Oliver North

The Family Research Council has recently been uploading selected clips from the anti-DADT repeal webcast it hosted last week ... and they are selecting which videos to highlight very carefully.

For some reason, they haven't chosen to highlight Oliver North claiming that repealing DADT will lead to NAMBLA members being welcomed into the military or Perkins and Sergeant First Class Benjamin Ratcliff warning that soldiers might be reluctant to "spoon" in a life-threatening situation because they might have concerns about the guy next to them.

Instead, they are highlighting things like this clip of Ratcliff saying that the military should not be used to advance a social agenda and that if DADT is repealed, it'll make it much harder to fill recruitment goals:

The interesting thing is that in between these statements that FRC edited together, Ratcliff stated that even if DADT was repealed, he would continue to serve in the military and that he would urge others to do so as well because even though he would disagree with the policy, he loves his country more. I even made a video of it, juxtaposing Ratcliff's statement with the Bryan Fischer parroting this standard right-wing talking point during the webcast:

But FRC completely edited out Ratcliff's statement - in fact, the statement they did include from Ratcliff saying recruitment would be made harder came about because Tony Perkins was trying to get Ratcliff back on message.  Here is the transcript of the entire exchange:

MR. PERKINS: I’m sure this thought has come to you and you may have even been asked about it. If someone considering getting into the military were to ask you if this policy changes, what are you going to say to them?

BENJAMIN RATCLIFF: I would tell them to serve anyway. If all men of courage and men that had a moral compass were to leave the military, then we wouldn’t have a military. There’d be nobody left to serve and protect. So I don’t really – I would serve regardless of what comes out of Washington. Even though I disagree with it strongly, I love my country more. So I would understand if parents had concerns. I was recruited for several years and I sat and listened to parents’ concerns, talked with them. They asked me a lot of questions about the wars and a lot about the liberal agenda. But I would tell them, serve anyway, absolutely.

MR. PERKINS: But you bring up an important point, and I do think as long as there’s a country here and there are those who love this country, there are going to be those who are willing to serve. But as a recruiter, you know that in an all-volunteer force, it’s very difficult to meet those quotas to keep the ranks filled with the young men and women who are willing to serve. Is this going to make it easier or is it going to make it harder?

MR. RATCLIFF: Absolutely not. It’s going to make it very much harder; very much harder.

MR. PERKINS: And this is going to be at the forefront of many of those parents’ minds.

MR. RATCLIFF: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And recruiting and retention is at the top of all the commanders’ lists. Every commander across all the armed forces, recruiting is a top priority for all of them, so this would definitely degrade that fight.

Ratcliff clearly asserted that he and others like him who love their country would serve in the military regardless of the status of DADT, but FRC selectively edited that bit out because it undermined their agenda.

• Think Progress: Cincinnati Tea Party: Fox Isn’t Telling The Truth About The Hannity Broadcast.
• Iowa Independent: Iowa Family Policy Center received over $3 million in federal funds.
• Nate Silver: Tea Party Bears Beck's Imprint.
• Alvin McEwen: ENDA opposition comprised of lies, chicanery, and beliefs of religious supremacy.
• Sarah Posner: Freedom Federation Leader: We Are Not The Tea Parties.
• Towleroad: Food Network Gay Couple Invite Huckabee to Meet Adopted Son.
• TPM: Oliver North: Obama's Foreign Policy Based On 'Core Philosophy Of Being Anti-American'.
• Finally, when Bill O'Reilly says "nobody," he means "everybody":

• Pam's House Blend: Peter LaBarbera's anti-gay 'rally' at Maine statehouse draws feeble numbers.
• Alan Colmes: eBay Refuses Fundraiser For Accused Tiller Killer.
• Sarah Posner is now writing for Religion Dispatches' "The Devil's Advocate" blog. Adjust your bookmarks and RSS feeds accordingly.
• Truth Wins Out: Liberty Counsel Defends Qaddafist’s Support for Global Imprisonment of Gays.
• Oliver North is now a Republican foreign policy advisor? Amazing.
• Finally, Political Research Associates Calls on Rick Warren to Denounce Proposed Antigay Law in Uganda.

On April 15, 1995, Timothy McVeigh destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

A little over a week later, President Bill Clinton delivered a speech in which he defended the First Amendment while raising concerns about the impact of violent and hateful rhetoric:

[W]e hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other. They spread hate. They leave the impression that, by their very words, that violence is acceptable. You ought to see—I'm sure you are now seeing the reports of some things that are regularly said over the airwaves in America today.

Well, people like that who want to share our freedoms must know that their bitter words can have consequences and that freedom has endured in this country for more than two centuries because it was coupled with an enormous sense of responsibility on the part of the American people.

If we are to have freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, and, yes, the freedom to bear arms, we must have responsibility as well. And to those of us who do not agree with the purveyors of hatred and division, with the promoters of paranoia, I remind you that we have freedom of speech, too. And we have responsibilities, too. And some of us have not discharged our responsibilities. It is time we all stood up and spoke against that kind of reckless speech and behavior.

If they insist on being irresponsible with our common liberties, then we must be all the more responsible with our liberties. When they talk of hatred, we must stand against them. When they talk of violence, we must stand against them. When they say things that are irresponsible, that may have egregious consequences, we must call them on it. The exercise of their freedom of speech makes our silence all the more unforgivable. So exercise yours, my fellow Americans. Our country, our future, our way of life is at stake.

For this, Clinton was pilloried by the Right, which prompted People For the American Way to release a memo [PDF] on "free speech, irresponsible speech, and the climate of intolerance" which, remarkably, we could probably release today after making only a few small changes:

Language that attributes heinous motives and goals to individuals and organizations -- such as accusations that liberals are out to destroy Christianity or that advocates for civil rights for gays and lesbians want to molest young children -- destroys any recognition of common interest and any hope of finding common ground among political opponents. That is a terribly dangerous situation in a democratic society.

It is tempting to reassure ourselves by saying that hate speech is the denizen of only the furthest fringes of American political life. Unfortunately, that assertion is clearly not true. Elected officials and highly visible political leaders are among those who spread messages of fear and suspicion, over and over, day in and day out. The repetition of such messages cannot contribute to the well-being of our communities or the health of our society at large. Regardless of whether such messages "cause" violent behavior, they clearly serve to legitimize those who do violate the law.

Pat Robertson is a former Presidential candidate, the patriarch of a political movement, a television broadcaster, and an author. His television show and his books reach millions of Americans. Unfortunately, the message he preaches is often this: Christians are under attack in America by liberals and by a government that wants desperately to destroy their faith and their families. "I do believe this year that there's going to be persecutions against Christians. I think the government is going to step up its attacks against Christians," he told television viewers last year. "The government frankly is our enemy and we're going to see more and more of the people who have been places in office last year ... getting control of the levers of power and they will begin to know how to use them to hurt those who are perceived as their enemies."

...

Last year, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proposed regulations -- originating with the Bush administration -- to protect American workers against religious bigotry and harassment on the job, Religious Right political groups portrayed the effort in apocalyptic terms, telling members that the Clinton Administration was so hostile to the Christian faith that the government was planning to make it illegal to wear cross-shaped jewelry, carry a Bible to work, or talk about religion with a co-worker. "Why is the Clinton Administration doing this?" asked Jerry Falwell. "Because they do not want God in American society." It was all patently untrue, and the EEOC offered to clarify that the regulations were designed to protect, not inhibit, workers' religious liberty. Nevertheless, the regulations were killed.

The war against the EEOC regulations was an ideal operation for political organizations willing to trade short-term gain for long-term damage to American society. By claiming (falsely) that the end of religious liberty was near, groups could motivate supporters to call and write elected officials. By refusing to acknowledge government officials' willingness to cooperate toward reaching a solution, and demanding instead withdrawal of the regulations, the organizations' leaders could flex their political muscle for members of Congress and brag to their own members that they had prevented the arrival of tyranny. Meanwhile, millions of Americans were convinced that the government was out to destroy their faith and freedom.

Some of the most incendiary invective is directed against gay and lesbian Americans and their allies in the effort to win legal protection from discrimination. Gays and lesbians are routinely portrayed - by individuals at or near the center of conservative politics in America - as evil individuals who prey on children and want to destroy the institutions of church and family. House Speaker Newt Gingrich has parroted the assertion of the Traditional Values Coalition's Lou Sheldon that teaching about homosexuality in public schools amounts to an effort to "recruit" teenagers into homosexuality. Gingrich has promised Sheldon that the House will hold hearings on the gay "influences" in the schools. Last year Sheldon told his supporters that "President Bill Clinton has quietly put into place homosexual special rights regulations that will devastate our freedom of religion, speech and association, not to mention destroy our society's cultural and moral fiber. AND ALL THIS IS BEING DONE BEHIND OUR BACK."

...

Randall Terry, one of the founders of Operation Rescue, has told followers, "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good. ... We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this county. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

...

When President Clinton, unequivocally declaring his support for unbridled freedom of speech, called for Americans to respond to hateful rhetoric, his political opponents were quick to twist his words. Pat Robertson told viewers that the President and "those on the left" wanted to use the tragic Oklahoma City bombing "to still the voices of legitimate protest." Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh and others leapt at the chance to glean short-term political gain. When the President in fact called for more speech and more American voices, he was accused of trying to silence voices of dissent. That is precisely the kind of untruth that feeds the current dangerous levels of cynicism and distrust toward the government. And it is ironic to see politically powerful individuals, with powerful voices, claiming the role of victim in order to breed fear and resentment among their supporters.

For the last several days, the Right has been up in arms over this audio clip of Virginia Senate candidate Mark Warner warning that the state was on the verge of being taken over by the Religious Right

"Next weekend, you're going to see a coalition that has just about completely taken over the Republican Party in this state.

"And if they have their way, will take over state government, made up of the Christian Coalition, made up of right-to-lifers; but it's not just the right-to-lifers, it's made up of the NRA; but it's not just that, it's made up of the home schoolers; but not just that, it's made up of a whole coalition of people that have all sorts of different views that I think most of us in this room would find threatening to them and what it means to be an American.

Not surprisingly, it is being shopped around by Warner's opponent, Jim Gilmore,  who is currently getting crushed in the polls. 

So offensive were Warner's remarks, apparently, that the Family Research Council felt compelled to issue a statement:

Today, FRC Action decried comments made by Democrat Party Senate candidate Mark Warner. Warner, who served formerly as Governor of Virginia, was recently recorded speaking at a Democratic Party event. In his speech, Warner accused pro-lifers, homeschoolers, and members of the National Rifle Association, as threatening to "what it means to be an American."

...

"You have to wonder what Mark Warner finds so offensive about these groups," said FRC Action Executive Director David Nammo, "Is it the open practice of one's faith or the insistence on the right to bear arms that threatens Warner's America? The protection of innocent human life or the desire of parents to educate their own child? Perhaps Mark Warner should explain to the citizens of Virginia what parts of the Constitution he does agree with since it is clear he holds much of it suspect."

Oddly, nobody at the Family Research Council seems to know how to do any basic "research" - or understands the meaning of the words "recently recorded" - because, if they did, they'd realize that they probably should have issued this statement back in 1994 when Warner actually said it in relation to right-wing efforts to elect Iran-Contra criminal Oliver North ... or at least back in 2001 when the the RNC and Gilmore first tried to use the quote against him:

RADIO ATTACK AD DRAWS ANGRY DENIAL BY WARNER ; NATIONAL GOP SPOKESMAN DEFENDS COMMERCIAL
31 October 2001
The Richmond Times-Dispatch

Republicans launched a sharp-edged radio advertising attack on Mark R. Warner yesterday, saying the Democratic gubernatorial candidate views abortion foes, home-school advocates and "people of faith" as a threat to the nation.

Warner angrily denied the claim and demanded the GOP pull the commercial.

The 60-second ad is produced and paid for by the Republican National Committee, led by Gov. Jim Gilmore. It features a conversation between a man and a woman during which the woman suggests that Warner considers social and religious conservatives as "wanting to radically change American life, and said our views were threatening."

...

The commercial is based on remarks attributed to Warner seven years ago, shortly before Virginia Republicans met in Richmond to nominate Iran-contra figure Oliver L. North for the U.S. Senate.

North went on to lose to incumbent Democrat Charles S. Robb. At the time, Warner was chairman of the Democratic Party of Virginia.

...

Referring to the expected nomination of North, a favorite of the Republican Party's conservative activists, Warner, according to a state GOP-supplied transcript, reportedly told the National Jewish Democrat Council on May 25, 1994:

"Next weekend, you're going to see a coalition that has just about completely taken over the Republican Party in this state.

"And if they have their way, will take over state government, made up of the Christian Coalition, made up of right-to-lifers; but it's not just the right-to-lifers, it's made up of the NRA; but it's not just that, it's made up of the home schoolers; but not just that, it's made up of a whole coalition of people that have all sorts of different views that I think most of us in this room would find threatening to them and what it means to be an American.