Thursday, August 16, 2012

About the Shooting at the Hate Group Office

Yesterday a guy went into the office of the Family Research Council in Chinatown and shot the security guard. As I write this, not many details are known. The guard was not killed, he works for the FRC directly and is not a contractor apparently, he subdued the shooter after being hit in the arm. The attacker was carrying some stuff from Chick Fil-A, we don't know what he was going to do with it.

The shooter, Floyd Corkins II, was a volunteer at the DC Center for the LGBT Community, and was described by colleagues as "gentle, kind, and unassuming."

All the gay advocacy groups immediately issued statements decrying violence. But you know how this is going to be used.

When somebody blows up an abortion clinic, news reports rarely use the word "terrorist," and always mention that the building was an abortion clinic. It is usually mentioned in the headline. "Somebody" blew the place up because it was an abortion clinic, the target of the attack bears the blame. But when the target is a hate group, news reports don't even tell the public what kind of organization it is, go figure. They call it a "policy center," or "conservative lobbying group." Here's how this morning's Post article started:
An armed intruder, spouting opposition to social conservatism, walked into the Washington headquarters of the Family Research Council on Wednesday and shot a security guard before the wounded guard and others wrestled him to the floor and subdued him until police arrived, authorities said. Family Research Council guard shot by gunman in D.C.
Seriously -- "spouting opposition to social conservatism?" Somehow I think that might be a high-level summary that drains the event of its content. It appears to me that we probably have a gay man coming in to kill some people who have devoted their lives to the encouragement of prejudice and discrimination against him and people like himself; I am guessing he did not mention "social conservatism."

You could read this entire Post article without discovering that the Family Research Council is designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.

There are a few media outlets that have mentioned the fact, but they do it in an amazing backward way. For instance, CBN, a Christianist site, blamed the shooting on the SPLC for labeling the FRC a hate group. It's just another instance of liberals stirring up trouble. Nobody wants to come out and say out loud what everybody knows, which is that the FRC actually does promote hatred.

We don't know all the facts here, and obviously there is going to be a lot of talk, it was a bad thing for this guy to do and he will go to prison for it. You might get tired of the insults, the denigration, the lack of respect, the arrogance, but you don't react by shooting people. There is no way anything good could have come of this kind of behavior. It does not advance the cause in any way that I can foresee, and only offers a soapbox to those who want to brand all gay and lesbian people as unhinged and dangerous in one way or another. Groups like the FRC are losing traction in this country, and it would be enough just to let them shrink to nothing on their own. It's funny to say it, but I just don't think violence is a good way to win a debate. We are certainly a violent country, both as individuals and in the international sphere, but I don't think violence changes people's minds.

I wonder how the press would play it if a black person opened fire on a Klan rally. That's all, I just wonder.

Luckily no one was seriously hurt in this incident. The security guard is a hero, he deserves that label, he did his job and stopped a killer. The Family Research Council is a hate group, they have earned that label as well. But don't look for the media to mention that fact. The story will be "Crazed queer attacks Christian organization that supports families and marriage."

I don't know how it will play out, but I am pretty sure you will not see gay people on the talk shows, explaining how frustrating it is to have groups like the Family Research Council lying about you and criticizing the most intimate personal part of yourself, the part of you that loves and cares about others, as if you are dirty and sinful. None of that justifies violence, we are not talking about that, but it is certainly a factor in understanding this crime. The FRC has attacked gays in the most evil ways for years, relentlessly, and somebody snapped. But you won't hear it that way on TV.


20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You might get tired of the insults, the denigration, the lack of respect, the arrogance, but you don't react by shooting people. There is no way anything good could have come of this kind of behavior."

Don't be so sure.

Dr. George Tiller’s clinic remains closed, despite two separate efforts to restore abortion access to Wichita. One doctor, Mila Means, even purchased Tiller’s equipment, but it remains in her basement after a struggle to find a willing landlord, and now has her hands full with an impending trial against an antiabortion extremist who threatened her life. Thousands of people, wrote Angel Dillard (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judge-Anti-abortion-activist-will-face-jury-3769476.php#ixzz23eO4HuRU), who had befriended Tiller’s murderer, “will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live. You will be checking under your car every day — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.” "With one move, (Roeder) was able ... to accomplish what we had not been able to do," Dillard told AP at the time. "So he followed his convictions and I admire that."

Kansas in general, and Wichita in particular, remain highly symbolic, dating back to the 1991 Summer of Mercy protests that roiled the city. It’s a history traced by Stephen Singular’s recent book, “The Wichita Divide: The Murder of Dr. George Tiller and the Battle Over Abortion,” for which he visited Tiller’s murderer, Scott Roeder, in jail. Singular writes that on that visit, Roeder “paused, made eye contact with me through the glass, and forcefully stated, ‘I stopped abortion in Wichita.’"

August 16, 2012 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

As chief Lanier said, the security guard is a hero. Our thoughts are with him and his family.

No one deserves to be shot at, not even FRC. LGBT people, the ongoing subject of verbal and physical assaults, know this well, and we all condemn this senseless act of violence.

The National Organization for Marriage is trying to make hay out of this, claiming that it is the result of FRC being labelled an hate group because of its opposition to same-gender marriage. They know that this is not true, that the SPLC-designated hate groups have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage, but with extreme assaults on the dignity of lgbt people (comparing same-gender relationships to bestiality, labelling gays as pedophiles, suggesting that lgbt people should be imprisoned and deported; few people with any sense would not see this as hate). Apparently for NOM, that commandment about lying doesn't apply to them.

I rolled over to the PFOX blog, just to see what they had to say; here's how PFOX headlines their link to the news story:

"Homosexual Tries to Kill Heterosexuals."

Can this be claimed as mainstream discourse?

August 16, 2012 3:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Four years ago, Barack stood on a stage at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. He accepted our party's nomination, and then told our country what he intended to do as President.

Let's think for a second about what's happened since then.

Our businesses have added 4.5 million jobs in the last 29 months, much less than needed to reduce record unemployment. The typical middle-class family has saved $3,600 in tax cuts over his first term, thanks to Congress who extended the Bush tax cuts, over Barack's objections . We passed historic health care reform, which gives the uninsured an incentive to stay uninsured, insuring that 30 million will stay uninsured (whew! that wasn't easy). The war in Iraq has ended, as it was scheduled to do by the outgoing Bush administration. It's now easier for women to bring frivolous lawsuits against employers for "equal" pay. And gay service members can no longer be denied a place in our nation's military because of randomly promiscuous homosexual activity they engage in back at the baracks.

But we've got to finish what we started. Soon we're gathering for our convention in Charlotte, where gays will never marry -- and Barack and I would like to meet you there.

Pitch in $3 and you'll be automatically entered to be our personal guest in Charlotte.

This is a pretty amazing opportunity. The campaign will fly you and a guest to Charlotte and cover your hotel for the three nights you're there. And each night, you'll get some of the best seats in the house to watch the big speeches from some of the biggest losers you'll ever have the misfortune to hear.

You'll meet Barack, and during his speech on Thursday night, I'd like you to sit with me. No one else wants to.

This is going to be an amazing event for our campaign. There is truly only one like it.

So enter for your chance to join us now -- and I hope we'll see you in Charlotte in a few weeks.

Love,

Michelle "my belle" Obama

August 17, 2012 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Leo Johnson, the building operations manager, was apparently unarmed when he disarmed the shooter. Truly a heroic act.

Tony Perkins' (of the "Family Research Council") claim that SPLC labelling FRC a hate group inspired the shooter is of course absurd. But is worth our community's and its members' examining the language and tone we use in private conversations about such groups as FRC and such characters as Perkins. We may never learn his real motivations, but I could imagine individuals with whom the shooter came in contact hyping up the language.

Words, even or especially words used in private, have an impact.

We should be mindful of such.

August 17, 2012 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robbie

I'd like to agree that it's all SPLC's fault for their hyperbole. Holding the position that certain practices are immoral is not hate nor is opposing changing the definition of marriage to acommodate partners of deviant sexual practices. And the general talk of hate and discrimination and the horrible suffering endured by homosexuals may indeed have inspired this individual.

Still, it is an acceptable conversation to have. Hyperbole has its place and if we are to water down all our conversations just to prevent nuts from shooting people, we'll all live in a rather dull and hopeless society.

You guys are wrong about all your gay agenda propaganda but this incident doesn't prove it.

August 17, 2012 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/17/paul-ryan-shirtless-abs-tomach-photo-vice-president/

something TTFers will like

August 17, 2012 12:02 PM  
Anonymous obama wants those personal returns said...

President Obama's campaign offered Mitt Romney a deal today: Release five years of tax returns, and we'll stop demanding more.

Romney's campaign refused, calling the Obama request a political ploy designed to distract voters.

"It is clear that President Obama wants nothing more than to talk about Governor Romney's tax returns instead of the issues that matter to voters, like putting Americans back to work, fixing the economy and reining in spending," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a response to Obama.

Obama said, "I am prepared to provide assurances that: If the Governor will release five years of returns, I commit in turn that we will not criticize him for not releasing more -- neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign."

Replied Rhoades: "If Governor Romney's tax returns are the core message of your campaign, there will be ample time for you to discuss them over the next 81 days."

In a reference to the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, Rhoades also told Obama: "See you in Denver."

The Obama offer came a day after Romney said he has paid a tax rate of at least 13% per year over the past decade

August 17, 2012 12:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Romney said he has paid a tax rate of at least 13% per year over the past decade

Romney should prove his statement is true by releasing his income tax returns.

August 17, 2012 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

why?

August 17, 2012 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For the same reason Romney thinks Reid should name his source.

August 17, 2012 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"paul-ryan-shirtless-abs-"

Interesting. Look who is posting links to shirtless pictures of GOP Young Guns and claiming TTFers will like them.

This reminds me of Tres Kearns going to gay pride parades and collecting all the handouts for his collection.

I wonder how large these collections grow.

August 17, 2012 6:18 PM  
Anonymous rip riding away said...

"Romney should prove his statement is true by releasing his income tax returns."

how would that prove it's true?

he could make fictitious returns up and no one would know

the IRS hasn't attested to the released returns of any candidate in history

we're all just taking their word for it

face it: Obama has lied and said Romney has commmitted a Federal crime; he lied and said Romney fired some guy who wife died of cancer because he lost his insurance; Reid has lied and said Romney paid no income taxes

Romney is one of the most wealthy men to ever run for president

his financial situation is very complex and just explaining every question Obama would raise could take until the election

this is a consequential election and America deserves a substantive debate not an endless fishing expedition by a desperate loser of an incumbent

Romney is not releasing his returns

the leadership he is showing by resisting the pressure is reassuring

August 17, 2012 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For the same reason Romney thinks Reid should name his source."

what Reid needs to disclose more is his tax returns

although pressed by reporters, he hasn't released any

Reid needs to put his hypocrisy behind him

August 17, 2012 9:06 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Anon: “Holding the position that certain practices are immoral is not hate nor is opposing changing the definition of marriage to acommodate partners of deviant sexual practices.”

Holding those positions may not be hate, but using them as justification to wage an all out assault on LGBT persons is.

The need to use code phrasing like “traditional marriage” obscures what you really think, that homosexual love is inferior -- if not nonexistent -- to heterosexual love.

Would you consider "traditional" compulsory marriages within one’s own race, polygamous marriages, shotgun weddings, arranged marriages, and the incestuous marriages God designed for Adam and Eve’s children to be unworthy of “change” as well?

Not a peep of disapproval for these “definitions of marriage,” yet you singularly focus on the prevention of homosexual marriage.

I understand that it goes against your instincts of what you consider to be natural attraction that compels you to believe that two people of the same gender cannot have just as an intensely deep intimate love for each other that mirrors perfectly any heterosexual love.

But it is your choice to believe that our love for our partners is nothing more than two friends of the same gender who want the world to recognize -- through marriage -- that we are nothing more than two people who enjoy sharing an orgasm.

And it is your choice to use the phrasing “changing the definition of marriage” instead of admitting that you really mean that our love is nothing more than deeply ingrained delusion.

And it is your choice to debase our love for our partners by sneeringly calling it “deviant sexual practices.”

And it is your choice to parrot your anti-gay overlords’ talking points, giving no thought as to their truth or whom or how they harm.

The hatred lies in your choice to express, spread and export your “not hateful” positions.

Hiding it all behind your code words, innuendo and excuses of “deeply held religious beliefs” only proves it.

August 18, 2012 12:19 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

To repeat, the issue the Southern Poverty Law Center has with the Family Research Council has nothing to do with their position on marriage.

August 18, 2012 6:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, their hate-group designation is not about FRC's views about marriage, it's about the hatred they foment. The effects of that hate become clear when the FBI compares the number of hate-crimes against LGBT folks to the number against anti-LGBT advocates. MotherJones explains the reasons for the designation here:

"...In light of the power Perkins and Brown ascribe to the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Human Rights Campaign, we should examine their own.

Spokespeople for the National Organization for Marriage, such as Rev. William Owens, who exaggerated his civil rights background to justify his opposition to same sex marriage, have compared homosexuality to bestiality and child abuse. NOM's man in Maryland, Bishop Harry Jackson, has compared gay rights groups to Nazis whose actions recall "the times of Hitler." Most of NOM's more high-profile spokespersons are more careful with their words, but beyond rhetoric, NOM has argued that gay judges should be barred from ruling on LGBT rights issues and embraced junk science to argue that gays and lesbians make worse parents.

Still, Perkins' Family Research Council has practically cornered the market on anti-gay junk science. The Southern Poverty Law Center's classification of the FRC as a hate group stems from FRC's more than decade-long insistence that gay people are more likely to molest children. Spokespeople for the FRC have said that homosexual sex should be outlawed, and Perkins himself has said as recently as 2010 that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children." Research from non-ideological outfits is actually firm in concluding the opposite. Some of the FRC's more outrageous "studies," such as the 1999 paper claiming that "one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order," have been scrubbed from the group's website, but the FRC has not disavowed their contents.

Anti-gay rights organizations are not often the targets of this kind of violence. The incidence of violence against gays and lesbians in the United States is far higher. According to the FBI's hate crimes statistics, there were 247 incidents of aggravated assault and 495 incidents of simple assault against people on the basis of sexual orientation in 2010. The Bureau counts two incidents of bias-motivated murder/manslaughter in the same year. If labeling the FRC a hate group armed Corkins with a justification for violence, should we be holding groups like the Family Research Center and the National Organization for Marriage responsible for every homophobe who lashes out violently? After all, listening to what the FRC and NOM have to say about gays and lesbians, one might reasonably conclude non-heterosexuals are a public menace, if not a threat to the republic.

The SPLC's decision to categorize the Family Research Council as a hate group, while subjective, nevertheless relies on FRC's record of purveying stereotypes, prejudice, and junk science as a justification for public policy that would deny gays and lesbians equal rights and criminalize their conduct. Accusing someone of purveying "hate" does not contain a justification for violence, explicit or implicit. It's a free country, and hating is one of the rights Americans have under the First Amendment. But if an organization were putting forth papers arguing that blacks, Latinos, or Jews were inherently prone to committing certain crimes and recommended laws specifically tailored to restricting their behavior, would we call them a hate group? At the very least, the SPLC has evidence for its decision beyond simply disliking FRC's politics...."

August 18, 2012 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Wash Post Milbank disagrees.
The Left's Misfire on "hate groups"

August 19, 2012 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

another example of the gay agenda crowd trying to shut down freedom of speech and religion:

"When James Guay was 12, he went into a Christian bookstore to look for information on what was wrong with him. He found just one book on homosexuality -- "on how to change it," he recalled. When he brought it to the counter, the clerk asked if it was for him. "She said she would pray for me," he said.

A few years later Guay had a nervous breakdown and told his parents what was distressing him. His father, a pastor, helped him find a licensed "ex-gay" psychologist. The psychologist said he had been gay, but now was married to a woman. He told Guay that change was possible. "It was this newfound hope," Guay said. Within six months to a year, the therapist promised him, Guay could overcome his attraction to men and learn to be attracted to women.

Two months ago, Guay testified at a hearing on a new bill in the California State Legislature that would ban the "gay cure," as this type of therapy is known."

why?

his nervous breakdown happened before he went to the therapist

and there are plenty of people countering the therapist

there is no reason to believe this exercise in free speech hurt anyone

"The bill is the first of its kind in the U.S., and observers expect it to pass by the end of August. If Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signs it, licensed therapists who try to change the sexual orientation of minors will run the risk of losing their licenses.

"I wanted parents to understand that this therapy is crazy," said Sen. Ted Lieu, the California Democrat who authored the bill."

based on what?

August 19, 2012 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"The passage of SB 1172 would be the latest in a series of recent actions signaling a widespread condemnation of the practice. Almost all mainstream mental health organizations, from the American Psychiatric Association to the American Psychological Association, have renounced it. The World Health Organization has released a statement saying that such methods "lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being" of patients. Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatrist who published a widely cited study supporting the "gay cure" practice in 2003, recently apologized for his work in the journal where the original paper appeared.

For more than three decades, one of the leading forces behind the practice of attempting to change sexual orientation was Exodus International, a nonprofit group. In June, the head of Exodus International declared at its annual meeting that there was no cure for homosexuality and that the promise of one offered false hope to gays. Just a few years before, he and his wife had starred in advertisements saying, "Change is possible.""

wonderful, so if no one supports this therapy, why the need for government intervention?

"Still, there aren't any scientific studies showing that the practice actually causes harm. Anecdotal reports of depression, even suicide, abound, and a task force convened by the American Psychological Association found the practice to be both harmful and ineffective. But when the government regulates a behavior, like driving without a seatbelt or smoking, they can usually draw on volumes of data demonstrating that the behavior hurts people. That isn't the case here, and the few remaining supporters of the practice stress this fact.

David Pruden, the vice president of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, a group whose website proclaims that it "offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality," sees the bill as a "solution in search of a problem."

He maintains that there are people who can, "with the help of a well trained therapist, move through a process where they grow away from homosexual attraction and move towards heterosexual attraction." He gave the example of a child who is molested by an adult of the same sex. "One suggestion would be you're confused, you're not gay. Now this bill is saying that for a therapist to suggest to someone that they're not gay is somehow illegal or would be wrong."

Mainstream psychological organizations in California were initially opposed to the law for similar reasons, but they withdrew their opposition after working with Sen. Lieu on the language of the bill."

surprise, surprise

they substituted their professional judgment for political accomodation

August 19, 2012 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then Castro praised Obama for taking action on the Dreamers. ”And because he knows we don’t have an ounce of talent to waste, the President took action to lift the shadow of deportation from a generation of young, law-abiding immigrants called dreamers.” He then urged Congress to “enshrine into law their right to pursue their dreams in the only place they’ve ever called home: America,” bringing cheers from the crowd."

Unbeliveable. The congress should "enshrine into law" a completely ILLEGAL ACTION TAKEN IN DEFIANCE OF CONGRESS by Obama.

Unreal

the rule of law and the constitution has absolutely no place in this administration.

the guy can do whatever the heck he wants (including branding folks like chik filet a with a yellow star), tromp all over the constitution and the standard rule of law and the processes of govt, and this media will let him get away with it.

my god, it is time to sell all assets and leave.

unreal.

atlas shrugged.

September 05, 2012 3:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home