hate

Barber: Dan Savage Is The "Pro-Homosexual Version of Fred Phelps"

It is certainly ironic that Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber would dare to attack anyone else as a bigot, but that is exactly what he did on LC's "Faith and Freedom Radio" program today while discussing the recent Supreme Court ruling in Snyder v. Phelps.

Barber insisted that while Liberty Counsel opposed the vicious bigotry espoused by Westboro Baptist and the Phelps clan, they have a First Amendment right to spew it ... as does Dan Savage, whom Barber calls the "pro-homosexual version of Fred Phelps":

Santorum: Obama Will "Eviscerate" Freedom By Supporting Gay Rights

Rick Santorum is set to address Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition in Iowa tonight along with Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, and Buddy Roemer. On Saturday he wrote a guest column for the Des Moines Register where he repeated the same groundless right-wing arguments that marriage equality will lead to the end of religious freedom and that the Obama administration has stopped enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act. In Iowa, a state which has had equal marriage rights since 2009, religious liberty has yet to collapse, as many conservatives predicted. And while the Obama administration found DOMA to be an unconstitutional law that it would no longer defend in court, it will continue to enforce the law. Santorum claims that as a result of Obama’s “power grab,” the “free exercise of religion will be eviscerated,” and also argues that advocates of marriage equality use “hate-filled” rhetoric against their opponents:

In refusing to enforce DOMA, the president was saying a law that was overwhelmingly passed by both Democrats and Republicans, and signed by a Democratic president, was simply no longer valid, no longer constitutional. Usually such actions are the province of the Supreme Court. This was a power grab, and it was wrong at every level. It was also a surprise. President Obama defended the law in the courts for the first half of his term, and said to Rick Warren in 2008, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman."

Let me first define what we are not talking about. I believe if two adults of the same sex want to have a relationship that is their business. But when they ask society to give that relationship special recognition and privileges, then we should be able to have a rational debate about whether that is good public policy.

We should also ensure the debate takes cognizance of its constitutional implications. And with the President's decision, the free exercise of religion will be eviscerated.


Iowa is on the front-line of this looming battle because its activist Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same sex couples. But for the first time in Iowa history all of the justices up for retention were soundly defeated in November.

Iowans are not alone in standing up for traditional marriage. From Maine to California, 31 times voters were given the opportunity to amend their state constitutions to affirm marriage as it has always been, one man and one woman, and 31 times it has passed.

What is the retort to those who stand for what has been the foundation of every society from the beginning of time? Do they make a reasoned case providing evidence about such things as the effects on children, traditional marriage, faith, school curriculum and public health?

No, sadly there is no reasoned, civil discourse. Civility is only trotted out as a tactic to put the opponent on the defensive, never to actually enlighten. Their game plan is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. Claim high-minded concepts like "equality" and "tolerance" then launch vile and hate-filled personal attacks intended to strike fear and silence the opposition.

Some have argued this is not the time to wage this fight; that we have to focus solely on the vitally important job of limiting government, reducing the debt and creating jobs and growth. I agree these issues are at the top of our national list, but a big nation can focus on more than one thing at one time, just as men like Jefferson and Madison fought for religious liberties when arguably more consequential issues were occupying the public mind. In the end, it simply will not profit a country to gain wealth and lose its soul.

Bachmann Taps Mat Staver To Teach Tea Party Class

There are few "mainstream" anti-gay activists operating today that can match Matt Barber for shear anti-gay vitriol.  In fact, it was his attacks on gays that turned Barber into a Religious Right celebrity in the first place, eventually landing him a job with Concerned Women for America before Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel lured him away and gave him a position as Associate Dean at Liberty University and Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel.

And Staver snapped up Barber because he shares his anti-gay views and because of their endless anti-gay attacks, Liberty Counsel found itself on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-gay groups.

So, of course, Rep. Michele Bachmann has tapped Staver to come and teach her Tea Party class to members of Congress ... after, of course, she joins him for the upcoming Awakening 2011 conference, along with Newt Gingrich:

Staver joins David Barton and Jay Sekulow as anti-gay Religious Right activists that Bachmann has sought out to teach her Tea Party class on the Constitution. 

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW: House-Passes Devastating Amendment in Latest Attack in the GOP's War on Women.
     
  • Ezra Klein: Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget.
     
  • Jim Burroway @ Box Turtle Bulletin: KC Vigil To Tell Lou Engle to Stop Exporting Hate to Uganda.
     
  • Steve Benen: Rove to GOP base: It's a trap.
     
  • Ryan J. Reilly @ TPM: Palin Knocks Obama For Promoting Breastfeeding, But Declared Awareness Month As Gov.
     
  • Alvin McEwen: Family Research Council's 'detailed response' to SPLC's charges leave much to be desired.
     
  • County Fair: Beck Modifies Islam And Communism Symbols To Look More Like UN Emblem.
     
  • Igor Volsky @ Wonk Room: Christian Post: Military Chaplians Don’t See DADT Repeal As ‘A Big Deal.’

Right Wing Round-Up

  • PFAW: House-Passes Devastating Amendment in Latest Attack in the GOP's War on Women.
     
  • Ezra Klein: Unions aren't to blame for Wisconsin's budget.
     
  • Jim Burroway @ Box Turtle Bulletin: KC Vigil To Tell Lou Engle to Stop Exporting Hate to Uganda.
     
  • Steve Benen: Rove to GOP base: It's a trap.
     
  • Ryan J. Reilly @ TPM: Palin Knocks Obama For Promoting Breastfeeding, But Declared Awareness Month As Gov.
     
  • Alvin McEwen: Family Research Council's 'detailed response' to SPLC's charges leave much to be desired.
     
  • County Fair: Beck Modifies Islam And Communism Symbols To Look More Like UN Emblem.
     
  • Igor Volsky @ Wonk Room: Christian Post: Military Chaplians Don’t See DADT Repeal As ‘A Big Deal.’

Gary Bauer Outraged By Incivility of Wisconsin Protests

Gary Bauer is outraged - outraged! - by the "left-wing hate" protests in Wisconsin:

But the big story being ignored by big media is the reaction of the unions and their left wing allies to the Governor’s proposal. Opposition is understandable. But what is taking place is a series of street demonstrations with vicious rhetoric, hateful signs and threats of violence. Posters compare the Governor to Hitler, Mussolini and Mubarak. Teachers have walked out of classes and taken their students with them to the demonstrations. “Activists” have gone to the homes of Republican legislators to harass their families and neighbors. Death threats against conservative legislators and the governor are rampant. You can see a sample video here.

So where is the civility police? Not one word of condemnation has come from any major liberal commentator. Clearly the left’s concern about civility is very selective. It is used to savaging the GOP, conservatives, Sarah Palin and talk radio. But anything goes when the incivility is aimed at conservatives.

The tactics on display in Wisconsin are a microcosm of what will happen when Republicans here in Washington, D.C., try to cut the fat and waste from our federal budget. I predict the left will use intimidation and civil disobedience across the country.

Because right-wing activists would never stoop so low as to compare their opponents to Hitler:

Gary Bauer Outraged By Incivility of Wisconsin Protests

Gary Bauer is outraged - outraged! - by the "left-wing hate" protests in Wisconsin:

But the big story being ignored by big media is the reaction of the unions and their left wing allies to the Governor’s proposal. Opposition is understandable. But what is taking place is a series of street demonstrations with vicious rhetoric, hateful signs and threats of violence. Posters compare the Governor to Hitler, Mussolini and Mubarak. Teachers have walked out of classes and taken their students with them to the demonstrations. “Activists” have gone to the homes of Republican legislators to harass their families and neighbors. Death threats against conservative legislators and the governor are rampant. You can see a sample video here.

So where is the civility police? Not one word of condemnation has come from any major liberal commentator. Clearly the left’s concern about civility is very selective. It is used to savaging the GOP, conservatives, Sarah Palin and talk radio. But anything goes when the incivility is aimed at conservatives.

The tactics on display in Wisconsin are a microcosm of what will happen when Republicans here in Washington, D.C., try to cut the fat and waste from our federal budget. I predict the left will use intimidation and civil disobedience across the country.

Because right-wing activists would never stoop so low as to compare their opponents to Hitler:

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

Donohue: God Doesn't Look Out For Progressive Religions

Bill Donohue purports to defend religious Americans from anti-Christian and particularly anti-Catholic prejudice, but appears to find no problem with smearing others from Jews and gays and lesbians to victims of child molestation with his own bigoted and inflammatory remarks. The head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights also relishes another target: people of faith who disagree with his ultraconservative ideology, who he says are “no more Christian than the man in the moon.” Like other Religious Right groups and leaders, Donohue has a long history of criticizing and vilifying progressive Christians, especially progressive Catholics, even though his organization claims to defend the rights of Catholics “to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.”

Today, the self-proclaimed adversary of “anti-Christian hate speech” released a statement saying that God doesn’t care about mainline Protestant churches.

Donohue called a recent study showing a decline in attendance rates at mainline Protestant denominations as proof that God is only “looking out for those religions that don’t treat Scripture as if it were a post-modern text to be deconstructed by left-wing ideologues.” According to Donohue:

With the exception of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and to some extent the American Baptist Churches, all the other churches with declining membership hold liberal views on abortion and gay rights. Moreover, the smallest decline among the Baptist churches was registered by the most conservative among them, the Southern Baptist Convention (down .42). By sharp contrast, all the religions that experienced a growth in membership are pro-life and pro-marriage (normatively understood).

In other words, those religions whose teachings on abortion and marriage approximate the views of the New York Times and NPR are in free fall. Looks like God is truly looking out for those religions that don't treat Scripture as if it were a post-modern text to be deconstructed by left-wing ideologues.

Following Donohue’s logic, since the Roman Catholic Church grew by just 0.57% and the Mormon LDS Church attendance rate increased by 1.42%, does that mean that God is looking out for Mormons more than Catholics?

Donohue: God Doesn't Look Out For Progressive Religions

Bill Donohue purports to defend religious Americans from anti-Christian and particularly anti-Catholic prejudice, but appears to find no problem with smearing others from Jews and gays and lesbians to victims of child molestation with his own bigoted and inflammatory remarks. The head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights also relishes another target: people of faith who disagree with his ultraconservative ideology, who he says are “no more Christian than the man in the moon.” Like other Religious Right groups and leaders, Donohue has a long history of criticizing and vilifying progressive Christians, especially progressive Catholics, even though his organization claims to defend the rights of Catholics “to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.”

Today, the self-proclaimed adversary of “anti-Christian hate speech” released a statement saying that God doesn’t care about mainline Protestant churches.

Donohue called a recent study showing a decline in attendance rates at mainline Protestant denominations as proof that God is only “looking out for those religions that don’t treat Scripture as if it were a post-modern text to be deconstructed by left-wing ideologues.” According to Donohue:

With the exception of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and to some extent the American Baptist Churches, all the other churches with declining membership hold liberal views on abortion and gay rights. Moreover, the smallest decline among the Baptist churches was registered by the most conservative among them, the Southern Baptist Convention (down .42). By sharp contrast, all the religions that experienced a growth in membership are pro-life and pro-marriage (normatively understood).

In other words, those religions whose teachings on abortion and marriage approximate the views of the New York Times and NPR are in free fall. Looks like God is truly looking out for those religions that don't treat Scripture as if it were a post-modern text to be deconstructed by left-wing ideologues.

Following Donohue’s logic, since the Roman Catholic Church grew by just 0.57% and the Mormon LDS Church attendance rate increased by 1.42%, does that mean that God is looking out for Mormons more than Catholics?

Right Wing Round-Up

Right Wing Round-Up

Just When Is Fischer Speaking For the AFA?

As we noted yesterday, the American Family Association has pulled Bryan Fischer's recent blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force.

So far, the AFA has not offered any statement on why it did so and all we have gotten is Fischer's side as he claims it was taken down because people are just "not mature" enough to handle the truth and was becoming a distraction because the Left was just too "dim-witted" to understand that Fischer was speaking only for himself and not for the organization.

Now, as Warren Throckmorton reports, a representative of the AFA showed up in the comments to a Throckmorton post on Crosswalk about Fischer's piece to reject Fischer's bigotry and claim that his views do not represent the AFA:

Bryan Fischer’s blog runs on the AFA website. His blog does not speak for AFA. His statements about Native Americans were wrong and disturbing. I am posting this as an individual, but provide my job description to illustrate that Bryan’s views were not those of AFA as a whole.

Patrick Vaughn
General Counsel
American Family Association, Inc.

This raises an interesting question: just when does Fischer speak for the AFA?

Fischer claims that when he writes on the blog, he is speaking only for himself.  Fine.  But what about when he shows up on the radio or in the press? Does he represent the AFA in those situations? 

What about when he is given a speaking slot at the Values Voter Summit where he attacks "the dark and dangerous and devious religion of Islam." Or when he appears in right-wing documentaries?

What about when he is hosting his radio program for the AFA on which he interviews Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls? Does he represent AFA then?  Does he represent the AFA when he uses his radio program to say that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism, when he says that Muslims should be banned from the military, or when he claims that Hitler filled the Nazi ranks with gays because they were the only ones capable of being savage and brutal enough to carry out his orders? Did he represent the AFA in any of those situations?

Or finally, what about when Fischer demands a ban on the construction of all mosques in America?  He first made the assertion on the AFA blog, which he claims does not represent the AFA.  He then made the same point on his AFA radio program. He then defended the statement on a program with Alan Colmes.  And then defended it again on CNN.

Did Fischer represent the AFA in any capacity in any of those venues, or was he simply representing himself? 

If Fischer doesn't represent the AFA when he writes on their blog, hosts their radio show, or appears in the press or at a public event as Director of Issue Analysis, just when does he represent the AFA? 

And if the AFA doesn't want to be associated with Fischer's unrelenting bigotry, why do they keep him on staff and continue to give him venues from which to spew his hatred?

It would be really helpful to the rest of us if the AFA could clarify just when Fischer is speaking on behalf of the organization and when he is spewing his bigotry as a private citizen so that we can know when to hold the AFA accountable for the outrageous and offensive things he says on their blog, radio network, or in public appearances as the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy for the American Family Association.

Just When Is Fischer Speaking For the AFA?

As we noted yesterday, the American Family Association has pulled Bryan Fischer's recent blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force.

So far, the AFA has not offered any statement on why it did so and all we have gotten is Fischer's side as he claims it was taken down because people are just "not mature" enough to handle the truth and was becoming a distraction because the Left was just too "dim-witted" to understand that Fischer was speaking only for himself and not for the organization.

Now, as Warren Throckmorton reports, a representative of the AFA showed up in the comments to a Throckmorton post on Crosswalk about Fischer's piece to reject Fischer's bigotry and claim that his views do not represent the AFA:

Bryan Fischer’s blog runs on the AFA website. His blog does not speak for AFA. His statements about Native Americans were wrong and disturbing. I am posting this as an individual, but provide my job description to illustrate that Bryan’s views were not those of AFA as a whole.

Patrick Vaughn
General Counsel
American Family Association, Inc.

This raises an interesting question: just when does Fischer speak for the AFA?

Fischer claims that when he writes on the blog, he is speaking only for himself.  Fine.  But what about when he shows up on the radio or in the press? Does he represent the AFA in those situations? 

What about when he is given a speaking slot at the Values Voter Summit where he attacks "the dark and dangerous and devious religion of Islam." Or when he appears in right-wing documentaries?

What about when he is hosting his radio program for the AFA on which he interviews Republican members of Congress and presidential hopefuls? Does he represent AFA then?  Does he represent the AFA when he uses his radio program to say that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism, when he says that Muslims should be banned from the military, or when he claims that Hitler filled the Nazi ranks with gays because they were the only ones capable of being savage and brutal enough to carry out his orders? Did he represent the AFA in any of those situations?

Or finally, what about when Fischer demands a ban on the construction of all mosques in America?  He first made the assertion on the AFA blog, which he claims does not represent the AFA.  He then made the same point on his AFA radio program. He then defended the statement on a program with Alan Colmes.  And then defended it again on CNN.

Did Fischer represent the AFA in any capacity in any of those venues, or was he simply representing himself? 

If Fischer doesn't represent the AFA when he writes on their blog, hosts their radio show, or appears in the press or at a public event as Director of Issue Analysis, just when does he represent the AFA? 

And if the AFA doesn't want to be associated with Fischer's unrelenting bigotry, why do they keep him on staff and continue to give him venues from which to spew his hatred?

It would be really helpful to the rest of us if the AFA could clarify just when Fischer is speaking on behalf of the organization and when he is spewing his bigotry as a private citizen so that we can know when to hold the AFA accountable for the outrageous and offensive things he says on their blog, radio network, or in public appearances as the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy for the American Family Association.

Fischer and the AFA Try To Weasel Out Of Their Latest Outrage

Last week we noted that the American Family Association had pulled down Bryan Fischer's latest blog post claimed that Native American's were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justifed in taking it by force. 

On Friday, Fischer put up a new post explaining that the original post had been removed because people just were "not mature enough" to handle this brutal truth.  On his radio program that same day, Fischer also discussed the incident, saying that the comments his post generated were so vile and hateful that the woman in charge of monitoring them refused to continue and so they removed it because his critics were "too dim-witted" to realize that he was speaking for himself and not for AFA:

The left-wing blogosphere has just been lit up over this that the column that I wrote on Tuesday over westward expansion, settlement of the United States got pulled down.

The column generated an incredible amount, so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction - in fact, we had the woman here that monitors comments, she had to say "look, you have to get somebody else to do this, the things that people are saying about Bryan are so vulgar, they are so vile, they are so profane, they are so blasphemous, I can't take it any more." That's how much hate there was, and yet we're the ones that are accused of being the hatemongers.

So this thing was taking on a life of its own, it was kind of mushrooming into a huge issue and becoming a distraction really to the fundamental mission that we have here at AFA even though when I blog, I mean they have it on every column that I write, at the bottom of every blog it says that I'm not speaking for the organization, that the opinions expressed here do not necessarily express the opinions of AFA or AFR talk. I am just speaking for myself. I say it every day at the foot of my columns, that was my idea to put that in there because people we so confused whether I was speaking for AFA or whether I was speaking for myself. Well, if I am blogging, I am speaking for myself. But apparently, the left-wing media is too dim-witted to understand that or to pick up on it, so we just pulled it down because it was taking on a life of its own.

So let me get this straight: the AFA lured Fischer away from the Idaho Values Alliance, named him director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, gave him a two hour daily program on its radio network, and allows him to appear in print, on TV, and at right-wing events as a representative of AFA  ... but we are supposed to believe that when we writes posts for the AFA blog, he is just speaking for himself and that his views should in no way be seen as a reflection on the organization?

What about when he is hosting his daily radio show?  The AFA logo was prominently featured as Fischer dedicated more than ten minutes to reading and expanding upon this very column during a broadcast last week.  Was Fischer simply speaking for himself when he claimed that Native Americans are mired in poverty and alcoholism because they refuse to accept Christianity while serving as a host for AFA's "Focal Point": 

Fischer and the AFA Try To Weasel Out Of Their Latest Outrage

Last week we noted that the American Family Association had pulled down Bryan Fischer's latest blog post claimed that Native American's were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justifed in taking it by force. 

On Friday, Fischer put up a new post explaining that the original post had been removed because people just were "not mature enough" to handle this brutal truth.  On his radio program that same day, Fischer also discussed the incident, saying that the comments his post generated were so vile and hateful that the woman in charge of monitoring them refused to continue and so they removed it because his critics were "too dim-witted" to realize that he was speaking for himself and not for AFA:

The left-wing blogosphere has just been lit up over this that the column that I wrote on Tuesday over westward expansion, settlement of the United States got pulled down.

The column generated an incredible amount, so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction - in fact, we had the woman here that monitors comments, she had to say "look, you have to get somebody else to do this, the things that people are saying about Bryan are so vulgar, they are so vile, they are so profane, they are so blasphemous, I can't take it any more." That's how much hate there was, and yet we're the ones that are accused of being the hatemongers.

So this thing was taking on a life of its own, it was kind of mushrooming into a huge issue and becoming a distraction really to the fundamental mission that we have here at AFA even though when I blog, I mean they have it on every column that I write, at the bottom of every blog it says that I'm not speaking for the organization, that the opinions expressed here do not necessarily express the opinions of AFA or AFR talk. I am just speaking for myself. I say it every day at the foot of my columns, that was my idea to put that in there because people we so confused whether I was speaking for AFA or whether I was speaking for myself. Well, if I am blogging, I am speaking for myself. But apparently, the left-wing media is too dim-witted to understand that or to pick up on it, so we just pulled it down because it was taking on a life of its own.

So let me get this straight: the AFA lured Fischer away from the Idaho Values Alliance, named him director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, gave him a two hour daily program on its radio network, and allows him to appear in print, on TV, and at right-wing events as a representative of AFA  ... but we are supposed to believe that when we writes posts for the AFA blog, he is just speaking for himself and that his views should in no way be seen as a reflection on the organization?

What about when he is hosting his daily radio show?  The AFA logo was prominently featured as Fischer dedicated more than ten minutes to reading and expanding upon this very column during a broadcast last week.  Was Fischer simply speaking for himself when he claimed that Native Americans are mired in poverty and alcoholism because they refuse to accept Christianity while serving as a host for AFA's "Focal Point": 

RedState's Erickson Slams GOProud, Norquist and CPAC

Erick Erickson of the prominent right-wing blog RedState and a commentator for CNN hasn’t made any comments about the CPAC boycott controversy until now, attacking GOProud and its ally Grover Norquist for criticizing the Religious Right. GOProud’s leaders Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia recently lashed out at social conservative leaders boycotting CPAC as “nasty, anti-gay bigots” in an interview with Metro Weekly, and Erickson is not happy about it:

I have done my best to stay out of this business, keep my mouth shut, and appreciate my friends on both sides of the CPAC divide. Had I not seen this particular attack by GOProud against long time solid conservatives I’d continue keeping my mouth shut. But this is too much. And my guess is that there aren’t many if any willing to call foul, so I will do it.

As someone who spent time trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I accept this as conclusive proof that, while it is a Republican organization, GOProud is not a conservative organization.



You really should read the whole thing. You’ll learn that should you disagree with GOProud, you are a bigot too. In fact there are lots of delightful quotes. GOProud has taken one of the favorite leftist bullet points and brought it straight into CPAC. You oppose affirmative action? You’re a racist. You oppose gay marriage? You’re a bigot.

Wonderful trick. Sadly, it is being used on real heros within the conservative movement, including Cleta Mitchell, a board member of the American Conservative Union.

According to the dictionary, a bigot is a person “obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of [their] own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.”

Chris Baron might want to look in the mirror.



While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for children, Chris Baron was signing up to work for the champions of child killing.

While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for people’s right to work, GOProud was aligning itself with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.

While Cleta Mitchell was helping the Senate Conservatives Fund get people like Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and others elected, GOProud was attacking Jim DeMint.

While Cleta Mitchell was in super secret meetings of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy this week, GOProud was attacking Tim Pawlenty for daring to defend conservative positions on don’t ask-don’t tell.

Those groups and people who have sat out CPAC this year have done so not because they hate the gays, as Grover Norquist and GOProud would have you believe, but because GOProud is not a conservative organization and its agenda is not a conservative agenda.

For that, they are called losers and nasty bigots.

These losers and nasty bigots have done a lot more for the conservative movement than GOProud. And I am very happy to call them my friends.

This week, I’d much rather be with them than be at CPAC.

RedState's Erickson Slams GOProud, Norquist and CPAC

Erick Erickson of the prominent right-wing blog RedState and a commentator for CNN hasn’t made any comments about the CPAC boycott controversy until now, attacking GOProud and its ally Grover Norquist for criticizing the Religious Right. GOProud’s leaders Chris Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia recently lashed out at social conservative leaders boycotting CPAC as “nasty, anti-gay bigots” in an interview with Metro Weekly, and Erickson is not happy about it:

I have done my best to stay out of this business, keep my mouth shut, and appreciate my friends on both sides of the CPAC divide. Had I not seen this particular attack by GOProud against long time solid conservatives I’d continue keeping my mouth shut. But this is too much. And my guess is that there aren’t many if any willing to call foul, so I will do it.

As someone who spent time trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, I accept this as conclusive proof that, while it is a Republican organization, GOProud is not a conservative organization.



You really should read the whole thing. You’ll learn that should you disagree with GOProud, you are a bigot too. In fact there are lots of delightful quotes. GOProud has taken one of the favorite leftist bullet points and brought it straight into CPAC. You oppose affirmative action? You’re a racist. You oppose gay marriage? You’re a bigot.

Wonderful trick. Sadly, it is being used on real heros within the conservative movement, including Cleta Mitchell, a board member of the American Conservative Union.

According to the dictionary, a bigot is a person “obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of [their] own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.”

Chris Baron might want to look in the mirror.



While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for children, Chris Baron was signing up to work for the champions of child killing.

While Cleta Mitchell was fighting for people’s right to work, GOProud was aligning itself with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.

While Cleta Mitchell was helping the Senate Conservatives Fund get people like Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and others elected, GOProud was attacking Jim DeMint.

While Cleta Mitchell was in super secret meetings of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy this week, GOProud was attacking Tim Pawlenty for daring to defend conservative positions on don’t ask-don’t tell.

Those groups and people who have sat out CPAC this year have done so not because they hate the gays, as Grover Norquist and GOProud would have you believe, but because GOProud is not a conservative organization and its agenda is not a conservative agenda.

For that, they are called losers and nasty bigots.

These losers and nasty bigots have done a lot more for the conservative movement than GOProud. And I am very happy to call them my friends.

This week, I’d much rather be with them than be at CPAC.
Syndicate content

hate Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Wednesday 08/03/2011, 12:55pm
Anti-Muslim activist Robert Spencer joined Pat Robertson on The 700 Club today to discuss the increased scrutiny of Spencer’s writings after it came to light that they were frequently cited by the right-wing Norway terrorist who killed scores of progressive youth activists and government employees. Robertson, whose American Center for Law and Justice worked with Spencer to organize a rally opposing the construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero, previously said that people who “oppose Muslims” am like himself are similar to those who fought “Adolf... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/02/2011, 11:39am
Banding with the discriminatory American Family Association, advocates of the radical Seven Mountains Dominionism ideology, and a litany of anti-gay zealots and End Times preachers to put on his The Response prayer rally, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is orchestrating an event that rejects both non-Christians and Christians who don’t embrace the organizers’ far-right politics and religious fundamentalism. Over fifty clergymen from the Houston area are questioning the appropriateness of Perry’s exclusionary prayer rally, which will be held in Houston’s Reliant Stadium this... MORE
Peter Montgomery, Tuesday 08/02/2011, 10:42am
Another reason to get your tickets for this year's Values Voter Summit: a fundraising letter from the American Family Association promises that its new "documentary" -- Divorcing God: Secularism, Sexual Anarchy and the Future of the Republic -- will debut at the VVS, the major annual political gathering for the Religious Right movement. The letter from AFA President Tim Wildmon indicates that the group is eager to maintain its status at a top source for over-the-top anti-gay rhetoric and religious bigotry. Wildmon writes that Divorcing God "connects the dots" among... MORE
Brian Tashman, Tuesday 08/02/2011, 10:11am
Wendy Wright may be out of a job at Concerned Women for America. Once President and CEO of the powerful Religious Right organization, she appears to have been eclipsed by the new CEO Penny Young Nance. Now, Wright has been completely removed from CWA’s leadership page and her bio was taken down (you can still see her cached page). In fact, she is listed as “Past President, Concerned Women for America” on this new social conservative petition opposing government social services programs.   An outspoken opponent of evolution science, reproductive freedom and LGBT rights... MORE
Brian Tashman, Monday 08/01/2011, 11:10am
Following the deadly attacks in Norway, anti-Muslim bloggers immediately tried to distance themselves from right-wing anti-Muslim terrorist Anders Breivik.But now some of these anti-Muslim activists are beginning to vilify the participants in the progressive youth summit near Oslo where scores were killed and the burgeoning multicultural youth political culture that they embodied. Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center wrote in Horowitz’s FrontPageMag that the Labor Party youth camp was filled with “indoctrination of hate” and that Breivik would’ve... MORE
Brian Tashman, Thursday 07/28/2011, 11:18am
Oklahoma Republican legislator Sally Kern joined the American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon on American Family Radio yesterday to discuss her new book, The Stoning of Sally Kern. Kern, who previously argued that homosexuality is a greater threat to the US than terrorism and should be criminalized, and Wildmon agreed that the real “hateful” people are those who do not believe that gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation and become straight: Wildmon: Now Sally as you just said, nobody hates the individual homosexual. We want to see them come to repentance and... MORE
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/27/2011, 4:49pm
During Tuesday’s edition of Focal Point, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer claimed he does not believe in “imposing” his values in the public square. Come again? This is the same Bryan Fischer who said that the government should treat gays like drug addicts, ban gays from becoming school teachers, prohibit gays from serving on the Supreme Court or any public office, force immigrants to convert to Christianity, bar Muslims from building houses of worship or serving in government, make the US justice system based on the Bible and stone whales according to... MORE