During a debate on the House floor today over designating 21 miles of the Molalla River as “wild and scenic,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who opposes the legislation, tried to claim a progressive environmental record for her party. “Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country,” said Foxx.
Foxx then extended her claims of the GOP’s progressive history to the issue of civil rights. “Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the ’60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle,” said Fox. “They love to engage in revisionist history.” When Foxx finally yielded her time on the floor, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) passionately rebuked her:
CARDOZA: Today, what I’m hearing on the floor really takes the cake. The gentlelady from North Carolina, in her statement just now, indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can’t believe my ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administration where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman’s state that we passed that civil rights legislation. John Lewis…
FOXX: Would, would the gentleman yield?
CARDOZA: No, I will not yield. John Lewis, a member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis that he wasn’t part of getting that legislation passed.
When she was given a chance to respond, Foxx could only say that Jesse Helms wasn’t elected to the Senate until 1972. Watch it:
Foxx’s claim that Republicans were the real engine behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a common notion among conservatives. But as Cardoza points out, it was President Lyndon Johnson who “choreographed passage of this historic measure in 1964.” In fact, the Republican presidential candidate in 1964, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), voted against the legislation.
To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”
A common right-wing objection to federal health care legislation is that it’s unconstitutional. So-called “tenthers” argue that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution never explicitly gives the federal government the right to regulate health care, leaving that power exclusively in the hands of the states. To that end, officials in various states have raised the possibility of passing legislation to exempt their residents from federal health care reform if it passes.
Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell (R) is proposing to use the same argument and tactic to try to exempt his state from the recently-passed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act — which extends hate crimes protections to gays and lesbians — because he claims it infringes on freedom of speech:
Russell said because the government has decided to intervene on issues of morality, he is worried that religious leaders who speak out against any lifestyle could be imprisoned for their speech.
“The law is very vague to begin with,” Russell said. “Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia.” [...]
Russell said Oklahoma can opt out of the law on the basis of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“The bill gives the federal government power that was not given to them in the Constitution,” Russell said. “I am aware of the supremacy of the federal government over state governments, but the federal requirements are vague enough for us to make actions. We just have to be very careful on how we proceed.”
Hate crime protections have been on the books since 1969, but Russell seems to object to only those which protect gays and lesbians. Moreover, Russell and the other tenthers have flimsly legal basis for their claims. The Constitution gives Congress broad power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” but as Ian Millhiser noted, tenthers “insist that these words don’t actually mean what they say.” The right-wing fringe believes landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the federal highway system, and rules regulating airplane safety are unconstitutional.
Other right wingers have echoed Russell’s concern about the new hate crimes bill: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said on the House floor that the measure would lead to Nazism and the legalization of pedophilia and necrophilia. But as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said, “Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American’s freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble,” because the law “targets acts, not speech.” These acts need to be targeted. In 2007 — the most recent year for which data is available — 16.6 percent of all hate crimes reported reported to the FBI “resulted from sexual-orientation bias.”
When asked about whether the state of Oklahoma should reject the $5 million in federal funds that the federal government would give to law enforcement agencies to help prosecute hate crimes, Russell said he thought about finding a way to pass his law while taking the money, but said it would be a compromise in the values of his bill. “I understand the state could use all the money it can get, but we can’t compromise our values for some quick cash,” Russell said.
Last week, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) revealed the legislative timeline for a repeal of the military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy. “Military issues are always done as part of the overall authorization bill,” Frank told the Advocate. “’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was always going to be part of the military authorization.”
Now, the movement to repeal the ban on gay men and women from serving openly in the military has gained even more momentum. Three former military chaplains are announcing today that they support a full repeal of the DADT. In a Q&A released by VoteVets, the three men, Charles D. Camp, Chaplain (Colonel), USA (Ret.), John F. Gundlach, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret.), and Jerry Rhyne, Chaplain (Colonel), USAF (Ret.), also addressed implementation concerns regarding a repeal:
What would be the impact of changing the current law on unit cohesion and morale?
The 2009 Joint Forces Quarterly article states clearly, “After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” A 1993 RAND Corp. report concludes the same, as do several other military-commissioned reports. In addition, 68 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan troops said, according to a 2006 Zogby poll, they either knew for certain (23%) or suspected (45%) there were gays in their own unit. That means there are tens of thousands of known gay service members currently working and fighting alongside their straight peers, and there is no demonstrable negative impact on unit morale, cohesion or combat readiness. In fact, 73% of troops in the poll said they were “comfortable” in the presence of gay peers. [...]
Polling data from current U.S. troops combined with the experience of our foreign military allies demonstrate that known gays in a unit do not degrade morale, cohesion or operational readiness.
Disputing the claims often made by supporters of DADT, Camp, Gundlach, and Rhyne argue that repealing the policy would actually help the military’s recruitment and retention:
What would be the impact of changing the current law on recruiting and retention?
Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would help recruiting and retention. The recent issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, an article—reportedly signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen–convincingly makes the case that current law has been “costly both in personnel and treasure,’’ referring to the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills. Approximately two service members are discharged each day under DADT. This number includes linguists, physicians, pilots and others highly trained personnel in mission critical specialties. Costs for the training of replacements are in the hundreds of millions. According to the UCLA’s Williams Institute, an estimated 2500-3000 service members either leave the service, or choose not to re-enlist, because of the law. When the number of involuntary discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” is combined with the voluntary attrition because of this law, the result is an annual loss of 4000 trained, experienced and often combat tested troops. Replacing these veterans with recent graduates of recruit training or newly commissioned officers would naturally reduce unit readiness.
VoteVets is “gathering names of veterans to give to the White House and Congress to let them know now is the time to overturn this discriminatory policy.” Veterans can sign the petition here and civilians can sign a petition of support here.
Access the full release and Q & A here (pdf).
The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent points to a new Rasmussen poll showing that 57 percent of the American public is “concerned” that “the shooting at Fort Hood will prompt a backlash against Muslims serving in the military.” From the poll:
How concerned are you that the shooting at Fort Hood will prompt a backlash against Muslims serving in the military- very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, not at all concerned?
23% Very concerned
34% Somewhat concerned
29% Not very concerned
11% Not at all concerned
2% Not sure
On Sunday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey also said he was concerned that the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan may “cause a backlash” against Muslim soldiers, and Homeland Security Janet Napolitano warned against an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” Nevertheless, last night on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly said that it was good to try to win the hearts and minds of Muslims — but only because the U.S. can’t kill them all. “Barack Obama wants to win hearts and minds in the Middle East and in the Muslim world, which is a good thing,” said O’Reilly. “And you know that, as a soldier, we can’t kill all the Muslims. So we want to win as many hearts and minds of good, moderate Muslims as we can.”
Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church is a hate group that goes around the country staging anti-gay rallies at some of the most inappropriate places (e.g. the funerals of former White House press secretary Tony Snow, victims of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, and U.S. troops) with messages like “Thank God For AIDS” and “God Hates Fags.”
This week, they’re bringing their hateful message to children in Washington, DC, planning pickets at a handful of local schools. This morning, they showed up outside of Sidwell Friends, the school that Sasha and Malia Obama attend. On Twitter, Megan Phelps-Roper — one of Fred Phelps’ grandchildren — posted a picture of the protest:

Washington Post education reporter Michael Birnbaum said that he spent the morning at the protest, and MSNBC host David Shuster wrote, “Hopefully, some of the more rational conservatives/republicans will condemn this stuff today. It was beyond the pale.” ThinkProgress contacted Sidwell for more details on the protest and are awaiting a response.
In the past, extreme anti-choice activist Randall Terry has also targeted the Obama children’s school, saying, “We will continue to show images of aborted babies at high schools, no matter what the cost.”
After news broke yesterday that the suspected gunman responsible for the “horrific outburst of violence” at Fort Hood, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was Muslim, some commentators began assigning “collective responsibility for the actions of one man” to the Muslim community as a whole. On Fox and Friends this morning, Geraldo Rivera warned against casting “a gloomy cloud of suspicion over all the Muslim G.I.s who serve with great honor”:
RIVERA: I think that the great tragedy of this incident is that it will cast a gloomy cloud of suspicion over all the Muslim G.I.s who serve with great honor and who are an amazing assist to the United States in this conflict we’re having with radical Islam. This will, and also, I remember my dad, just very briefly. When we were growing up there would be a notorious crime and my dad used to gather the family. We used to say, like a little prayer, “please God” that it’s not a Puerto Rican. You know because we had, dealing with so many social pressures and prejudices, dealing with all the rest of it, we didn’t want one of these awful examples to cast aspersion and negativity on our group. And this is the same thing with American Muslims now, specifically American Muslim G.I.s.
But, as both Raw Story and Media Matters have noted, later in the segment the hosts of Fox and Friends suggested that “special debriefings” and “special screenings” of Muslim soldiers should be considered. “If I’m going to be sticking in an outpost, I got to know the guy next to me is not going to want to kill me,” said Brian Kilmeade. Gretchen Carlson pondered whether the military had been “exercising political correctness in not approaching” Hasan “as seriously as they would have had he not been a Muslim.” Watch it:
Muslim- and Arab-American organizations have loudly spoken against Hasan’s attack. “We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law,” said a Council on American-Islamic Relations statement. In a statement, the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in Military urged “the media, government officials and all of our fellow Americans to recognize that the actions of Hasan are those of a deranged gunman, and are in no way representative of the wider Arab American or American Muslim community.”
Last month, Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell stirred controversy when he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because he believes that such marriages don’t usually last very long. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. Now, the Louisiana secretary of state’s office says that Bardwell has resigned:
A Louisiana justice of the peace who drew criticism for refusing to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple has resigned, the secretary of state’s office said Tuesday.
Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish’s 8th Ward, was widely criticized after he refused to grant a marriage license to Beth McKay and Terence McKay, an interracial couple who ultimately got a marriage license from another justice of the peace in the same parish.
The McKays hired an attorney and protested the justice’s actions.
Despite a national uproar and a call by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal for him to lose his license, Bardwell, 56, said in October that he had no regrets. “It’s kind of hard to apologize for something that you really and truly feel down in your heart you haven’t done wrong,” he told CNN affiliate WAFB.
Civil rights organizations had called for Bardwell to resign while Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) had called for him to be dismissed. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), on the other hand, would only go so far as to say that Bardwell “should follow the law as written.”
The D.C. City Council held a hearing yesterday on a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in the nation’s capital. However, the hearing was briefly interrupted when witness Andy Hertzberg stopped to propose to his partner. “I would like to take a huge step in my own life,” Hertzberg said. “Andy [Rollman], I’d like to ask you: Will you marry me?” One marriage equality opponent was outraged that they would show their love for one another, saying that for “something like this” to happen in the Council’s chambers, it showed a lack of “respect.” According to the local ABC report, however, most council members were supportive of the proposal. Watch it:
New Mexico hotel owner Larry Whitten is currently facing national criticism for demanding that his Hispanic employees change their names and stop speaking Spanish in his presence. Today on CNN, HLN host Jane Velez-Mitchell sharply went after Whitten, introducing herself as “Jane Velez-Mitchell. I hope you don’t mind if I keep using the word ‘Velez’ in my name.” She then went after him for asking his “Spanish” employees to anglicize their names:
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you, or did you not, tell someone who’s name is Martin (Mar-TEEN) to say that his name was “Martin,” or similar changes? [...]
WHITTEN: Yes, I asked Martin (Mar-TEEN) to change it to “Martin” to better understand it over the telephone.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You can’t understand Mar-TEEN? Do you know that the vast majority of people in the community where you have your hotel are Latino? So your customers, to a large extent, are going to be Latino. Now how do you treat the customers when they come in? Do you them also to change their names? Like if I came in, would Jane Velez-Mitchell — so you could better understand my name — would you ask me to change it?
WHITTEN: No, ma’am — [...]
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So the idea that you’re presupposing that people cannot understand Mar-TEEN, but they can understand Martin, really says a lot more about you, sir, than it does about your customers or anybody else.
Throughout the interview, as Velez-Mitchell pointed out, Whitten insisted on calling the employee by the anglicized pronunciation of “Martin.” Watch it:
Transcript: More »
The AP reports that in Taos, NM, hotel owner Larry Whitten is under fire for his treatment of his Hispanic employees:
After he arrived, Whitten met with the employees. He says he immediately noticed that they were hostile to his management style and worried they might start talking about him in Spanish.
“Because of that, I asked the people in my presence to speak only English because I do not understand Spanish,” Whitten says. “I’ve been working 24 years in Texas and we have a lot of Spanish people there. I’ve never had to ask anyone to speak only English in front of me because I’ve never had a reason to.” [...]
Then Whitten told some employees he was changing their Spanish first names. Whitten says it’s a routine practice at his hotels to change first names of employees who work the front desk phones or deal directly with guests if their names are difficult to understand or pronounce.
“It has nothing to do with racism. I’m not doing it for any reason other than for the satisfaction of my guests, because people calling from all over America don’t know the Spanish accents or the Spanish culture or Spanish anything,” Whitten says.
Whitten eventually fired many Hispanic several employees for being “hostile and insubordinate.” He further angered the local community when he referred to people in the town as “mountain people” and “potheads who escaped society” during interviews with the press. Watch a video of an August protest against Whitten (which includes one employee named Marcos revealing that he was fired when he refused to change his name to “Mark” or “Bill”):
Although both Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) have publicly condemned Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell for refusing to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples, Sen. David Vitter (R) has stayed noticeably silent. (ThinkProgress contacted his office, but we did not receive a response.) Blogger-activist Mike Stark caught up with Vitter and asked him about his position. “Have you commented? What did you have to say about it?” asked Stark. Vitter simply smiled, stepped into the elevator, and allowed the doors to close. Watch it:
Last week, Louisiana couple Beth and Terence McKay revealed that justice of the peace Keith Bardwell had recently refused to give them a marriage license because they are an interracial couple. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.” Today on CNN, the McKays responded to Bardwell:
TERENCE McKAY: He says the only reason he doesn’t marry interracial couple is dealing with — because of the offspring of the marriages. If it wasn’t for interracial couples today, we wouldn’t have our president. So, for him to take that outlook, that’s still 1800s or something.
Watch it:
Both Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) have said that Bardwell should resign, but Sen. David Vitter (R) has refused to join their calls. Bardwell has said he has no plans to step down. (HT: Raw Story)
The AP reports that Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell has refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because he believes that such marriages don’t usually last very long:
“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.
The couple said they “will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.” (HT: Right Wing Watch)
During the tea party protests and the more recent 9/12 march, Fox News argued that it was justified in covering them incessantly because the network doesn’t “pick and choose these rallies and protests” — it covers them all. At the same time, it slammed other networks for not giving enough coverage to the right-wing rallies. But as Jon Stewart noted on The Daily Show last night, Fox ignored the weekend’s National Equality March, whose turnout was comparable to the 9/12 March. “You didn’t even send your own camera crew?” exclaimed Stewart. “You have a Washington bureau! Tell them to go to the window and point the camera down!” Watch it:
Stewart also pointed out that Fox was more than happy to get out the tv cameras and an on-air reporter to cover an empty sidewalk where there had apparently been a protest about students singing a pro-Obama song. (HT: Andrew Sullivan and Raw Story)
Yesterday, CNBC’s Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwood said that the Obama White House doesn’t view dissatisfaction amongst LGBT advocates — tens of thousands of whom marched in Washington, DC yesterday — as a “serious problem” because officials feel “that if they take care of the big issues — health care, energy, the economy — he’s [Obama] going to be just fine with this group.” As evidence, Harwood cited an anonymous “adviser” who bashed bloggers and dismissed critics as part of the “Internet left fringe”:
HOLT: But in general when you look at the left as a whole, have there been conversations about some things they thought would have been done but haven’t?
HARWOOD: Sure, but if you look at the polling, Barack Obama is doing well with 90 percent or more of Democrats so the White House views this opposition as really part of the “Internet left fringe,” Lester. And for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off the pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.
Watch it:
On Saturday at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner, Obama sent a far different message. “I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight,” said the President, candidly adding, “I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.”
That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.
President Obama received a warm welcome at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner tonight, where he promised to sign hate crimes legislation — which just passed the House — into law and repeal both Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, although he didn’t outline a specific timeline. Acknowledging some frustrations that there hasn’t been quicker action on these issues, Obama reiterated that he remains committed to the fight for LGBT equality:
OBAMA: This story, this fight, continues, now, and I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (APPLAUSE)
For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and we will not put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. (APPLAUSE) Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.
Obama also addressed right-wing criticisms being hurled at his LGBT nominees and staffers, such as EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum and Department of Education official Kevin Jennings. Both have been the subjects of extremely homophobic slurs. WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farrah said that Obama must find “people” like Feldblum on “Perverts.gov,” and the Traditional Values Coalition wrote that she wanted “the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has claimed that Jennings wants to push a “homosexual agenda” in U.S. schools.
While Obama didn’t specifically point to any of his nominees, he strongly reiterated his support for them and condemned homophobic slurs:
OBAMA: For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair, it’s not right, we’re going to put a stop to it. (APPLAUSE)
And it’s for this reason if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (APPLAUSE)
Watch it:
Transcript: More »
Yesterday, the House voted “to expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation” by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
The right put its homophobia on full display in an attempt to kill the legislation, with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) saying that it would lead to Nazism, and the legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality.
Today in an interview with Radio America/WorldNetDaily, Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
– who has said that hate crimes legislation creates “sacred cows” and puts the “victimizer’s focus on someone else” — tried to argue that such a bill is unnecessary. His argument? Matthew Shepard himself wasn’t actually murdered because he was gay:
KING: I didn’t make the point, but others did, that James Byrd was sentenced to death in Texas, and I don’t know if that sentence has been carried out yet. But he received highest penalty available under the law for the dragging death of James Byrd. And the Matthew Shepard case, there’s been a fair amount of information that came out that that really wasn’t the motivation of the people who killed him, but they did receive the maximum penalty under the law.
Listen here:
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) made this same claim in April: “We know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay.” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solomnese wrote the congresswoman a letter calling on her to make a full apology. Foxx eventually said that she was “sorry” if Shepard’s “grieving family was offended by my statement,” but she stood by her comments that his murder may not have been motivated by hate.
Both Foxx and King are completely out of line. As Salon reported in November 1999:
Speculation has persisted for the past year that Matthew Shepard, rather than being the victim of gay-bashing, might really have been nothing more than a hapless robbery victim who was exploited by gay activists to reap unwarranted sympathy and advance their own agenda to enact hate-crimes legislation. Statements made by one of the convicted killers, which were revealed for the first time Thursday, reveal these accounts to be false. [...]
According to detectives who interviewed both of the convicted murderers, there is no evidence that Shepard made any sexual advances to the pair — and the detectives dismissed the idea that the murder was the mere result of a robbery gone bad. “Far from that!” scoffed Sgt. Rob DeBree, the chief investigator in the case. “They knew damn well he was gay. … It started out as a robbery and burglary, and I sincerely believe the other activity was because he was gay.”
Will King now follow Foxx and apologize to the Shepard family for making these comments?
(HT: Michael O’Brien)
Led by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) last night, lawmakers convened for a special session of floor speeches urging a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Rather than participate positively in the discussion, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) took to the floor to deliver a hate-filled response. Gohmert fired off a litany of attacks, calling the DADT repeal “perverse…social experimentation” and that soldiers are being “held hostage by a sociological attack.” His rant included a bizarre argument that the Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill would lead to a legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality. Later in the speech, after reading lengthy passages from the Bible against homosexuality, Gohmert said that taking away “moral teaching in America” would create a situation similar to that of Germany in the “1920’s and 1930’s” when a “little guy with a mustache” took over:
GOHMERT: If you’re oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you’re oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions, [...] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition. [...] But people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms in order to gain economic stability. It happened in 1920 and 1930’s. Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America.
Watch it:
Several times in the speech, Gohmert credited the conservative Christian “C Street” leader Chuck Colson for inspiration. Oddly, Gohmert also meandered into a self-defensive monologue about how he is not racist because he once voted for Alan Keyes, the birther leader who has said that President Obama is “a radical communist” who “is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
One of the most frequent targets in the Georgia GOP gubenatorial primary has been undocumented immigrants. Candidates have repeatedly harped on the threat of undocumented immigrants voting in Georgia’s elections, and have even used dirty tactics to unfairly disenfranchise legal voters — the overwhelmingly majority of whom were racial minorities, according to the Department of Justice — in the name of stopping the undocumented from voting. This scare-mongering climbed to new, dangerously racially-tinged heights this past Saturday when gubenatorial candidate Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) cited complaints about “ghetto grandmothers” as the reasoning behind proof-of-citizenship legislation he is supporting:
DEAL: We got all the complaints of the ghetto grandmothers who didn’t have birth certificates and all that. We wrote some very liberal language as to how you can verify it. My mother was born in 1906 and she didn’t have a birth certificate. They didn’t give birth certificates back then. But we got her one, because you can do it under the proper procedures of your state.
Watch it:
This morning, Deal released a statement in response to the uproar his comment has created: “I regret my choice of words and in no way meant to offend anyone.”
Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh recently cast a fight between three Belleville, IL schoolchildren — the two attackers were black and the victim was white — as what happens to “white kids” in “Obama’s America.” Even though police said the bus fight was not racially motivated, Limbaugh insisted, “We need segregated buses.” On Saturday, members of white supremacist groups marched in Belleville holding signs echoing Limbaugh’s rhetoric that said, “It was a hate crime“:
While a police sniper watched from the roof of the police station, 22 members of white supremacist groups, shouted obscenities and made obscene hand gestures. One man, who had a crew cut and wore a black uniform, told the crowd of onlookers, “Wake up white America!”
“We were out there to denounce the violence,” said Belleville resident Jason Bonn, who is a corporal with the National Socialist Movement, a group with a name similar to the Nazi Party of Germany during World War II. Bonn’s group is “fighting for white civil rights.”
Several spectators “booed the white supremacist rally and shouted ‘Go home.’”