Media's
Climatologists of Hate
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
01-12-10
When it comes to all things gay, The New York Times veers from its usual
blind dogmatism to something approaching womanish hysteria. In a January 5 editorial, The Times bashed American evangelicals Don Schmierer, Scott Lively and Caleb Lee Brundidge for legislation pending in Uganda.
“Uganda’s government, which has a shameful record of discrimination against gay men and lesbians, is now considering legislation which would impose the death sentence for homosexual behavior,” the paper editorialized.
Point of information: The legislation under consideration does not impose the death penalty, but life in prison for certain offenses. Punishable “behavior” includes rape, pedophilia and knowingly spreading AIDS, all of which are crimes in the United States, even in the era of Kevin Jennings.
According to The Times, by teaching that gays can change (a theory which it claims is “widely discredited in the United States” – by which it means, in its newsroom), the Christians “helped to feed this hatred” which supposedly led to the introduction of said legislation.
“Now the three Americans are saying they had no intention of provoking the anger that, just one month later, led to the introduction of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested,”
The Times thundered.
Two days later, a Washington Post editorial raged at the benightedness of Ugandans, rather than the hatred of the Americans.
“The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 is an ugly and ignorant piece of legislation being considered in Uganda,” the editorial sputtered. “The proposal is
barbaric. That it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of
civilized nations.” Unlike Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea and Iran – which
The Post never denounces with such vehemence. But then, trying to start World War III (in the case of Iran and North Korea) is nothing next to shamefully discriminating against gay men and lesbians.
“Contrary to the backward thinking of the Ugandan government, being gay is not a choice. But pushing homophobic laws that foment hate is.”
The Post fumed. For The Times, hate begets homophobic legislation. For
The Post, homophobic legislation foments hate. Your choice.
“Ugly and ignorant,” “barbaric,” “backward thinking” and uncivilized – nothing condescending here.
The Post should have titled its tirade – “From the Dark Continent: Ugly Ignorance and Backward Thinking Foster Barbaric Legislation.”
In yet another example of the media mindset, The Post insists “being gay is not a choice.”
The Times claims the idea that those involved in the homosexual lifestyle can change is “widely discredited.” Says who? I know, by merely by asking that question, I’m betraying my ugly ignorance, barbarism and backwardness.
Recall the search for the gay gene (the global warming theory of the ‘90s), the subject of intense scientific investigation and millions in research grants. You don’t hear much about it any more. Personally, I think the gay gene entered the witness-protection program and is living in San Francisco under an assumed identity.
Even the gay-friendly American Psychological Association has abandoned the quest. In 1998, the APA breathlessly informed us, “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
A decade later, the APA declared with equal assurance, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.” Moreover, despite “much research” on genetic, hormonal, cultural and social influences, “no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
Did the American Psychological Association help to feed the hatred that led to the introduction of the Ugandan legislation?
Speaking of which, last year, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (regarded as a source of sweetness and light when it’s attacking Israel) passed a Russian-sponsored resolution affirming “traditional values” as the basis of human rights. Since gay advocates,
The Times included, tell us that “traditional values” are code words for homophobia, is the UNHRC another climate-of-hate creator?
The media’s gay-by-nature mantra is based on this-is-so-because-we-say-it’s-so, and to question this revealed truth is ignorant, backward and barbaric. More scientific and objective than that, you can not get.
The Times sees the conservative movement as a vast conspiracy aimed at
creating multiple climates of hate that lead inexorably to all sorts of evil – while liberal rhetoric is consequence-free.
Following the death of Matthew Shepard in 1998 (when the media was merely contemptible, instead of nauseating),
on the Today Show, Katie Couric asked Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the show-tune singing Human Rights Campaign, “Do you believe this ad campaign
(gays can change) launched by some conservative groups really contributed somehow to Matthew Shepard’s death?” To everyone’s shock and utter amazement, Birch responded, “I do Katie.”
No kidding? The Family Research Council saying homosexuality isn’t innate “somehow contributed” to a couple of rednecks robbing and killing a gay college kid? And Lincoln’s assassination was inspired by the lyrics of “Dixie” and reading “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” backward.
This humbug isn’t limited to unorthodox opinions about homosexuality. In a November 14, 2008
editorial, The New York Times smeared Suffolk County, New York Executive Steve Levy, by implying his get-tough approach to illegal immigration somehow contributed to the murder of an Ecuadorian, knifed to death by teen-aged thugs.
If trying “to deputize county police to make immigration arrests and (attempting)
to rid the county workforce of employees without papers” (Times-speak for border-jumpers), weren’t enough, the barbaric Levy “parroted extremist talking points.” By “extremist talking points”
The Times means views held by most Americans.
In Newark, in 2007, three college-bound African-American teens were murdered, execution-style, by a pair of employees without papers (as
The Times would say). Could there be a connection between Newark’s status as a “sanctuary city” (a municipality that harbors illegals),
The Times’ advocacy of compassion for alien lawbreakers, and the Newark murders? Did a media-created climate of leniency set the stage for this tragedy?
On June 14, in one of his typical, rambling harangues, Frank Rich (who makes other
Times' opinion writers look like grownups who aren’t constantly drooling on their laptops) raved that the “homicide-saturated vituperation … epidemic among mini-Limbaughs” contributed to the murder of partial-birth abortionist George Tiller. To illustrate his point, Rich noted that FOX’s Bill O’Reilly called Tiller a “baby killer” prior to his death. How would you describe a doctor who kills a child when
four-fifths of its body has been delivered – a patron of the arts?
On September 11, 2009, in the town of Owosso, Michigan, Harlan James Drake shot and killed pro-life activist Jim Pouillon, because he objected to the sign Pouillon was displaying, which showed a picture of an aborted child.
Since the mainstream media rarely miss a chance to demonize pro-lifers as violence-prone, misogynistic religious zealots, is it possible
The Times and company contributed to the climate of hate in which Pouillon’s murder took place? Remember, “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”
When it comes to homosexuality, why can’t the Ugandans be more like us – so enlightened, civilized, forward-thinking and beautiful?
In America, you can lose your job for expressing a negative opinion about gay marriage. That happened last year to Peter Vadala, deputy manager of the Brookstone store at Boston’s Logan airport, when he told a lesbian co-worker that he didn’t think two women could marry in the eyes of God, after she kept pestering him about her upcoming same-sex nuptials.
In America, children are indoctrinated from kindergarten to accept sodomy. (“Heather Has Two Mommies, Several Siblings of Various Sexual Orientations, And An Aunt Who Used To Be Her Uncle.”) Parents who object to the freak show are treated like troglodytes.
In America, Obama chose a Safe Schools Czar who’s the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (Homosexual Indoctrinators R Us), who – as a school teacher – not only failed to report an instance of pedophilia, but encouraged a 15-year-old boy to continue being exploited by an adult predator. Sadly, Al Capone wasn’t available to be the president’s Safe Streets Czar.
In America, if the president has his way and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passes, it will be a crime to refuse to hire a man who wears a dress to work or one who’s had himself mutilated to assume the appearance of a woman.
In America, advocates of Judeo-Christian morality are an endangered species. In a trial on the constitutionality of a voter-approved amendment to the California constitution upholding traditional marriage, Hak-Shing William Tam asked the judge to remove his name as a litigant from court papers.
One of the original proponents of the marriage amendment (Proposition 8), Tam is officially listed as a litigant defending that state’s ban on gay marriage.
Late last week, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he feared for his life if his name remained on the filings.
The San Francisco resident disclosed that throughout the Prop. 8 campaign, he received death threats and had his property vandalized. Said Tam, “Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase.” Tam’s move was motivated in part by the judge’s order that the proceedings be videotaped for future broadcast, creating further opportunities for harassment.
On January 8, following his interview on “The Coral Ridge Hour,” my friend Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr., an African-American minister and an outspoken critic of the drive to mainstream deviancy, received a charming e-mail which read in part: “Yes, homosexuals … are now receiving protection within the law! What does this mean? It means all of you bigoted Christian Fundys ... and especially people like YOU MR so called
(sic) ‘Bishop’ Jackson …. Need to be careful and stop spreading the hate against homosexuals as you have been doing for hundreds of years
(sic.).”
The billet-doux concluded, “STOP THE HATE or you’ll have the law on your asses and you’ll have to spew your filthy hatred and your bible thumping
(sic) bigoted interpretation of 6 verses in a 5x5 CELL in a FEDERAL PRISON.”
That’s what the proponents of enlightenment, civilization and forward-thinking have in mind for all of us homophobic hate-feeders.
Ain’t love grand?
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.
