Sign up for Email Updates

Posted February 8th, 2012 by Evan Hurst

The other day, I wrote about the One Million Moms’ complain-a-thon against JC Penney for hiring Ellen DeGeneres as their new spokesperson. If you’re not aware, the One Million Moms, a side project of the American Family Association hate group, is all upset because JC Penney hired the deviant pervert lesbian Ellen DeGeneres, she who is beloved by millions, to be their new spokesperson. They’re not calling for a boycott, but they sure are complaining!

Sandy Rios, wingnut, is not part of the One Million Moms, but she went on Bill O’Reilly to discuss the issue and Bill went after her, calling it a “witchhunt” and comparing their project to McCarthy-era blacklists. Dang! O’Reilly is often a blowhard, but on this issue, he nailed it.

Posted September 14th, 2010 by Wayne Besen

Saudi_Arabia_King_Abdullah_and_President_BushWeekly Column

Nearly a decade after religious extremists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our nation’s anti-terrorism policy is in shambles. America is caught in a ruinous cycle, where we simultaneously fund the very enemies we fight, while embarking on morally bankrupt, logically incoherent, economically destructive, and politically suicidal campaigns in distant lands.

George W. Bush told us we invaded Iraq to bring democracy and freedom to the region, while Barack Obama has increased troops in Afghanistan to supposedly keep the volatile area stable.

Yet, this week the Obama administration announced that it is trying to sell the repressive regime of Saudi Arabia up to $60 billion in advanced weapons, including 84 new F-15 fighter jets. How exactly is selling out our values to prop up this fundamentalist dictatorship in the interest of our long-term stability? Could we try any harder to subvert our message of democracy, sabotage human rights in the region, and undermine reformers?

Ironically, only days before the announcement of this massive arms shipment to our “ally”, a high level Saudi diplomat told NBC News that he was seeking political asylum. Ali Ahmad Asseri, the first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, claimed he feared for his life after Saudi officials discovered he was gay and had a friendship with a Jewish woman.

Is such bigotry and persecution what our weapons are defending?

Asseri, who is now in hiding, posted a letter on a Saudi website, condemning his country’s “backwardness”, as well as its decision to allow “militant imams” who have “defaced the tolerance of Islam” to take control of Saudi society.

How easily we forget that eleven of the fourteen 9-11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. At our own peril, we blithely ignore that Saudi Islamists radicalized nuclear-armed Pakistan. These Sunni extremists are still funneling money into Pakistan to build Wahabi madrassas that brainwash youth into becoming Jihadists. Saudi cash — earned by selling oil to liberal western democracies — is also responsible for the proliferation of mosques that preach hate throughout Europe.

If America really gave a damn about stopping terrorism and promoting human rights, it would invest massively in energy innovation, so we would not feel compelled to fund and arm a nation that treats women like pets, brutalizes reformers, and murders gay people.

Our current policy is insane. We turn a blind eye to international Saudi mischief, and then rely on our brave young soldiers to stop the fruits of their fanaticism in the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan. Occasionally, the violence spills over into an American or European city, and we all momentarily focus on the problem, before we get distracted and return to our gas guzzling SUVs and reality TV shows.

While the majority of Americans napped through our historic proposed weapons sale to an archaic country known as the financier of fundamentalism, most people were fixated on the “Ground Zero Mosque” spectacle, where an Imam of the moderate Sufi tradition wanted to create a community center dedicated to peaceful dialogue.  Could our nation’s attention span be any shorter or our priorities more misplaced?

America must wake up and wise up if it expects to contain religion-based terrorism.

The first thing we can do is stop making this a battle of Islam vs. Christianity. The entire fight should be recast, as extremism vs. modernity and our criticism must extend across the board to all religions. Peaceful versions of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc., should be praised and rewarded, while intolerant, militant brands of faith condemned, with no exceptions.

To succeed, we must educate ourselves on the various sects. Failing to distinguish between a moderate Imam and Osama bin Laden is as foolish as a Muslim not knowing the difference between Rev. Pat Robertson and openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson.

What matters is not the broad label of the religion, but what each branch of faith is teaching its children. If hatred, backwardness, authoritarianism are the values taught, it will lead to divisiveness and bloodshed. When love, peace, respect, and modernization are imparted, societies will be uplifted.

Of course, the largest force in undermining national security is the GOP’s embrace of the Religious Right.  After all, how can America promote its values and ask Muslim nations to separate mosque and state, when prominent American preachers and public officials are pledging to undermine separation of church and state?

Can you imagine how comforted the Taliban and Iranian mullahs must have been when they watched Glenn Beck’s recent Washington, DC rally and the theocratic calls to return America – a supposedly secular nation — to God?

It is in America’s strategic interest to promote rhetoric and policies that are aligned with our professed secular values. As long as our resources are being used to support nations that export extremism, we can’t say that we are truly in a war against terrorism. It would be more accurate to say we are at war against ourselves.

Posted August 12th, 2010 by Evan Hurst

This is a bizarre bit of TV, sure to make the Religious Right lose its collective mind:

It’s not that they’re actually supportive.  It’s full of Glenn Beck’s wingnut stuff about the country “burning down,” and Bill O’Reilly’s moralistic mewling about some bullroar or another, but here’s the key passage in O’Reilly and Beck’s intercourse [grin] on the subject, via Media Matters:

O’REILLY: But let’s take the gay marriage deal. Big ruling in California. You really didn’t cover that much, right?

BECK: Nope.

O’REILLY: Why?

BECK: Because honestly I think we have bigger fish to fry. You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever –

O’REILLY: Yeah.

BECK: — all you want.

O’REILLY: Yeah.

BECK: The country is burning down. I personally think these–

O’REILLY: But isn’t that one of the reasons because we are getting away from the traditional way we used to live into this progressive–

BECK: So let’s get back to — instead of arguing about these divisive things, let’s get back into our churches and our synagogues and–

O’REILLY: You’re not going to get people going back unless there is a reason to go back.

BECK: But here is the reason, America. Your country is burning down. I don’t think marriage, that the government actually has anything to do with -

O’REILLY: But they do have.

BECK: –what is a religious right.

O’REILLY: I know, but they do have something to do, because gay marriage is going to be a reality in this country in 10 years.

BECK: Why do they have anything to do with it?

O’REILLY: Because they choose to, and you’re not going to stop ‘em.

BECK: This is where we disagree.

O’REILLY: The Supreme Court may rule against gay marriage, very possible it would be a 5-4.

BECK: You’re willing to continue to go down the road of just accepting well that’s the way it is.

O’REILLY: I’m not accepting anything. I wrote a book about it! Don’t give me this “accepting.” Come on.

BECK: He’s so hostile.

O’REILLY: Yeah

BECK: Need a little Jesus?

O’REILLY: I have to correct you. I do. You are ignoring the profound change in the American family. In the way –

BECK: No, I’m not. No I’m not.

O’REILLY: But you are not covering it?

BECK: Because I think that the thing that needs to be covered — Bill, I believe in a symphony. If we are all playing clarinets we ain’t gonna get very far. A symphony needs to sound. I’m covering what I cover. You cover what you cover. Both of us are saying the same thing. Watch the culture.

O’REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?

BECK: A threat to the country?

O’REILLY: Yeah, it going to harm the country?

BECK: No, I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?

O’REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?

BECK: I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?

O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t. That’s interesting. Because I don’t think a lot of people understand that about you.

BECK: As long as we — as long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we –

O’REILLY: Oppose it –

BECK: — we oppose it –

O’REILLY: Right.

BECK: — but we’re not trying to kill anybody or trying to –

O’REILLY: In Sweden they have that too. OK, so gay marriage to you, not a big a threat to the nation.

Huh.  That’s bound to make Maggie Gallagher roar.

Also:  tipping point, tipping point, tipping point.

Posted June 3rd, 2010 by Evan Hurst

Because those are just the same, Bill.

What’s sad is that the average pork-rind-stained viewer of Fox News probably didn’t notice anything wrong with O’Reilly’s question.

(h/t Joe Sudbay)

Guys. You’re overthinking this. It’s just a sweet ad that seeks to include a group that hasn’t historically been portrayed that often.

Posted February 2nd, 2010 by Evan Hurst

Peter LaBarbera decided to get on the computer tonight to reprint a malformed little tirade from one Daniel Zanoza, “executive director” of some group called “Republicans for Fair Media.” Zanoza’s piece bemoans the fact that Bill O’Reilly ran a “Culture Warriors” segment, and none of the panelists supported keeping Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in place. Worse than that? Even Bill O’Reilly supported repeal! (See update below.) The hysterical, fearful mental state which led to Zanoza’s dismay also leads him to ask “Is Fox news tacking to the left” to “appease and attract more liberal viewers?”

Uh, Daniel, no.

Fox News is not tacking to the left. Your positions are just rapidly becoming so grotesque in the public eye that even Fox is beginning to realize how ill-informed and bigoted they are.* You refer to lifting DADT as a “social experiment,” the favored term of know-nothings like Elaine Donnelly, but the reality is that gays serve in the US Military already and have for years, and the institution hasn’t fallen apart. Likewise, gays serve openly in the militaries in the United Kingdom, Israel, and a host of other places, and if you’d done any research on the issue before hunting/pecking your ignorance into the perpetuity of the internet, you’d know that the Israeli military is one of the fiercest fighting forces in the world. EVEN WITH ALL THOSE HOMOS!

I guess we’re just a hell of a lot tougher than your tortured little minds would like to admit.

As I said above, when you’re losing Fox News, you might as well pack it in, because you’ve lost the war.

(By the way, the funniest line in Zanoza’s screed is where he talks about how shocked he was to hear this “liberal” stuff because Fox is supposed to be “Fair and Balanced,” which, in the wingnut mind, means never having to be confronted with ideas you disagree with/have no rational argument against. Wingnuts are such delicate creatures.)

*A turning point for that was likely Elaine Donnelly’s embarrassing testimony before Congress a while back, when Patrick Murphy tore her to pieces as others present in the room openly marveled at the insane things coming out of her mouth. Good times.

UPDATE: Jeremy pulled the transcript (something I should have done, but didn’t think about in my pre-coffee writing) and it seems that Daniel Zanoza’s account of the O’Reilly segment doesn’t even match reality. The two panelists indeed supported repeal, and O’Reilly played a bit of devil’s advocate against them, and from what I can see, pulled out some tired conservative tropes about the military not wanting openly gay people serving. (They tend to rely on a flawed, unscientific poll of Military Times readers, who are mostly older, and many are retired.) As Jeremy said, the exchange is pretty much what you would expect from O’Reilly. So Zanoza’s “the sky is falling!” hysteria, aside from being insane, was based on watching a television segment that simply didn’t happen.

Posted April 23rd, 2009

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Posted July 29th, 2008 by Wayne Besen

After a “victory” in the removal of a British mayonnaise commercial over its portrayal of a gay family, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly sat down once again with Truth Wins Out Executive Director and founder Wayne Besen to defend a recent ad for the Snickers candy bar that has received similar treatment.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video