Connect with us

Gay Rights And Guns. Essential Liberties?

Published

on

Gun Rallies. Militias. Tea Party Patriots. Gun Rights. The Oklahoma City Bombing. The Second Amendment. Columbine. Waco. Gay rights.

Which of these doesn’t go with the others?

Actually, none of them. Because all of these are about what Americans perceive as “essential liberties.” The issue is not everyone agrees on all of them. Gay rights, I believe, mean greater equality, freedom, and liberty for all. Maybe you believe gun rights mean greater equality, freedom, and liberty for all.

Regardless of your position, these are the issues all Americans are talking about today, the seventeenth anniversary of the death of 81 Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and the fifteenth anniversary of the death of 168 in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Tomorrow will be the eleventh anniversary of the Columbine massacre, in which fifteen, including the two high school students, died.

To “celebrate,” there are two gun rallies today, one in Washington, D.C., and one across the Potomac. The first, thankfully, isn’t “open-carry,” given D.C.’s gun laws. The one across the river, is. Guns will be loaded and openly carried in the nation’s first gun rally in a public, national park.

MSNBC this morning offered an “interview” (more like an open platform) with one of the gun rally organizers, who proudly proclaimed that the second amendment is the amendment that gives us the civil right to protect all our other civil rights. That claim went unchallenged. And it was bunk.

Let me be clear. I love our country. I love America and all the things I was taught growing up in the ’60s and 70s that America represented. Freedom. Liberty. Truth and justice for all. And equality. Which includes gay rights.

But let me also be clear. I grew up. And I saw what uncontrolled greed and hate can do. And Waco and Columbine and Oklahoma City happened after I formed my opinions.

While many believe the “right to bear arms” is enshrined in the Constitution, many others believe the right to marry is as well.

There can be, and should be, strong limits placed on acquiring guns, carrying guns, and using guns. I believe, and statistics confirm, that more guns mean more gun violence. (32 Americans die every day from gun violence. Eight of them are children.) And if the purpose of government is to protect its citizens, surely protection from gun violence should rank high on its list of priorities.

Liberty and freedom mean as much the protection to do what you want to do as they do the protection from others doing what they want to do to you.

Americans, all Americans, need government protections. “Small government” means less rules, and less rule-enforcement. “Small government” is not an idea that makes sense in a twenty-first century that has seen a global financial meltdown due entirely to unbridled greed and bad decisions. “Small government” is not an idea that makes sense when insurance companies and banks are bilking every dollar from every American they possibly can. But is “small government” an idea that makes sense when gay couples are separated by the government, despite legal protections already in place, have their belongings auctioned off, and placed in separate nursing homes, and die alone?

And to that I have to go back to the beginning and look at our Constitution. And ask this essential question:

Why is it the very people who claim to believe in small government, in limited government, are the very first to use government to deny gay and lesbian Americans our Constitutional right to marry, to serve openly in our military, to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt children, to legally marry and form legally-recognized families?

Government’s role is not to limit rights and freedoms, but to expand them. And, to protect those who need protection. I don’t see how carrying loaded weapons expands liberty or freedom. Perhaps you don’t see how my right to serve openly in the military, adopt children and raise a family, and marry the man I love expands liberty or freedom.

But the one thing I do see is this. Mine affects no one but me and the man I love. Surely, that is the essence of what should be protected in the name of freedom and liberty.

(Image: Caleb Eigsti)

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

‘Let’s Get a Warrant for Her Backyard’: Noem ‘Done Politically’ Right Wing Pundits Say

Published

10 hours ago

on

April 29, 2024

By

South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem‘s bragging about dragging her 14-month old puppy into a gravel pit and shooting her to death because she “hated” the dog is likely the end of her political career, right-wing pundits are now saying.

On Friday when The Guardian broke the news in a preview of Noem’s upcoming book, outrage on the left was immediate, but outrage on the right trickled in, then increased. Even with Noem doubling down, declaring her killing of the puppy (and a goat that same day, same way) happened 20 years ago, people on the right are expressing anger.

A Democratic pollster says 81% of Americans oppose Noem killing her puppy, The Guardian later reported.

“After learning about Gov. Noem’s actions, only 14% consider her to be a good choice for vice president on the Republican ticket. By a 2:1 margin, even Republicans say the governor would not be a good choice (42% vs. 21%),” the pollster, New River Strategies, stated.

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Noem’s book, “No Going Back,” to be released May 7, has a number one ranking at Amazon. Publisher Center Street, a Hachette Book Group imprint, also publishes other right-wing politicians including Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, and Vivek Ramaswamy. Endorsing the book are other right-wingers, including Donald Trump, Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy, athlete and anti-trans activist Riley Gaines, and anti-LGBTQ extremist group creator Chaya Raichik of Libs of TikTok.

On Monday, as Mediaite reported, two Fox News pundits had had it.

Jason Chaffetz, a former GOP Congressman, said, “she just destroyed her political career. I don’t think there’s anybody on any side of the aisle, any human being that thinks it’s acceptable to go to a gravel pit and shoot a dog in the face and kill it when it’s 14 months old. That’s. I mean, that’s just hideous. So she’s done politically, and I’m a friend of hers. I served with her, but politically, there’s no recovering from this.”

Fox News media analyst Joe Concha said, “as a dog owner my whole life,” the story of Noem shooting her dog “absolutely makes my blood boil.”

RELATED: Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’

“How utterly heartless do you have to be to shoot a 14-month-old dog in the face? Because look, if it wasn’t doing its job on the farm, or is attacking chicken or people, okay, you’re a public figure, or at least you have a platform in some way, shape, or form. Even if you’re a private citizen, you very easily could have posted somewhere, ‘I’m putting my dog up for adoption because maybe it’s not working out here on the ranch,’ and I can guarantee you many people would have raised their hand to take that dog in,” Concha said, adding, “she just destroyed any chance she had of being Donald Trump’s vice president, if she had any chance at all. There’s no going back from this.”

Right wing talk show host Megyn Kelly said Trump is “too smart” to “pick somebody who’s managed to do the impossible and unite Democrats and Republicans alike in their anger for this woman who shot her puppy in the face.”

At the right wing National Review, Jeffrey Blehar writes: “Let’s Get a Warrant for Kristi Noem’s Backyard.”

“I guess I just don’t like people who boast about shooting puppies,” Blehar adds on social media. “And goats. And horses. And who knows what else, until cops have done an aerial scan of the property and gotten a backhoe out to excavate the suspicious piles of dirt.”

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Far Right Media Outlet Retracts ‘False’ Story About Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels

Published

12 hours ago

on

April 29, 2024

By

A far-right pro-Trump streaming media outlet has retracted what it now states was a “false” story alleging former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels had a sexual relationship for years and engaged in an “extortion” conspiracy plot against the ex-president.

The statement and apology from One America News Network (OAN) comes just one day before the New York criminal trial of Donald Trump is set to begin its third week. Cohen is one of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s top witnesses in the case. Defense attorneys are expected to try to attack Cohen’s credibility.

“OAN today has retracted its March 27 article entitled ‘Whistleblower: Avenatti Alleged Cohen­ Daniels Affair Since 2006, Pre-2016 Trump Extortion Plan,’ and is taking it down from all sites and removing it from all social media. This retraction is part of a settlement reached with Michael Cohen. Mr. Avenatti has denied making the allegations. OAN apologizes to Mr. Cohen for any harm the publication may have caused him,” a statement on OAN’s website reads.

It then states in all-caps: “NO PERSON SHOULD RELY ON THE MARCH 27 ARTICLE OR THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.”

READ MORE: Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

“The article, quoting a source, falsely claimed that Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels ‘were having an affair since 2006’ and that, according to a source, ‘the whole hush money scheme was cooked up by [Mr. Cohen] to extort the Trump Organization before the 2016 election.’ These statements were false. OAN regrets their publication.”

The New York Times reports there are “no monetary damages,” and adds one of Cohen’s attorneys, “Justin Nelson, had represented Dominion Voting Systems in a suit against Fox News that cost that network $787.5 million to settle. Mr. Nelson worked with Mr. Cohen’s longtime lawyer, Danya Perry, in what was a remarkably quick about-face by OAN.”

Danya Perry, also one of Cohen’s attorneys in this case, declared the settlement was “a total vindication for Mr. Cohen — and a warning: Mr. Cohen is telling the truth, and there will be legal consequences for those who lie about him.”

“Mr. Trump has repeatedly attacked Mr. Cohen,” The Times adds, “despite a gag order issued by the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, barring him from attacking witnesses and others. Justice Merchan is currently weighing whether Mr. Trump is in contempt of the gag order as a result of that invective.”

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

“In particular, Mr. Trump has attacked Mr. Cohen’s credibility, which will also be how Mr. Trump’s lawyers approach his former fixer during trial. The story by OAN, which has been a consistent booster of Mr. Trump’s political agenda, bolstered that strategy.”

Cohen called it, “The first apology in a long line of lies about me by media outlets.”

Professor of law, MSNBC legal analyst, and former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann called the settlement a “big win” for the attorneys and Cohen.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Hunter Biden Plans Lawsuit Against Fox News Amid ‘Conspiracy of Disinformation’

Published

14 hours ago

on

April 29, 2024

By

Attorneys for Hunter Biden have notified Fox News he plans to sue the right-wing cable TV network and its digital entities, after lawyers for the President’s son spent more than a year investigating. Among other issues the letter reportedly mentions Fox News citing a now-indicted former FBI informant, and points to “revenge porn” laws.

The letter, NBC News reports, is dated last week and specifically points to alleged bribery allegations as well as “Fox’s airing of ‘intimate images’ belonging to Hunter Biden that his lawyers claim were ‘hacked, stolen, and/or manipulated’,” that they say violate “Biden’s civil rights as well as copyright law.”

CNN, focusing in the intimate images, reports that “Hunter Biden is demanding that Fox News remove from its platforms sexually explicit images that President Joe Biden’s son says are private, according to a letter obtained by CNN, as part of his strategy to publicly fight back against conservative media.”

“The media outlet aired a mock trial of Hunter Biden on the streaming platform Fox Nation in 2022,” CNN also reports, “focused on the unproven bribery allegations, and published ‘intimate images of Mr. Biden depicting him in the nude as well as engaged in sex acts,’ according to the letter, which demands that Fox immediately remove the series from all streaming platforms.”

READ MORE: Noem Doubles Down With ‘Legal Cover’ For Shooting Her Puppy to Death

“’FOX knows that these private and confidential images were hacked, stolen, and/or manipulated digital material,’ Hunter Biden’s attorneys wrote in the letter, which contained several of the explicit images, some of which were blurred,” CNN adds. “Publishing these images, the attorneys said, violated ‘the majority of states’ laws against the nonconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit images and videos, sometimes referred to as ‘revenge porn’ laws.’ ”

In a statement Hunter Biden’s attorney, Mark Geragos, expanded on the apparently pending lawsuit.

“For the last five years, Fox News has relentlessly attacked Hunter Biden and made him a caricature in order to boost ratings and for its financial gain,” Geragos stated. “The recent indictment of FBI informant Smirnov has exposed the conspiracy of disinformation that has been fueled by Fox, enabled by their paid agents and monetized by the Fox enterprise. We plan on holding them accountable.”

Media Matters last week reported, “Fox News has mentioned Hunter Biden at least 13,440 times since January 3, 2023, when Republicans took control of the House of Representatives after promising to use their power to investigate the business interests of President Joe Biden’s son, according to a Media Matters review.”

“Fox’s on-air coverage of Hunter Biden has … plummeted in recent months,” Media Matters added. “Mentions of the president’s son on the network peaked at 2,356 in July, when his federal plea deal on two misdemeanor counts of failing to pay taxes fell apart, and mentions exceeded 1,300 in four other months, most recently in December.”

READ MORE: Peter Navarro’s Latest Attempt to Get Out of Jail Smacked Down by SCOTUS

Watch CNN’s report below or at this link.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.