Blogs and Stories
Hannity's Gay Target
Kathy Willens / AP Photo
As Obama readies a major gay-rights speech, the right is tarring his safe schools czar with a homophobic slur. Michelle Goldberg on why the White House must stand by its man.
Sean Hannity began his show Wednesday night by promising “shocking new allegations about President Obama’s safe-schools czar. Does Kevin Jennings support the group NAMBLA?” Onscreen, the notorious acronym—which stands for the North American Man Boy Love Association, a pro-pedophile group—appeared in red next to a particularly unflattering photo of Jennings. Before Hannity got to the “shocking new allegations” themselves, he interviewed a former FBI agent who infiltrated NAMBLA, eliciting chilling and depraved stories, including one about a conference where NAMBLA members expressed approval of sex with 18-month-old babies.
On Monday, Republican Rep. Steve King sent a letter to Obama calling on him to fire Jennings. “Mr. Jennings life’s work has been the promotion of homosexuality, much of it in our elementary schools,” he wrote.
It's hard to imagine anything more damning for a public figure than a link to some of the country’s most shameless sexual abusers. Of course, when Hannity finally got to his “new allegations,” the only thing shocking about them was their flimsiness. Jennings once expressed admiration for the radical gay activist Harry Hay, co-founder of the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay-rights groups in the United States. Hay advocated for the inclusion of NAMBLA in gay pride parades. A despicable position on Hay’s part, sure, but one that Jennings has nothing to do with, unless one believes that we’re all morally culpable for the actions of everyone we’ve ever praised.
The illogic didn’t really matter, though, because the right’s escalating war on Jennings is all about appealing to primal emotion. Jennings, the assistant deputy secretary of Education in charge of the Office of Safe & Drug-Free Schools, is the target of one of the ugliest homophobic witch-hunts we’ve seen in a while. It plays directly into classic right-wing narratives of predatory gay recruitment. “Children don’t need to be learning about homosexual practices in elementary school,” says Princeton Professor Robert George, in a video on the anti-Jennings Web site preserveinnocence.org. On Monday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) sent a letter to Obama calling on him to fire Jennings. “Mr. Jennings' life’s work has been the promotion of homosexuality, much of it in our elementary schools,” he wrote.
The message is clear—Kevin Jennings, a man hired to protect children, is actually out to pervert them. Conservatives are determined to make Jennings the next Van Jones. And as with Jones, the White House probably should have seen this coming.
That’s not to say that his nomination was a mistake. Jennings has had an illustrious career as an educator, and is especially renowned for his anti-bullying work. He’s the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which strives to encourage tolerance in schools. Given the abuse that gay and lesbian kids are often subject to, this is crucial work. In his autobiography Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Jennings recounts stories of students like Steven, a suicidal 18-year-old who said, “I just began hating myself more and more, as each year the hatred toward me grew and escalated from simple name-calling in elementary school to having people in high school threaten to beat me up, being pushed and dragged around on the ground, having hands slammed in lockers, and a number of other daily tortures.” Even Bill O’Reilly once seemed to recognize the importance of Jennings’ cause. Last year, on one of his “pinheads and patriots” segments, he named Hilary Duff a “patriot” for a public-service spot she made for GLSEN.
Yet Jennings’ work certainly provides some red meat for the right. He wrote the foreword to a 1999 book whose title, Queering Elementary Education, was bound to drive conservatives into lusty ecstasies of outrage. The book itself, which is about dealing with anti-gay prejudice among children, is innocuous. Jennings' introduction makes a common-sense argument: “It’s not a question of whether we should ‘bring this issue into our schools.’ It’s a question of whether or not we are going to address an issue that is omnipresent in our schools.” For anyone who has spent time around '90s academia, with its passion for postmodern neologisms, the word “Queering” will be familiar, even a bit cliché, and clearly means bringing queer studies to bear on educational analysis, rather than turning elementary schools queer.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Palin's Ego Trip
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
Women of Influence: Malalai Joya
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
Feminism's Last Line of Defense
Michelle Goldberg is the author of The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World and Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. She is a senior correspondent for The American Prospect, and her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Nation, the Los Angeles Times, Glamour, and many other publications.
We will see what we will see, but based on the spinelessness of the Obama Administration so far, they will be easy for the Far Right to roll, and if I were Kevin Jennings, I'd be buffing up the resume. Every time some Republican barks, the Democrats jump. It's frankly quite amazing. Dame Edna has more balls.
Michelle offers a malicious soup of conservative bashing and fails to address the most inportant question: the legality of these 'czars' appointments, gay or not.
Nonetheless, Jennings' agenda to teach the acceptance of gayness is a morality that cannot be forced on Americans. There yet remains a separation of church and state and promoting a specific value structure embracing homosexuality violates the religious beliefs of many. The State doesn't get to do that.
If only Obama had a clue....some executive experience...a wee bit of sense...none of this czar mess would even exist.
robwriter and SpeakEnglish offer insightful commentary on this issue.
Politics is the art of the possible. Cultural issues get in the way of what the body politic deems as possible.
Recognizing and accepting are not FORCING or PROMOTING. Besides, if I were gay I'd be insulted that someone feels I need to be "tolerated" or accepted".
And your religious beliefs violate my non-beliefs. So what do you propose I do about THAT?
Let's keep all those kids in their closets and if they commit suicide, one less "queer" to worry about!
Sick, intolerant fool.
So our government shouldn't promote condom use, either?
My, you seem to be less than focused in your arguments, but let me attempt to address each.
I cannot come up with a cogent legal argument against czar appointments. One might offer a valid fiscal argument, but a constitutional challenge eludes me. Perhaps you can offer insight?
As for your assertion that promoting tolerance violates the establishment clause, I am flummuxed. Based on your argument, teaching evolution, heliocentricity, even modern medicine in school would be unconstitutional, as there are those with religious objections to such subjects. Fortunately, your argument is a non sequiter. Your ability to freely excercise your religion is not impeded. You are still free to believe, and to teach your children to believe, whatever you like.
I also find it slightly ironic that you would cite church/state separation in this instance, whereas you would likely dismiss it in others.
Amanda
You are so right tolerance is not the opposite of intolerance.
If you must discuss this issue, at least think about it. "It's not a question of whether we should 'bring this issue into our schools.' It's a question of whether or not we are going to address an issue that is omnipresent in our schools." The "issue" could be gayness, sex, aids, prejudice, gangs, and many other behaviours that are repugnant to some. Just because they are repugnant to some doesn't mean those behaviours don't exist. In fact it accentuates them. Haven't your children perversely done something you said they aren't allowed to do just to spite you (haven't you done that)?
These things exist folks, we might as well be educated about them because ignorance or prejudice will not make them go away.
First, theres a huge difference between acceptance and tolerance. Nothing says you must accept any gay, political, or religious ideology. What you must do is tolerate them. They have no right to push their agenda on you or your children and you in turn cant do it either.
Secondly, as for Church and State, most schools allow children to opt out of certain classes that contradict the beliefs of the parents, but what we haven't heard is if this was allowed to happen with the pro gay elementary/ hate bullying classes.
I forget when "Czar's" were brought onto the scene - I doubt that they are actually titled Czar by anyone other than the media (and those led around by the nose by the media). Actually it's "Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools". Seems to me that Hannity would want safe and drug free schools - no? think about it, whatever good Obama tries to do, who is tearing it down with outrageous claims, rarely rooted in fact? What are they thinking? Will this help fellow Americans? I don't know but I don't spend any time any more listening to them - there are enough sources of fact that I don't need the hysteria.
Im atheist. I have read parts of the Bible, the Quar'an, and a few philosophical books. In no way am I well versed in any specific religion, but I do have some knowledge of quite a few religions.
With that said, I can 100% say that if Jesus were around today, he would support gays and lesbiens. "Love Thy Neighbor", one of the ten commandments, would be a good description. Also, he faught on the side of the minority. He was very optomistic, and loved everybody regardless of their beliefs or lifestyle as long as it was a lifestyle that worked to better other people. Gays and Lesbiens aren't evil, they aren't satanist, they aren't hurting anybody. Jesus would have loved them.
So to use the Church as a way to say that it is okay to be intollerant is going against everything that Jesus stood for. By doing this you are shunning possible future Christians who would find their way to the Church if it wasn't so intollerant of the people they are trying to save. Just because you go to Church every sunday doesn't guarantee you a spot in heaven. It's the way you live your life to the fullest and better other people life that will get you the V.I.P. pass.
@Allguns
As the child of a school administrator, I can state that opt-out policies you describe are not first amendment acknowledgements as they are CYA(cover your ass) measures for schools. Schools typically give parents the option of asking their children be exempt from anything that might cause offense, whether it pertains to religion or not.
Even if children could not be opted out, it would not prevent parents from presenting their children with an alternate viewpoint, or holding one themselves.
@SpeakEnglish:
You do realize what you just said is "we should ignore mistreatment of another if addressing it would violate someone's religious beliefs." There is no "separation of church and state;" only a Constitutional Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In no way does teaching respect for other people deal in any way with religious establishment.
Saying this is forcing a specific morality on Americans is like saying that serving non-Kosher meat at the cafeteria is a violation of religious freedom because eating ham would "violate the religious beliefs of many."
BTW, why do you choose to draw the line at homosexuality but seem to take no issue with the numerous other ways schools impose value structures on students? It's okay to teach a student not to hit someone else, steal from them, or put others down except when that "other" is gay?
Okay, well biological, sociological and psychological research have all proven that homosexuality is real and exists. Religion, however, is a social-construct. Why should we let socially-constructed concepts rule the biology of our species, and therefore tolerance of each other?
Van Jones vs Kevin Jennings is the difference between a history of quietly caving in and a history of standing up to bullies. In other words, courage. You think Jennings wouldn't stand up to a petty rumormongerer like Sean Hannity? He's probably been expecting right wing fire since he took the job.
It past time for a serious investigation into the corrupt Steve King who is trying to become the male Bachmann. This is beyond sleezy. Hannity had to admit he has no evidence to support his wild, malicious accusation and King has even less. The call is out for a full investigation of Steve King. Whatever, were you thinking Iowa. You deserve better than than a blithering idiot.
There's been a rumor around here for almost a year that Hannity is gay.
Hannity, it is a rumor ... isn't it?
He should prove he's not gay.
It doesn't matter if Hannity is gay or straight, he would still be a dick.
Only to separate pedophilia from homosexuality--for they are completely separate from each other.
indeed. he should be compelled to do so on air.
He should prove he's not a gay, child molesting, man-on-dog approving, nun--lusting, serial killer. Why doesn't he respond to these charges? What is he hiding?
What does it matter if he's gay straight brown black white red yellow blue blonde brunette short tall fat thin? Intolerance for any race, shape, type, or persuasion of human is simply unacceptable. Period.
oh, so you "tolerate" conservatives? You "tolerate" old, white guys who disagree with this administration?... or do you call them "racist"? or some other name that makes you feel better?
I did not attack anyone here - simply trying to say that pulling out the "oooh maybe Hannity's gay teehee!" card is a silly way to try and demean someone and that it would not matter if he were in fact a closeted homosexual. Tolerance should be expected from everyone.
I do tolerate conservatives (I live in Texas, it's part of the package) and even further, I respect their opinions. But no, if someone - liberal or conservative - attacks another person not for their opinions but for a facet of their being, I will not tolerate that.
Glad I could clarify.
Pedophiles and homosexuals are two very different things, though this article struggles to separate the two--perhaps to get the point across about the allegations against Jennings, but it was very poorly written(worded). Thumbs down.
Hannity, Glenn and Rush need a reality check on ruining the lives of Americans they decide to target. They have little respect for human beings. I am starting to think they are really crazy.How do these guys stay on the radio and T.V. ?
Unfortunately, it's because so many Americans identify with really crazy people who have little respect for human beings.
Hannity seems to be TOO knowledgeable and TOO interested in NAMBLA. How do we know that he was never an unregistered member? For all we know Hannity could be using this "investigation" to hide his interest in young boys. What are you hiding Hannity? Are those naked pictures of underage boys your computer REALLY just for the show???
You know, I keep waiting for the hate on this post, but all the righties are too busy pissing on peace over on a different post. I guess they hate peace more than they hate gay people.
HA! I was just thinking the same thing. It's early in the day though, they'll be sure to spew their garbage soon.
There is a ranking, and yes world peace is worse than "the gays". With world peace, they would loose out on all the war contracts and will be unable to scare people into letting them rule. So they would loose money AND power. Can't let that happen!
I fantasize about a TDB that uses better-thinking sources than Sean Hannity.
There is a bigotry within the homosexual militants and their supporters that angers me. Call it "hate" if you will, but some of us hate bigotry.
There are radical, hateful people within every segment of the population. Do you have an underlying argument, or were you simply thinking aloud?
I hate bigotry in all segements ot the population, including the bigotry exhibited by men like Jennings. Do you have any problem with that, or are you just blindly supporting the militant homosexual agenda?
I certainly have no problem with confronting bigotry in all its forms. What instances of bigotry can you cite for Mr. Jennigs?
You asked: "What instances of bigotry can you cite for Mr. Jennings?"
Well, Mr. Jennings and his followers/supporters have intolerance for and try to censor any beliefs/opinions that others have with regard to homosexuality that are not in lock step with their beliefs/opinions. If one holds the opinion that homosexual behavior is a form of mental illness, one is shouted down by the likes of Mr. Jennings. If one has a religious belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, one is branded as a "Hater" by Jennings and his cohorts. Worse yet, the expression of these opinions and beliefs is now forbidden at out public schools - and that is the very definition of bigotry: intolerance and censorship of ideas not in agreement with ones own.
I apologize. You appear to have misunderstood my question. I meant to ask, can you cite a specific instance, such as a verified quote or a piece of writing, in which Mr. Jennings displays bigoted behavior. What you have stated appear to be generalizations.
As an aside, the notion that homosexuality is a form of mental illness has been debunked by every credibile medical and/or psychiatric association. There is no need to shout down someone espousing junk science.
The "debunking" (as you call it) that homosexuality is mental illness is more emotion and politics than science and reason, and of course, you would call that as "junk science" and not creditable. That's just bigotry, on your part. If you ever care to examine the actual process by which homosexuality was deemed "sane", you might want to adjust your opinion.
Johnny,
I bet those people who believe homosexuallity is a mental illness or a sin aren't physically beaten for it, like many homosexauls have experienced.....remember mathew shepard?
Also, I see no evidence of your claims.
Ah, so now if one holds the notion that homosexual behavior is mental illness, one is in cohort with others that beat and assault people with mental illness, homosexuals in particular!
I've had quite enough of your not so subtle bigotry.
If you want examples of Jennings bigotry in action, visit any public school and examine his Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. It is NOT tolerant of anyone who holds the view that homosexuality is mental illness or sinful. That is bigotry.
Johnny,
The APA(American Psychological Association) has held that homosexuality is not a mental disorder since the early 1970's. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the World Health Organization have all echoed this fact. I call claims to the contrary "junk science" because there is simply no credible research to back them up. If you would care to enlighten me with specific studies, I would be more than happy to read them.
While we are on the subject, let us examine your usage of the word "bigotry". You seem to be confusing tolerance with acceptance. I am certainly tolerant of a person's right to hold any opinion they wish. However, when someone chooses to air said opinion on a public forum, I will excercise my right to call them out on any falsehoods.
My not so subtle bigotry huh? Actually READ my post and then call me a bigot because my post has not one touch of bigotry in it. I'm simply defending that we need to teach people to be tolerant of homosexuality, think whatever you want about it, but the moment you act against it you prove that education is needed. I find it ironic that you call a demographic of people that is just trying to exist without being harassed, beaten, or told they are evil from a young, impressionable age the bigots. Remember how bad it was when schools were first desegregated?? Well, it turned out to be the right action, just like teaching people to be tolerant of homosexuality because they have the same right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness as the rest of us.
The more JohnnyBeagle writes, the more ignorant he sounds.
These school programs are teaching tolerance, not acceptance (although I imagine that acceptance is a natural byproduct). If a KKK member was vocal in their disapproval of blacks in a school, the school has an obligation to silence him (but not to change his mind). The school environment needs to be safe and supportive for all students, which means a live and let live policy is in effect.
Reusing the word bigotry over and over... makes it sound like you don't know what it means.
And as for acting like homosexuality is a mental disease.... at this day and age it's ridiculous. It's as scientifically sound as calling the earth flat. You certainly have the right to say so, and I certainly wouldn't remove your comments if I could, but it makes you fuc-tarded.
I've met Kevin Jennings and he is an intelligent, kind man. I hope that he gets a chance to show the rest of America that.
You are a bigot, if you go around whining about the "militant homosexual agenda". Be proud of you bogotry, because you sure don't hide it weel..
My homosexual agenda is to have equal rights. You know. Get married, have equal pension rights, social security rights. Every right that my neighbor whose has been married 5 times has.
Saying that gay people should be "tolerant" of antigay bigots is like saying black people should be "tolerant" of the klan, or that jews shouldn't say hurtful things about nazis.
It's a false equivalency, like saying that many Rev. Wright said some racist things.
He did. Name me the white people who didn't get jobs, healthcare or housing because of his words.
Black racism is the result of a lot of harsh racism by white people.
Most whites spend their lives unharmed by racism towards them.
Most straight people suffer no ill effects from the anger of gay people,
whose right to marry is denied.
I don't care if you "tolerate" me. Just give me my equal rights.
It tells me how far in the gutter most Right Wing Nuts have sunk who listen to this kind of slop! That's about all it can be called is slop it has no value but to demean decent people and destroy them. The right has gotten to the point where they are incredibly sick people! When are American's going to grow up and stop listening to this kind of nonsense???????
If Ms Goldberg was interested in giving an honest debate about Ken Jennings she whould not have omitted parts of what he wrote in the incident with the young boy. He wrote that the boy told him he was 15, so Jennings thought he was 15 and should have reported it to authorities for them to handle instead he told him to wear a condom. If this was your son and the pedophile Jennings was protecting was a Catholic priest or of it was your 15yo daughter and a republican politician you people would be calling for the lynch mob. I know it's more likely for a democrat politician to be wioth a young girl but as we see with Polanski certain pedophiles are forgivable as long as they have the right political opinions... Again, the fact that the boy turned out to be 16 doesn't excuse the fact that he thought the boy was 15 and approved.
He also founded the GLSEN organization which was responsible for teaching adolescents that "fisting gets a bad rap".
I don't care who or what someone sticks in his own ass but it's not for him and his like to bypass parents to promote their agenda our children.
Ken Jennings? I would think that as the winningest champion in Jeopardy history, and a devout Mormon, he would be above such tawdry behavior!
yea, I caught that after I posted it... oops
You lose any and all credibility the moment you state that it is more likely a democrat to be with a young girl. So would you be okay with Larry Craig's agenda?
This is ridiculous! Hannity is an ass and frankly, I'm too furious right now to even post a comment.
Another typical leftist fluff piece, She claims that Hannity is gay bashing and then shows no proof, so she is doing to Hannity just what she claims Hannity is doing to Jennings. If this isn't a Pot calling a Kettle black. I guess she should watch more of the show than just sound bites. Hannity has said he has nothing against Gays, but he does have something against pushing a pro-gay agenda to ELEMENTARY children, which in turn is pushing a MORAL agenda to children that is against his belief structure . This is more about the separation of church and state than some made up gay bashing to cover up the real issue, Jennings stupidity.
Jennings has spent a life time with children and he should of know never to even approach a topic as morally disgusting as NAMBLA, whatever the reason. Jennings made a choice to be associated with one of the most vocal members of this group and and now he must pay the price. As Obama has said you can judge a person by whom they surround/associate with. When a life long educator has a association with a member of NAMBLA, then he asks a gay student, who himself said he was 15 at the time, then change it to 16 later after the story became nationally, mistake or not, if he used a condom. WOW just what every parent wants to hear a counselor, advising a young person who is having sex with an Adult to use a condom.
Once again, government promoting an idea which you have a religious objection to does not violate the establishment clause, unless it is an endoresement of a explicitly religious topic. That is not the case here.
Secondly, the article does not state that Hays was member of NAMBLA, but that he endorsed the idea that they should be included in gay pride parades. Nor is it stated that this was the reason Jennings praised him.
Furthemore, guilt by association is a fallacious argument, regardless of whether the president has made said argument. Tell me, would you defer to his statements on other issues, or are you merely doing so here because it seems to support your argument?
Oh don't be so outraged; moral agendas are pushed on children every single day at school - they're taught to share their crayons, be nice on the playground, tolerate people of various races. Students learn about the horrors of the Holocaust, segregation, the Berlin Wall; they're taught the morals that this country currently deems acceptable and I can guarantee you that in 20 years, they'll be taught all about the horrific trials the gay community endured to achieve basic human rights - just as we now learn all about the similar struggles of women and blacks as well.
Just because this certain moral (treating gays with respect and refraining from bullying them in school) doesn't sit well with you, doesn't mean it's any less deserving of being taught than telling boys that girls are smart or reprimanding children for using racial slurs.
I don't have kids yet, hell I'm only 22, but when I do, I'll want to know that, despite whatever sexual orientation they turn out to possess, they will be respected and tolerated by their peers and will at least have one safe haven that every American is entitled to: their school.
Well said, keep up the good fight!
Loving that post....
Which article are you responding to? It can't be the one above.
So all conservatives must be gay, glory-hole seeking, adulterers or at least support them.....a la the likes of Larry Craig and Mark Sanford.
Gay people aren't LOOKING for Hannity to "have nothing against them". He is a moronic fool and I HAVE watched his show, although fighting back the vomit that erupts in my mouth when I do so is a bit unpleasant.
Your name bespeaks your ignorance.
Now I know why my grandparents stopped watching and reading the news.
Look, I hate Hannity, and I was raised watching Fox News. This particular segment was the first time I've seen or heard him in a while, and, like Ms. Goldberg, I was shaking my head when I watched it.
The right has been much less effective in its attack on Jennings because its homophobes (both the conscious & self-denying ones) have really overextended themselves with respect to the broader anti-czar movement by going to far against Jennings.
Take the ACORN effort, for example... the filmmakers cited S. Alinsky (rule 12, rules for radicals: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it).
Pick the target: Czars
Freeze it: pick individual czars (Van Jones-check... no one else so far)
...the last two require a bit more analysis, and the right has poorly strategized on this one,
you have to appropriately "personalize it"! this is where the overextension comes from. the radical right got too worked up and tried to throw their morals at jennings, and the self-righteous indignation turns off independents and centrist democrats, who need to get in line with a campaign against any particular czar for it to cause the administration to act...
a) next to no one is going to believe that jennings was a pro-nambla guy, and if that charge is involved it discredits ALL the others... "polarize it" means you want YOUR pole to be the majority, not just your other irrational right-wing friends
b) Few are going to buy that Jennings wants 2nd graders learning about anal sex (regardless of any arguments against... especially when presented with such shades of homophobia), and if that charge is emphasized then your pole is still insignificant to spur administration action
c) the last two approaches are to the detriment of the most appropriate strategy... raising the charge that is EXCLUSIVELY LEGALLY RELEVANT. Ms. Goldberg is able to raise such an anti-conservative hullabaloo because of (a) and (b), and because this strategy is available, she can simply brush aside the real issue!!! ("It turns out" that the student was 16 at the time? Hogwash!) Mr. Jennings had a DUTY TO REPORT statutory rape on the FACTS THAT HE KNEW. Actual age is irrelevant; if Jennings believed the student to be 15, he was criminally liable for not telling anyone. This should be the ONLY focus. Other attacks just give Media Matters for America and similar organizations ammo to rebut Hannity and his peers as the typical insane wackos that they are. This doesn't help at all.
Hannity appeals to High School Harry's who never worked a day in their lives. Of course Old Maids like to watch the Mick spew his ignorant rants.
To think some drunk Irish Mick would return us to New york or Baastin, cicra 1850s.
But then whoever said Repugs had a brain? they missed the train.
Ouch, I think some here might take offense to the term "Mick". I'm no fan of Hannity, but derrogatory language like that does not further the discussion.
I don't think you get to rant about the Republicans ignorance or lack of intelligence when you have just used the language you have.
My description is singular and describes Hannity and Hannity alone. It is not plural, as i am half Irish and Welsh. When you get in the gutter with trash, you play by their rules. Anyone with a brain would know Hannity is not a representative of the Irish, be they here or in Ireland.
Go back to an English 101 refresher course, and learn semantics and syntactics.
Right okay, so if someone used the N-Word to describe a black person they didn't like, that would be okay, that wouldn't be racist, just because they were referring to that one person? I don't need to go back to 'English 101' to call out racist language when I see it. Oh and not that I want to give you tips on how to be an ignorant twat but 'Mick' is a derogatory term for an Irish person, so you don't have to use the term 'Irish Mick'.
ok, I know Kevin having met with home a few years ago when he headed up GLSEN. (of which I am a contributing member). Having a son with Aspberger's Syndrome, I was so pleased to be part of a group that I was told functioned on educating children and teens about their differences and to stop bullying. Kevin's and my meeting was personal and touched on values and upbringing. ( I am a devout Catholic and proud conservative) I thought well of him and the literature he gave me on GLSEN seemed to fit all that he described. I could not be more surprised and appalled at what is coming out about him. I feel like he told me what I needed to hear to get me on board (and do the fundraising he wanted) and I am not easily duped. I do however wish him the best, I simply don't feel he is the appropriate person to be in this position.
If you are not easily duped, why do you not feel that he is appropriate to be in this position? You seem like a reasonable person, so I hope that you are not buying into Mr. Hannity's fear-mongering.
i am reasonable. Most conservatives are if given the opportunity. . I met with Jennings under the auspices of bullying. I have nothing against homosexuality - could care less. We are all human beings at the end of the day. However, this was billed as about bullying, period, which is why I signed up. I asked specifically about his beliefs and background and what is coming out is WAY different than what was told to me. That being said, I understand how the media can distort things etc which is why I said I wish him the best. I simply don't feel that someone with a specific agenda, as seems to be the case, is the appropriate person to oversee our kids. On the other hand, the teacher's union has a specific agenda....our Sec of Ed does....I don't know. As for Hannity, I like him. I don't always agree with everything he says, but I think he serves a purpose. You know, not all conservatives are red-neck, gay-bashing, christians. Many of us (such as myself) are highly educated people who are open-minded and simply believe in less government. I find it appalling when liberals speak of the "working person". Yes my husband makes a great deal of money, but believe me, he works 100 hours a week! It kills me to see how much he sacrifices to give to his family and to see that potentially every dollar he makes, 60 cents of more of it will be redistributed. No one hand him anything and he pushed hard for whatever he could get in life. Further we have educated our kids (esp here in LA) to work in soup kitchens, cook Thanksgiving for the homeless (AND serve) since they were in 4th grade. I believe all have the right to their beliefs and opinions from Rachel Maddow to Sean Hannity, without their beliefs being trashed. I recoil at some of the comments on this site and truly only read it to try and understand the vitriol. I would never shut someone down simply because they differ in values and opinions from me. Thanks for your reply and have a great weekend.
If I were president, I'd just say that the Repukes are a bunch of fascists and McCarthyites and tell them to shove it. I wouldn't give in to them on a single issue, and would not apologize, appease, compromise or explain.
That's the way they want to play it, so that's what they should get--NOTHING.
NAMBLA is disgusting and has nothing to do with the gay community.
Ultimately about is the Right forcing their morality onto society. Hannity and the like will paint any opposition with the most outlandish lies and innuendo their own "inner demons" can conjure. They call it proselytizing and consider it an act of faith. It doesn't matter if you don't want to hear it and free speech protects it. They suffer from a Superiority Complex, if you don't think like Hannity and the Right you are wrong.
It is the same thinking that justified the decimation of Native Americans to "save their soul." It is the same moral superiority that sent hundreds of people to their death for being witches. It is the same self-serving actions that ruined thousands of lives in the '50's for being "godless communists." It is the same thinking that lead to the stoning of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming.
Remember America was founded by idealogues so Conservative, uptight England kicked them out: The Pilgrims. Now they call themselves Social Conservatives. And they are destroying the Republican Party.
The entire Obama administration is crammed with commies, pervs and tax evaders. Let's set the bar so low a slug could get over it.
We did, it was called the Bush administrations!
That was an easy set-up Rhondie, you are getting slower by the day.
Interesting news about Hannity and his own homosexual tendencies. Does teenage masturbation with a male friend in his bathroom indicate homosexual tendencies? Does that make him question his own sexuality and cause him to be so virulent today?
Ask his boyhood neighbor Robert.
He was having sex with Robert? He told me Robert was just a friend. That two timing SOB. I'm gonna tell his other masturbuddies Glenn and Bill too. They will really be steamed.
You mean the Mammon Mormon and the Leprachaun?
Stick with this man, he's already had his reputation slimed by the right wing--and we need to fight back. Please write Mike Allen at Politico and ask him to apologize for lying about Mr. Jennings two times, and then refusing to admit he'd said what he did!
here comes the whisper campaign on Hannity, we've been expecting you, have a nice day. shouldn't the O's come out?
Hannity is Catholic and has expressed admiration for Catholic priests numerous times. Catholic priests have raped numerous young boys. Thus Hannity supports the rape of under-age boys.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.