Mike Adams

If you think that comparing Evangelical Christians to the Taliban sounds extreme, you might just be a normal American. But if you think that the comparison is valid, you might just be a supporter of North Carolina Senator Julia Boseman. In fact, Boseman?s supporters have just launched a new website making that very comparison. Even worse, they go on to say the following of both Republicans and Christian Fundamentalists: ?Hate is their currency. Ignorance is their sacrament. Racism is their communion.?

Julia Boseman?s attacks on Evangelical Christians began months ago in one of the most disgraceful episodes of political passive aggression in North Carolina history. Boseman?s campaign brought her sexual orientation into the race by saying, among other things, ?Now is the time that we must elect openly (lesbian, etc.) members to the North Carolina State Senate to protect our rights.?

In order to win the support of a powerful gay rights PAC known as the ?Victory Fund,? Boseman had to meet their ?stringent criteria and complete an exhaustive screening process? in order to demonstrate that she was a ?viable candidate.?

Translation: Boseman had to a) interject her sexuality into the campaign and, b) make her sexuality relevant by supporting initiatives such as gay marriage. In return she got a lot of money.

But after Boseman interjected her sexuality into the campaign, her Republican opponent took issue with her acceptance of money from the ?Victory Fund.? The local Republican party then ran an advertisement objecting to her decision to (homo) sexualize the campaign in exchange for out-of-state money. Their reasoning was simple: Gay lobbyists in Washington do not care about our local schools and North Carolinians don?t care for gay marriage.

The Republican ad pointed out the incontestable fact that Boseman sought to be the first openly gay member of the N.C. Senate.  And they did so by quoting the Victory Fund?s internet campaign ad for Boseman. The Victory Fund ad also ridiculed her opponent as an extremist and a bigot for opposing gay marriage.

Here?s where the case gets really bizarre. The Victory Fund removed its derogatory statements about Boseman?s opponent after he fought back. Then Boseman?s supporters flooded the local paper and radio stations with complaints about the ?hate speech? included in the Republican ad.

The quote that the homosexual community complained about was taken directly from the Victory Fund website. With straight faces (pun intended), the gay community then accused the Republicans of ?hate speech? for quoting their own speech. Are you following this?

Then the local New York Times affiliate decided to jump in and rescue Boseman from the ?hate crime? of accurately quoting a true statement made by gay lobbyists. They did this by retracting their previous endorsement of the Republican. They even accused him of ?div(ing) in the gutter? for accurately quoting the gay lobby.

To the gay thought police, the truth is not important. It is enough that somewhere, somehow, someone gay was offended by someone who was not gay who might not have been thinking the right thoughts while quoting a gay person. Are you still following this?

And, of course, Julia Boseman won her election. She did it by sitting back and grinning while her opponent was falsely dubbed a ?bigot? and a ?hate criminal? by hysterical homosexuals and remorseless reporters.

But Julia Boseman wasn?t finished. Next she threatened a lawsuit against the author of this editorial and a number of conservative internet websites. The alleged offense is defamation of character. The alleged defamatory remark came from a sentence in one of my previous editorials. According to Boseman, she and her domestic partner had ?their? baby with sperm donated from an unknown source. My article had claimed that it was one of Boseman?s biological brothers.

While all of my sources were consistent (and Julia declined to proof read the article), I have recently been getting contradictory information from the Boseman family. One member of the Boseman family says that the truth is not important. What matters is that I ?have offended the Boseman?s? by saying that Julia is raising her nephew.

But now, since the threat of the lawsuit, another member of the Boseman family has named one of the Boseman?s as the probable sperm donor, leaving me to wonder whether the Bosemans will start filing lawsuits against one another in order to spare the family reputation. Maybe this will be done by showing that the father of Julia?s child is unknown, which they consider to be less defamatory than the notion that Julia and her partner are raising a nephew.

The first attorney I called about this lawsuit hung up on me accidentally when he dropped the telephone due to excessive laughter. But the situation really isn?t very funny. There?s a new twist involving some demands that have been placed on me.

Specifically, Julia Boseman has three demands for dropping the lawsuit: She wants a retraction, payment of attorney?s fees, and a public apology.

I have already run a retraction, making it clear that Julia maintains that she is not raising her nephew, but, instead, the child of an unknown person.

But now, I have learned that Julia?s attorney has taken her case for free. So, today, I am mailing a check for $0.00 to her attorney.  I suppose that takes care of that. Now it?s time for the public apology.

Julia, I am truly sorry that my previous editorial characterized you as a ?nephew raiser.? I am also sorry that many readers of this article have come to the conclusion that you tried to file a frivolous lawsuit against me in order to obtain lawyer?s fees that you never actually paid.

Now, everything is better and readers no longer dub the Senator a ?nephew raiser.? Now they are engaged in a heated debate over whether she is serious, which would make her an ?extortionist,? or whether she is simply acting, which would make her a ?lesbian thespian.? Opinions vary, but the race is still too close for CBS to make the final call.

But there is hope for Julia. Now her supporters are constructing a website dubbing Evangelical Christians as ?America?s Taliban.? Clearly, Julia Boseman and her supporters are perfectly stable. But Evangelical Christians are the nuts who are destroying America.

I?m just happy that I decided not to run my recent article comparing Senator Boseman to Senator McCarthy. That would have been a real case of defamation of character.

I think we can all agree that it would have defamed Joe McCarthy.

Mike S. Adams would like to thank the Xytex Sperm Bank in Atlanta, Georgia for assuring him that there is no social stigma attached to donating sperm, even within families. He would also like to thank his Ann Coulter action figure for providing him with wit and wisdom in preparing the present rebuttal. Dr. Adams loves pushing ?little Annie?s? buttons.  Dr. Adams would not like to thank the supporters of Julia Boseman who have referred to him publicly as a d***** b**. Dr. Adams denies that he is or ever has been a feminine hygiene product.


Mike Adams

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Letters to a Young Progressive: How To Avoid Wasting Your Life Protesting Things You Don't Understand.