Fox News’ Erick Erickson, deemed America’s “Most Powerful Conservative,” calls gay people terrorists, hours after terrorists strategically slaughtered 12 people in Paris.
Late last month, The Atlantic named RedState founder and Fox News contributor Erick Erickson the “Most Powerful Conservative” in America. Erickson is a Louisiana native who lives in Georgia. His meteoric rise to fame on the far right defies comprehension, but it likely is tied to him seemingly having no personal internal editor, allowing him to blurt out what’s on his mind without considering repercussions. The Tea Party loves that.
Yesterday, three radical Islamic extremists hunted down journalists at the iconic French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, which is known worldwide for its unrelenting mocking of religious extremism. The terrorists slaughtered its editor and staff, after asking for each by name. Just hours after that news broke,Â Erickson recorded and published what sounded like a commentary on the attack that left 12 dead and 11 more wounded.
“A publisher published something that offended. It mocked, it offended, and it showed the fallacy of a religion. It angered,” he told listeners. “So the terrorists decided they needed to publicly destroy and ruin the publisher in a way that would not only make that destruction a public spectacle, but do it so spectacularly that others would think twice before publishing or saying anything similar.”
Sounds just like a commentary attacking the horrific acts of terrorism in Paris, doesn’t it?Â
“The terrorist wants to sow fear,” he slowly continued, as his published textÂ reads. “The destruction of an individual is not just meant to be a tool of vengeance, but a tool of instruction. It shows others what will happen to them if they dare do the same. It is generates self-regulating peer pressure. Others, fearing the fall out, will being to self-police and self-regulate. They will silence others on behalf of the terrorists. Out of fear, they will drive the ideas from the public square and society will make them off limits.”
Erickson concludes, “The terrorists did what had to be done to publicly destroy and ruin the offender.”
So they demanded the Mayor of Atlanta fire the Chief of the Fire Department for daring to write that his first duty was to â€œglory Godâ€ and that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage was a sin.
And the terrorists won in Atlanta.
You can bet Erickson was quite proud of himself for that twist.
And for calling gay people terrorists.
In case you’re unsure what happened in Atlanta, Georgia, the fire chief was firedÂ this week after he published a religiously-themed book that among other things, calls gay people “unclean,” and likens them to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals.
Mayor Kasim Reed made clear that he firedÂ Kelvin Cochran not for the content of the bookÂ â€“ although that seems like sufficient groundsÂ â€“ but for not consulting with him before publishing it.
Erickson wants people to believe that Cochran was fired for his religious beliefs, to fit the religious right’s narrative that they are being persecuted, even if they’re not.
And it seems he’ll say just about anything to make people believe thatÂ â€“ even that gays are terrorists.
UPDATE: Just to be 100 percent clear on Erickson’s intentions, the description for the Soundcloud audio, presumably written by Erickson since it says it was, reads: “Erick ties together the terrorist attack in France today with the firing of the Atlanta Fire Chief.”
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.
Legal Experts and Critics Slam Justice Clarence Thomas for ‘Speaking Out Against Something He Is Actively Doing’
Critics are observing Constitution Day by responding to remarks U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made on Thursday, when he blasted the media for criticizing decisions from the nation’s highest court and warning federal judges to not wade in to political discussions.
“When we begin to venture into the legislative or executive branch lanes, those of us, particularly in the federal judiciary with lifetime appointments, are asking for trouble,” Justice Thomas said, CNN’s Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue reports, ironically observing that Justice Thomas made those remarks “during a sweeping lecture at the University of Notre Dame that also touched on themes of equality, race and the state of the country.”
The CNN report adds:
Of all the members of the high court, Thomas has made his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion across the US, crystal clear. In 2007, he said that he believed that Roe and the follow-up decision called Planned Parenthood v. Casey had “no basis in the Constitution.” And in 2020, he said that Roe is “grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding — that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child — finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Thomas also on Thursday “seemed to nod to the controversy” of “so-called court packing”:
“We have lost the capacity” as leaders “to not allow others to manipulate our institutions when we don’t get the outcomes that we like,” he said.
In rare public remarks, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a Notre Dame crowd, “I think the court was thought to be the least dangerous branch, and we may have become the most dangerous.” pic.twitter.com/EHK2pEGWdB
— The Recount (@therecount) September 17, 2021
Critics, including legal experts are weighing on on Justice Thomas’s remarks, blasting him for, as Daily Beast editor-at-large Molly Jong-Fast says, “speaking out against something he is actively doing.”
Keith Boykin, a CNN political commentator who earned his law degree at Harvard and served in the Clinton White House was even more pointed:
“Clarence Thomas didn’t seem too worried about ‘destroying our institutions’ when he cast the deciding vote to make Bush president in 2000 or to gut the Voting Rights Act in 2013 or when he sat silently from 2017-2021 as Trump trashed our institutions.”
Dr. Miranda Yaver, a political science professor (US law, public policy, health policy) at Oberlin blasted Justice Thomas, saying that “claiming that the Supreme Court isn’t political is nonsense and we all know it. FWIW, whenever I teach Constitutional Law and students go, ‘Who in the hell would write that opinion??’ the answer is invariably Clarence Thomas.”
Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), laughed:
Clarence Thomas, whose rulings in key cases mysteriously always conform with his political and partisan preferences, says the justices do not make decisions based on politics. Hahahahaha https://t.co/Sxk1VVh0v2
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) September 17, 2021
VOX senior correspondent Ian Millhiser, author of “The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court is Reshaping America,” also criticizes Thomas’s apparent hypocrisy:
Clarence Thomas believes that federal child labor laws are unconstitutional. Literally the only thing this troll has ever done in his entire career is try to burn down institutions. https://t.co/aSYdkxrmd9
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) September 17, 2021
Sarah Palin Proudly Declares Herself a ‘White Common Sense Conservative’ – and Unvaccinated
Sarah Palin is back on TV. At least, she was Thursday night, on Fox News’ late night political satire show “Gutfeld!” where she announced she is not vaccinated and proudly explained why – basically getting the science wrong by leaving out important scientific findings.
“I am one of those white common sense conservatives,” Palin told host Greg Gurfeld and guest Dr. Drew Pinsky. “I believe in science and I have not taken the shot.”
“One, because the waitress never came back to ask me,” she said sarcastically, “because I do believe in science. And the Fauci-ism of the day back then was if you had COVID – I’ve had COVID – well then Mother Nature was creating an immunity and, and even today they say you know you’re 27 percent more immune.”
Dr. Drew chimed in to claim it’s “27 times” more immune.
But both are getting the science wrong – by not telling the whole story.
The highly-respected journal Science last month published an article making very clear why Palin is wrong in its title: “Having SARS-CoV-2 once confers much greater immunity than a vaccine—but vaccination remains vital.”
And while it states up front that “Israelis who had an infection were more protected against the Delta coronavirus variant than those who had an already highly effective COVID-19 vaccine,” it adds this critical information: Unvaccinated COVID survivors are more likely to contract the deadly disease again than those who have had COVID and just one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.
Researchers, Science reports, “compared more than 14,000 people who had a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were still unvaccinated with an equivalent number of previously infected people who received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The team found that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to be reinfected as the singly vaccinated.”
Sarah Palin announces she is unvaccinated pic.twitter.com/yJTsk4dnNC
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 17, 2021
29 Months Later Bill Barr’s Super Secret Russia Special Counsel Files His Second Indictment – for Alleged Lying
In April of 2019 then-Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut to open and lead an investigation into Russia – not into how Russia has been attacking the United States via cyber warfare, undermining Americans’ trust in American institutions, and using social media to do it, but into whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been warranted in opening an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, including its investigation of Donald Trump.
On Thursday, 29 months after Barr first appointed John Durham (photo, right) to lead that super-secret investigation, 11 months after Barr secretly turned Durham into a special counsel to ensure the investigation would continue past his and Trump’s tenure, and after spending untold millions of taxpayer dollars, the Dept. of Justice has announced Durham has obtained a second indictment.
“A prominent cybersecurity lawyer was indicted on a charge of lying to the F.B.I. five years ago during a meeting about Donald J. Trump and Russia, the Justice Department announced on Thursday,” The New York Times reports.
The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, “of the law firm Perkins Coie, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party — is accused of making a false statement about his client at the meeting.”
Mr. Sussmann’s defense lawyers have denied the accusation, saying that he did not make a false statement, that the evidence he did is weak and that who he was representing was not a material fact in any case. They have vowed to fight any charge in court.
At issue is who was Sussman working for when he “relayed concerns by cybersecurity researchers who believed that unusual internet data might be evidence of a covert communications channel between computer servers associated with the Trump Organization and with Alfa Bank, a Kremlin-linked Russian financial institution.”
Apparently not at issue is if the Trump Organization or campaign had a secret communications channel to a Kremlin-linked organization.
Frequent viewers of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow are likely familiar with her reporting on Alfa Bank, including this segment from October 2018:
Durham has not obtained any indictment against anyone in Russia, any Russian operatives, any Trump Organization or campaign official, or anyone who may have been involved in Russia’s attack on the United States.
The only other indictment Durham has obtained from his two-plus year investigation? The Times in 2019 reported on a “low-level” FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who “altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap,” on Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor.
One expert calls the indictment “weak.”
I don't think Durham is politically motivated, but this seems weak and hardly justifies his long investigation. Also a good reminder about the peril of talking to the FBI.
WaPo: Indictment issued. https://t.co/AYAUSodiMs
— Ross Garber (@rossgarber) September 16, 2021
- News3 days ago
Top National Security Attorney Shuts Down Trump’s Claim Gen. Milley Committed ‘Treason’ in Just Four Words
- News3 days ago
Log Cabin Republicans Go Full MAGA With Melania and Mar-a-Lago Event
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
Anti-Vaxxers Are Calling Themselves ‘Purebloods’ – a Term That Draws ‘Parallels With Nazi Doctrine’: Report
- ANALYSIS2 days ago
MSNBC’s Morning Joe Breaks Down Why GOP’s California Recall Failure Spells Great News for Dems in 2022
- WTH?2 days ago
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Launches Paranoid Rant: ‘Had to Get on My Knees and Pray to God’ US Gov’t. Didn’t Kill Him
- LIES AND THE LYING LIARS THAT TELL THEM2 days ago
‘Lying a Lot’: CNN Fact Checker Busts Trump Spokesperson’s False Election ‘Fraud’ Claims Attacking Democrats
- News2 days ago
Fox News Promotes ‘No Politics Public School’ That ‘Encourages’ Parents to Obtain a Vaccination Waiver
- ANALYSIS1 day ago
Kavanaugh Probe Must Be Reopened After FBI Allegedly Ignored Thousands of Tips About Him: Ex-Federal Prosecutor