Tag Archives: Incite

News

Even after Family Research Council shooting, leftists continue “hate” rhetoric

Leave a comment

Here’s an excellent post from Sooper Mexican, one of my new favorite blogs – he looks at what the Daily Kos and leftists on Twitter are saying about social conservatives in the wake of the shooting. (H/T Bad Blue)

Excerpt:

If we applied the same principle they apply to shootings to the left, we’d no doubt find plenty to blame, including the headline above at Daily Kos, the leftwing hate group that calls the Tea Party the “American Taliban” on a regular basis, even though, they probably believe Christians and Tea Partiers are much worse than the Taliban.

Here are some inflammatory sections from the article [emphasis added]:

Well, it’s a radical country where a guy can put his head on another guy’s shoulder on a trolley for two seconds and not face public execution for it, which sounds pretty good to me. I understand some people are working to change that, though.

Accusing the FRC of wanting gays to be publicly executed.

All of those people, though, are people whose mere presence pisses Tony Perkins off. His branding would be more like “America: We won’t stone you for having different beliefs,but trust me, we’re working on it.” And trust me, they’re working on it.

They refer to Muslims and Hindus, so they accuse the FRC of wanting Muslims and Hindus to be stoned. Amazingly, they don’t have much anger over people in the Middle East who are actually doing such things. Only those they imagine to be advocating such when they’re not.

[…]Doesn’t take much to think someone could read this kind of rhetoric and believe the FRC so evil that they need to be taught a lesson. But that would be jumping to conclusions, and that only works when it’s against Christians and the Tea Party.

Don’t believe me? Newsbusters documents how Huffington Post continued to smear the Family Research Council by calling it a hate group 3 hours after the shooting.

If you can stomach it, click on through and read some of the tweets on Twitter from people on the left.

Related posts

News

Jennifer Roback Morse explains the California lawsuit against Prop 8

3 Comments

Great post by the admirable Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse on MercatorNet. (H/T RuthBlog)

Excerpt:

California’s high-profile federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, which begins in court on January 11, appears to be about creating a federal case for same sex marriage. But in fact, much more is at stake. Lurking in the shadows of this case is a breathtaking expansion of judicial interference with perfectly valid elections. Whatever your views about Proposition 8, we surely should be able to agree that special interest groups can’t go into court to overturn elections they don’t like.

Ted Olsen and David Boies want to convince the court that the alleged anti-gay bias of Proposition 8 supporters should invalidate the election. But first, they have to find some such bias. This is why Olsen and Boies sought the trial court’s permission to demand confidential campaign documents. They want free reign to rummage around through the Prop 8 campaign’s computers and filing cabinets, looking for evidence of this supposed meanness. The trial judge had ruled that Prop 8 proponents had no First Amendment privilege, and therefore had to hand over all communications among members of the campaign and their contractors.

[…]The motives of the seven million Californians who voted Yes on 8 are irrelevant. The election was about adding 14 words to the California Constitution. The entire state of California knew perfectly well what those words were. The point of the campaign was to discuss the likely impact of those words. Olsen and Boies don’t like what the voters decided. Sorry. Self-government is about abiding by the results of lawful elections, whether you like the outcome or not.

And here is an op-ed by former Attorney General Ed Meese III in the New York Times. (H/T The Corner)

Excerpt:

Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8. They’ll argue that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination.

To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube. This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.

The tolerance of the secular left. I hope some of my readers who believe in marriage are going to law school – and I want straight As on your transcripts, but keep a low profile! I recommend writing under a pseudonym, because the other side will go after anything you write to discredit you. Think about it.

My previous post about the threats and violence against Prop 8 supporters. And another post explains why prop 8 supporters favor traditional marriage.

By the way, comments on this post will be strictly moderated in order to respect Obama’s hate crimes law.

Commentary

MUST-READ: Study documents harassment and threats against Prop 8 supporters

2 Comments

The research publication is here, from the Heritage Foundation. (H/T ECM)

Abstract:

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.

The executive summary is here.

The PDF version is here.

You may also want to refresh yourself on how this works out in practice by watching a debate on marriage between Dennis Prager and Perez Hilton.

My previous post on this topic is here.