Tag: Defense of Marriage Act

Crazy Conspiracy Nut Alex Jones Claims Gays are a Government Plot!

by The Age of Blasphemy, posted in Alex Jones, Alex Jones Is A Kook, Alex Jones Is a Nutcase, Alex Jones Uber Crazy

Alex Jones: Gay marriage truther?

The conspiracy theorist said the government is turning people gay through chemical warfare                       

By Alex Seitz-Wald

[Alex Jones, it ought be noted is a shill for the far Right Wing political cult, known as the John Birch Society. Jones is also a rabid god nut, Christian fundamentalist, end times promulgator. Jones almost makes Uber crazy Glenn Beck seem same.]

See here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw1hDi6pxeU

Alex Jones insane Christian Idiocy

 

Alex Jones: Gay marriage truther?

 

Long before the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, conspiracy broadcaster Alex Jones was warning his viewers that the government was turning people gay by putting chemicals in their juice boxes, water bottles and potato chip bags that feminized men.

“The reason there are so many gay people now is because it’s a chemical warfare operation,” Jones said in a June 2010 clip that has gained renewed attention since the DOMA ruling. “I have the government documents where they said they’re going to encourage homosexuality with chemicals so people don’t have children.”

Cutting open a juice box to reveal the nefarious plastic lining laced with “estrogen mimickers,” Jones continued, “After you’re done drinking your little juices, you’re ready to go out and have a baby. You’re ready to put makeup on, you’re ready to wear a short skirt.” While there is some research that suggests plastics leach hormone-like chemicals, there’s no evidence that they’re harmful to one’s health or that the government is involved in a secret plot to turn the country gay.

It’s typical Jones conspiracy fare: globalists secretly working to depopulate the planet so they can seize control. But it’s also typical of a vicious homophobic vein in Jones’ worldview, which is often overlooked and seems to run in direct contradiction to his proclaimed support for individual liberty. It’s not a central theme of Jones’ broadcasts, but a potent undercurrent.

For instance, while hosting Minnesota-based radical anti-gay pastor Bradlee Dean in 2011, Jones said that “all over the country, it is a fact” that gay people are “recruiting 7-year-olds.” “They teach children sexual acts that can kill you,” he added. Later, Jones defended Chick-fil-A’s donations to anti-gay groups, and gave Dean a platform on InfoWars.com to attack the “homosexual agenda.”

In October of 2011, Jones warned that “nellies,” a derogatory term for gay people, are snatching children away from straight couples. “It’s not that – I don’t even dislike gay people or hate them. It’s that I’ve been to these events and a lot of times it’s the specialized homosexuals who are collecting everybody’s kids that run them, so then it’s like they’re persecuting us and I’m tired of it,” he said.

Jones added that he’s seen “female judges with butch haircuts who usually have a whole string of kids they’ve taken from people themselves.” Responding to a caller from Wisconsin, Jones said, “You’re up in Wisconsin, a very wicked nelly command base,” and asked if the “nelly creature” in question was female or male. “I’m going to be honest about this because the kids come first. If the homosexual lobby attacks me, I don’t care,” he added, also saying that many gay people he’s seen at pride events are pedophiles.

Then there was his row with Rachel Maddow, who mocked his theory that the government used a weather weapon to unleash tornados in the Midwest. Jones responded in the classiest way possible: “Mr. Maddow, I mean Janet Reno — Janet Napolitano! I get them all confused. Pat from Saturday Night Live? No, no … Ron Maddow?”

“I’m gonna be honest with everybody,” he said, pausing for dramatic effect, “I’m attracted to Mr. Maddow … I always thought of myself as a heterosexual, but … I wonder if Mr. Maddow is gonna join the Boy Scouts as a troop leader,” Jones said, cracking himself up.

The anti-gay sentiment is surprising, perhaps, coming from a libertarian defender of individualism, but vicious homophobia has a long history in the anti-communist John Birch Society, where Jones rips off most of his best work.

 

Alex Seitz-WaldAlex Seitz-Wald is Salon’s political reporter.

 

 

Related articles

Hate Group Focus On The Family’s James Dobson Admits He Failed

by The Age of Blasphemy, posted in Focus On The Family, Hate Group, James Dobson, Religious Fundamentalism, Religious Reich, Religious Right, Right Wing Crackpots, Right Wing Crazies, Right Wing Hatemongers

A demoralized James Dobson admits his defeat

by Steveningen

Maggie Gallagher isn’t the only religious conservative to be feeling a loss of optimism in the new year. In his January newsletter, the hate group Focus on the Family founder, James Dobson comes out and admits that “Nearly everything I have stood for these past 35 years went down to defeat.” What he fails to understand, or more likely admit to, is why. In his newsletter he proceeds to lay the blame for his failures on the doorstep of President Obama, the Democratic Party and the disappointing Judas Iscariots of the Republican party. There is no acknowledgement that in re-electing this President, the country provided a sound repudiation of Dobson’s brand of extremism. It wasn’t any of the factions he cited in his newsletter that brought about his defeat. It was the electorate, who, among other things, has grown weary of the distortions and ugly tactics employed by social conservatism.

Now let me share my heart with you. I’m sure many of you are discouraged in the aftermath of the National Elections, especially in view of the moral and spiritual issues that took such a beating on November 6th. Nearly everything I have stood for these past 35 years went down to defeat.

Dobson then goes on to apportion blame to the Democratic party as a whole, outlining “four shocking components of the Democrats’ 2012 platform.” The lies and distortions he presents as evidence is typical of this man. Let’s examine two of them.

1. Abortion should be legalized through nine months of pregnancy.Imagine full-term, healthy babies across the nation being poisoned or dismembered a few days before normal delivery. What a tragedy!

Yes, what a tragedy, if it had any basis in reality. I was completely nonplussed to learn that one of the Democratic platform plank called for the willy nilly aborting of full-term babies. Of course the Democrats have proposed no such thing, but Dobson doesn’t let facts get in the way of fundraising.

2. Same-sex marriages should be permitted by law in every state in the nation.In May, Barack Obama was pictured on the cover of Newsweek with the caption, “The First Gay President.” His policies for the family were affirmed by liberal voters on November 6th. The Supreme Court recently agreed to consider the same-sex marriage issue. If they rule that it is the law, they will open the door to a redefinition of marriage in every state in the land. The family and the nation will never be the same. Nevertheless, neither Democrat nor Republican Congressmen have uttered a word of concern about it. They are deaf and mute while the very future of this great country hangs in the balance. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by an overwhelming vote a few years ago, but it will be overridden if the Supreme Court issues an adverse ruling. But, who in Congress cares?

Clearly the religious conservative cheese stands alone. Only the brave fundamentalists are standing up for inequality. Ha! If only that were the case. The Republicans in the newly minted 113th Congress have made it a priority to continue defending the federal ban on recognizing gay marriage by approving additional spending on outside counsel. But again, mentioning this fact wouldn’t go a long way in helping him get panic donations.Dobson winds up his screed with this oft-repeated chestnut about the tyranny of our Dictator in Chief.

Well, the election is over and we have a president who often ignores the Constitution and imposes dictatorial powers on the American people.

Of course he provides no citations of how President Obama has ignored the Constitution or how he has exercised one iota of those magical dictatorial powers. The rhetoric is as weak as his political significance. Yes, James Dobson, it is true. Everything you have stood for for 35 years has been going down to defeat. It hasn’t been completely defeated though, and I sense you know it. Why else would you still be making these thinly disguised calls for money if there wasn’t still a dime or two to be eked out from your dwindling base of easily manipulated people. This once fully raging river of cash is slowing down to a trickle and when it has finally dried up, my hope is that you will have too.

Related articles

President Barack Obama Is Much Better on Most Issues and Worse on None!

by The Age of Blasphemy, posted in Republican Fascism, Republicans Regressive, Right Wing Clown Car, Right Wing Crazies, Right Wing Culture Wars

The No-Brainer Progressive Case For Obama

Via Scott Lemieux

Should it be surprising President Obama has largely maintained the support of the left of the Democratic Party? According to a number of critics—notably Matt Stoller and David Sirota of Salon—the answer is yes. Essentially, this contrarian case depends on obscuring two crucial truths:

  • Either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will win the 2012 presidential election.
  • Whether you’re a moderate liberal or a democratic socialist, Obama is much better on many issues and worse on none.

In obfuscating this case for supporting Obama despite the undeniable flaws of his administration, third-party fantasists rely on three categories of argument: dismissing the achievements of the Obama administration, inventing a moderate of Mitt Romney, and exaggerating the benefits of third-party nihilism. None of these arguments can withstand any scrutiny.

Underrating Obama’s achievements

To put this in plain terms, Obama has the third most impressive record of progressive achievement of any president of the last century. Moreover, the two presidents with better legislative records—FDR and LBJ—were working in far more favorable circumstances, with larger majorities in Congress and rapidly growing economies. (Lyndon Johnson, who had the most impressive record of all, benefited not only from his own formidable skills but from the presence of liberal Republicans who increased his bargaining leverage and the halo effect of an assassinated president.) If Obama is re-elected, the Affordable Care Act—which will make health care more accessible to tens of millions of people, succeeding where numerous presidents had failed—will be seen as a monumental achievement. And as Michael Grunwald’s terrific new book demonstrates, as much as liberals grumble about the stimulus package, it was a substantial achievement. Assumptions that Obama left lots of potential money on the table are clearly wrong. These major bills are just the beginning.

Part of the problem is that once major progressive reforms have been achieved, they can seem inevitable—it can be easy to forget they wouldn’t have happened with John McCain or Mitt Romney in the White House. Overriding the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision and ensuring that women received coverage of contraception for their health care premiums were major feminist priorities before Barack Obama took office, but these accomplishments inevitably vanish down the memory hole when leftists urge people to reject Obama. Ten years ago, an administration that secured the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and came out in favor of same-sex marriage would have seemed like too much to wish for—but, again, these remarkable advances are ignored when critics suggest we should be indifferent about whether Obama wins or loses.

This is not, of course, to say that leftists don’t have real reasons to be disappointed with Obama. His civil liberties record has generally been poor. The Bush administration’s torture regime was stopped but went unpunished. He wasn’t creative enough with using appropriated funds to alleviate the mortgage and housing crisis. But there’s no president in American history who doesn’t have demerits as bad or worse on their records. To call any of these issues “dealbreakers” is to inherently trivialize gender equity, access to health insurance, gay and lesbian rights, the enforcement of civil rights and environmental laws by the executive branch and the courts, the saving of the American auto industry, and the many other issues on which there are huge differences between the national parties. There’s nothing remotely progressive about doing so.

Imagining a moderate Romney.

To read Stoller and Sirota, you would think that the Republican primaries came down to battle between Lincoln Chaffee and Zombie Nelson Rockefeller. Sirota, asserting that the election won’t really affect the Supreme Court, points out that Earl Warren was a Republican appointee, a fact that’s about as relevant to politics in 2012 as Pat Boone is to today’s teenagers. Dismissing the Affordable Care Act, Stoller asserts that ” whether you call it Romneycare in Massachusetts, or Obamacare nationally, it’s the same healthcare program.” By this farcially transparent sleight of hand, Stoller transforms a statute that received zero Republican votes in Congress and was ruled entirely unconstitutional by four of the five Republican appointees on the Supreme Court into a bipartisan consensus.

It is true Mitt Romney talked like a moderate when he was the governor or Massachusetts, and if both houses of Congress consisted of supermajorities of Massachusetts Democrats this would be relevant to how he would govern as president. In the actually existing political context, there’s no reason to believe the Romney running for election in Massachusetts is the “real Romney.” If Romney wins, we’re not going to get someone like John Paul Stevens appointed to the Supreme Court and a moderate deficit-cutting deal; we’ll get another Alito and as many of the upper-class tax cuts and savage cuts to social programs in the Ryan budget as the Republicans can pass. Senate Democrats can contain the damage, but they can’t eliminate it—especially when it comes to executive branch actions and judicial appointments.

Third-Party daydream believing.

Another way of avoiding the fact that Obama is far superior to Romney for progressives is to evade the question by comparing Obama to a candidate with no chance of becoming president. In a particularly revealing argument, Robert Prasch uses the trite language of consumer capitalism to urge progressives to throw the election to Romney: “[a]nyone who has ever gone shopping knows that their bargaining power depends ultimately upon his/her willingness to walk away.” Voters, based on this line of reasoning, should see voting not as part of a collective project to choose the best available majority coalition for the country, but as an act of self-absorbed individual expression, like choosing a favorite brand of designer jeans.

These arguments are self-refuting. In actual politics, walking away “empowers” the left about as much as being able to choose between Coke and Pepsi “empowers” a worker negotiating with Wal-Mart. Conservatives didn’t take over the Republican Party by running third-party vanity campaigns. The legislative victories of the Great Society happened because civil rights and labor groups stayed in the Democratic coalition after decades of frustration (it was the segregationists who were repeatedly threatening to take their ball and go home by running third-party candidates.) And not only does third-party voting at the national level carry no benefits, there’s a serious downside risk. Ralph Nader throwing the 2000 election to George W. Bush didn’t radicalize the Democratic Party, but it did lead to the horrors of Iraq as well as a great deal of awful domestic policy. Indulging in fantasies that the Democratic Party could win as a European-style social democratic party if only Republicans make things bad enough is both bad strategy and grossly immoral.

There is, in other words, nothing complicated about the progressive choice in the 2012 election, which is Barack Obama. There are merely attempts by people unwilling to accept that major-party candidates are unlikely to represent their beliefs in every detail to make the choice appear more complicated than it is. Progressives should be critical about the inevitable failures of a second Obama term—but they should also be clear-eyed about the fact that this would be infinitely preferable to Romney and Ryan occupying the White House.

Related articles

Right Wing Nuts Laud Deadbeat Dad

by The Age of Blasphemy, posted in Religious Hypocrisy, Republican Hypocrisy

Rep. Walsh Gets ‘Pro-Family’ Award, Despite Owing $100K in Child Support
Today’s story of outstanding right wing cognitive dissonance comes to us from the extreme anti-gay throwback group called the “Family Research Council,” where they’ve given their “True Blue” award for “defending faith, family, and freedom” to Republican Rep. Joe Walsh — who owes more than $100,000 in child support.

“We thank Cong. Walsh who has voted consistently to defend faith, family and freedom,” said FRCA President Tony Perkins. “Cong. Walsh and other ‘True Blue Members’ have voted to repeal Obamacare, de-fund Planned Parenthood, end government funding for abortion within the health care law, uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, and continue support for school choice. I applaud their commitment to uphold the institutions of marriage and family.”

“I am proud and honored to be recognized by the Family Research Council as the only member from Illinois with a 100 percent pro-family voting record,” Walsh said in a news release. “Defending American values have always been one of my top priorities, and this reward reaffirms my dedication to that fight.”

To the bigots of the Family Research Council, it makes perfect sense to lavish praise on a deadbeat dad, because their definition of “family” isn’t what most people think of when they hear the word; they’re talking about a Christian fundamentalist extended family, an explicitly political construct. Anyone who promotes anti-gay, anti-science, and deeply misogynistic views is “pro-family” to the FRC, even if they abuse and turn their backs on their own children.

Related articles