National Organization for Marriage: Teh New McCarthyism

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is at it again with an absurd false equivalency. This time, the organization, which opposes same-sex marriage, is equating post-Prop 8 boycotts of businesses with "McCarthyism." In expected over-the-top manner, the organization has recently ejaculated:

"McCarthyism is threatening our free speech and freedom of association—our most basic constitutional rights. Donors who exercised these rights in supporting proposition 8 are seeing their employers or companies being targeted for harassment and intimidation."

The alleged purpose of NOM's new campaign, called "bust the blacklist," is to urge people to support "businesses targeted for harassment."

First off, like other recent versions of this Gays Are the Real Haterz!!11! campaigns, this message is also mostly nothing but a vague, spaghetti-at-the-wall accusation against marriage equality advocates. It is absurd. Unfortunately, just because some people will actually believe NOM's drivel, someone actually has to take the time rebut NOM's claims.

1. McCarthyism Was Much More Pervasive and Sinister Than the Private Protesting and Boycotting of 2 Businesses

On its "busttheblacklist.com honor roll," as of today anyway, NOM includes two (2) businesses that have supposedly been targeted for "harassment." The first business mentioned is A-1 Storage and is owned by someone who made "substantial personal donations to support Proposition 8." NOM claims that, "for this reason, his business has been targeted for punishment." Yet, NOM does not detail what this alleged "punishment" includes. My inquiring mind certainly wished to know more details. In fact, about 30 seconds after reading NOM's allegations, I learned a bit more about this case.

My "investigative reporting" revealed that the owner of the A-1 business, along with his family, allegedly donated $693,000 in support of Prop 8 making him the proposition's 2nd largest contributor. For these reasons, Californians Against Hate urged a boycott of his business.

Of the second business, NOM claims:

"Leatherby's Ice Cream, a popular local family-run ice cream store in Sacramento, faced an angry crowd of protestors outside their doorstep Sunday afternoon, November 23rd. The protestors spoke out against Leatherby's because members of the Leatherby family contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. Despite the turmoil outside, Leatherby's was still packed with people who supported the business. Though the protest Sunday was peaceful, David Leatherby, Jr. did receive angry emails, one of which read, 'We're going to put you out of business, you hate mongers, you people are evil.'"

Again, even though this statement is written from a biased perspective, nothing in it describes pervasive "harassment" or "intimidation." I don't know whether the businessowners are "hate mongers" or "evil" so I can't say whether those statements are accurate. But, I do know that boycotts and protests are not illegal or inherently wrong. Given the context of the protest outside of the ice cream store, I think it's clear that the cited "angry email" was referring to the legitimate activity of boycotting the business as opposed to illegal, immoral, or otherwise questionable activities.

NOM made a very serious charge when it claimed that businessowners who supported Prop 8 were being "harassed" and "intimidated." While "angry emails," depending on what they actually said, may not have been appropriate, being the recipient of "angry emails" does not make one a victim of "McCarthyism." Furthermore, NOM cited a mere two businesses that were the targets of boycotts and protests. That, ladies and gentleman, they have called McCarthyism.

2. McCarthyism Was Implemented Through the Power of the State

You know, in their post-Prop 8 euphoria, it's like these people have lost all capacity for critical thinking.

While it's true that some marriage equality advocates are urging people to boycott businesses whose owners donated to Prop 8, boycotts have nothing to do with McCarthyism. Real-life actual McCarthyism had incredible power due to the legitimacy and authority of the state that was behind it. What made McCarthyism especially sinister was that government officials abused the power of the government, ruining people's lives, for an extreme rightwing political agenda. Unlike the recent Prop 8 boycotts, governmental institutions and officials were instrumental during McCarthyism in conducting communist/homosexual witch-hunts, firing thousands of people, and imprisoning hundreds. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia informs that during McCarthyism:

"There were many anti-Communist committees, panels and 'loyalty review boards' in federal, state and local governments, as well as many private agencies that carried out investigations for small and large companies concerned about possible Communists in their work force."

During McCarthyism, the FBI also engaged in burglaries, opened mail, and conducted illegal wire-tapping. I can't believe we actually have to point this out, but the Prop 8 boycotts have nowhere near such power or authority behind them. There are no "loyalty review boards" in the government making people sign pro-gay oaths. There are no state-sanctioned investigations or private investigators carrying out with-hunts on behalf of the gays. It is absurd to even compare the two.

Some equality advocates have urged boycotts of businesses, in fact, precisely because the state denies us equal rights thanks to the influence of rightwing elements and propaganda. Thus, it bears mentioning that, during McCarthyism, "far right radicals were the bedrock of support for" the persecution of suspected Communists and "homosexuals."

Even today, more than 50 years later, remnants of McCarthyist thought are apparent. During the 2008 election, for instance, the rightwing media exploded when Obama made his infamous "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber. To diligent red-scare watchmen, like the folks over at Conservapedia, such statements are just further evidence that Obama is a "Marxist Leftist." What these people rarely explain is why it's inherently bad or wrong to be a "Marxist" or a "Lefitst." To them, the label speaks for itself and everyone just knows it's a Really Bad Thing to be. Anyone who questions this assumption they view as being deeply entrenched in the cesspools of Leftist thought.

What is so ironic about NOM's latest charge is that the "marriage defense" movement in general, like McCarthyism, is an extreme and unnecessary reaction to progressive politics and social justice movements. Like anti-feminist sentiment, opposition to full equality for LGBT people is a "defense" against so-called radical, leftist, elitist elements that are supposedly ruining America. For fun, google "homosexual radicals" some time and see what you come up with. Perhaps not understanding the history of McCarthyism and the role it continues to play in the political sphere, NOM has created an absurd anti-gay campaign. It is paradoxical for "marriage defenders" to simultaneously paint the LGBT community as leftist radicals and McCarthyists.


What I'm left wondering is why organizations like NOM can't ever just look at an LGBT boycott and just call it a boycott? Why the trumped-up charges? Why the huge paranoid accusations and vilification of people who just want equal rights?

Everyone knows that boycotts are non-violent, legitimate means of protest that virtually all political movements, including "family values" organizations, have engaged in throughout our nation's history. When groups of people feel failed by the state, by the legal system, or by the political process, boycotts are a way to make their voices heard.

Contrary to what NOM may think, businesses certainly don't have a right to our dollars. And it most certainly is not an infringement of a businessowner's "free speech" or "free association" if we refuse to patronize his or her business. No court in this nation would call a private boycott of a business an "infringement" of the businessowner's free speech or freedom of association. If we know that the owner of a business is a virulent bigot, we have no obligation to pay his or her salary.

Like the notorious argumentum ad nazium, this latest Gays are McCarthyists comparison is so absurd as to be virtually meaningless. I sometimes wonder when those leading the "marriage defense" movement will stop being so over-the-top with their accusations. Are asinine exaggerations really the only way they can get people to care about their pet issue of opposing same-sex marriage? These folks would do better to remember the parable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The villagers will come running to one's shrill, ridiculous cries only so many times. At some point, perhaps when our nation faces a true threat, one's cries will be met with apathy.

Book Review: Bloodthirsty Bitches and Pious Pimps of Power*

After reading the blurb on the back cover of Gerry Spence's Bloodthirsty Bitches and Pious Pimps of Power: The Rise and Risks of the New Conservative Hate Culture, I was extremely eager to read the book. [Update: Although, the title is horrific. "Bitches" and "Pimps" - really?]. For, in it, Spence makes a compelling case that "conservative hate-mongers: Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and others.... occupy the bully pulpit of the new American hate culture."

In short, Spence validates the disgust with which many of us on the left (and in the middle perhaps) view some of the right's most vocal ranters. A disgust born from the "conservatives are automatically holier and more moral, than liberals" attitude of certain popular conservative spokespersons that in reality is hatred, loathing, and intolerance.

1. Hate Sells

In short, the overarching theme of the book is this:

Americans are angry. The conservative movement taps into this anger by blaming every conceivable social ill on liberals. Implicit in this blame is the message that liberals and everything they stand for are to be hated- and that liberals are not real Americans or real Christians. And, while conservative pundits foster a culture of hate and aggression they enrich themselves and help maintain an unequal status quo. While doing so, they distract the masses from the actual causes of why so many Americans are unhappy. The actual cause being that we live in a greedy hyper-capitalist culture that values corporations more than human beings.

2. Those Beret-Capped Elites Again

Before I delve further into Spence's main arguments, I want to make a quick note of Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and company's distrust of and dislike for so-called "elites." One, does anyone else find it... odd and sorta hypocritical that these very rich, educated, and very influential persons with their own talk shows, radio shows, and books rant about elites? I mean, in what class of Americans do they see themselves as being?

Spence took the same issue I did in my review of Shut Up & Sing with regard to "elite"-hater Laura Ingraham's new self-made definition of "elite": "In short, Laura Ingraham's definition of the elitist is substantially similar to Coulter's definition of the liberal" (27). In Ingraham's world, elite no longer means "persons of a higher class," but is a synonym for liberal- or, those with whom she disagrees.

The favorite target of some in the conservative movement is the so-called "academic elite," which of course really only means intelligent people who disagree with conservatives. Spence writes,

"Professors are a problem, I suppose. Those in universities presumably have been trained to think, and those who think usually do not adopt the numb, dumb creed [Laura Ingraham] espouses. Still, giver her credit. She's in line with the idea of Mao, who hated the intelligentsia as well. But Mao simply took them out, stood them against the wall, and shot them." (32)

Well, Laura can always dream.

3. Anger and Hate

When listening to Ann Coulter, I have often been struck by her rage and, to put it simply, her mean-ness. Her presence and vitriol detract from virtually any "debate" in which she participates. I have to wonder if she says some of what she says for pure shock value or if there's a real human being in there somewhere. And yet, there is a reason she is popular. (Perhaps the same reason many dislike her). Hate sells.

Why does hate sell?

According to Spence, these right-wing talking heads have been directed by their corporate bosses to "seek out stories that cater to angry, middle-aged white men who listen to talk radio and yell at their televisions" (69).

And what stories make the masses angry?

To answer that we must first acknowledge this: The stories that make the masses angry serve as distractions from the fact that conservative pundits "favor the positions of their corporate sponsors" which, sadly, are positions that do not favor the masses.

As Spence writes,

"Do we think that NBC, owned by General Electric, is going to get behind a movement to take corporations off corporate welfare?... Do the corporate media kings censor? CBS refused to run MoveOn.Org's thirty-second spot during the Super Bowl, an add that opposed the war in Iraq. It was too political." (98)

And Spence is right. While "angry men" are yelling at their televisions because they agree with Ann Coulter that John Kerry is a French-looking faggot, they are ignoring real problems. After all, more corporate welfare means less money that goes into our public infrastructure- schools, hospitals, roads, and public transportation to name a few examples. But that's boring, right?

As for why Americans are so angry, as for why there is a "molten lava" of hate running through America, Spence argues that we are all sort of enslaved by corporate interests because (1) Most of us are bound to corporate/government work by necessity; (2) Many of us can be easily replaced by a new (or perhaps cheaper overseas) employee at will; (3) Corporate accountability, from a moral and legal standpoint, has decreased; (4) We prepare our children to work for the corporate/government master; (5) Most workers receive a pittance for retirement; (6) Propaganda is used to make us feel patriotic and loyal to this system; and (7) Out of helplessness, we become apathetic.

These characteristics of our profit-obsessed society causes the masses to be "despondent and depressed" (200). And, what reinforces these characteristics is that the masses are taught that to question the system is unpatriotic, Marxist, or some other pejorative label with scary implications. Inevitably, some Joe Shmoe (like Fitz, perhaps) will come along and ignorantly denounce any critique of the system by slapping the "commie" label on it, even though by ignoring the critique he's actually harming his own self-interest.

Wake up.

3. The Consequences

The consequences of right-wing hate messaging are several.

One, the messaging influences the masses to regularly vote against their own interests. As Spence puts it in the most important paragraph of his book, the masses are fed a "diet of hate to the end that people blindly voted against their own interests" in the 2000 election. For instance:

"Because they hated gays, and voted that single issue, the poisonous side effect of their vote was to elect candidates who were enemies of labor and the poor. Because they hated free-choice advocates, and voted that issue alone, they elected candidates who also fought against fair wages, decent health care, and an environment already staggering under the poisonous sludge or corporate pollution. These hate-mongers, through the dark dynamic of hate, delivered power to the right wing, who thereafter used their power against the fundamental interests of the people who elected them" (121).

I would like any person out there reading this who is anti-gay to re-read the above paragraph. This single-issue mythical "moral values" voter phenomenon is readily apparent, and, I believe, is responsible for the current sorry state of our nation in general and our economy, international reputation, and "culture war" in particular.

The likes of Pat Robertson and company are truly perpetuating a culture of hate that is doing nothing but damage to our nation. But more, it has the potential to incite violence.

Of Nancy Grace, Spence writes:

"Perhaps she does not understand that her own biting cynicism can call to life the same hate-filled but dormant sentiment of her viewers.... I think of how this phenomenon works, that is, how we are influenced by the attitudes of the people we listen to and are expected to respect. If we listen to the love of Billy Graham, the love in us tends to rise to the surface. If we hear the call for love and justice of Martin Luther King Junior, we respond in kind. But anger is the mother of hate. And it is dangerous. I am not comparing her to Hitler. But in a later chapter we shall see how a similar stirring of the people's latent hate led unalterably to the Third Reich." (15)

To quote a cliche, nobody's perfect. We are all guilty of being mean at times and of acting with anger in our hearts instead of love. However, what I find most unfortunate about the likes of Ingraham, Robertson, and company is that they are given a very large platform to influence and change the world for the better. But in the interest of profit, they choose to contribute more hate and negativity into the world and, most unfortunately, influence millions of people while doing so.

Leftist Gender Warrior! Dun-dun-dun!

As if on cue, and fitting nicely into today's book review of Shut Up & Sing, previous Red Scare Award winner and anti-feminist blogger "Fitz" today provided another case study in conservative/anti-gay/anti-feminist propaganda-style messaging.

On the anti-gay blog of which he is a contributor, Fitz bemoaned "leftist gender warriors especially in our universities," elaborating on his recent article where he declared that advocates of marriage equality are "America's enemies."

Specifically, when he "thinks of 'enemies within'" he's thinking about the "important, well placed [sic], & influential element" of advocates for marriage equality, particularly in academia. And in Fit'z elaboration we see the liberal academia conspiracy theory once again rearing its beret-capped head.

("Fitz," without explanation, links to this article by conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz. I'm assuming here that Fitz does not mean to say that Mr. Kurtz is an enemy of America, but rather, that advocates for marriage equality are enemies of America).

How does Fitz use propaganda messaging?

Because, rather than discrediting an idea on its merits, he merely places a label on it and calls it a day:

"Extremist," "Element," "Marxist," "Enemy," "Homosexualist," "Identity Politics."

Ooooooh. Those are scawy, scawy words.

Fitz, you see, uses the messaging tactic of Name-Calling ("This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.") and Demonizing the Enemy (Making his opponent seem "worthless, immoral, or sub-human." Unlike Fitz, who is an American, marriage equality advocates are enemies.) In addition, and this is the key part, after using these tactics, he offers no real or logical explanation as to why the idea or belief he is "critiquing" is in error. He lets his name-calling and demonizing stand on its own.


"Leftist gender warrior," eh? That may just be my new favorite phrase.

Thanks for today's chuckle, Fitz.


Perhaps this is what he has in mind....

Fannie's Room presents:

Leftist Gender Warrior Chronicles, Part I

Fannie: "Arrgggh! Arrrgggh! Arrrgh!" [insert hysterical, shrill screeching]

Society: "Save us, Fitz! Save uuuuuuuuuus!"

Fitz: "Watch me defend marriage and save society with my logic black belt. Take that you gender warrior!" *Crash* "Marxist!" *Boom* "Extremist!" *Bam* "Enemy of America!"

Fannie: "Ah hahahahahaha! Your tactics are no match for my sickle and sporty rollerblade! Ah hahahahahahah *cough* *cough* hahahahaha!" [Mad cackling]




Create your very own Leftist Gender Warrior (or Marriage Defender) here!

Book Review: Shut Up & Sing

Right off the bat I should tell you, I did not have high hopes for Laura Ingraham's anti-liberal book Shut Up & Sing (not to be confused with the Dixie Chicks documentary of the same name). The premise of the book is that so-called "elites" are stupid, evil, and ruining America. Seriously, the premise is that simple. Ingraham actually uses the word "stupid" several times.

Knowing her premise, I expected to be angry and/or annoyed much of the time I was reading it. However, upon reading the book, I relaxed. Ingraham's case against "elites," whomever they are, is nothing but a mostly unsubstantiated rant. A rant, rather than being a scholarly piece of work, is really sorta just propaganda. Which, again, made me nervous. Because propaganda is often more persuasive than cold, hard facts.

For instance, Ingraham bases almost all of her claims on her own stereotypes and assumptions about liberals, Democrats, and educated people. She is telling her audience of (presumably) conservative, Republican, un-educated, rural Americans exactly what they want, and are eager, to hear about the "elites." (I say presumably, because the only people Ingraham does not bash in her book are for the most part conservative, Republican, un-educated, rural Americans).

In short, in Ingraham, "the masses" have found an educated, conservative, Republican (elite?) who will validate their concerns regarding liberalism, Democrats, and educated people.


1. The premise of Shut Up & Sing is that so-called "elites" are ruining America. Concerned with this latest (vague) threat to the country, I immediately set out to discover what an "elite" is.

Is it someone who is highly educated? Yes. That seems to be one feature. In which case it is unclear as to why Ingraham (Dartmouth-Bachelor's, University of Virginia- Juris Doctor) does not meet her definition of elite (more on that in a minute).

Of these highly-educated "elites," Ingraham writes,

"The most left-wing of the elites hang their hats, or should I say berets, at our finest universities and colleges.... they are the establishment on campus" (15).

And mark another believer in the great liberal conspiracy theory of our educational institutions. (Although I have to admit that the beret bit was kinda funny). Ultimately, it's just not faaaa-ir that so many liberals are in academia. It's not faaaaaa-ir that Women's Studies programs, African-American studies programs, and LGBT studies programs exist in colleges. (It's also not faaaaa-ir that some Americans are hyphenated-Americans, because aren't we all Americans?). Much like conservatives will not be satisfied until creationism is taught alongside evolution in classrooms, the likes of Ingraham will not be satisfied until conservatives are equally represented in academia. Regardless of the merits of their positions.

Okay, so elites are "highly-educated" (yet "stupid," of course).

Yet there are also "media elites," "cultural elites," "business elites," and "world citizen elites." Although she admits that elites run across the political spectrum, she really only bashes Democrats and liberals- perhaps proving that it is okay to be "elite" as long as you agree with Ingraham. Media and cultural elites essentially are famous people, like Susan Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks, who are liberal (it's also essential, when denouncing these liberals, to include the most unflattering pictures of these people as you can). As the title of her book suggests, these entertainers should just shut up about politics and entertain us. Well, the ones with whom Ingraham disagrees should shut up, anyway. "World citizen elites" are those who believe in the outrageous, preposterous, outlandish notion that we are all citizens of the world (rather than just American citizens).

In the end, I was left unsatisfied by her definition of "elite." Ingraham has created a straw-group of people that she abstractly calls the "elites," whose sole common bond is essentially any person who holds a position that she does not agree with. For, even though she's influential, wealthy, and highly-educated, she is not an elite. Throughout her book, she claims that the "elites" do not reflect the values of "we the people" or "Americanism" or "democracy." Even though she has conducted no poll, she believes she speaks for America. Citing no evidence whatsoever, she believes that conservative views are the views of "the masses," of the real America. Does anyone else find it troubling that she views the beliefs of an admittedly uneducated group of people as "real American values." Or that ignorant viewpoints represent the real America? It is here that I must note that she not once tried to prove the correctness of her conservative beliefs. Her "case" is essentially this: Elites are educated but they're stupid so we shouldn't listen to them. The masses are uneducated but they know what's best because there is more of them.

Not exactly the case I would make for saying my position is correct. But then again, logic is surely a highfalutin' "elite" notion.

The group she uses to contrast with the "elites" are "the masses"- also known as the common people, the little people, or Americans. Yes. Americans. [*Brief pause to check my passport to make sure I'm still an American* ] See, Ingraham implicitly defines an American as those people who agree with her: conservative, Republican, rural, religious, and uneducated people (white, heterosexual ones, of course). The "other," the "anti-American," is anything that falls outside of this narrow group. Conveniently. By defining a true American as those who agree with Ingraham, Shut Up & Sing is an exercise in political, religious, and social intolerance.

In short, Ingraham's novel is a case study in how conservatives have hijacked the phrase "American values" by instilling their beliefs in that phrase- allowing conservatives to claim that anything other than a conservative outlook is by definition un-American.


2. When speaking about the Iraq War, Ingraham (who was writing in 2003) continually and almost-embarrassingly does a premature victory dance. For instance, she quotes Senator Ted Kennedy as warning in 2003 that a war with Iraq,

"will not advance the defeat of Al Qaeda, but undermine it. It will antagonize critical allies and crack the global coalition that came together after September 11. It will feed the rising tide of anti-Americanism overseas, and swell the ranks of al Qaeda recruits and sympathizers. It will strain our diplomatic, military, and intelligence resources and reduce our ability to root out terrorists...."

After this quote, Ingraham taunts that Kennedy was "Wrong, wrong, wrong" on all counts.

When, of course, we know now that Kennedy ended up being right. According to this GAO report, Iraq is worse off in many measures than before the war. What is disturbing is that Ingraham fell, hook, line, and sinker for Bush's "Mission Accomplished" victory speech regarding the war in Iraq and implied that Senator Kennedy, by warning us about the war, was an "elite" who hates America. With the benefit of hindsight, we can look back and see that this war is still occurring and has not been as successful as Ingraham unquestionably believed it to be (and was based on lies propagated by the Bush Administration).

Ingraham, as the title of her book does more than suggest, would prefer for critics of Ameican foreign policy and people with whom she disagrees, to just keep quiet. To silence liberals, she uses the age-old jibe that those who vocally disagree with her or conservatives "hate America" or that liberals are somehow America's enemies. And, even though free speech is a quintessential American value, liberals should just shut up. If they don't shut up, they hate America. If you don't agree with her, you hate America. See how that little trick works? It's really a quite common tactic (eh Fitzy?) and entirely deserving of a Red Scare Award! (Congratulations).


3. Ingraham writes, "By definition, elites can never outnumber common folk" and with the ever-increasing population (thanks to huge families and megachurches) of "the common folk," elites will some day be "effectively contained." (41)

With her message that powerful "elites" are evil combined with her acknowledgment that the "common" people are more numerous and, therefore, more powerful than the "elites," Ingraham's message is at its core sorta socialist. (Don't tell her that, as she lambasts liberal commies and Marxists throughout her book!). I agree with Ingraham that the one thing the masses have over "elites" (whoever they are) is that they heavily outnumber the "elites."

It's just too bad that so many of the masses fall for conservative rubbish exemplified by Ingraham's novel than they believe in liberal polices that could actually benefit them. By continuing to vote Republican and "family values," the blue-collar masses continue voting directly against their financial self-interest. While "the masses" obsess over which candidate will not allow gay people to marry, their elected politicians help widen the gap between the very rich and the poor, vote to extend a perpetual war that makes a few people richer and poor kids dead, and extend tax breaks that mostly benefit millionaires. (Hello recession, by the way!)

It makes the very rich happy, you see, when the little people vote against their own interests. It makes the very rich happy when blue-collar working stiffs denounce liberals and progressives as "reds" and "commies." The working class so prides itself on its "Americanism" and "American values" that it will automatically denounce anything that has an "un-American" label on it, no matter what the merits of the idea are.


In sum, I found this "New York Times Bestseller" to be a collection of stereotypes and personal attacks on a group of people defined mostly by Ingraham's dislike of them than on anything they have in common with each other. And, that such a negative book would be a bestseller in this country is depressing. Do people really believe what Ingraham believes? Does this book pass as an accurate diagnosis of America's social ills amongst the conservative crowd and the masses? Do they really believe that America's problems are brought on by a vaguely-defined group of liberal "elites"?

While denouncing an alleged victim mentality of "elites," Ingraham has created the perfect justification for conservatives to turn themselves into victims: Liberal elites are attempting to oppress the "the masses" and (conservative) "American values."

At the risk of sounding elitist, I must end on this note: After reading Ingraham's book, it's apparent to anyone with any sort of brains that the Empress is not wearing clothes. Now it's just a question of when Ingraham's audience will figure it out.