June 28, 2008
As Buffy says, we hope to see everyone who can get to San Francisco this weekend. Come up and introduce yourself; we’ll both be in our “Can I Vote on Your Marriage Now?” T-shirts. (We’ll give you a free button — offer good while they last!). Late Sunday afternoon, you can find us somewhere near the “marriage tent” at the Civic Center, volunteering for Equality for All. And we’ll be taking lots of pictures and video, which I plan to post to YouTube.
Other last-minute notes:
As usual, I have a backlog of comments that I won’t have time to answer this weekend (but thank you especially, BJ & Greg!).
I mentioned that that jackass John McCain endorsed the California Hate Amendment — what I didn’t mention was that he did it just a day after it was confirmed that he had had a “series of productive meetings” with the Log Cabin Republicans. LCR hasn’t answered my request for a comment yet (I have to give them an opportunity; these are the gay Republicans who didn’t think McCain was going to make marriage equality an issue… again — when will they ever learn?), so whether or not I hear from them by Monday, I’ll blog about this some more after the weekend.
Speaking of the Hate Amendment, the California secretary of state has finally numbered the propositions (from 1 to 11) that will be on the ballot in November, and the anti-marriage amendment is number 8. Excellent choice — “eight” rhymes with “hate.”
As I’ve been waiting impatiently for it to be numbered, I stayed up way too late last night designing some new anti-amendment T-shirts and other gear for the Lavender Liberal store. Take a look:
So, have a fun weekend, everyone — and see if you catch The Buff and me on news coverage of SF Pride. If they do find us camera-worthy, hopefully it’ll be because we’re just so gosh-darned cute.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
California,
Election 2008,
Events,
John McCain,
Marriage Equality,
Proposition 8,
Radical Religious Right,
Republicans
June 27, 2008
We won’t quote AP, but we’ll give you the bad news: The anti-gay crusaders managed to put the Arizona anti-gay marriage amendment to a second vote — after it was already defeated once just days ago — and this time they got it passed.
That means Arizona voters will be forced to vote on a constitutional ban on marriage equality for the second time in two years.
What drives these haters to keep coming at us like cockroaches out of the woodwork? How can people who claim to follow Jesus devote their lives to making our lives miserable? Where do these little tin fascists come from? What rock did they ooze out from under?
Well, if this garbage passes in November, Buffy and I will have taken our last vacation in Arizona.
Believe it: To drive cross-country, we went some 500 miles out of our way to avoid the worst hate-state of them all: Virginia — so the haters wouldn’t even get gas money out of us.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Election 2008,
Marriage Equality,
Radical Religious Right
Alex Blaze reported on Bolthouse Farms at Bilerico on June 5, 2008:
About Bolthouse Farms
William Bolthouse has just donated $100,000 dollars to the ballot initiative to amend California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He owns 43% of Bolthouse Farms, a company famous for its juice.
A couple of blogs have mentioned this before, but, really, it’s just par for the course for Bolthouse juice. Since 2000, much of that money from the juice has gone to fund fundamentalist, homophobic, and right wing operations.
Back in 2000, he donated $2000 to Bush’s presidential campaign and $1000 to GWB’s campaign in 2004.
He also donated $11,500 to Gary Bauer’s Campaign for Working Families in 2000 and $1000 to that organization in 2007. The PAC was designed to promote “traditional families in the political arena” through electing conservative candidates and financially supporting “pro-family ballot initiatives.”
In fact, William Bolthouse sees his business as a “platform for ministry.” So much so that he set up a foundation as a form of tithing the money he and his family made from the juice business.
The Bolthouse Foundation is also a major donor to the Alliance Defense Fund, a group of homophobic lawyers that try to get fundamentalism and homophobia through the courts. …
Plenty more at the link, including the Bolthouse Foundation’s mission statement, which has been altered (surprise, surprise!) since Blaze first wrote about it earlier this month.
Bolthouse’s mission statement before:
“The Bolthouse Foundation is a private family foundation funded by some of the former owners of Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc.
“The purpose of The Bolthouse Foundation is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by supporting charitable and religious organizations whose ministry, goals, and operating principles are consistent with evangelical Christianity as described in The Bolthouse Foundation Statement of Faith.
“This Website is designed to provide information to qualified organizations interested in submitting a Grant Inquiry on an unsolicited basis.”
(Read archived Statement of Faith)
Bolthouse’s mission statement today:
” The purpose of The Bolthouse Foundation is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by supporting charitable and religious organizations whose ministry, goals, and operating principles are consistent with evangelical Christianity as described in The Bolthouse Foundation Statement of Faith.
“Mr. and Mrs. William J. Bolthouse sold their interest in Wm. Bolthouse Farms in late 2005, and since then The Bolthouse Foundation has reflected their giving decisions exclusively. The Bolthouse Foundation is a separate entity from Bolthouse Farms, and all funding decisions by The Bolthouse Foundation are made solely by the Foundation. No members of The Bolthouse Foundation have a financial interest in Bolthouse Farms, and The Bolthouse Foundation receives neither financial support nor benefits from the profits of Bolthouse Farms.
“This Website is designed to provide information to qualified organizations interested in submitting a Grant Inquiry on an unsolicited basis.”
Talk about trying to cover your butt, eh?
The same basic message was received in response to an email to Bolthouse Farms.
Now that you have the backstory, here’s Alex’s update today:
Update: Bolthouse Farms and the
Bolthouse Foundation are connected
…I found quite a bit of history on William Bolthouse, with donations to extreme right-wing organizations dating back all the way to at least 2000 when he was still in charge of the juice company and had a large stake in it. I also found out that the Bolthouse Foundation, founded and funded by the Bolthouse family, was giving to quite a few causes that I personally wouldn’t have supported or wanted to have inadvertently supported.
Quite a few of you have e-mailed the company looking for answers, and they’ve denied connection with the Bolthouse Foundation. Other people are planning direct actions around this, so I dug deeper to make sure I was correct. Let’s just say that it isn’t accurate to say that they’re completely separate organizations. …
One of the big questions that came up was How much stake does William Bolthouse currently have in the juice company?
His family owned most of the company before they were bought-out in 2005 by Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm. Before that, he had donated both to the Bush campaign and to the Campaign for Working Families, Gary Bauer’s extremist PAC. He had already co-founded the Bolthouse Foundation private charity that, in 2006, received all of its donations from the Bolthouse family. Bolthouse Foundation gave over $6 million to the National Christian Foundation, a massive conservative Christian funding arm that funnels money to smaller groups, both ministerial and political, that work to promote a fundamentalist Christian worldview.
Bolthouse Farms (the juice company), the Bolthouse Foundation (the private charity), and the National Christian Foundation all have mission statements that focus on doing God’s work as based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. …
The Bolthouse Farms spokesperson I called repeated [the assertion that “The foundation is a separate entity and is not connected to Bolthouse Farms in any way”], even though she was unsure she could provide evidence that William Bolthouse is not currently receiving money from the company. Bolthouse Farms did not provide any documentation requested by the time of publication.
The assertion that they’re not connected “in any way” is far from true, based on a couple things I found. …
Actually, based on a lot of things he found (excellent work, Alex!). Head to the link to read everything; in short:
The Foundation gets its money from William Bolthouse, and William Bolthouse’s philosophy, mission, even members of his family, still run the Company. Family members are on both sides of that aisle. The Foundation is looking out for the Company’s interests. The money that funds the Foundation originally came from the Company and may continue via other family member’s private donations that still work for the Company. They are not completely independent entities.
Blaze is being generous in his assessment here; it sounds more like the foundation and the company are joined at the hip.
So, what to do, what to do? We’re not going to advise anybody to boycott Bolthouse — we don’t want their high-priced lawyers on our butts — but, as Blaze concludes:
Personally, after finding out all of this, I’m not going to buy their products anymore. There’s just way too much baggage, and way too many alternatives on the market. What you do with the information is up to you.
We have no idea why any self-respecting LGBT person or any of our allies would continue to fund these most radical righties. All I know is that my household will never buy any of the following Bolthouse products again:
• Bolthouse 100% carrot juice
• Bolthouse 100% Valencia Orange juice
• Bolthouse Passion Fruit juice
• Vedge vegetable juice
• Bolthouse Mango Lemonade
• Bolthouse Prickly Pear Cactus Lemonade
• Bolthouse Cranberry Lemonade
Bolthouse Smoothies
• Blue Goodness
• Green Goodness
• Strawberry Banana
• Berry Boost
• C-Boost
• Perfectly Protein line, including Perfectly Protein Vanilla Chai, Pefectly Protein Mocha Cappuccino, and Perfectly Protein Hazelnut Latté
Bom Dia “antioxidant rich” juices
• Açaí Berry with Pomegranate
• Açaí Berry with Cacao
• Açaí Berry with Mangosteen
• Açaí Berry with Blueberry
• Bolthouse Yogurt Dressing
…and, of course, Bolthouse’s production staple, fresh carrots — especially after a 2006 botulism outbreak at Bolthouse put six people in the hospital, including two Canadians who were paralyzed.
Refrigeration troubles? Maybe. Or maybe it was a sign from an angry God.
Further reading:
The Legal Muscle Leading the Fight to End the Separation of Church and State
Washington Spectator, April 1, 2007
Going Courtin’: Religious Right Fat Cats Bankroll Alliance Defense Fund’s Legal Crusade
Americans United, April 3, 2007
Local carrot farmer donates $100,000 to fight gay marriage
Bakersfield.com, June 8, 2008
Action Alert from Pride at Work
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Alliance Defense Fund,
Business/Economy,
California,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Proposition 8,
Radical Religious Right,
Republicans
Backstory: Mormons Launch Full-Scale Attack on Marriage Equality (Like They Have Room to Talk?), June 24, 2008
From today’s San Francisco Chronicle:
Editor - I see once again the Church of Latter-Day Saints is involving itself in California politics (”Mormons urged to back ban,” June 25). They just don’t get it that it’s God who creates some people gay. It’s too bad they don’t believe in the Bible. If they did, they would have to follow the admonishment, “Judge not that ye be not judged.”
DAVE WILCOX
Walnut Creek
Editor - In your article about the Mormon Church openly backing the initiative to ban gays from marriage, both from the pulpit and by raising funds to make anti-gay ads etc., it mentioned that such activities by the church do not run afoul of the “church in politics” rules of the IRS.
So this means that those who are for the initiative can organize and fund their position with pre-tax dollars while those of us who are against the initiative must spend after-tax dollars to defend ourselves? Wow! This sounds like something Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe would think up! Well, but then they both claim God’s blessings.
TED HAX
Woodside
Editor - I really do not understand why some people, and now the Mormon Church officially, want to impose their perception of civil marriage onto all of society. I understood the history of this country was based on escaping dictatorial state-run churches and governments.
It is un-American to impose by law the beliefs of a church upon everyone in the state. Civil marriage is a civil issue, a civil right. As I understand our recent state Supreme Court ruling, religious practice is not affected. The court is not directing any faith to change or amend its practice or belief in marriage.
Our world needs more loving marriages and fewer broken homes and much less promiscuity. These seem like worthy social goals to me. Churches should stay out of civil matters which do not affect them or their members.
DOUG SIBLEY
Martinez
Read some 300 more comments here:
Why is a church involved in politics? Their tax exempt status should be revoked.
. . .
Bigots.
. . .
Institutionalized racism until 1978. Institutionalized bigotry, still.
. . .
Their position is wrong in so many ways, but it’s really kind of sad to see people living in such irrational, unsubstantiated fear. You’d think these people lived in T. H. White’s ant colony in The Once And Future King, where “everything not forbidden is compulsory”, and therefore the ability to marry either a man or a woman will put their coreligionists in an intractable pickle. I have yet to hear anybody offer a scintilla of evidence that allowing gays to marry will have even the slightest effect on the rate or success of straight marriages.
. . .
Have you noticed that opposition to same-sex marriage is EXCLUSIVELY grounded in religion? Think about it … there is NO secular opposition to same-sex marriage.
. . .
Some things are too important to be left up to majority rule, namely the protection of minority rights. A christian church should realize this.
. . .
Whatever you folks want to do in Zion (Utah) is your business. California is off limits.
. . .
Forget Al Qaeda, we’ve got terrorists in our own backyard that want to take away our freedoms - they’re called the Catholic and Mormon churches. Please don’t let these zealots attack America’s freedoms - do not give money to Mormon or Catholic organizations!!
. . .
Organizations the size of the LDS (Mormons) and the Catholic Church are NOT non-profit, along with a whole host of others. You should see some of the places of worship built in California within the past 20 years. These organizations know how to make money. They are either entitled to their political agendas or non-profit status, but not both.
. . .
If you’re Mormon, it wasn’t that long ago in human history that God Himself redefined marriage to be between only two people (and of course it was only 30 years ago that God decided it would be okay for black men to be elders in the church, just like every white man is by default). So my thinking is, the Mormon God is on a dialup connection and he’s just got a big backlog of emails to send down to the latest Prophet. Were I the Prophet or one of his followers, I wouldn’t be quite so hasty to lock down a concrete definition of marriage again.
. . .
This is about what I would expect from the Church of Later Day Saints. They are always alarmed when it comes to being criticized about their “cult like ways”, their legacy of polygamy, or their past of institutionalized racism. But the truth is, despite their missionary work abroad - their mindset is very provincial at best, and quite frankly - vert out of step with modern western culture. This is why Mitt Romney lost his bid for the presidency, And why he will never get there. Most people do not trust the Mormons
. . .
ahh yes, the Mormon church.. that bastion of morality and believers in the sanctity of plural marriage. one man, several women.
. . .
And this from a cult that not too long ago allowed multiple wives. But if it comes to money, they look the other way - they’ll gladly take 10% of each cult members salary but the greatest hipocrisy is thier interests in Las Vegas.
. . .
Mormons see gay marriage as morally wrong . The Mormon religion was founded by practicing Poligimy. But to them marrying their 13 year girls to a 50 year old man is ok even without her consent in certain sects.. And with a history of poligimy this cult religion has no room to tell anyone how to live.
. . .
Oh great. The descendants of Brigham Young’s 55 wives will now lecture on the subject of marriage morality. Lovely.
. . .
Lol! The Mormon church has “progressed” from polygamy, to racial bigotry, and now to “defenders of marriage. Defending it from WHAT I have yet to hear one person explain to me. Perfect example of the carpet-bagging Christian Taliban trying to force others to their own dubious moral code. Religious organizations have no right to foist their dogma onto to others or into law. Period. This is not a theocracy.
. . .
What the church is advocating is a violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They are perfectly within their rights to define what a religious marriage is in their church, and they can restrict it to skew-eyed people born on the ides of March for all of me; I am not a Mormon and care not a whit for their rules so long as they do not demand that I live by them. When they demand that their followers establish their religious definition of marriage in our secular republic, though, they cross the line. Jefferson had things right centuries ago when he penned a religious freedom statute that kept church and state separate. The churches that are trampling on that line now need to be vigorously prosecuted until they start living up to that expectation once again.
. . .
I remember the strong and organized opposition the Mormon church had in the ’70s to the equal rights amendment to the US Constitution. Their arguments against it were reactionary and unfounded, e.g., “if it passes, people will be forced to use unisex public restrooms.” (The horror!) That amendment did not pass, and historians usually site the Mormon church’s highly organized efforts as a large factor in its defeat. However, while the church’s Utah leadership is staunchly conservative and unyielding in its sweeping condemnation of homosexuality, the California members, especially in the Bay Area, are a little more willing to take a hands off approach when it comes to personal matters, even if they are reluctant to admit that publically. I am hopeful that in the privacy of the voting booth many California Mormons will vote their conscience instead of blindly following this Utah mandate.
. . .
Much more at the link.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
California,
Election 2008,
Homophobia,
LDS/Mormons,
Marriage Equality,
Polygamy & Polyamory,
Proposition 8,
Radical Religious Right
London, UK, June 27, 2008 — [OUT NOW] — A new travel company poster campaign launched today in London’s Underground network is set to smash through the supposed insult value of “so gay”, by reclaiming the term as part of an advertising slogan.
In a week where consumer brand Heinz pulled an ad in the UK they feared might be “too gay”, the new “So Gay” campaign for leading gay specialist travel company Amro Worldwide deliberately sets out to turn the phrase on its head.
The campaign, designed by leading gay marketing agency Out Now is the largest gay travel advertising campaign to use mainstream media ever seen in the UK. More than 2 million people will view the campaign starting from today.
The new campaign equates being “so gay” with a travel destination really being “so good” — as seen from a gay and lesbian perspective.
According to the CEO of Amro Worldwide, Andrew Roberts, the campaign has two very important messages it seeks to communicate.
“Clearly we want the many thousands of gays and lesbians travelling to London Pride next month to know that Amro is a travel company with hand picked travel options designed especially for the gay travel market,” says Mr Roberts. “We also wanted to send a clear message to everyone who sees this campaign that it is long past time that ’so gay’ should be used as a negative phrase of disapproval. From where we sit, and for all our many customers, being described as ’so gay’ is not a negative thing at all. We think it is just great to be so gay.”
So too it seems do many of the leading tourism destination marketing offices of the United States.
Amro’s “So Gay” campaign has received the funding and support of six leading US gay travel destinations: Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas, New Orleans, South Carolina and Washington, DC.
The ‘So Gay’ advertising campaign was created for Amro by specialist gay marketing agency, Out Now.
Out Now’s CEO, Ian Johnson said: “For all people seeing this campaign it is important to know that using ’so gay’ as a putdown is far from clever in the eyes of lesbian and gay people. We wanted to reclaim that for the gay community. It is really about standing up and saying: You say: ‘So gay’? Then I say: ‘So what!’”
“In a week where Heinz lost its gay marketing mojo, we are very proud to bring the gayest ever mainstream media advertising campaign to London Underground,” Johnson added.
According to Kirsty Dillury, spokesperson for South Carolina Tourism — the new “So Gay” campaign is an important one.
“South Carolina has a lot to offer gay travellers, and we think that people may be surprised to see our destination reaching out to the gay market,” said Ms Dillury. “We are delighted to be involved with the ‘So Gay’ campaign in particular as it sends a powerful positive message to everyone that there is nothing wrong at all with a destination being described as ’so gay’. For our gay visitors it is actually quite wonderful for them to discover just how much South Carolina has to offer — from stunning plantation homes to miles of wide sandy beaches.”
Roberts added: “To be gay in the UK in 2008 is far from insulting. It is significant, it is visible and it is now mainstream. That is why we chose to run this particular campaign in underground stations rather than in gay media. All consumers need to know that being ’so gay’ is now ’so okay.”
Carlos Kytka, European Ambassador of the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association agreed. “As an active member of the IGLTA, Amro has already proved itself to be at the forefront of gay travel,” Kytka said. “All our research shows that gay people appreciate being made to feel welcome above all else. This campaign breaks new ground by using mainstream media to send the message that these destinations clearly embrace their gay visitors.”
Lotte Jeffs, Travel Editor for Europe’s leading lesbian media title DIVA praised the new campaign. “I think it’s great that leading US travel destinations have bought into Amro Worldwide’s idea of reclaiming ’so gay’ and equating it with a positive message in their latest ad campaign,” said Jeffs. “Not only will it make gay and lesbian travellers feel like these US cities want our custom and our kudos — London’s commuters will be forced to think twice before calling something ’so gay’ again.”
The Amro Worldwide “So Gay” poster campaign runs on escalators in Leicester Square, and in elevators at Covent Garden London Underground stations, from June 27 until July 12, 2008.
Out Now Consulting is a leading global gay marketing specialist agency, founded in 1992. Clients include Barclays, IBM, Toyota, Citibank, German National Tourist Office, Visit Britain, Lufthansa and Time Inc. Magazines. Out Now recently won the “Outstanding Interactive” category in New York at the “Images in Advertising” awards for an online campaign for their client Lufthansa.
Amro Worldwide has carved a leading edge niche in the specialist expertise of gay travel during the past seven years. Amro is ATOL bonded, and offers clients the flexibility to order up their next holiday online with Amro Collection — or take advantage of the extensive knowledge of Amro’s personal travel consultants via the Amro A La Carte service. Amro management has personally stayed with every property they sell, giving rise to their corporate motto: Gay Travel — Tried, and Trusted.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Business/Economy,
Press Releases,
Travel,
United Kingdom & N.I.,
United States
“Mmm, George, you’re wearing Le Gay
Basheur … You drive me wild with desire!”
|
…does this answer your question?
McCain seeks to reassure conservatives in Ohio
CINCINNATI — Sen. John McCain, who has struggled to win the trust of evangelical voters, met privately Thursday in Ohio with several influential social conservatives who have been critical of him — and impressed them, while telling them only some of what they wanted to hear.
McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told the small assembly that he was open to learning more about their opposition to embryonic stem cell research despite his past disagreements with them on the issue.
And, according to participants, he indicated that he would take seriously their requests that he choose an anti-abortion running mate and would talk more openly about his opposition to gay marriage — a pledge he carried out later in the day by endorsing a ballot measure in California to ban gay marriage.
“It was obvious there were a lot of changed hearts in the room,” said Phil Burress, who led Ohio’s anti-gay-marriage ballot measure in 2004. “We realized that he’s with us on the majority of the issues we care about.” …
Well, Dobson, and all you other gay-loathing wingnuts, is McCain conservative — and hateful — enough for you now?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Election 2008,
Homophobia,
John McCain,
Marriage Equality,
Radical Religious Right
June 26, 2008
Notes the always-terse Capitol Hill Alert:
The November 4 election is still months away, but proponents of the initiative to constitutionally ban gay marriages aren’t waiting to trot out the Big Guns in their fundraising efforts.
In an e-mailed pitch from the California edition of the National Organization for Marriage entitled “Who Cares More? Gay marriage advocates vs. people of God,” executive director Brian S. Brown suggests that the only way opponents to the ban can defeat it is by working harder than proponents.
“Can we go and face God and tell him, ‘I had more important things to do than defend your sacred institution of marriage?’” Brown asks, just before asking recipients to not only write the group a check, but also get five friends to do the same. …
Hey, Brownie, heckuva job: When you’re dead, your first worry is going to be whether or not you did enough to prevent my marital happiness, over and above trying to save your withered, blackened, hate-filled excuse for a soul from the fiery pit?
Whatever, Brownie — but if you don’t want to send God into gales of laughter just before He sends you into Satan’s maw, you might want to reconsider asking Him about His “sacred institution of marriage.” What, are you saying God is married? Who’s He married to? Even us Catholics never thought He was actually married to, like, The Blessed Virgin! Are you saying God has sex, too? Man, I’m a freakin’ agnostic, and I find that blasphemous!
Word to the wise, Brownie: There are “more important things to do” than farking around in other people’s lives — like, why don’t you make your life’s goal the eradication of poverty, or sickness? Oops, silly me, you can’t do that — that would be Christ-like. And you’re about as Christ-like as Anton LaVey.
Oh, and, Brownie? Re “the only way opponents to the ban can defeat it is by working harder than proponents” — here’s a little painful truth for you, Little Guns: We are working harder than you. Trust me — we are.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
California,
Election 2008,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Proposition 8,
Radical Religious Right,
Random Stupidity
Kate Clinton:
While [my gal pal and I] don’t have the itch to hitch, we can’t get enough of our friend’s lovely stories of all the weddings in CA. With gas at $4.65 a gallon in LA, I encourage newlyweds to locate their bridal registries at the local gas station.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Business/Economy,
California,
Celebrities,
Humor,
Marriage Equality
Per FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting):
Talk Show Host Calls for Murder
Michael Reagan says activist should be killed for treason
WASHINGTON — June 26 — Nationally syndicated conservative radio host Michael Reagan called for the murder of a political activist on June 10. Reagan, a frequent guest on cable news shows and the son of President Ronald Reagan, singled out 9/11 activist Mark Dice by name and called several times for his assassination.
(Click here to listen to a 3 minute audio clip.)
Reagan had learned that political activists had reportedly been sending letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq, advancing the theory that the U.S. government had carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. For promoting this unpopular view, the talkshow host advocated that these activists should be killed as “traitors”:
“We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”
Even more troubling was the call for violence against a specific individual:
“How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”
Reagan subsequently had Dice on his show (6/16/08) as a guest and stated, “I’m sorry for what I said.” As an explanation, Reagan offered, “Sometimes radio hosts we get fired up and angry and we say things that are actually stupid, and we make mistakes.”
Reagan’s “mistakes,” unfortunately, have repeatedly involved advocating murder to his audience. On August 15, 2006, Reagan called for violently killing babies who were reportedly being named for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah:
“Naming their children ‘Hezbollah.’ You know what I’d get ‘em for a first birthday? I’d put a grenade up their butts and light it. Happy birthday, baby. Bye bye.”
In response to a caller who pointed out that children are not responsible for the names they are given, Reagan repeatedly asserted, “So what’s wrong with killing the mothers and the babies?”
On December 5, 2005, Reagan said Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean “should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq War.” (Watch clip on the Media Matters website) This was in response to Dean’s statement (WOAI-AM, 12/5/05) that “the idea that we’re going to win this war is just plain wrong.”
Reagan’s distributor, Radio America, also distributes the G. Gordon Liddy Show. Liddy, a former Nixon aide sent to prison for the Watergate break-in, also has a history of calling for violence over the airwaves, repeatedly advocating that listeners shoot federal law enforcement officials in the head. For example, on August 26, 1994, Liddy told his listeners:
“Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests…. They’ve got a big target on there, ATF. Don’t shoot at that, because they’ve got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots…. Kill the sons of bitches.”
Needless to say, calls for violence against those one disagrees with are dangerous and corrosive to the public discussion. A responsible distributor has rules against such on-air death threats — and consequences when such rules are violated.
ACTION:
Ask Radio America to explain its policies regarding calls for violence on its nationally syndicated programming. Does the company really permit its hosts to call for murder on the air?
Reagan’s show is broadcast on “more than 150 stations,” according to Radio America. If the show broadcasts near where you live, contact the local station management and ask them to stop broadcasting death threats on your local public airwaves.
CONTACT:
Radio America President Jim Roberts
703-302-1000 ext 215.
Email: jroberts@radioamerica.org
Sapph says: Why aren’t these people behind bars? Why are they allowed out on the streets, and on the air? Oh, and, by the way — while this is a minor issue compared to calls for murder, the question is valid: Is there anyone left (looking in Barack Obama’s direction) who still doesn’t understand the need for the Fairness Doctrine?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Filed under:
Barack Obama,
Hate Speech,
Homeland Insecurity,
Howard Dean,
Israel-Palestine,
Media,
Press Releases,
Radical Religious Right,
Republicans,
September 11
I’ll resist the strong temptation to hit the bruised and bleeding Obama supporters with another “I told you so,” and just wish them a speedy recovery as they come to grips to what the rest of us have been saying all along:
Barack Obama is not a liberal. Barack Obama has never been a liberal.
It’s been a tough week for the Obama faithful, as The Anointed One continues to expose his own right-of-center positions (which, somehow, curiously, his most dedicated followers missed the first time around).
Before we hit anybody square between the eyes with Obama’s latest decidedly un-liberal position, let’s review where Obama stands on some make-or-break, litmus-test issues:
Pro-NAFTA
If You’re An Obama Supporter… / If You’re A Clinton Supporter… Part 2
February 24, 2008
Anti-Impeachment
If You’re An Obama Supporter… / If You’re A Clinton Supporter… Part 2
February 24, 2008
Pro-Death Penalty
Death Penalty for Child Rape: Between Barack and a Hard Place
June 26, 2008
Anti-Marriage Equality
Obama Won’t Budge on Marriage Equality
October 31, 2007
Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT community
March 1, 2008
Meanwhile, Barack Obama Reiterates Opposition to Gay Equality, Sputters Meaningless Gobbledygook in Pennsylvania
April 21, 2008
My Questions for Barack Obama’s Conference Call
June 6, 2008
James Dobson’s Attack on Barack Obama: Transcript and Rebuttal (Or: Never Let It Be Said We Never Defended Barack Obama)
June 25, 2008
Anti-Church-State Separation
Obama’s Lack of Full LGBT Support Isn’t the Only Worrisome Thing
August 9, 2007
Obama and Reagan, Sitting in a Tree… (Obama Supporters: Had Enough Yet?)
January 18, 2008
James Dobson’s Attack on Barack Obama: Transcript and Rebuttal (Or: Never Let It Be Said We Never Defended Barack Obama)
June 25, 2008
Pro-FISA
Dear Obama Supporters: We told you so.
June 21, 2008
Anti-Public Campaigning Financing (for himself, anyway)
It Must Be Easter…
June 19, 2008
Pro-War Posturing Against Pakistan
Obama’s Lack of Full LGBT Support Isn’t the Only Worrisome Thing
August 9, 2007
All Over the Map on Iran
Obama’s Lack of Full LGBT Support Isn’t the Only Worrisome Thing
August 9, 2007
Barack Obama’s Foreign and Domestic Policies Demystified: Homophobes Are Iran, and Homos Are Hamas
April 17, 2008
Anti-Marijuana Decriminalization
Barack Obama’s Flip-Flop-Flip-Flop on Marijuana: Multiple Brain Farts, or Just Lying?
February 3, 2008
Barack Obama’s Marijuana-Go-Round Explained: He Didn’t Know What “Decriminalization” Meant
March 17, 2008
Anti-Single-Payer Healthcare— Er, Maybe Pro…
Barack Obama Short-Term Memory Theatre (P3WNED on Single-Payer Healthcare)
January 23, 2008
Reagan Democrat?
Obama and Reagan, Sitting in a Tree… (Obama Supporters: Had Enough Yet?)
January 18, 2008
No Position At All
Obama: The No-Show Candidate
November 3, 2007
Old-School, Chicago-Style Politics As Usual
Pork-Barrel Spending, Billjacking, and Strong-Arm Tactics: How Barack Obama Got Where He Is Today
March 5, 2008
Charles Lipson on Obama’s “Four Stumps in the Water”
March 31, 2008
Obama supporters, how do you justify Barry’s Blackwell-EKI-Killerspin wheeling and dealing?
April 27, 2008
OK, so what did Obama do now?
He came out against the Fairness Doctrine, that’s what.
I’m going to assume that real progressives know what the Fairness Doctrine is was, why it was A Very Good Thing Indeed, and why we need it back so badly — but for anyone coming late to the game, here’s a brief rundown from Wikipedia:
The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been qu
