Jenna Ellis, the former Trump personal and campaign attorney, says she has been suspended from Twitter after posting a tweet in which she appears to label Afghanistan refugees “terrorists.”

She also called for President Joe Biden’s impeachment, and baselessly claimed he is “literally bringing in terrorists.”

Ellis announced her suspension on Newsmax Monday night, and posted a clip of her appearance (below) to her Facebook page.

“Twitter doesn’t want any discussion of the truth about Biden’s illegal actions and the repercussions that will most certainly happen to the United States,” she wrote, falsely. “My 12-hour suspension for ‘hate speech’ is insane censorship.”

A screenshot of what Ellis says is her suspension notice says her account has violated Twitter’s rules against “hateful conduct.”

Ellis on Newsmax claims by posting her tweet she was “standing up for our Constitution, standing up for our rule of law,” and falsely claims that “Biden is letting in terrorists because he is not allowing any of these people to be vetted, he’s breaking the law.”

The refugees are being vetted by the U.S. Many if not most being brought to the U.S. have applied for the Special Immigrant Visa program and worked for the U.S. government or military. They are being housed on U.S. military bases.

The rules for obtaining a Special Immigrant Visa are quite strict, as The New York Times notes:

Applicants must show they have been employed for at least two years by the U.S. government or an associated entity. Among other paperwork, they must prove they performed valuable service by providing a recommendation from an American supervisor. They must also show that they have experienced, or are experiencing, a serious threat as a consequence of their work for the United States.

Watch:

Joseph Epstein is under fire after writing an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal attacking incoming First Lady Dr. Jill Biden for using the well-earned honorific “Dr.” in her name. Epstein, who is 83, once wrote an article attacking gay people that was so vile it is remembered 50 years later for being “an incredibly homophobic tour-de-force.”

On Friday the Journal published Epstein’s op-ed (to which NCRM will not link) trying to belittle Dr. Biden.

“Madame First Lady—Mrs. Biden—Jill—kiddo,” it began, incredibly disrespectfully, “a bit of advice on what may seem like a small but I think is a not unimportant matter. Any chance you might drop the ‘Dr.’ before your name? ‘Dr. Jill Biden’ sounds and feels fraudulent, not to say a touch comic.”

50 years ago Epstein turned his hate on a different target: gay men. In the cover story for the September, 1970 edition of Harper’s magazine, this was the last paragraph of Epstein’s hit piece:

They are different front the rest of us. Homosexuals are different, moreover, in a way that cuts deeper than other kinds of human differences—religious, class, racial—in a way that is, somehow, more fundamental. Cursed without clear cause, afflicted without apparent cure, they are an affront to our rationality, living evidence of our despair of ever finding a sensible, an explainable, design to the world. One can tolerate homosexuality, a small enough price to be asked to pay for someone else’s pain, but accepting it, really accepting it, is another thing altogether. I find I can accept it least of all when I look at my children. There is much my four sons can do in their lives that might cause me anguish, that might outrage me, that might make me ashamed of them and of myself as their father. But nothing they could ever do would make me sadder than if any of them were to become homosexual. For then I should know them condemned to a state of permanent niggerdom among men, their lives, whatever adjustment they might make to their condition, to be lived out as part of the pain of the earth.

In 2016 NCRM published a piece by Claude Summers discussing Epstein’s concern that the words “Noted Homophobe” will be carved on his gravestone.

Pointing to the word “noted,” a retired law professor on Twitter told me yesterday: “This guy never stops congratulating himself.”

Right-wing media outlet The Federalist mourned the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision yesterday that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to and protects LGBTQ people from discrimination in the workplace. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was President Donald Trump’s first nominee to the country’s highest court, authored the majority opinion.

The Federalist has existed for years as a clearinghouse of anti-LGBTQ screeds and columns. As Media Matters ​Editor-at-large Parker Malloy explained after the publication cut ​ties to​ freelance contributor Denise McAllister in 2017, ​The Federalist is “regularly, virulently transphobic.” Less than a year after its 2013 launch, Media Matters reported that The Federalist “count[ed] some of the most notorious anti-LGBT groups among its most ardent fans.” The site often uses misleading article illustrations for articles attacking transgender people and causes, some of which have attempted to directly link transgender identity and child sex abuse.

I want to highlight something about right-wing media and how they portray trans people:

In the left photo is Aimee Stephens, a trans woman and the plaintiff in one of today’s SCOTUS decisions. On the right is how The Federalist depicted her when first writing about her in 2017. pic.twitter.com/hjFmPPQBnc

— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) June 15, 2020

Sean Davis, co-founder of the publication, tweeted in reaction to the ruling: “The Supreme Court is not a court of law. It is a super-legislature run by nine politicians with lifetime tenure. Conservatives need to stop picking justices based on promises from nominees about how they’ll analyze cases and start picking individuals who will vote correctly.”

The Federalist reported the news with the headline​, “SCOTUS Upends Civil Rights Act Ruling On Sex Discrimination.” Jordan Davidson, an intern at The Federalist, wrote the article, which stated the ruling was “controversial” and followed 15 years of failed attempts in Congress “to rewrite the definition of the word ‘sex’ into law.” Davidson includes quotes from Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson and ​Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino, ​who​ expressed ​t​heir ​disappointment with the ruling.

Joy Pullmann, executive editor at The Federalist, wrote that the ruling would result in the “further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require.” The headline on Pullmann’s article claims that Monday’s ruling “Firebombs” the U.S. Constitution. She writes:

This decision is a disgrace to these bedrocks of Western civilization, our nation built upon them, the voters who vote for them, and to these men’s honor. President Trump ran promising judges who wouldn’t murder America, and Gorsuch just gave him and everyone who voted for him a giant middle finger. The court’s newfound weakness will also be exploited and explored by leftist legal agitators whose goal is the destruction of the American system.

[…]

Given all that has happened after Obergefell v. Hodges, which we were vociferously told was ridiculous to forecast — transgenderism immediately going mainstream, pushing religion inside the closet LGBT people were vacating, limiting people’s ability to freely express their faith and ideas, forcing education institutions to promote LGBT politics and behavior — it’s naive to think such scenarios will not quickly become reality as a result of this court decision.

Pullmann ​goes on to encourage conservatives outraged by the decision to “get on the email lists” of longtime anti-LGBTQ organizations and hate groups.

Chad Felix Greene, a senior contributor to The Federalist who is himself openly gay, argued that the Supreme Court ruling barring employment discrimination against LGBTQ people “may negatively affect LGBT advocacy about transgender rights and social acceptance” in the long term. Green downplays the threat of employment discrimination that LGBTQ people face and attempts to liken the Supreme Court ruling to remarks made by author J.K. Rowling that critics accused of being transphobic. Greene is aggressively transphobic and has taken recently to trolling the LGBTQ community online by repeatedly claiming that he is both transgender and a person of color. Greene writes:

By linking the rights of gay and transgender people to sex, the LGBT left has bound itself to whatever definition “sex” takes on. The more fluid and subjective it becomes, the less firm and predictable rights for gay and transgender people will become. For now, this does not seem to be a concern or even a consideration, as all they can see is victory. But they rarely think these things through to their logical conclusions.

Photo of Sean Davis via Twitter

This article was originally published at Right Wing Watch and is republished here by permission.