tridd forums

As Senate Prepares to Take Up Hate Crimes Bill, Far Right’s Inflammatory Claims Should Not Be Taken Seriously
Lies should be refuted as a matter of record,
but demonstrably false and ridiculous attacks deserve to be dismissed

Download a PDF version of this report here.
http://site.pfaw.org/pdf/rww-in-focus-hate-crimes-claims.pdf



For more of PFAW’s research and reporting on the Far Right, visit the Right Wing Watch blog.

Anti-gay organizations have been fighting the steady advance of federal hate crimes legislation with rhetoric that is increasingly unhinged from reality. When the U.S. House of Representatives passed a hate crimes bill on April 29 with a bipartisan 74-vote margin, Religious Right leaders and some of their congressional allies were inspired to new heights (or depths) of literally incredible accusations.

Now, as the U.S. Senate prepares to take up its version of a hate crimes Bill, right-wing leaders are trying to crank up the volume even further on their propaganda campaign. Emblematic is a May 6 diatribe by Focus on the Family’s James Dobson:

As I'm recording this video greeting, there's a so-called hate crimes bill that's working its way through the congress that contains no adequate safeguards to protect the preaching of God's word. Because the liberals in Congress would not define sexual orientation, we have to assume that protection under the law will be extended to the 30 sexual disorders identified as such by the American Psychiatric Association. Let me read just a few of them: bisexuality, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual masochism, urophilia, voyeurism, and bestiality. Those are just a few. And I have to ask, have we gone completely mad?

Religious Right leaders have gotten undeserved support for their accusations from some members of Congress – notably Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) – and from right-wing media outlets and figures, like Fox’s Sean Hannity. In the Senate, South Carolina’s Jim DeMint in particular has distinguished himself as a purveyor of false information, and has promised anti-gay groups that he will launch a filibuster against the bill.

The Religious Right’s campaign of distortions and outright lies about the hate crimes bill has been unfolding all year and has been well-documented by RightWingWatch.org and others; in April, we published “Right Wing Sounds False Alarm on Hate Crimes Legislation.”

During Senate debate we hope that journalists and public officials will not treat the Right’s false charges as if they represented one-half of a real policy debate on the legislation. The Right’s wild allegations should be treated instead as evidence of the desperation and utter lack of credibility on the part of those who are opposed to extending legal protections to LGBT Americans.

It would take many pages to compile the lies and fear-mongering of the Right on the hate crimes bill. This memo will highlight some representative examples from the past 10 weeks or so, and compile some of the readily available documentation that Religious Right leaders are lying to the media, to Members of Congress, and to their own supporters.

Big Lie Number One: The End of Religious Liberty

For years, Religious Right leaders have been claiming that adding protections based on sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes bill would mean an end to free speech and religious liberty in America. It’s never been true.

In fact, the current House and Senate hate crimes bills have such clear and explicit protections for First Amendment speech, it’s hard to know how right-wing leaders can continue to make the argument with a straight face. But make them they do. Here are just a few recent examples:

• In mid-June, more than 60 people, including pretty much all the major Religious Right figures and friends like Tom DeLay, sent a letter to Senators claiming that the hate crimes bill would criminalize preaching the Gospel and would, among other evils, “Silence the moral voice of the Church," “Punish principled dissent from the homosexual agenda," and “Be a savage and perhaps fatal blow to First Amendment freedom of expression."

• Janet Porter, a leading supporter of Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid, helped boost a Flag Day (Sunday, June 14) effort involving pastors “standing for freedom by exposing this dangerous bill that could land them in jail for the ‘crime’ of reading from Romans.” Porter, a WorldNetDaily columnist, was also behind a letter writing campaign to the Hill; its claims to have sent 700,000 letters sounds impressive until you read that people paid a lump sum to have 100 letters (one to each senator) generated over their name.

• The American Family Association’s Donald Wildmon sent activists an alert in late June under a headline that screamed, “The ‘Hate Crimes’ bill will take away our religious freedoms.”

• Pat Robertson recently told viewers of his 700 Club show that the bill would prevent pastors from preaching against homosexuality, claiming that “if anybody speaks out about homosexuality, says it’s a sin, says its wrong, says it’s against the Bible, that individual would be charged with a quote, hate crime.”

• On the eve of the House bill’s passage, GOP Representatives Louie Gohmert of Texas and Trent Franks of Arizona joined Bishop Harry Jackson and spokespeople from the Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women for America to claim that preaching against homosexuality would become a hate crime. Talking points handed out by Rep. Louie Gohmert’s staff claimed that “The Hate Crimes bill creates a new Federal “Thought Crime.”
The Truth: Religious Liberty and Free Speech Carefully, Clearly, Explicitly Protected

As we and others have pointed out repeatedly, it could not be clearer that the hate crimes bills moving through Congress apply only when violent hate crimes have been committed against individuals. They have nothing to do with regulating speaking or preaching, which are protected by the First Amendment. But just to be clear, both House and Senate versions of the legislation include clear and explicit affirmations for speech and religious teaching. Here’s language from the bill about to be taken up in the Senate:

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

Faced with that clear language, Religious Right leaders claim that some judge will somehow interpret the language to allow for prosecution of preachers if some member of their congregation responds to an anti-gay sermon by committing an act of violence. But unless a preacher is explicitly urging his parishioners to commit acts of violence against their gay neighbors, that scenario is nothing but the Right’s paranoid fantasy.

As we pointed out in April, stories cited by right-wing leaders as evidence that their fears are justified are mostly from other countries, which do not enjoy the strong free speech and religious liberty protections granted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And the American examples they cite, such as the supposed persecution of Christian grandmothers for sharing the gospel with gay people, don’t hold up to scrutiny.

As Right Wing Watch has noted:

The idea that hate crimes laws infringe free speech is ludicrous. Hate crimes protections for race and religion have existed for over a decade and racist or anti-religious speech has not been made illegal and nobody has been charged with a hate crime for engaging in such speech.

Big Lie Number 2: Hate Crimes Bill as ‘Pedophile Protection Act’

Last month, in “Free Speech, Irresponsible Speech, and the Climate of Intolerance,” we noted:

One appalling development has been the return to public discourse of public officials openly equating gay rights with support for pedophilia, a false and hugely inflammatory charge that seemed to have faded somewhat as equality for gay people gained support among the American public. But in their desperation to defeat hate crimes legislation, Members of Congress joined James Dobson and other Religious Right leaders insisting that Democrats were giving rights to pedophiles at the expense of Christians. One WorldNetDaily story used the phrase “Pedophile Protection Act” no fewer than four times in referring to federal hate crimes legislation under consideration, once quoting Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas using the term.

Accusations that the gay rights movement is a threat to children have typically been made in sleazy insinuations like this one from Donald Wildmon’s Speechless: Silencing the Christians:

Hate crimes laws have very little to do with hate or with crime. The primary goal of these laws is to silence Christians who object morally to sodomy and who object politically to the attempt of the secularist elite to dominate our culture and to subject our children to their own beliefs and to their own desires.

But in recent months they have gone well beyond insinuation to claim that a majority of the House of Representatives voted to grant pedophiles greater legal protections than Christians in America. Here’s a characterization by the Traditional Values Coalition on the eve of the House vote: “the ‘moral’ of this law, if it has one, is that child molesters and those who only ‘date’ dead people need to be protected but is open season on pastors and churchgoers.”

People like Sean Hannity find this shocking and unbelievable. Of course it’s not believable because it is not true. But it gets repeated because supposedly credible people, like Members of Congress, repeat the claim.

Rep. Steve King of Iowa has emerged as the King of Congressional Demagogues on the issue . On a May 14 radio show with Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, King claimed: “we have a record roll call vote that shows every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voting to have pedophiles protected.”

Right-wing media is now filled with variations on a bogus hypothetical scenario: that a woman who pushes away an exhibitionist, or a person who steps in to defend their daughter or nephew from a child molester, would be sent to jail for ten years under the hate crimes law.

The Truth: Pedophilia is in no way protected by the hate crimes bill.

Rep. King and his friends are lying. The Right’s claims and the label they have slapped on the hate crimes bill – “Pedophile Protection Act” – are based on falsehood layered upon falsehood.

The first falsehood is that because the bill does not include an explicit definition of “sexual orientation,” the term would be used to cover, depending on which Religious Right figure is speaking at any moment, either a list of 30 “paraphilias” listed in the American Psychicatric Association’s current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or a much larger list of “547 sexual deviancies,” as claimed by radio host Janet Porter and RightMarch.com PAC. The ever-memorable Pat Robertson suggested that it might protect “people who have sex with ducks.”

The second falsehood is that the House Judiciary Committee, by rejecting an inflammatory and unnecessary amendment by the grandstanding Rep. King, was somehow voting to extend new legal protections to pedophiles.

Here’s the simple fact regarding a definition of sexual orientation: Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation by anyone’s definition – only in the imagination of Religious Right organizations and political figures trying to derail the legislation with the most inflammatory charge they can come up with. As Rep. Tammy Baldwin pointed out during debate, sexual orientation is explicitly defined in the federal hate crimes statistics act as “consensual heterosexuality and homosexuality. And in spite of the Right’s claims about paraphilias, the American Psychiatric Association defines sexual orientation very clearly as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

Jim Burroway, who blogs at boxturtlebulletin, interviewed Dr. Jack Drescher, a member of the APA’s DSM-V Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders, who, asked about the Right’s claims regarding the hate crimes bill, said:

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, nor would pedophiles be covered by a law protecting people for their sexual orientation. Religious social conservatives who oppose gay rights are using terms that sound like science, as opposed to actual science, to make unwarranted and malicious comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia. Not only is this scare tactic untruthful, it reveals how little respect some religious conservative leaders have for the intelligence of the people they are trying to persuade.

And regarding Rep. King’s claims – touted by folks like Sean Hannity – that House Democrats supposedly voted to extend protection to pedophiles in the bill, here’s what really happened. While legislation was being considered in the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans introduced a series of amendments that were designed to distort the intent of the legislation and create an opportunity for divisive debate. Among them was an amendment by Rep. King to exempt pedophilia from the legislation. As Rep. Baldwin made clear during the mark-up of the legislation, the amendment was not necessary, because sexual orientation is defined in federal law as heterosexuality or homosexuality, and the act already had nothing to do with peodphilia. King’s amendment was one of a series of grandstanding efforts voted down by Democrats.

Strange Auxiliary Lie: Hate Crimes Bill Would Target Pro-Life Military Personnel

The Religious Right has even tried to claim that hate crimes legislation would somehow be used to target pro-life military personnel. This one is so bizarre and convoluted that it merits little attention on the substance. It does, however, shed light on the credibility of Focus on the Family and other groups desperately grasping for ways to slow the momentum of hate crimes legislation. Here’s a claim from Focus on the Family:

House Hate-Crimes Bill May Target Pro-Life Servicemen and Women

Senate Republicans have called a hearing Thursday to discuss proposed hate-crimes legislation. The contentious language would elevate some victims of violent crimes over others.

The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed a hate-crimes bill, and is trying to take the concept one step further.

Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings has added language that would ban the recruitment, enlistment or retention of military personnel affiliated with "hate groups." Just a month ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a study listing pro-life advocates as potential national security threats.
And here’s how Right Wing Watch dispatched it:

Does this make any sense at all? Focus is claiming that passage of hate crimes legislation will somehow prevent anti-choice individuals from joining the military by stirring together three completely separate issues into one steaming mass of nonsense.

First of all, hate crimes legislation has already passed in the House and contains no such language regarding military recruitment, nor does the version being debated in the Senate. And considering that the legislation has already passed in the House, there is no way that Rep. Hastings could have "added language" to it.

Secondly, what Hastings has done is add an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that "would prohibit the recruitment, enlistment, or retention of individuals associated or affiliated with groups associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States government." The language of the amendment can be found here [PDF] and defines "hate groups" as groups that advocate violence against others based on race, religion, or ethnicity, engage in criminal activity, or advocate armed revolution against the government.

Thirdly, these two things have nothing to do with one another and neither has anything to do with the recent Department of Homeland Security report.

Yet, somehow Focus on the Family's Steve Jordahl has managed to combine all three of these issues into one claim that hate crimes legislation would somehow lead to pro-life members of the military being targeted. And even though this claim is utterly incoherent and fundamentally nonsensical, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see it get picked up by others in the right-wing echo chamber and quickly establish itself as part of the narrative.

More resources on hate crimes

People For the American Way has compiled a resource page on the hate crimes bill which includes links to several letters to Congress from progressive African American clergy debunking right-wing lies and calling for the bill’s passage.

http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pa ... mes_claims


Download a PDF version of this report here.
http://site.pfaw.org/pdf/rww-in-focus-hate-crimes-claims.pdf

Look, I know that we are all concerned for our protection in the GLBT community, but I am here to tell you that there is no DOUBT that these hate crime bills protect pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and others that should be imprisoned...not PROTECTED! I understand how bad each of us want to have civil rights, the same as everyone else...but at what cost? Would you be willing to lose ALL of your freedoms in order to get married?? And what about our children (future children)? Would you be willing to sacrifice their rights and their freedoms just so that YOU can have the right to get married? The biggest problem that we have in our community is that we cannot see the forest through the trees. We like to chant "equality for everyone" but is it okay that WE can say whatever it is that we want, but that a preacher can't get up and preach on Romans 1 just because it speaks out against our sexual orientation? Is that what you consider to be equality? If so, I don't want any part of it. That sounds like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia to me. I love my partner and I want to marry her and I want to have children with her, but if the cost of doing that means the loss of my freedoms...well, then I can go on living without those things. What kind of existence will we as a nation have if we lose all of our liberties? Obama is liar, the same as Bush. He is a Fascist, the same as Bush. He will destroy our nation, mark my words. And if through him we acquire the rights to marry and have children, do you really want to look into your children's eyes and say: I am sorry that you cannot speak your mind, I am sorry that you can be held in prison for as long as they(government) want to keep you in there without a trial, I am sorry that you cannot defend yourself with a gun from a rapist or a burglar, ect.?
WE have to realize, as a nation and a community both, that this is a double edge sword. Whereas we "may" be protected from people who mean to harm us with words or weapons, we cannot speak out against them either. If we are attacked, we WILL NOT be able to say that it was wrong. Under the law, they are JUST as "protected" as we are. If you do not believe me, then please go and check out HR 1913 and also infowars.com

We must remember that freedoms are what make this nation so great and that without them, we are no better than communists!

lesbian4liberty wrote:Look, I know that we are all concerned for our protection in the GLBT community, but I am here to tell you that there is no DOUBT that these hate crime bills protect pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and others that should be imprisoned...not PROTECTED!

I don't know where you're getting your information, "lesbian4liberty," but it's wrong. May I suggest you try reading the legislation?

You Can find it here:
http://www.tridd.com/docs/answers/MATTHEW%20SHEPARD%202647.pdf

You might also be interested in reading about my interview with KYTX on this subject:
http://www.tridd.com/index2_files/KYTX.htm

This legislation protects gays from VIOLENCE. It does not make pedophilia and necrophilia legal. Your comment is as untrue as the oputragieous claims that Obama's health plan will cause death squads to kill elderly people. I expect this kind of drivel from right wing extremists, but not from gays and lesbians, though it's aparently true we can be our own worst enemies. You have brothers and sisters out there who are every day facing violence encouraged by right-wing fanatics, and your post above suggests we shouldn't do anything about it.

Please be aware that making outrageous claims can hurt people, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. I find your posting particularly offensive. Please check your facts if you're planning to post this kind of comment. A lesbian friiend of mine was just beat up by five guys because she was lesbian. I would think with a name like "lesbian4liberty" you would appreciate that our "liberty" ought to include freedom from violence.

I have to say that I TOTALLY agree with lesbian4liberty.
I have a partner as well, and her and I are so in love! I would love to marry her one day! But, we also want to have children...if I lose ALL of my freedoms just to get married....what freedoms can my children have???
I understand that it is about protecting GLBT from violence. I get that...I'm ALL for that! I really am...BUT...what evidence do you have saying that it doesn't protect pedophiles and necrophiliacs??
On to Obama...how do YOU know that his health care plan will NOT cause "death squadds" to kill elderly people? Just because obama says that he won't?? Honestly??? How many presidents have we had that "said" they wouldn't do certain things..and then ended up doing them?? I seem to remember that when Obama was campaigning, he said he was going to let us..the GLBT community, to have "civl union." I KNOW that I was happy about that!! At least ONE good thing would come from him if he got in..well...tell me...WHERE ARE THE CIVIL UNIONS??? I'm not trying to be ugly, but a lot of people believe a LOT of things...when they just heard it! Do you have HARD evidence that the legislation is JUST for protecting gays from violence? Or that it does NOT or "protect" pedophiles and necrophilia? Or maybe it's that..the legislation just turns the other cheek? Against pedophilia..?? Could it be? I LOVE this Tridd site, and I know that my partner and friends like it as well, and I am glad that you made this forum, where people CAN speak their minds...but when people like you see something that "you don't like" or ...what? You just...say things? Without proof of your own??? Not ONE person has to be right, I guess you could say it's "our right" to speak our minds, and KNOW that someone...somewhere, will find somethint wrong with it. And that's okay. I'm SURE that the legislation DOES protect the GLBT community from violence...but is that ALL that it does?? How can you know for sure???

rainbowgirl♀ wrote:I have to say that I TOTALLY agree with lesbian4liberty....
... what evidence do you have saying that it doesn't protect pedophiles and necrophiliacs??
On to Obama...how do YOU know that his health care plan will NOT cause "death squadds" to kill elderly people? Just because obama says that he won't??

I'm beginning to wonder whether either of you are lesbians, and I don't appreciate your preaching hate and masquerading as our "friends" here. I will answer these last questions and then ask you to find some other site to post. We don't all have to agree here, but this site is for the LGBT community, and our friends and allies, not a platform for fanatical right-wing rage. If by chance you are really, truly lesbians, then I'm not sure how you can justify arguing against your own rights. I would still respect that, however, though once again, I ask you not to post this kind of misinformation here. The AFA (American Family Association) and many other websites would be THRILLED to hear from you. I suggest you post there.

Firstly, the evidence is in the bill, which is why I provided you with a LINK to it, silly. If you want to say our hate crimes bill protects pedophiles, then you have to SHOW ME where it says that. I have already showed you the legislation, which does not legalize pedophilia or necrophilia. Furthermore, it is highly offensive to equate being gay with being a pedophile or a necrophile. We don't appreciate that line of argument.

Secondly, the same thing is true with the healthcare plan. If you want to make a claim that Obama's plan will cause death squads to kill old people, then you have to SHOW ME where it says that. The burden of proof is on the accuser. My proof is in the fact that this language does not exist anywhere in the bill. If you would read the legislation, instead of blindly believing these wild rumors and accusations, you would not be suffering now from all these delusions and fear-mongering. I take this issue very personally, because I've had friends die when they were denied healthcare -- so if you're going to argue against Obama's health plan, please do your research, and don't just make up lies about it.

Put another way, all of your arguments are like my claiming that the Constitution says we can jail anyone who disagrees with us, and then making you prove it doesn't say that. That would be pretty ridiculous, huh? -- because if I'm making such a claim, then I should be the one who has to prove it's true.

The lives of LGBT people depends on both the hate crimes law and Obama's health plan. I would think that these are two issues we could all agree on. But if we can't all agree on them, then the least we owe each other is to be honest about them. That means that if you want to argue them here on tridd, I would ask that you at least read the legislation.

Here's an editorial by Elliot Denniston that puts this all in perspective.

Extremists Make this a Time To Fear

These are frightening times in America. A small group of extremists have reached a desperate stage and are ready to do anything to have their way.

If you think I’m talking about the Democrats, that’s even more frightening. No, I’m talking about the angry extreme fringe of the Republican Party.
The overwhelmingly white, far right conservatives are deeply frightened about what they feel they have lost in the last election. Gun sales have soared partly under the false pretense that Obama is going to take away their guns. These extremists are profoundly angry about a large Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and about a black, moderate-progressive President who has appointed a Supreme Court justice who is both female and Latina, a President who is sympathetic to gay issues and to abortion rights, a President who thus threatens some of their dearest values.

These far right conservatives have listened intently to a number of talk show hosts who have found their audiences grow as they become more extreme. The extent of idiotic claims is amazing! For instance, a Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll released days ago found that 28 percent of Republicans don’t believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States and another 30 percent are still “not sure.” That’s fewer than 50% of Republicans who believe that Obama IS a U.S. citizen! Certainly this comes from their bitterness, their self-delusion, and their being captive to a handful of extremist media personalities.

Another example: Republican congressmen and women and Republican ads have stated in various ways that the Democratic health care plan is a plan to KILL OFF OLD PEOPLE. That’s right; I have proof-read that sentence, and that’s what they are saying, from the floor of the Congress and in wide release tv ads. The health care plan, they claim, will secretly kill off old people, I suppose to help with the costs!

Recently the venerable town hall meeting system, so precious to democracy, has come under attack. Posing as spontaneous citizens, countless extremists have been organized, given their instructions, and bussed to town hall meetings held by Democratic congressmen to shout down any view that is contrary to their own. These professional, corporate-funded, Republican-directed goon squads have disrupted the American spirit of free exchange of ideas; they are anti-democratic and anti-American.

Also recently, the far right has gone one very big step further. For many months they have dropped hints of violence to the fascist Democrats. But now these hints have increased: a Republican congressman “jokes” about lynching Democratic members of Congress; Glenn Beck “jokes” about poisoning Nancy Pelosi; Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly compared the President to Hitler; signs at rallies have swastikas on them; signs with Obama’s photo have been altered to make him look like Hitler; and there are many other examples nation-wide.

The Nazi comparison is in a different category than all these other issues. When you compare a moderate-progressive President to Adolf Hitler and when you compare a Democratic Congress to Nazis, you are inciting violence since most Americans think that killing Nazi leaders would have been justified. When the Nazi comparison is made repeatedly to a group of extremists who have armed and angry psychopaths on their fringes, those fringe members will think they are being given the green light. To be blunt: I fear for the lives of our President and for members of Congress. (Remember that there have been a number of right-wing extremists who have killed “their enemies” in the last few months.) And if an assassination is attempted on one of our leaders, it will be too late for the “talking heads” to take back their words or to deny there is any connection between words and deeds.

Elliott Denniston is a retired Missouri Southern State University professor and lives north of Webb City.

Pub. in Globe, Aug. 12, 2009

Oh...ok...well, then let me get this straight: I can post a reply whenever YOU say that I can...whenever it doesn't OFFEND you. And also...if I am not a neo-socialist then I obviously CANNOT be a lesbian?? Is that correct? And then the rest of what you said spells out "I am a blind sheeple, who takes politicians’ words at face value, because they are ALWAYS honest and good people." Well, sir, let me tell you this: your comments anger me. They anger me because it is people like you who will end this nation as it is, and what I mean by that is NOT your zeal for the GLBT community, but for your blind support of the liberal propaganda. You are no better than those morons who voted for Bush. The leading socialist in America back in 1944 said,
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."-Norman Mattoon Thomas

He also went on to say, " I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the socialist party. The democrats have adopted our platform."

So...you want references...ok:
1) youtube.com search "The Obama Deception"
2) Infowars.com
3) "Rule by Secrecy" Jim Marrs
4) anything Alex Jones or William Cooper
5) History books on Nazi Germany
6) Youtube.com EndGame (one word)


You, sir, are offended TOO easily. I assure you that I am a lesbian, though I shouldn't have to. You can call me whatever you want, but you and others that think like you are like sheep being led to the slaughter. I do not support Obama and I most definitely did not support John McCain or George Bush or any other republican or democrat. I despise them all EQUALY. Perhaps you should research your own history, learn a little bit about socialism and fascism. Trust me; you think you don't have any rights right now...just wait. Pretty soon Obama will be able to do what Bush couldn't. When the swine flu breaks out, and it will, wait for them to come and FORCE you to take their vaccinations, which by the way contain mercury, formaldehyde and lots of other REALLY fun chemicals! Hey, this government that you are rooting for so advantageously....they're the ones who have actually plagued our community the most. They're the ones who invented AIDS and they're also the ones who know how to cure it. But they won't. They also know how to kill cancer, but they won't. To kill the AIDS virus in the body, one must circulate the blood out of the body and heat it up to 180 degrees, then they circulate it back into the body, and BAM! The virus is gone! Don't believe me?? There's been a patent for it...too bad that won't be covered in Obama's health care plan. Oh yeah...and cancer...did you know that cancer is caused from all of the ungodly pollutants in our wonderful vaccines. Oh yeah...real fucking fun. Don't believe me, then check out some medical journals from the years of 1994-1997. Yeah, by the way, the cure is to boil about 5lbs of marijuana down until it becomes resin, and then ingest it. And there's a patent for that as well. It's pain-free and fairly easy...unlike Chemo and radiation...but oh yeah...I forgot. Our wonderful government has deemed that marijuana has absolutely NO medicinal purposes whatsoever...and that it is illegal. So go ahead and worship Obama the same way the Republicans worshipped Bush and also the same way Germany worshipped Hitler. The only difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats are socialists and republicans are fascists. Please remember who we're trusting here...I mean...this IS the same government that started a war that has killed THOUSANDS of innocent people all for the sake of oil. And please remember this, sir...the same people and corporations that put Bush into office (financially) are the EXACT same people that put Obama into office...not mention...they are the same people that funded McCain.

Also...how can you believe a liar?? I just wonder?? Like...ok...Obama said during his campaign "No more lobbyists in Washington!"..you know...the very same thing that Bush said, and Clinton and the other Bush and Reagan, ect. BUT WOW! LOOK! THEY ALL LIED! Now that is a surprise! YAY!!! Oh, yeah...and Obama said he would do away with the warrantless tapping that the Patriot Act called for...guess what...he's extended the program! YEAH! THAT'S CONSTITUTIONAL! NOT! Sounds a lot like...oh jee...hmm...COMMUNISTS! But hey...what do I know..right? I'm just a "NON-lesbian right-winged extremist" right? Do your research before you come at me with this crap...history books are a REALLY good source.

And by the way: It is NOT up to our president or our congress to make things like Gay marriage legal or drugs illegal NATIONWIDE! That is up to the states of the union (See tenth amendment for reference). So...you calling for the federal government to do this is only expanding the governments power...which is where tyranny is born. Instead...why don't you go after gay marriage at a state level...that way we can all retain our freedoms.

I appreciate and admire your zeal, but you're missing the bigger picture on a lot of different levels. You are no better with Obama then the republicans were with Bush. Y'all are all taking EVERYTHING they say at face value. You should stop. You’ll only destroy our nation with your ignorance.

Please note, the views expressed on this site by "lesbian4liberty" or her friend, "rainbowgirl" do not express the opinions of tridd or its readers.

Look, I didn't mean to make you angry, but your sources are all just more right-wing opinions. The only proof you can show about a bill before congress is to find the part of the bill that says what you claim. And I guarantee that you're wrong in saying hate crimes legislation legalizes necrophilia or that universal healthcare authorizes death squads. These are just vicious rumors that you find on sites like those you listed above.

And by the way. Hitler was a right-wing concservative Nazi. Gandhi was a left-wing liberal socialist. Calling Obama Hitler because he wants us to all have access to healthcare is about as far off-base as you can get. Democrats didn't call Bush "Hitler" even when he was wiretapping our phones and suspending habeus corpus. In other words, if we didn't call Bush names when he was acting like Hitler, then the least you could do is refrain from calling Obama names when he's acting like Gandhi.

As an aside, if you went to any of the sources your're citing and asked them their opinions on gay people, you'd get an earful of hate. These politics you're espousing (which are really just rumor and innuendo) are inextricably linked with anti-gay politics.

Wow! Where in the world have you been living? I can recall all kinds of names for Bush, and you had better believe that I had a few names for him as well. This is NOT a left/right issue, this is a freedom/tyranny issue. You don't know your history...if you did, you would be able to see that this is going to lead us right back to the time of lords and serfs...and I guarantee you WE the people will NOT be the lords. The reason why our founding fathers set up our system of government the way that they did (a small central government) was so that we wouldn't be oppressed by our leaders. Even if Obama is this great and honest guy (which he's not) the others that come after him would abuse the power that he put in place. Why don't you people understand that?!?!!?

About the links that I posted before, what on earth makes you think that they are anti-gay? What? Because they share the same political beliefs that I do? Does that mean that EVERY single person that believes that the government is corrupt are anti-gay? The movie "EndGame" is about Bush and the movie "The Obama Deception" is about well, Obama. Not everything revolves gay politics.

On page 425 and 445 of the health care bill it calls for government social workers to go and speak with the elderly and they will have the decision to have them killed or not. It is mandatory that ALL senior citizens with pre-exisiting conditions go through "end of life counseling". Is that proof enough for you?? If you don't believe me go and check it out yourself.

Have a good day.

Barney Frank, Eugenics Death Panels, and a Dining Room Table
Text size
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
August 19, 2009
It’s too bad the woman in the video below confronting Barney Frank over Obamacare didn’t come with facts instead of slinging the word “Nazi” around. The corporate media loves it when people compare Obama to Hitler and accuse the administration of Nazism. It makes it easier to dismiss the opposition as mental patients.




Frank dismisses woman criticizing Obamacare.

Lately the corporate media have spent a lot of time and energy roasting former VP candidate Sarah Palin for her comments on Obama’s proposed death panels. Palin didn’t provide a lot of detail in her Facebook entry on the subject and this provided plenty of opportunity for Democrats. The Democratic Congressional Committee exploited the controversy to raise money and Keith Olbermann called the former Alaska governor a “clear and present danger to the safety and security of this nation.”

Republicans beat a hasty retreat. Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican from Georgia, called Palin’s comments “nuts” and Rep. Jack Kingston, also from Georgia, went on Bill Maher’s HBO show and said the comment about death panels is a scare tactic.

Republicans may run away from Palin’s comment and Democrats may use it to raise money and portray opponents as rightwing nut cases, but there is something to the death panel comment. In fact, as Joseph Ashby pointed out on the American Thinker website on August 15, the idea predates Obama’s health care bill and is basically a done deal.

“H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle,” writes Ashby.

You won’t hear the foul-mouth Maher or the Democrat attack dog Olbermann mention the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Its purpose is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make, according to Ashby. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept “hopeless diagnoses.”

Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, has something to say about this council.

“Daschle says health-care reform ‘will not be pain free.’ Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them,” she writes.


A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Daschle prescribed his draconian measures in a 2008 book entitled “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” Daschle, who was passed over to head the Health and Human Services Department and suffers from a trait common to minions of the global and corporate elite — he “failed” to pay $128,000 in taxes — said doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners,” that is to say they should become government bureaucrats.

The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is dominated by “Doctor Death,” Ezekiel Emanuel. “Dr. Emanuel’s views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old,” writes Ashby.

Emanuel is Obama’s chief adviser on healthcare and brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He is a trained oncologist and a “bioethicist,” that is to say a eugenicist. He is also a communitarian (newspeak for communism) and a fellow at the nonprofit bioethics research institute, The Hastings Center, a Rockefeller operation. Theodore Dobzhansky, the founding director of the Hastings Center, was chairman of the American Eugenics Society. Daniel Callahan, founder of the organization, was a director of the Eugenics Society.

Eugenics is the template for Obamacare, never mind what Maher and Olbermann say about those kooky conservatives. Peter Orszag, currently the White House Budget Director, sent his deputy Philip Ellis to Hastings last May to assure the Center that “comparative effectiveness” would be the criterion for an Obama Administration’s attack on respect for human life.

“Comparative effectiveness” indeed means grandma will get a ticket to ride to Valhalla if the communitarian eugenicist Emanuel and his fellows have their way.

Obama’s Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, writes Ashby, will figure prominently in the Obamacare scheme. “How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as ‘quality-adjusted life years.’ Meaning, the government decides whether a person’s life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual’s duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.”




Alex Jones details Rockefeller support for eugenics in Endgame.

It’s too bad the woman confronting Frank didn’t quote Obama himself, who suggested a woman with heart disease “should take a painkiller” instead of getting a pacemaker. During the same health care infomercial, Obama said “end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make,” in other words decisions the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research — stacked with eugenicists tutored by the Rockefellers — will make.

The opposition to Obamacare should get an education on what the government has in mind for the elderly and disabled — eugenics, plain and simple. No smart aleck retorts by the “progressive” Bill Maher or MSNBC’s prized liberal attack dog Keith Olbermann will disguise this fact.

So-called liberals like to pretend Obama is one of them when in fact he is a front man for a ruling elite determined to realize their Malthusian goal of ultimately eliminating the poor and those they deem racially and intellectually inferior. It was David Rockefeller’s father who exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, an effort that ultimately resulted in the scientific extermination of millions of people in Europe.

“In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name,” notes Dr. Len Horowitz. “With support from the Rockefellers, the Eugenics Society (England) set up a sub-committee called the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which for 12 years had no other address than the Eugenics Society.”

It is no mistake the folks calling the shots on Obamacare are connected to the American Eugenics Society. It’s all part of the plan to cull the useless eaters and realize the goal stamped on the Georgia Guidestones — reduce world population to 500 million.

One wonders if Barney Frank, presented with the facts, would dismiss the argument and claim he is talking to a dining room table.

The views expressed above by "lesbian4liberty" and "rainbowgirl" do not express the opinions of tridd or its readers.