of the more heated moments, conservative Justice Gorsuch attacked Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson, claiming the state forced an infamous anti-LGBTQ baker who also went before the Supreme Court, winning his 2018 case in a very narrow ruling, into a “re-education program.”

RELATED: ‘What the Hell, Sam’: Justice Alito Slammed for Making ‘Joke’ About Black Children in KKK Costumes

Jack Phillips, a business owner who refused to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, citing his religious beliefs, was required to attend a class so he could become familiar with Colorado anti-discrimination law.

The Supreme Court’s ruling at the time called it, “additional remedial measures, including ‘comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section'” of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.

Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

RELATED: 5 Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Ruling in the Gay Wedding Cake Case

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”

Continue Reading


‘What the Hell, Sam’: Justice Alito Slammed for Making ‘Joke’ About Black Children in KKK Costumes



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in one of the most important cases of the term, a case that will determine if the nation’s highest court will or will not allow a person citing their personal religious beliefs to openly discriminate in the marketplace against same-sex couples.

In likely the most salient and important hypothetical example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described in great detail a photographer wanting to re-create scenes from 1940’s Christmases with Santa Clauses and children, in sepia tones, and making them historically accurate.

She asked the attorney representing the right-wing Christian website designer who does not want to have to provide her product to same-sex couples, if under her legal theory the hypothetical photographer would have to create photos of a white Santa with Black children.

Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom‘s attorney arguing in favor of anti-LGBTQ discrimination, was forced to admit that the photographer would be able to say they would not take photos of Black children with a white Santa.

RELATED: Listen Live: SCOTUS Hears Christian Right Religion vs. LGBTQ Civil Rights Challenge

Later, Justice Samuel Alito, one of the Court’s most far-right jurists, decided to use Justice Jackson’s hypothetical analogy to make a point, and he did so by mockingly joking about Black children wearing KKK costumes.

“Justice Jackson’s example of that, the Santa in the mall who doesn’t want his picture taken with Black children,” Justice Alito began, getting the basics of the analogy incorrect.

“So if there’s a Black Santa at the other end of the mall, and he doesn’t want to have his picture taken with a child who is dressed up in a Ku Klux Klan outfit, now does that Black Santa have to do that?”

Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson replied, “No, because Klu Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws.”

READ MORE: ‘Anathema to the Soul of Our Nation’: Trump Pilloried for Demanding ‘Termination’ of the US Constitution

“And presumably,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor interjected, “that would be the same Ku Klux Klan outfit regardless whether if the child was Black or white or any other characteristic.”

That’s when Alito decided to make a “joke,” while thousands of Americans were listening to the Court’s live proceedings.

“You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time,” he said, presumably sarcastically.

He then laughed, and some viewers in the gallery joined with him.

Many on social media were outraged and offended.

“He is so inappropriate today. And offensive,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, the former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). “The Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits? Not funny. Is this the highest Court of the most powerful country in the world? Good grief.”

Minutes later, NYU School of Law Professor of Law Melissa Murray weighed in, saying, “I’m going to need Justice Alito to stop joking about seeing ‘Black children in Ku Klux Klan costumes.'”

“Seriously, what am I listening to?” she asked, to which Ifill replied, “Just awful.”

“The joke about Black kids in KuKluxKlan outfits?” Ifill also lamented. “No Justice Alito, these ‘jokes’ are so inappropriate, no matter how many in the courtroom chuckle mindlessly.”

Columbia University Professor of Law Katherine Franke tweeted, “Justice Alito is resorting to KKK jokes. Ha ha ha. As if what’s at stake here is funny, and isn’t taking place in a context in which LGBTQ people feel like we have a target on our backs. And, ahem – Klan jokes aren’t funny under any context.”

The Rewire News Group tweeted, in all caps, “I knew Alito wouldn’t be able to resist bringing up the Ku Klux Klan,” and then: “What the hell, Sam.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.