Elisabeth Hasselbeck Attacks Girl Scouts Transgender Policy As "Far Left Move"

Along with bashing minorities, immigrants, and Muslims, Fox is now the go-to place where you can bash the transgender community. Last week, Elisabeth Hasselbeck validated a hate group head's transphobic commentary. This morning, she treated us to more of the same, only this time it was directed at the "far left" Girl Scouts.

On this morning's Fox & Friends, Hasselbeck began by saying that, OMG, "being a girl is about to become optional for future Girl Scouts." She reported that the Girl Scouts are "bringing the transgender debate into the forefront" by now accepting transgender girls. Hasselbeck, who has previously expressed concern about Girl Scouts gone liberal, asked if "this is just another far left move from that group." She introduced her guest, Penny Nance, head of the anti-LGBT, far right Concerned Women for America.

Nance provided her always informed (just kidding) commentary to an obviously distraught Hasselbeck. Nance sighed as she said "here we go again" and whined about how the Girl Scouts "have been lurching towards the left since the 1970's." She whined about how those godless, liberal Girl Scouts, OMG, removed "God" from their pledge. She whined about how "feminist icons," like, OMG, Betty Friedan and Wendy Davis are considered heroes to these young minions of Satan.

In total ignorance of the concept of transgender, Nance whined that the Girls Scouts are now "just scouts" and that "raises all kinds of complications and questions for parents." The banner reinforce the anti-transgender agitprop: "Transgender Troubles, Girl Scouts Facing Some Criticism." Nance whined about protecting children's privacy.

After Hasselbeck providing stats on the declining membership in the Girl Scouts, Hasselbeck suggested that "this could be a reason why." The banner: "So Long, Scouts." She read a statement from the Girl Scouts, about their definition of transgender, and asked Nance, a purveyor of anti-LGBT ignorance and hate, if she was satisfied. The banner: "Girl Scouts Controversy, Group Accused of Far Left Associations." (Yeah, by Fox News!)

Nance, who doesn't understand "how this works" whined about how "this is not about the children," but, rather, "adults who don't want there to be genders in society." The crazy continued with Nance making the baseless claim that those who support the transgender community "don't believe there are two genders" and that, according to these evil gender benders, you can be any gender you want "depending on the day."

Nance continued to spew her patented brand of hateful ignorance: "Anyone who is sane would not think throwing a little boy who is confused, who is dealing with some hard issues, into a tent with middle school books which, by the way, there are whole books written about how brutal they can be, is a good idea." The banners, "Traditional Values Lost, Girl Scouts Taking Heat For Far-Left Ideology"and "Boycott Girl Scouts? "Girl is Optional, Open Door Girl Scout Policy Stirring Debate," reinforced the agitprop as Nance whined about how this is spreading to public schools. She finished with a message about loving these kids and parents; "but we shouldn't lose our minds." Hasselbeck had the final word, "Girl Scouts no long requiring you to be a girl."

Yowza! Not only did Fox push its patented Girl Scouts are tools of the baby killing, far left agenda - but it also covered its increasingly popular anti-transgender meme - another obvious pander to the religious right.

Fox News - Team America, F--k yeah!

Follow @NewsHounds

Do you like this post?

Showing 20 reactions

commented 2015-05-13 15:51:57 -0400 · Flag

Timothy, In a famous act of defining the limits of the freedom of speech, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the act of creating a condition of “clear and present danger” could be a criminal act.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 ¹⁹¹⁹.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.⁷

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

And, by knowingly fanning the flames of hate against the transgender community the so called reporters on Fox News could be guilty of intentionally creating a desired condition of “clear and present danger”, since those same ‘reporters’ know full well just how badly oppressed the transgender community actually is.

commented 2015-05-12 21:56:11 -0400 · Flag

This is stupid and God has not been taken out the promise On my honor (which is lacking) I will try to serve God and my country, to help people at all times and to live by the Girl Scout Law. Which does not include duscrimination.

commented 2015-05-12 15:48:44 -0400 · Flag

While I commend your willingness to admit you only pay attention to half of a story or reality that you find uplifting – it does much to explain your flawed reasoning – it grieves me that you would rather continue in the ignorance of your imagined reality rather than research and confront the truth…painful as it may be.

This is how our country got into the state it is in today – complete lack of classical and accurate education in our classrooms. Perhaps it is best if you ignore this – there’s no point in discussion if your mind is closed.

commented 2015-05-12 15:39:31 -0400 · Flag

Timothy: I do tend to focus on the more seemly side of historical figures. I do know that the Founding Fathers had their defects but the unseemly is so down-lifting that I try to avoid it.
In a nutshell before joining Leslie in shunning you:
Personal insults are petty, childish, unworthy of an intelligent person (not even if they are my idols).
Hate speech is dangerous because there may be some weakminded listener who will decide to take action.

BTY: do come back when you can write something without personal insults. It’s very offputting.

commented 2015-05-12 15:20:02 -0400 · Flag

Ahhh, I see your problem now, Leslie! You don’t understand the true definition and legal meaning of the term “incite violence.” Here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Inciting,Provocative,or+Offensive+Speech and a few other places you can research what our courts have determined "incitement to violence’ actually means. Once you’ve learned that, come back and re-watch this video; you will see there’s ZERO incitement going on.

commented 2015-05-12 14:38:19 -0400 · Flag

Timothy, from the way you write to me and the rest of the posts on this blog I can see that there’s no point in continuing with you. I’ll close my remarks by pointing out that while we may have freedom of speech in this country, said freedom is not a blanket right to say just any thing we want. There are consequences for the words we choose to use. And, inciting violence as those two have been doing, against an entire class of people merely due to personal disapproval can have its consequences.

commented 2015-05-12 11:11:01 -0400 · Flag

You’re the one who brought up the behavior of the politicians of yore – insisting that they “would not be in favor of [my] own personal brand of virulence.”

I was merely pointing out the fact that you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Then to try to suggest that there’s a difference between their nasty personal attacks against each other and “hate speech…”

Clearly your bias has blinded you to reality.

commented 2015-05-12 11:07:33 -0400 · Flag

And politicians are definitely wont to hurl personal insults, especially during a political campaign.

PS: Why are you so interested in the uncivil behaviour of the politicians of yore, anyway? Most righties like to dwell on the uplifting characteristics (usually taken out of context, but that’s another matter).

commented 2015-05-12 11:03:15 -0400 · Flag

I don’t think you understood, Timothy.
Those quotes of yours are personal insults, not hate speech.

commented 2015-05-12 10:37:08 -0400 · Flag

Bemused – your study of American history is quite lacking if you think they were all civility and politeness in their discussion. They attacked each other in manners that would make today’s politicians and speech look positively sedate.

“John Adams is a blind, bald toothless man who wants to start a war with France”

“John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character…”

“If Thomas Jefferson wins murder, rape, adultery, robbery, and incest will be taught and openly practiced.”

“Jefferson is the son of a half-breed Indian Squaw raised on hoecakes…”

I could go on but I think the picture is clear that your “studies of histories of the Founding Fathers” is entirely lacking or one-sided.

Have a nice day!! :) :) :)

commented 2015-05-12 03:03:14 -0400 · Flag

Timothy wrote: “And I, for one, am extremely glad to not be subject to your judgmental opinions.”

That feeling’s entirely mutual, dear. My studies of history tell me that the Founding Fathers would not be in favour of your own personal brand of virulence.

Personally, I’m against anything that smacks even a teeny-weeny bit of hate speech against any category. Bland irony may be tolerated as “fun”. but teeth-gnashing, foaming-at-the-mouth talk is corrosive and it can have some pretty nasty consequences.

You see, I was witness to what happened in Yugoslavia during the early 90’s, a country where each and every ethnic group (Serb, Croat, Albanian, Macedonian, Slovenian) said the most awful things about each other, viewing this as “fun”, “amusing”, etc. However, the resulting climate encouraged the less intelligent among each and every group to “do something”, often starting with the neighbours next to whom their families had lived for generations. The rest is history, as the saying goes.

Since then, I’ve never been able to listen to any sort of speech that goes beyond the boundaries of the whimsical. When the talk turns virulent (like yours on this thread), I cannot but respond by saying:

“I’ve heard that sort of talk before but they were talking about the likes of you”.

commented 2015-05-12 02:00:31 -0400 · Flag

Timothy, your analysis of free speech and the “fire in a theater” shows your LACK of knowledge.

The “fire” reference is actually from a case in which there was NO “direct threat” nor was there any “incitement.” I suggest you do a little research on how the Supreme Court actually STRIPPED a man of his freedom of speech based SOLELY on his political activity—activity that posed NO LEGITIMATE THREAT to anyone (except the government).

That case was Schenck v United States. The background of the case is that Charles Schenck (the General Secretary of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia), along with Elizabeth Baer, had thousands of leaflets printed and mailed to men of conscription (ie, draft) age, urging them to “resist” being drafted. Schenck and Baer were convicted primarily of violating part of the Espionage Act of 1917 and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court, however, ruled that one’s freedom of speech (during “wartime,” at least) could be curtailed.

As to the “fire in a crowded theater” line from the case, the full line from the opinion was “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” In other words, you CAN shout fire in a theater (provided there IS a fire; most common sense analysis, of course, suggests if you see a fire starting in a theater then you contact management to avoid a panic—but if there IS a fire, you cannot be held accountable for inadvertently creating a panic).

But, the ultimate ruling from Schenck (and, unfortunately, it still holds as “good” law) is that UNPOPULAR speech CAN be grounds for prosecution and it’s not seen as a violation of the First Amendment.

Remember that, in the early days of the Iraq War, Dubya and his GOP cronies/allies/handlers had little problem referring to political opponents as traitors, especially when those opponents dared to question the “official” line. (Dubya was also very well-known for his forcing hecklers and other critics to remain within specific areas well away from him—even to the point of making many of his “public” speaking events, effectively “invitation only.”)

commented 2015-05-11 23:27:43 -0400 · Flag

I’ve said this before – on Fox, “far left” is anything to the left of Bill O’Reilly.

commented 2015-05-11 22:52:44 -0400 · Flag

1. Not losing my temper. I never lose my temper with strangers – they aren’t worth it.
2. I’m not trying to shut you down, either. Never said you don’t have the right to speak (wrongly). Go ahead. I’m just here to point out that you’re wrong, and the Supreme Court has made that fact quite clear. Even the extremely despicable Wesboro Baptists were given a past to spew their nasty HATE SPEECH right there protesting soldiers’ funerals.
3. And Title VII of the Civil Rights act as it relates to employment is another matter entirely. You don’t have freedom of speech without consequence when it comes to employment. My eight year old son can’t start saying F**K!! S***T! and all sorts of vile things then claim “freedom of speech” when I come at him with a paddle. Likewise, employees can’t say things that harass, intimidate or create a hostile workplace and then claim “freedom of speech” to avoid being disciplined or fired.

But you CANNOT apply that kind of standard to the public at large. Doesn’t work that way, and again, the Courts are all completely, 100% against you and your opinions stated here.

I’ll just finish by saying I’m glad that you and people like you weren’t in power when the Constitution was written. To feel that you can judge – your own opinion as to what is “hate” – speech and decide it’s not covered by “freedom of speech” puts you in a mighty powerful position. I mean, you do realize that my definition of “hate” speech and your definition of “hate” speech are entirely different? Why do you think your definition is any more important or valid than mine? Who put you in charge of definitions – and the laws that are built on them?

Instead, we live in a place where what you don’t like is completely and wholly irrelevant. If the speech doesn’t DIRECTLY incite violence (like saying people should go out and kill gays on May 30th), and it doesn’t DIRECTLY include lies and defamatory content, then it is free…

absolutely legal…

absolutely protected…

Whether it’s on Leslie’s list of “hate” or not. And I, for one, am extremely glad to not be subject to your judgmental opinions.

commented 2015-05-11 21:53:58 -0400 · Flag

Timothy, you can lose your temper all you want, I really don’t care. The difference between free speech and hate speech is a hotly debated topic in academia and the legal world as well.

You have no right to try and shut me down for calling for punishment for reckless talking heads on trash tv. And if that does me no good, then I can always turn to another law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been used to prosecute employers for tolerating “hate speech” by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in hostile acts.

NewsHounds posted about Elisabeth Hasselbeck Attacks Girl Scouts Transgender Policy As "Far Left Move" on NewsHounds' Facebook page 2015-05-11 20:10:24 -0400

The Girl Scout are "far left?" Really?

commented 2015-05-11 19:52:01 -0400 · Flag

Leslie you can stretch reach and imagine all the connections you want between speech you don’t like and bad consequences but the Supreme Court has been quite clear on this matter for 100 years.

Speech is forbidden – inciting – if it is DIRECT. Getting in someone’s face and threatening their life is directly forbidden. Walking into a theater and yelling fire is directly forbidden.

Stating your OPINION is never…ever forbidden, no matter how much you may dislike it or contrive a connection to negative consequences.

The whole reason we have a First Amendment is to protect speech you…yes you, Leslie, DON’T LIKE.

commented 2015-05-11 19:19:23 -0400 · Flag

Timothy, when the exercise of “free speech” endangers the lives, health and safety of any member of the transgender community I have every right to speak out. Ms. Hassleback and Fox have a responsibility to accurately report the news not slant it in favor of their narrow minded hate mongering sponsors. Besides, there are consequences for the malicious exercise of speech; Otherwise, people could go in any closed venue like a theatre and yell ‘fire’.

commented 2015-05-11 16:34:58 -0400 · Flag

No free speech in your world, Leslie? What color is the sun there where you live?

commented 2015-05-11 16:19:40 -0400 · Flag

We should start a petition to get the FCC to fine Fox for broadcasting hate mongering propaganda .