Congressman to threaten DADT repeal after the fact?

Some members of the religious right just can't deal with the fact that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed.

One such person is Cliff Kincaid, president of America's Survival and editor of Accuracy in Media. According to an interview today with the phony news service, One News Now,  he said:

"The secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs, and the president have to certify to Congress that the repeal will not interfere with or hurt military readiness," he notes. "And that's going to be very, very hard for them to do."

Kincaid has a long history of distorting the lives of lgbts. Last year his group,  America's Survival, put out a video claiming that gays serving openly in the military will lead to an increase in diseases like AIDS. The video was so offensive that it was removed from youtube.

And even earlier than that, his other group,  AIM,  was forced to retract a story on its web page which inaccurately accused Obama appointee Kevin Jennings of being a pedophile.

And Kincaid is probably one of the only few people in this country who openly defends Uganda's anti-gay bill including the part about the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."

In today's interview with One News Now, Kincaid also made the following claim:

Jack McKeon (R-California), the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, will soon hold hearings that will make it difficult for Obama and the Pentagon to certify that allowing homosexuals to flaunt their lifestyle in the military will bring no harm to cohesion within the armed forces.

So is Kincaid saying that even after the repeal has passed, some members of Congress are going to make an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings?

Interesting.

From what I understand, the story got McKeon's name wrong. His name is Buck McKeon, not Jack. I have been looking to see if I could find any statements by McKeon that vouches for what Kincaid claimed and so far I couldn't find any.

But I will definitely keep you posted if I do.

Rabid homophobe claiming that he will tone down rhetoric and other Wednesday midday news briefs

Video: The courage to stand against Nazis, Gulags, and -- gay equality?! - What did Ronald Reagan say - there they go again!

Shift in mission for religious firebrand - Speaking of my morning post, homophobe Scott Lively (author of The Pink Swastika) is claiming that he will now tone down his rhetoric and focus on helping the downtrodden, i.e. homeless people, drug addicts, and alcoholics. I will believe it when I see it. But if you are serious, Lively, might I suggest you discover how many of those folks are lgbts who became homeless, drug addicts, and alcoholics because of your rhetoric.

Right Wing Boycott Movement Links CPAC to the Muslim Brotherhood - Linking homophobia to Islamophobia? You just know that was a next step.

NC:Mecklenburg equality resolution passes unanimously; debate, condemnation of Bill James' remarks - Bill James, the infamous homophobe in North Carolina finally gets smacked down, at least partly. Hey, I am not complaining.

And finally, I received a comment on this morning's post regarding The Pink Swastika from someone in Germany. I was so pleased with it that I wanted to share it not only on that post, but this one as well:

I live in germany, and the only ones who say that Hitler was gay are the same type of idiots with conspiracy theories as the author of said book. He was married to Eva Braun (admittedly for a short time).

While there where probably some gays in the NSDAP (like there are in the catholic church or the republican party, you get my point I hope). Ernst Röhm, one of Hiler's close f, that is not what made theme "extreme". Ernst Röhm, one of Hitler's friends, was in fact gay. Hilter denied these rumors for as long as Röhm was useful to him, and then had him murdered around 7.1.1934. However, the thesis that homosexuality was somehow disproportionately dominant amongst the ranks of the Nazi Party is utter bogus. That's my polite opinion

My personal opinion, with all due respect, is that anyone who argues that the Nazis were gay should take Lively's book and shove it up their ass. I don't care much if americans want to falsify their own history, it is amusing me even, but stay the hell away from europe. If your politicans continue with this garbage it's only a matter of time until some nutcase over here starts spreading that lunacy in hope of making money (in fact, I think that already happened, that book however was virtually rend asunder by historians in berlin).

World Net Daily trying to exploit criticism of book linking gays to the Nazi party

Last week, it was discovered that the right-wing site World Net Daily is selling a discredited book which accuses the gay community of being behind the Nazi Party in Germany during World War II.

This week not only is World Net Daily continuing to sell the book, The Pink Swastika, but it is also trying to capitalize on the recent controversy by claiming that the gay community is trying to silence the book's "findings." The site calls The Pink Swastika:

 a book that is disturbing, compelling and persuasive on its major point – that homosexuals dominated the German Nazi Party from its birth through its catastrophic demise.

It's a book that is vilified by America's "gay" activist establishment.

The Pink Swastika hasn't just been vilified by the the so-called "homosexual establishment." It's been vilified by everyone with a working brain and seen for what it is - the latest attempt by a homophobe (i.e. Scott Lively) who has carried his vendetta against the lgbt community to the corners of the globe.

The biggest criticism of  The Pink Swastika is that Lively and co-writer Ken Abrams committed several distortions in formulating their theories. According to the site Box Turtle Bulletin:

Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an associate professor at the Christian-based Grove City College, has continued to add to his online series debunking The Pink Swastika. His latest installment is probably the most devastating, where Throckmorton catches Lively lying about his source information virtually red-handed. Throckmorton was joined in this endeavor by associate professor of history, Dr. Jon David Wyneken, whose Ph.D. is in modern German history with a focus on the period between 1933 and 1955. Together, they have undertaken a methodical exposé of Lively’s shoddy scholarship.

Throckmorton has written extensively regarding the errors behind The Pink Swastika, all in devastating detail.

Religious right spokesman smears Civil Rights Movement to attack SPLC

The Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is obviously angry at the Southern Poverty Law Center over its list of anti-gay hate groups because his group didn't make the cut.

How else can one explain the lunacy of his words today?

According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Barber said the following during a radio interview:

The SPLC has grabbed the tiger by the tail and now they get the teeth. They are really marginalizing themselves outside of a very liberal echo chamber; the SPLC has really embarrassed itself and really marginalized itself in the mainstream.

Of course Barber doesn't provide proof of this claim, so his words are pure speculation and bad speculation at that. His words are as pitiful as those of a hunter facing a hungry bear while armed with a pea shooter and exclaiming, "I got you where I want you."

But hold on because Barber goes further off of the deep end later in the interview when he says the following:

And now they (SPLC) find themselves fighting against the very Christian leadership that led the Civil Rights movement, the very Christians that fought for abolition under the Republican Party, under Abraham Lincoln, now they have those very Christians in the cross-hairs.

Barber is trying to push the lie that SPLC is attacking religious right groups based on their so-called Christian opposition to homosexuality. SPLC has said that deliberately repeating distortions and negative propaganda about the lgbt community is the reason why organizations were named as anti-gay hate groups.

But Barber's comments about the Civil Rights Movement deserve more criticism.

In my readings about the Civil Rights Movement, from what I have heard in interviews with those involved in the marches, speeches, and planning, and what I have seen on video footage, I have been made aware of:

• Many people black and white, heterosexual and lgbt, male and female marching, singing, and basically risking their lives against the onslaught of mad racists,

• Speeches uniting us all in a common purpose of dignity and love,

• And especially the contributions of certain gay black man (Bayard Rustin) who played a key role in the Movement, especially the 1963 March on Washington.

But I don't remember anything about precisely coiffed, pitch perfect talking point repeating, but hypocritical, soulless denizens of the religious right leading any marches, making any speeches, or even shaking hands with those who marched or risked their lives.

However I do remember many veterans of the Civil Rights Movement from Coretta Scott King, Julian Bond, and John Lewis standing up for the rights of lgbts.

And I do remember that in April of last year, Barber accused Lewis of lying regarding the racist behavior of tea party members when Congress was working to pass the health care bill.

Lastly, I also remember what Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition (another organization designated as an anti-gay hate group by SPLC) said in 2007 about Lewis defending lgbts:

“Rep. Lewis is a member of the Old Guard of civil rights activists who have sold out to the homosexual movement . . ."

My advice to Barber is that if he wants the Liberty Counsel to get on SPLC's hate group list,  he should keep talking about "gay sex" the way he does.

But if he does, he shouldn't be surprised if while Liberty Counsel makes the list of anti-gay hate groups, he makes a list himself - that of the "booby hatch."

Homophobic pastor pleads not guilty to conspiracy charges and other Monday midday news briefs

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination - And apparently according to him, neither do gays. The man is a nut AND a Supreme Court Justice.

Chick-fil-A Partners With Rabid Anti-Gay Group - Well that sucks. No more lemonade for me.

At Last…Proof That Celibacy Makes You Crazy - I was about to say this explains my insanity but then I read the article. I'm not THAT crazy.

Obama Had Strong Standing With Gay Community Even Before DADT Repeal: Poll - Uh oh.

Martin Ssempa, 3 Others Plead Not Guilty To Conspiracy Charges - I feel awful for saying this but wouldn't it be interesting for Ssempa to be found guilty and have to share a cell with the "booty warrior?"

Anti-gay hate group has problem with California not being forced to find a 'cure' for homosexuality

Religious right groups who have been either named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups or profiled for their usage of anti-gay propaganda are quick to whine about being "unfairly attacked."

However, as demonstrated many times on this blog, SPLC has a more than adequate point in focusing on these groups, and not simply because of their blatant attacks on the lgbt community, but also how they deliberately distort even the smallest moves of progress pertaining to the lgbt community.

An example of this is how SPLC-named anti-gay hate group, American Family Association, is describing changes to the California welfare code. Through its phony news service, One News Now, AFA put out the following:

Calif. welfare code: Homosexuality inborn

A Christian social worker is taking exception to a new California law that declares homosexuals are "born gay."

Beginning this New Year, California will implement AB 2199 and ultimately strike down the requirement on the State Department of Mental Health to conduct research on the "causes and cures of homosexuality." According to Veronica Esqueda, a renal social worker in Los Angeles, the measure will portray alternate lifestyles as acceptable and normal.

"I do think it's going to open up their comfort level, and I think it's going to make it more acceptable," she explains. "Obviously, I am one that believes that it's not an error -- you are born the way God intended you to be," she notes, adding that she believes homosexuality is a choice.

One News Now is adding details to the situation which clearly don't exist. AB 2199 does the following:

Amends existing law that requires the State Department of Mental Health to plan, conduct, and cause to be conducted scientific research into the causes and cures of sexual deviation, including deviations conducive to sex crimes against children, and the causes and cures of homosexuality, and into methods of identifying potential sex offenders. Requires the department to plan, conduct, and cause to be conducted scientific research into such crimes and identifying those who commit them.

AB 2199 only says that health officials are no longer required to seek a cure for homosexuality when dealing with clients. The law is 60 years old and antiquated. And there is no science that says homosexuality needs to be cured. AB 2199 says nothing about homosexuality being inborn.

But it does say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. This is in line with a vast majority, if not all of scientific opinion on the subject.

Rev. Eddie Long will not fight charges of sexual coercion, will try to mediate instead

This addition to the Eddie Long controversy happened last year but it is something that should be known.

Months after making a huge announcement in front of his congregation that he intends to fight charges lodged against him by four former male congregants of sexual coercion, the Rev. Eddie Long has instead chosen to mediate with his accusers to avoid going to trial.

From the Huffington Post:

With little fanfare or news coverage, the four sexual coercion lawsuits confronting Bishop Eddie Long had the first hearing recently, with both sides opting for mediation to avoid a trial.

Why no major news outlet or editorial columnist has discussed the implications of such a move is nothing less than egregious in nature. Despite the initial media crush and coverage and the incessant analysis of Bishop Long's statement on his website and "sermon," there's been nary a peep in response to the quest for mediation.

Granted, if the future mediation in February does not solve the dispute, there is a tentative trial date set for July 11, 2011. This could still end up being resolved in a courtroom.

Bishop Eddie Long agreeing to mediation of sexual coercion charges is an end-run around the universally accepted moral and ethical responsibilities of any ecumenical leader. Mediation of sexual allegation grievances is tantamount to an admission of "some" guilt, "some" form of ministerial misconduct. Innocent folk don't make deals if the claims against them are baseless and untrue. Mediation for the accused is a forfeiture of the right to ever claim innocence, and readers should be absolutely clear on this point.

At this point, it is not known why Long has agreed to mediate but it is worth mentioning that late last month, it came out that he is linked to a questionable mortgage scheme that is under investigation by federal authorities.

The controversy began in September when two young men sued Long, accusing him of coercing them into sex. Long was accused by a third man and then the controversy got huge when not only two of the men chose to do television interviews, but pictures of Long (allegedly sent to one of the men) surfaced. Then a fourth accuser came public.

The nature of the scandal is especially biting to Long because he is publicly known for not only opposing gay marriage but also homosexuality in general. In 2004, he led a march of over 25,000 opposing gay marriage and gay rights.

Hat tip to Americablog Gay.

Related post:

Eddie Long scandal - Chronology of what has happened and where we are now