Move Over Floyd Corkins

Hey, heard of Floyd Corkins? Yes? Maybe? No? Well, then you may or may not know who Daniel Sarno is.

Courant.com via Ace of Spades:

NEW HAVEN — — An Enfield man admitted in court Tuesday that he sent hundreds of threatening letters to the director of the socially conservative Family Institute of Connecticut, which is at the forefront of political opposition in Hartford to gay marriage.

The guilty plea in U.S. District Court by Daniel Sarno comes a week after an apparently similarly motivated event in which an armed man espousing opposition to social conservatism shot a security guard while trying to enter the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 15.

The Family Institute and the Family Research Council are affiliated organizations created to press agendas that include opposition to abortion and to marriage other than that between a man and a woman.

Sarno, 53, admitted orchestrating a letter-writing campaign that began in November and ended in May when U.S. postal inspectors tracked the letters to his house, an official familiar with the matter said. All the letters were addressed to Family Institute Executive Director Peter Wolfgang.

“No mercy for homophobes,” said one letter, obtained by The Courant. “I suggest you make your funeral arrangements real soon, Mr. Wolfgang. (Trust me. I know.)”

Sarno pleaded guilty Tuesday to two counts of mailing threatening communications.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham said, “Some of the letters contained threats separate and apart from the generally obnoxious nature of the letters.”

Sarno, in many of the letters, referred to people who shared the beliefs of the Family Institute as “Bible thumping,” “fear mongering” and “sanctimonious,” Durham said.

Under sentencing guidelines for federal judges, Sarno faces 10 to 16 months in prison, though Senior U.S. District Judge Ellen Bree Burns can impose a sentence either longer or shorter than those in the guidelines.

Burns ordered Sarno to report back to the court Jan. 3 for sentencing, and in the meantime to submit to a psychological evaluation.

Wolfgang, who was in court, issued a statement through his organization thanking authorities for protecting him, his family and his professional colleagues.

“Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident,” Wolfgang said. “In fact, it is part of a growing and disturbing intimidation campaign among some proponents of same-sex ‘marriage.’ It is clear that their pretense of ‘tolerance’ is over.

Using death threats to stifle debate is un-American. These types of tactics won’t work. The Family Institute of Connecticut will continue its work to strengthen and protect marriage, life and religious freedom.”

The statement from the Family Institute said that in the letters, Sarno “identified himself as homosexual and made it clear that he was threatening Peter’s life because of Peter’s beliefs and public advocacy.”

 

*snip*

 

There is more, read the whole thing. I’d like to think this man is more loony than sane and is not representative of the  gay community, but perhaps not. Maybe Antoine Dodson is right. Either way, it’s sad.

 

 

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on August 24, 2012.
Filed under Gay Marriage, Leftist Tolerance, Liberals.
Tagged with: .
I'm a Conservative minded mother and wife living in the Triangle area of NC. I began writing in 2009 via my LadyLiberty1885 blog. My writing can also be found at Carolina Right, BatShitCrazynews and at Wizbang. I also write science fiction and children's novellas that are works in progress and unpublished as of yet.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • herddog505

    Somebody needs to check with the SPLC: have they been tracking this guy? Do they know if he belongs to a hate group? Or does the SPLC only consider “right-wing” or “conservative” groups as “hate groups?

    • GarandFan

      Well naturally, liberals are ALWAYS tolerant of the views of others. Just ask them!

    • ackwired

      Interesting question. Their mindset is to identifly and track groups that discriminate against minorities and express a desire to harm minorities. Since there are minoritly groups that believe that violence is justified by their ends, perhaps an organization should identify and track the “violent minorities”. I’m not sure that it would fit neatly into what SPLC is doing. But there is certainly room for someone to do it. Maybe you should start a not for profit.

      • retired.military

        Do you define “discriminate against minorities” as someone who is religously opposed to homosexuality? (I am failrly certin you do) . I am not talking about denying employment, raises, etc but to say opponents of same sex marraige?

        Violence is not the answer to social issues. It never is and will usually turn the majority against the people committing the violence (Occupy wall street comes to mind).

        • ackwired

          People can be opposed to anything they want to. Discrimination is beyond opposition. Concerning gay marraige, I don’t think the state should be able to tell any church who they will or will not marry unless there is a public health issue.
          You are spot on concerning violence. Non-violent actions are almost always more effective.

          • retired.military


            I don’t think the state should be able to tell any church who they will or will not marry unless there is a public health issue.”

            So with no public health issue you are perfectly content with the state telling churches who they can marry.

          • ackwired

            Hmm… let me elaborate and see if I can make myself clear to you. I think the only legitimate reason for the state to tell churches who they can or can not marry is public health issues. Since conservatives want the state to tell churches that they cannot marry gays, and liberals want the state to tell churches that they have to marry gays, I am in agreement with neither. As Eisenhower said, I am walking down the center of the road and having rocks thrown at me from the gutter on the left and the gutter on the right.

      • herddog505

        Not too keen on private citizens in a private organization spying on their fellow private citizens.

  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    This is your Wizbang indignation about the random nutball of the day.

    • herddog505

      You didn’t get the memo? There are no “random nutballs” any more: they are all incited to violence by uncivil rhetoric and violent imagery by Sarah Palin. And our 2A rights should be taken away because of them.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        When’s the post about our NYC nutball today? I read that 9 out of 10 victims were shot by the cops going apeshit with their Glocks. Like the Springsteen song – 41 Shots.

        • herddog505

          SSSHHHH!!! Again, didn’t you get the memo? The only people being murdered are victims of right-wing nutjobs incited by Sarah Palin and armed with vicious assault weapons! The police (ranging from your local PD to the umpteen armed bodies at the federal level) are nothing to worry about!

          • retired.military

            That is because they are union members. Now if the guy doing the shooting was raging against the oligaphy or a member of OWS than Chico would have been screaming about his civil rights being violated by the cops.

  • retired.military


    Using death threats to stifle debate ”

    Its the Chicago way

  • Brucehenry

    Since when is being a sanctimonious fear-mongering Bible-thumper a capital offense?

  • JWH

    Another one?

  • TomInCali

    Ooooo, the dreaded threatening letter! Never mind Corkins. You’d better tell all these guys to move over.

    • jim_m

      Yeah, because the left never uses violence to achieve their political ends. Just ask Bill Ayers.

      • TomInCali

        Strawman ignored.

        • jim_m

          You implied that the left was as pure as the driven snow. I’m just providing some balance to your ideological spin.

          • TomInCali

            I implied no such thing. It’s just easier for you to respond to what you wish I said rather than what I actually said.

          • jim_m

            Whatever. You can deny that your post was to point out some instances of violence committed ostensibly against a leftist cause for the purpose of claiming that left wing violence is not a big deal. I point out that lefty violence is a big deal and you call my doing to you exactly what you just did raising a strawman argument. My comment was every bit as valid as yours. If mine is not valid then yours is equally so.

          • TomInCali

            You can deny that your post was … for the purpose of claiming that left wing violence is not a big deal.

            Wow. It’s really amazing the extent of your willful reconstruction of what others say. You have no response to their actual words, so you make up strawmen to respond to. But you see what you want to see, and there’s no explaining that which you will not hear.

            I have no need to deny your invented interpretation of my words, any more than you must deny that yours imply that radioactive zebras are preparing to rise from the oceans and enslave the Peruvian people. And I have no doubt that if it suited your political agenda, you would claim that.