Connect with us

Is NOM Lying In How They’re Trying To Defend Their Racially Divisive Tactics?

Published

on

Brian Brown, president of NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, penned an op-ed in the uber-conservative Washington Times today, and decried as “false” the head of the Log Cabin Republicans’ charge that NOM is engaging in racially-divisive tactics.

What’s curious is that not just the R. Clarke Cooper, head of the Log Cabin Republicans, but almost the entire nation, who has denounced NOM’s tactics. Why pick on one person or one small organization? Could it be because it’s an LGBT group? It makes your work so much easier when you frame an argument as if it’s just “the gays” who disagree with you.

“NOM did not create the divide between blacks and homosexual-marriage advocates, and standing for marriage is not standing for division or discrimination,” Brown writes. “Nor is it patronizing for media leaders to treat the heroic stand of the black church against homosexual marriage as a product of hateful politics. Reaching out to blacks and Hispanics who share our view is something conservatives do and should do more of. NOM will continue to reach out to these communities.”

As is his usual strategy, Brown merely tweaks facts and ignores the ones he does’t like. It’s not that NOM is “reaching out” to minority groups, it’s that NOM’s executive board approved a tactic and strategy of pitting minority groups against each other, in an effort as some have said, to create a “race war.”

“The current round of media attacks on NOM for a single line in a 3-year-old document reflects the basic tactic of the political left: Use government to push a new moral norm, and when Americans with more traditional values object, attack them mercilessly, then blame conservatives (especially Christian conservatives) for being “divisive.” Their end game? Silencing the voices of millions of Americans,” Brown adds.

No, again, Brian, you’re wrong.

The media is not attacking NOM for “a single line in a 3-year-old document.” And how is this “using government”?

Since you won’t play fair, since you won’t disclose the truth, I will.

Here are just a few passages the media, and most of America, is denouncing and lambasting NOM for, direct from the unsealed court documents the Human Rights Campaign found and published:

 

“The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks—two key Democratic constituencies. Find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage, develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots…”

“Expose Obama as a social radical. Develop side issues to weaken pro-gay marriage political leaders and parties and develop an activist hase of socially conservative voters. Raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at the federal level.”

“The Latino vote in America is a key swing vote, and will be so even more so in the future, both because of demographic growth and inherent uncertainty: Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity – a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation.”

“We aim to identify young Latino and Latina leaders, especially artists, actors, musicians, athletes, writers and other celebrities willing to stand for marriage, regardless of national boundaries. …Here’s our insight: The number of “glamorous” people willing to buck the powerful forces to speak for marriage may be small in any one country. But by searching for these leaders across national boundaries we will assemble a community of next generation Latino leaders that Hispanics and other next generation elites in this country can aspire to be like. (As “ethnic rebels” such spokespeople will also have an appeal across racial lines, especially to young urbans in America.)”

For those who wish to do their own digging, here are the complete NOM unsealed court documents — have a look.

The question remains: Is NOM lying in how they’re choosing to defend their racially divisive tactics?

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

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

Published

13 mins 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

News

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

Published

2 hours ago

on

April 29, 2024

By

Former top Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro, in prison for criminal contempt of Congress, has failed in his latest attempt to be released early, after the U.S. Supreme Court once again denied his request.

Navarro, 74, the first and only former White House official ever to be imprisoned for contempt of Congress, is serving out his four-month sentence in Miami. His efforts to stay out of jail were first denied by Chief Justice John Roberts, before he reported to the prison in mid-March. He was found guilty in September after a short trial. After his arrest he hawked his book and begged for money on national television.

CBS News reports “15 days into his sentence, Navarro renewed his request to halt his surrender to Justice Neil Gorsuch, which is allowed under Supreme Court rules. His bid for emergency relief was referred to the full court, which denied it. There were no noted dissents. Attorneys for Navarro declined to comment.”

CNN called the decision to petition Justice Gorsuch “a procedural maneuver that has not worked in decades.”

RELATED: ‘Bro, You’re Already Facing Charges’: Protestor Mocks Peter Navarro as He Tries to Grab ‘Trump Lost’ Sign

“Gorsuch referred the request to the full court, which considered it during its closed door conference on Friday. The court denied the request on Monday without comment.”

Navarro’s prison sentence is the result of his refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Navarro claims he had executive privilege, but offered no proof, and refused to show up as ordered.

Legal experts accurately had predicted a “quick conviction” after Navarro, called a “conspiracy theorist” who promotes “fringe” economic theories, had called no witnesses. The jury deliberated for under five hours. He faced up to two years in prison.

CBS News adds Navarro “is not the only member of the Trump administration to be convicted of the charge. Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist, was found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress and sentenced to four months in prison. The judge overseeing that case, however, put his prison term on hold while Bannon appeals.”

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

 

 

Continue Reading

News

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

Published

3 hours ago

on

April 29, 2024

By

South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem has been under bipartisan fire since Friday after an excerpt from her soon-to-be published book reveals her bragging about shooting to death her 14-month old puppy, and later that day, a goat. Noem, considered at least until last week a top contender to be Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate, is doubling-down defending herself but now she’s serving up some “legal cover” as well.

“I can understand why some people are upset about a 20 year old story of Cricket, one of the working dogs at our ranch, in my upcoming book — No Going Back. The book is filled with many honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenges, painful decisions, and lessons learned,” she wrote on Sunday, after The Guardian‘s damning report. “The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down. Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did.”

Law & Crime on Monday reports the governor is “providing herself legal cover for the act.”

Noem “acknowledged that ‘some people’ were upset about the story — and she specified that it happened two decades ago, seeming to place the incident well beyond the statute of limitations.”

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

“Noem additionally cited South Dakota law in support of her decision,” Law & Crime adds, noting the “reported book excerpt had said that Cricket tried to bite Noem and attacked her chickens.”

“The fact is, South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock can be put down,” Noem wrote, an apparent attempt to preempt any possible legal issues. “Given that Cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did.”

Law & Crime explains that “South Dakota notes that an exemption to animal cruelty laws is the ‘destruction of dangerous animals.’ The law specifies that ‘[a]ny humane killing of an animal’ and ‘[a]ny reasonable action taken by a person for the destruction or control of an animal known to be dangerous, a threat, or injurious to life, limb, or property’ are exempt from prosecution.”

Noting that Noem’s attempt “to lean into the right’s embrace of political incorrectness … didn’t fly with members of her own party,” The Daily Beast pointed to well-known Republicans including former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farrah Griffin and Meghan McCain who publicly condemned Noem’s actions.

READ MORE: President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

The Guardian’s excerpt from Noem’s book does not state that Cricket bit people, although Noem states Cricket “whipped around” to bite her. It’s possible biting others is in the book but did not make it into The Guardian’s report.

Describing Cricket killing chickens, Noem “grabbed Cricket, she says, [and] the dog ‘whipped around to bite me’. Then, as the chickens’ owner wept, Noem repeatedly apologised, wrote the shocked family a check ‘for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime’.”

“Through it all, Noem says, Cricket was ‘the picture of pure joy’,” The Guardian reports. “’I hated that dog,’ Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself ‘untrainable’, ‘dangerous to anyone she came in contact with’ and ‘less than worthless … as a hunting dog’.”

Meanwhile, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Monday said Noem’s pride and decision making surrounding killing the puppy make her unfit to be “in charge.”

Describing how she grew up on a family farm, Brzezinski said they hunted, and “there was absolutely a dense of life and death.” There was “never a joy in killing and there was a respect to it, and a process if you were hunting.”

READ MORE: CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

“But this story was more about how she felt killing an animal, and that’s what’s scary about it – the impatience, kind of like a switch flipped in her brain and she decided she needed to kill it? Like this is not someone you want in charge, not someone thinking through the process of life and death.”

“The most remarkable part of it,” Scarborough added, “is that the conservative movement has been so corrupted by Donald Trump and his reached such new lows, that she actually put that in, about the killing of a happy puppy because she thought it would help her with the base.”

Watch below or at this link.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.