Via the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund website:

On July 10, 2009, 17-year-old Zikerria Bellamy applied online for a position as a Shift Manager or Crew Leader at a McDonald’s restaurant in Orlando, Florida. On July 28, after managers at McDonald’s learned that Zikerria is transgender, she received the following voicemail message from one of the managers:

Transcript:

You went to [indistinguishable] McDonald’s today.
It doesn’t matter how many times you go down there.
You will not get hired.
We do not hire faggots.
You lied to me.
You told me you was a woman.
And then you lied to me.
You told me you were seventeen.
I can’t believe you.
You’re a lying brother [indistinguishable].
How could you ever lie to me?
We will never… [message ends]

It’s a bingo card all of its own, that: transphobia, racism, homophobia, cissexism, trans-misogyny, hate speech.

Needless to say, Zikerria didn’t even get a job interview – McDonald’s simply refused to hire her. Although whether you’d actually want to work alongside world class bigots and hatemongers like that manager is another matter.

TLDEF has now filed a Complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations against McDonald’s for refusing to hire 17-year-old Zikerria Bellamy because she is transgender.

More information over at the TLDEF website

Jewish Group objects to the Survival of the White Race

The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith is America’s pre-eminent Anti-Christ and anti-White hate group. With millions of dollars in funding — including an unknown amount scammed from taxpayers and crime victims through all these Jewish rackets you keep hearing about — the ADL liaises with thousands of corrupt law enforcement officials, bureaucrats and politicians at every level, in its campaign to have the New Testament banned as hate literature just because our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ identified Judaism as Satanic, and to destroy the White race.

The ADL warns its puppet officials to monitor anybody who uses the word “14″, and is trying to have those who use the number “14″ jailed. The ADL consider this to be a dangerous number because it refers to an assertion that the White race must not be genocided, and that White children deserve a future. There is no stronger supporter of The Jewish Ethno-State and the Jewish control of America than the ADL. The ADL believes it would be a bad thing for the Jewish pseudo-race to die out, and they expect Jewish children to have a future. The ADL and related conspirators constantly try to have their ZOG puppets enact “hate crimes” and “hate speech” legislation in accordance with Talmudic principles, because otherwise the brainwashed slaves might discover what the Jew World Order is, realize how evil the ADL is, and do something about it.

“Why do they hate us? Why did they kill us? Who’s Jacob Schiff?”

From the Judeo-Masonic ADL’s list of “hate symbols“:

Some interesting stories on Jihad Watch today.  I was especially impressed with one I happened to catch on FOXNEWS:

Former Hertz employees sue company over special “prayer breaks” given only to Muslims

Dec 03, 2009 09:28 pm | Marisol

As important as the outcome of this case is the precedent it could set for extending special treatment to Muslim employees to the exclusion of others — essentially creating a second class of employees: workplace dhimmis. “Hertz sued over Muslim prayers,” from Bloomberg, December 2: Hertz Global Holdings Inc., the…

read more

Islamic world rages about Swiss minaret ban while persecuting non-Muslims wholesale

Dec 03, 2009 03:02 pm | Robert

Bandow provides a useful general survey; I’ve included his reports on some of the more modern, moderate states below. “The Problem of Islamic Religious Persecution: How is it that only Western nations are accused of ‘defaming’ religion?,” by Doug Bandow for National Review, December 3 (thanks to Twostellas): America, like…

read more

Italy: Would-be convert from Islam to Christianity hangs himself

Dec 03, 2009 12:57 pm | Robert

“Said was terrified of his father, who under no circumstances wanted a Christian for a son.” Sounds as if his father was a misunderstander of Islam! After all, everyone knows that there is no death penalty or any other penalty for apostasy in Islam! Isn’t that right, Dr. Bassiouni? Mr….

read more

Feds dropped case against Hasan’s jihadist imam in 2002

Dec 03, 2009 11:47 am | Robert

“ABC reported that the decision to cancel al-Awlaki’s arrest warrant outraged members of a Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego who monitored the imam and wanted the opportunity to ‘look at him under a microscope.’” “U.S. attorney defends dropping radical cleric’s case in 2002,” by Felisa Cardona for The…

read more

UK: Muslim teen gang members boast about becoming suicide bombers

Dec 03, 2009 09:50 am | Robert

“Youths” misunderstanding Islam and terrorizing the populace, perhaps longing for that virgin-filled Paradise guaranteed to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (Koran 9:111). “Birmingham gang warn about becoming Taliban suicide bombers,” by Ben Goldby for the Sunday Mercury, November 30 (thanks to Walter): GUN-toting members of a new…

read more

UK: Muslim politician pelted with eggs by “true Muslims”

Dec 03, 2009 09:22 am | Robert

As I’ve pointed out many times, Islamic jihadists and Islamic supremacists claim that they are the true Muslims, the exponents of authentic Islam. They recruit among peaceful Muslims by means of this appeal. And while self-proclaimed moderate Muslims expend immense effort — notably at this site — to convince non-Muslims…

read more

It was the holy time, so I had to grope the lady

Dec 03, 2009 08:57 am | Robert

All right. It was the holy time. So why didn’t he think that it would be all right during the holy time to grope this passenger? Could it be because she was just an Infidel whore? The contempt that many Muslim men have for Western non-Muslim women is well documented,…

read more

Jihad/martyrdom bomber disguised as veiled woman murders 3 Somali cabinet ministers

Dec 03, 2009 08:33 am | Robert

Burka burka Muhammad jihad. Isn’t it great that in America we’re busy removing obstacles to veiling? “Blast Kills 3 Somali Cabinet Ministers,” by Jeffrey Gettleman and Mohamed Ibrahim for the New York Times, December 3 (thanks to all who sent this in): NAIROBI, Kenya — In a devastating blow to…

read more

I recently found a feminist blog post titled Chicken wings and sexism. I wasn’t quite sure whether to laugh or feel sorry for this misguided woman. She was clearly frustrated. But despite the sexist attitudes of the men she was complaining about, she couldn’t see her own sexism at work.

This unfortunate and hyper-sensitive woman wanted a women’s only allotment of time at the local co-ed gym and she expressed this desire to two male students. The men, of course, responded with the complaint that there are no men’s only hours. Perhaps the frustration of the exchange made it difficult for her to understand, but the guys she spoke to were trying to communicate the inherent sexism in reserving women’s only time at a co-ed gym. Then there is the hypocrisy of not doing the same for men. Rather than see the point these men were trying to make, the poor feminist writer tells us:

Both men refused to even consider the fact that sexual injustices still exist in Canada, whether it’s in the way we communicate, the workforce or at school.

Hmmm, indicating a special privilege for women is sexual injustice is precisely the point these men were trying to make. The young woman writing this post simply refused to even consider that women can be sexists too.

Next in this blog post was the issue of women having a chance to feel comfortable among themselves without any male pressures around. Rather than see the other side of the issue, in which men have a time and place to feel comfortable among themselves without any female pressures, this pitiful writer saw the men’s admittedly tasteless rebuttal as some sort of attack. To suggest women should have an opportunity to “feel comfortable” is one thing, but to suggest that men should also have the same opportunity is an attack on women? Please. Insisting men and women should be treated equally is not denying women anything they have a right to have. She continues with:

Yes it is a co-ed gym, but shouldn’t compromises be made so that the entire student body feels safe and comfortable?

That is precisely the point the two crass-sounding men were trying to make. A fair compromise would be for single-sex only time be reserved for women at a certain time and for men at a comparable but different time.

It would have been better had neither of the men made this statement: “Hey. I can’t go to a bar, lean against a table and unbutton my shirt and say, ‘Do you want to buy me a drink?’” This is admittedly, and sadly, a sexist remark, and quite immature as well. But the feminist’s comprehension problems persist:

How pathetic of him to actually think women are like this. Hearing this, I felt degraded that he was even saying this, as if all women go to bars just to get free drinks. As if we don’t make our own income and can’t support ourselves and have to use our bodies to attain free stuff.

Did you catch the reversal there? I doubt the guy who made the above statement was suggesting ALL women act that way. For the sake of intellectual honesty, this feminist writer could at least acknowledge there are many women who do. I, for one, am most thankful there are also many women who don’t act like this, prostituting themselves and acting cheap. But again, this indignant feminist takes what is rightly interpreted as an insult to a whole new level, far beyond what is merited.

Evidently this feminist writer’s frustration interferes with her ability to comprehend the discourse that occurred. An effort to achieve what I assume is some form of social justice for both sexes is in no way an denial of women’s need to feel comfortable. But the suggestion that special privileges be afforded to one sex is at the very core of sexism, and this young feminist seems to think such special privileges are only sexist if they are afforded to men.

Oh, the irony of this statement:

They were being sexist and they probably wouldn’t even think they are.

You see, most men seem to think feminism is about equal rights among the sexes, not special rights. For women to lack the same opportunities men have is indeed unfair, and perhaps even an injustice. But if that is so, it is equally unjust to provide special rights to women that men would never be afforded.

After telling one of the guys I thought he was being sexist, I was told not to take things so seriously. It’s answers like these that brushes away my opinion and implies I’m too uptight.

It’s easier to put the blame on others instead of reflecting your own faults.

Okay, I laughed at that one. After all, it’s quite difficult to respect the rantings of a self-victimizing hypocrite, myopic or otherwise. I think it would be perfectly equitable to provide what ever special privileges for women this feminist is asking, as long as men get the equivalent. To neglect reciprocating these privileges for men would be sexual discrimination, and worthy of a lawsuit.

What men need to learn from this woman’s blog is that, for many women, feminism is not about equal rights. For the anti-male variety of feminism, it is about women’s rights, rights men will never get. Apparently, only men can be sexist.

bias, bigotry, culture, discrimination, education, feminism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, justice, left wing, liberalism, opinion, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, victimization

Here’s a question, what is the difference between hate speech and free speech? Answer . . . it all depends who’s speaking!

. . . . nevertheless, we’ll keep telling it like it is, because we must.

"No no, we are DEMOCRATS!"

During this past week Stockholm has seen many demonstrations. It is a reoccurring phenomenon and this year I was determined to see the demonstrations myself and document what I could.

For all intents and purposes I got what I was somehow hoping for, a confirmation that the open neo-nazi movement is gasping for its last breath.

It was never a large movement, but enough of a movement to make some headlines in the 90’s.

Since then the movement has gone through many changes. So called “skin-heads” that could frequently be seen out and about more than a decade ago, seem to have completely disappeared from the public view. The common distaste for the ideology and growing human rights awareness has pushed the movement into almost non-existence, at least in the public eye.

Open racism is not tolerated; this has lead to a change in both rhetoric and political strategy within the groups that wish to remain somewhat mainstream.

One such group is the political party the Sweden Democrats, a party that has tried to rid itself of it’s racist past. Many of its most prominent members openly ascribed to the national socialist ideology when the party was formed but have since then been expelled from the party.

Today, the Sweden Democrats tout a “non-racist” flag, but a closer look at the policies they wish to enforce confirms that they have not changed their allegiance, only their rhetoric.

They still promote an ethnic cleansing of Sweden, are violently opposed to homosexuals’ rights and promote multicultural hate.

This is a dangerous group that is spouting propaganda and recruiting members by appealing to emotion and fear.

It’s an intelligent tactic, but undeniably deceptive.

My hope is that the opposing parties step up their own game, and confront the real issues. When the Sweden Democrats blame Islam in Sweden and multiculturalism for social decay, both ends of the political spectrum need to meet their arguments head on.

The Sweden Democrats’ appeal to emotion and fear must be countered. The scapegoat tactic they apply must be dissected to reveal its true form and agenda; namely to rid Sweden of anyone who isn’t described as “ethnically Swedish”. One doesn’t have to be especially enlightened to understand what this means.

Were the Sweden Democrats to gain any sort of majority, the following ideological policies would be pushed:

- An esthetically homogenous society – i.e. only “whites”

- No marriage rights for homosexuals

- No right to adopt children from other cultures

- Limited rights to abortion for women

- A withdrawal from the European Union, stopping global cooperation

- Christian ideological domination

- Only immigration from ethnically similar countries

Besides these policies, one must understand that the rhetoric about the “father country”, “a nationalist spirit”, “nationalist pride” etc. all mean one thing to the Sweden Democrats – either you’re ethnically homogenous (read “white”) and a Christian, or you can get out. The only thing missing from their website is a description of how one becomes a “race traitor”, but it’s all there between the lines.

Persecution of minorities is the whole agenda, and it’s time the Swedish public started speaking up.

The Sweden Democrats are a hate-mongering party that have tried to give themselves a makeover, but hate is not so easily hidden, and there are many of us that see them for what they truly are.

- SG

Minarets (Turkish: minare,^[1] from Arabic manāra (lighthouse) منارة, usually مئذنة) are distinctive architectural features of Islamic mosques. Minarets are generally tall spires with onion-shaped or conical crowns, usually either free-standing or taller than any associated support structure, states a source from Wikipedia …http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret

The main function of the minaret is to provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer (adhan) is made. Call to prayer in Islam happens five times each day, and is a very important ritual required of all who practice Islam.

Voters in Switzerland chose to take a step in the direction of Nazi Germany, and collectively decided to restrict and to persecute Islam and the religious practices required by those who are Islamic.

The BBC is reporting from Geneva,Switzerland that in a vote that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.

Swiss voters’ clear decision on Sunday to ban the construction of minarets has generated a wide range of emotions,supporters of the initiative said the Swiss electorate wanted to put a brake on the Islamization of their country, whereas opponents were concerned about the violation of rights, not to mention an international backlash and possible boycott of Swiss products.

Amnesty International has expressed deep regret over the Swiss voters’ approval of a ban on minarets, calling it a violation of religious freedom for Muslims.

“The ‘yes’ vote comes as a surprise and a great disappointment,” David Diaz-Jogeix, Amnesty International’s deputy program director for Europe and Central Asia, said on Monday.

The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

The Swiss government said it would respect the vote and sought to reassure the Muslim population — mostly immigrants from other parts of Europe, like Kosovo and Turkey — that the minaret ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”

The president of the People’s Party, Toni Brunner, said voters had clearly rejected the idea of parallel societies and the further expansion of Islam – including radical, political Islam – in Switzerland.

Saida Keller-Messahli, president of the Forum for an Advanced Islam, said the public’s fears had been too great and “hatred had won over reason”.

She said there would now be legal consequences, since the ban violated the freedom of religion.

The Federation of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland also regretted the result, saying the propaganda of the campaign supporters had succeeded in frightening the majority of voters.

The federation said it was too soon to judge the negative social and legal consequences – what was important now was to strengthen their public relations and clear up any misunderstandings or prejudices concerning Islam.

“Switzerland is heading straight for a battle with Islam,” he said, adding that he feared a boycott of Swiss products.

The ban on minarets’ violates the right of Muslims to manifest their religion in Switzerland, and is incompatible with the international conventions signed by the European country.

It is to note that this is similar to the way that Nazi Germany, under the rule of Hitler, was able to gradually assert their main agenda, which was to exterminate the Jewish religion and all those who practice it.

It appears as though the Islamic citizens of Switzerland need to prepare for similar treatment, and mounting restrictions on the practice of their religion.

Swiss Ban Minarets,and restrict the practice of Islam

 Let’s never have this disgrace ever happen in the United States of America….Shame on Switzerland.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/europe/30swiss.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112489&sectionid=351020606

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/29/swiss-ban-minarets-in-sur_n_373172.html

During the heyday of the cartoons featuring a terrorist prophet of Islam, with a turban in the form of a bomb, we were told free speech was necessary even if it upset the sensitivities of people; in order to live in a more perfect union it was necessary to uphold the principles on which this country were founded than it was to address people’s feelings.  Yes, I know that the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam were featured in a Danish newspaper, but even they the Danish were seen as a bulwark against giving in to terrorism and they had the right as we do here in America to freedom of speech and should not be intimidated from or waive that right.  Yeah…that’s what we were told when it came to dealing with Muslims’ reactions to news they might not deem pleasant.

However, such openness to free speech is not seen in much the same positive or necessary light when it comes to speech or criticism about the state of Israel, as the editors and owners of The Berkeley Daily Planet have found out.  A quick look at the website for the paper, http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2009-11-28, reveals a paper that seems interested in its local affairs, from the closing of a post office location to citizen displeasure at the response of the local university to the financial crisis, but some people, notably Jim Sinkinson of Infocom Group, a media relations company and John Gertz of dpwatchdog.com  seem to think the paper should please the Jewish citizens of the Bay area by printing stories they consider non-offensive towards the state of Israel.  Not exactly the definition of freedom of speech, nor the role of a publication.  In fact almost every group in the world would make that demand, that any publication should print only those items that meet the emotional needs of that particular group and at the same time not offend group sensitivities.  Usually the answer to such a request is simply “nuts”, a free press means it reports what it wants to report and it the media outlet determines what is responsible and reasonable as it pertains to its readership/viewers/listeners and their values.  Fortunately, the editor of the Daily Planet, Becky O’Malley, has said essentially the same thing when defending her paper against the charges leveled by the two who want to limit her papers’ right to publish articles or columns critical of Israel.  In fact, the classiest response I’ve seen to date to her critics is quintessentially free speech in nature, ‘they (her detractors) could start their own paper.’  That alone should be enough to silence her critics,  for in throwing down that challenge O’Malley has defended her right to free speech and a free press and encouraged them to do the same even in opposition to her.

A press release distributed by Press Zoom  appears to be taken from the records of the Third Committee, describing the debate and voting on several resolutions before the committee.

Those resolutions included the five-part draft text on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action ( document A/C.3/64/L.54/Rev.1 ), which was introduced by the representative of Sudan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

32. Calls upon all States, in accordance with the commitments undertaken in paragraph 147 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,1 to take all necessary measures to combat incitement to violence motivated by racial hatred,
including through the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies, and, in collaboration with service providers, to promote the use of such technologies, including the Internet to contribute to the fight against racism, in conformity with international standards of freedom of expression and taking all necessary measures to guarantee that right;

33. Encourages all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes at all levels, as appropriate, knowledge of and tolerance and respect for all cultures, civilizations, religions, peoples and countries, as well as information on the follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; [Emphasis added.]

Paragraph 32 quoted above is aimed directly at all criticism of Islam.  Its practical implementation is best illustrated by the words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.  The pending  trial of Geert Wilders on charges of hate speech is a prime example of  the violation of freedom of expression intended by the sponsors of this resolution.

Paragraph 33 encourages turning our schools into instruments  of propaganda & indoctrination, bordering on proselytizing.  It is impossible for an informed and rational person to tolerate or respect Islam because Islam is supremely intolerant and denies our rights and dignity in addition to declaring perpetual war against us.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country was deeply committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at home and abroad.  Its founding commitment to the principle that all people were created equal was manifested in its own legislation and its work around the world.  Among other things, the United States had, in October, presented an action plan during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The bold faced clause is composed of three code phrases for ‘Islamophobia’.  The preliminary meeting to prepare for the Durban II Racism Conference redefined racism to include criticism of Islam.

Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities; [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

Obamanation is “deeply committed to fighting” criticism of Islam. Their whining about freedom of expression is a smoke screen to cover their actual intent: to silence all criticism of Islam and the  regime’s Socialist agenda.

He said the United States had been unable to support the Durban Review Conference because it supported the 2001 World Conference, in toto.  The United States was deeply concerned about hateful speech, but did not agree that the best way to combat such speech was by its prohibition.  Rather, the United States believed an effective approach was based on three key elements, including robust legal protections against hate crimes, outreach to religious groups and vigorous defence of freedom of expression.  It regretted having to vote “no” on this text and looked forward to working together with the international community.  It remained deeply committed to ongoing, thoughtful dialogue on combating racism and racial discrimination. [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

“Hateful speech” is code for any negative expression about Islam, including  Fitna: and the Danish Cartoons. Notice that the regime is concerned about the outcome: silencing all criticism, they seek an  ”effective approach”, a method that will result in silence.

“Hate crimes”: if any expression should be criminalized, that is the one. Assaulting, killing or harassing  anyone is a crime, regardless of the victim’s identity, religion, gender, etc. There is no group of persons more deserving of protection than any other.

“Outreach to religious groups” is  code for pandering to Islam, submitting to its outrageous demands. Islam’s most outrageous demand is that we submit and become Muslims.  We might as well be bitten by Dracula and become vampires.  Islamic law forbids any and all negative expression about Allah, Moe, the Qur’an & the laws  they issued.  If you doubt this, open Reliance of the Traveller to O8.7 and read the list of acts which entail leaving Islam, the penalty for which is death (O8.2).  For the law’s applicability to non-Muslims, see  O11.10(5).

Far from being a saintly Prophet, Moe was a pedophile who married the six year old daughter of his best friend. He  solicited the murder of critics. He was guilty of  genocide; preaching and practicing it.

Far from being a  ”great religion of peace”, Islam is a mercenary war cult, contrived for the purpose of enriching and empowering its founder by perpetuating war so that he could accrue the spoils.

Islam’s objective in demanding blasphemy laws & censorship is to disarm us in the war of ideas so that, in the words of George Washington,  “dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter”.

If you are a lover of liberty and the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights, then do your part to preserve them by signing and propagating these petitions. Send their links  to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward them.

• Free to Believe
• ACLJ
• International Qur’an Petition
  

Previously, on more than one occasion, I’ve made it clear that my anger at the members of the London Feminist Network who organise the annual Reclaim The Night march here in London arises from their continuing refusal to make any public clarification of their position on trans women attending the event. For a transsexual woman like me, their use of the phrase “women only” is contentious because it carries with it the baggage of nearly half a century of our exclusion from cis women’s spaces.

That such blatant and toxic cissexism is applied to trans women is, frankly, unforgivable in this day and age, but reading the latest post on the Feminist Fightback blog (link here) makes me realise just how dangerous the march organisers’ attitudes are when applied to other cis women too.

As self-identified women committed to fighting gender-based violence, members of Feminist Fightback attended last Saturday’s march in solidarity with sex workers fighting for the right to self-organise against exploitation in their industry.

From the blog post, it seems that not only were they subjected to physical harassment and verbal abuse from other marchers, but were approached and interrogated by the police, apparently at the request of one of the stewards.

[...] we were extremely surprised to find that one of the basic principles of feminism (and all social justice movements) was forgotten in this instance – namely, that we never resort to using police aggression to silence and intimidate members of our own movement, no matter how much we may disagree with them.

And that is the crux of the matter. Feminism isn’t – or shouldn’t be – about a minority of privileged cis women using strongarm tactics against other, far more vulnerable women simply to prop up their distorted and outmoded worldviews. Might is most definitely not right, and the actions of those self-appointed guardians of a fictitious ‘true feminism’ have revealed the extent of the moral bankruptcy at the core of the London Feminist Network. They should be ashamed of themselves and if they had a shred of conscience, all those concerned would have stepped down by now.

It’s no surprise that the organisers of the Reclaim The Night march have made no public statement about this incident and their silence serves only to underline their desperation to hold on to their positions of power without accountability. But listen well, my sisters: the day is coming when you will be called to justify your appalling treatment of all those women against whom you have consistently used your privilege to discriminate, when the right and proper thing to do would have been to support and assist them in their struggle against a common enemy.

—————

See also:

• 25 November 2009: Feminist Fightback: Reclaim the Night: a space for all feminists?
• 25 November 2009: Zeitgeist, Bitches: Fuck ‘Reclaim the Night’
• 25 November 2009: My Private Casbah: Reclaim the Night (for white, cis, middle-class TAB people)
• 25 November 2009: jacinthsong: this should not be what a feminist looks like
• 27 November 2009: HarpyMarx: Feminism: isn’t it about solidarity and unity for all women..?!

—————

Other, related posts on this blog:

• TDOR 2009 – Bring it on home (RTN London remix) (November 23, 2009)
• Request for comments – Claim The Night march (October 28, 2009)
• Feminism in London workshop: follow-up (October 10, 2009)
• Reclaim The Night (For Cis Women Only) and the London Cis Feminist Network (October 5, 2009)
• Cis Feminism in London 09 (October 3, 2009)
• Tonight we’re going to party like it’s 1985 (November 9, 2008)
• Stonewall was a riot (November 6, 2008)

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve pointed out how trans women are ungendered as a way of Othering us and denying our identities. I’ve talked about how it happens as a very common form of street harassment (link here) and it feels like I’ve talked about it just about every time I’ve quoted the mass media in their reporting of trans issues.

So it’s interesting to read on the Reuters blog (link here) some readers’ reactions to the organisation’s ungendering of Brenda, the trans woman recently murdered as part of an attempted cover-up of a political scandal in Italy (links here and here).

The wrong pronoun?

Transsexual in Italian political scandal murdered

ROME (Reuters) – A Brazilian transsexual caught up in a scandal which prompted the resignation of a senior Italian politician — the center-left governor of Lazio region, which includes Rome — was found burned to death in his home Friday.

As well as the deliberate misuse of a male pronoun in the original post quoted above, I’m uncomfortable with the use of the word transsexual as a noun – but I realise also that opinion on this is divided. So I simply point it out without further comment.

And the quoted responses? Hmm. Well, at least they’re speaking out on behalf of trans women – and yes, I am grateful for that – although I’m sorry to say that I have issues with the terminology used by the first of the three commenters, Nicole:

I find it shocking that in this day and age, you still refer to a male-to-female transsexual as a “he”. I find this both old fashioned and disrespectful to the person you are reporting about.

Whether she was a prostitute or not, she was presenting herself as a female – likely because that’s what she felt she was. Most publications in the US honor this nowadays. You should, too!

“Male-to-female” is a problematic term as it assumes transsexual women like me once were male and that – presumably by transitioning – we somehow became female. I understand the constructivist argument at the back of it, but on a personal level? I don’t think I ever considered myself male. Cis society may have (else why was I male assigned at birth?) – but as far as I’m concerned, it’s simply the case that my brain was expecting a differently-configured body.

I’ve mentioned above my discomfort with the use of the word transsexual as a noun, not an adjective, but for clarity: I think it’s cissexist. The subtext is that our self-identification as women is unacceptable because our genders don’t correlate with the sex we were assigned at birth; therefore the speaker feels entitled not to use the noun woman about us. The fact is that I am a woman, I am transsexual, and I am a transsexual woman.

The second and third comments by Chancellor and Liz respectively really hit the nail on the head:

I honestly expected better from Reuters as a major news organization.

I’m astonished that Reuters of all organizations could do this.

An editor responded with this:

A number of readers objected to our choice of pronouns. In the past we have used “she” to describe her, and we will do so in future stories

Apart from being left wondering who decided to switch to incorrect pronoun use (and why) it remains the case that despite the reputation of any news organisation, despite its size, despite its market share or its demographic, its reports are only as trustworthy as the journalists who produce them. And as long as those journalists choose to ignore even their employer’s own style guide (which is, admittedly, a long way from perfect), then these cissexist slurs will continue to be repeated, with no regard to the effect they have on those of us who don’t have the advantage of cis privilege to shield us. On their own, these may seem like minor points to some, I know that; but the cumulative effect is another matter. As a friend of mine says, “Every day brings a thousand papercuts” – and from where I sit, that pretty much sums it up.

—————

Previous related posts:

• Out, damn’d spot! (November 23, 2009)
• How many more of us must die? (November 20, 2009)

My friends in Topeka, Kansas, tell me they have seen a bumper sticker that quotes Psalm 109 in reference to president Obama.  It’s not funny.

Maybe I’m sensitive because of where I live.

I sometimes have coffee in Aggieville and wonder if the ghost of Timothy McVeigh is lurking in the shadows.  Aggieville was the first place America’s worst domestic terrorist was arrested.  It was just a bar room fight when he was a soldier stationed at nearby Fort Riley, but he went on to worse things.

A few years after that incident, McVeigh and his accomplice rented a big white truck and filled up with gas in Riley County  before they drove it to Oklahoma City and killed 19 children at America’s Kid’s Daycare Center, along with 150 adults.

During the nineties fanatics were speaking in apocalyptic terms about the evils of Bill Clinton and his wife.  They were talking about concentration camps in the Southwest and Blackhawk helicopters.  They were painting David Koresh as an innocent victim whose righteous blood called for vengeance.  For most it was just talk.  But Tim McVeigh was listening.

Or maybe it’s the hideous figure of America’s worst living hatemonger, Fred Phelps, whom I sometimes have to drive past.  Fred and family give hate speech a bad name.  In February I attended a conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls at Midwestern Baptist Seminary.  One of the seminary’s graduates had been murdered in church, and Fred and his pitiful band of followers came to picket.

After fifteen years of hate speech directed at physician George Tiller–someone finally listened.  The doctor who performed late-term abortions in Wichita was finally murdered.  It happened on a Sunday morning as he was serving as an usher at his church.

Late term abortion is a gruesome and traumatic procedure–and sometimes a tragic necessity.  Under Kansas law at the time Dr. Tiller was murdered, it was legal only when the mother’s health was endangered.  The law was not strict enough for some, but too strict for others.  But my point is this–murder was not the answer; but people kept chanting “Tiller the Killer” until someone took it seriously.

We have a peaceful way of changing national leaders every four years.  In the meantime, the Bible tells us to pray for our leaders–it doesn’t tell us to take a curse out of context and pray it.  You are entitled to your political opinions–but think about the effects of hate speech:

1. It may set off an unbalanced person.
2. It reflects on all Christians and makes us look like ignorant bigots.

In Romans 2:24 Paul quotes from Isaiah, in a passage referring to the people God chose to represent his love and goodness to the world–

God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.

How about that for a bumper sticker?

When I guest-blogged on Boing Boing a couple of weeks ago a lot of frustrated would-be posters wrongly assumed that it was me that was preventing them from being heard. It wasn’t. Boing Boing reserves the right to delete or “disemvowel” comments at will and without explanation–it employs moderators to make sure that racist, sexist, homophobic, and gratuitously ad hominem language is suppressed, that posters aren’t flamed, and that a reasonably civil tone is maintained. Links to relatively innocuous You Tube videos, for example, were taken down if they were hosted on sites that also sell The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The first amendment doesn’t compel third parties to provide a free forum for protected speech–it only prevents the government from banning it. Telling someone to peddle their filth elsewhere or quietly suppressing their remarks isn’t remotely the same thing as censorship. Organizing a boycott of Rush Limbaugh’s or Glenn Beck’s sponsors isn’t an assault on free speech either; it’s free enterprise.

That said, when I started this blog, I decided that I would have an open door policy for posts, so long as they didn’t specifically libel or defame any private citizens. I don’t have a brand to protect, I don’t carry advertisements, I’m not afraid of controversy, and the only agenda I have is the promotion of critical thinking. If I post something about, say, the irrationality of 9/11 denial and a 9/11 Denialist responds by posting something irrational, then the poster has helped me prove my point. If on the other hand the Denialist catches me repeating someone’s falsehood or saying something that’s otherwise in error, it’s still a win for both of us, because the truth is served. The other day I wrote something snarky about the Anti-Defamation League, prompting two anti-Semites to post some really scurrilous commentary. Their words were vile and hurtful, but–and I’m sure this wasn’t their intention–they also provided eloquent testimony as to the continuing importance and relevance of the ADL’s mission. A third post appeared this morning, which pissed me off royally and made me realize that even my tolerance has its limits.

Since I started writing this, I noticed that Green Left Weekly just announced that it’s dis-allowing posts about 9/11 Truth conspiracies on its message board, citing me as one of their reasons (“Boingboing had as their guest blogger a week or two ago Arthur Goldwag who has written a great deal on what’s wrong with conspiracy theorists in general and why its impossible to seriously discuss them”). It’s ironic, but not at all unreasonable, considering Green Left Weekly’s explicitly activist agenda. I’m going to keep my own door open for now. But if enough haters abuse my hospitality, I’ll have to make some changes as well.

Figures. Obama Commie Czar Wants Hannity & Rightwing Websites Censured
November 24, 2009 by Gateway Pundit

One of the communist-supporters and kooks working with Obama in the White House wants Sean Hannity and rightwing websites muzzled.
Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein wrote this in his latest book.
World Net Daily and FOX Nation reported:

Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.

In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

Has anyone asked Mr. Sunstein what would have happened to Dan Rather during the scandal about Bush’s National Guard records had these proposed laws been in effect?

Democrats, bias, bigotry, censorship, discrimination, elitism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, scandal, socialism

Outside it’s a cold, rainy morning and my mood today matches the weather: bleak with seemingly little chance of sunshine any time soon. I write these random but related thoughts on the Monday following the International Transgender Day Of Remembrance last Friday (link here), and Saturday’s memorial event in London (link here) primarily for the purpose of trying to process my personal thoughts and feelings rather than making some brave statement of activist intent. Last Friday’s 11th International Transgender Day Of Remembrance (link here) hit me much harder than ever before, and I’m still not sure why that is.

The wave of transphobic violence affecting trans people across the world continues to spiral out of control and it’s hard not to think that the only folk who give a damn about it are trans people ourselves. Last week I wrote about the statistics published in the recent TGEU report (link here) and the global average murder rate of three trans people per week is lodged firmly in my mind. The equality/diversity campaigner Christine Burns posted a quick calculation on Twitter to emphasise the scale of the impact of this murder rate on my community:

If trans ppl are (say) 1 in 10K of the population then 200 trans murders equivalent to 2 million in wider population (link here)

She added:

If 2 million people across Europe were murdered in 18 months then I’m guessing that would have some media interest (link here)

That last point is particularly cogent in light of the fact that the TDOR seems to receive no mass media coverage at all, whilst the murder last week of the Italian trans woman known as Brenda (link here) has received what I can only describe as salacious attention as a result of its reported connection with a so-called “political sex scandal” (link here). In the process, Brenda’s humanity – her identity – has been appropriated and devalued to promote the trope that all trans women are sex workers (subtext: and therefore deserve everything that happens to us, up to and including murder).

Closer to home, Saturday’s TDOR vigil here in London left me emotionally in tatters. Having spent most of Friday on the verge of tears for my murdered siblings, the event itself, so simple and so powerful, was unutterably sad. It was hard not to think especially of Destiny Lauren – a resident of the same London borough in which the TDOR event was held – who was strangled and her flat set on fire exactly two weeks before TDOR (link here). Despite his obvious distress, Destiny’s brother attended and gave a short speech before lighting a candle to her memory. At moments like that, when you see firsthand the human cost of the murders of my sisters on those who loved them, it is almost impossible to feel any empathy for those who see us as disposable objects, targets for their own transphobic self-loathing. The realisation that we are truly alone in a world which is intrinsically hostile to our existence is one of the biggest metaphorical slaps in the face you could receive.

The awareness of this sense of isolation was reinforced by the words of a representative of Press For Change, quoting from their recent report, Transphobic Hate Crime in the European Union (direct link to PDF).

Types of harassment by country

[...] British/UK respondents reported the highest levels of verbal abuse (25%); [...] English respondents reported the highest levels of physical abuse (7%) [...]

As the man said: “In Britain, if they come after you, they mean to kill you”. I hope I never hear more chilling words than that and they were much on my mind as I headed for home before the cis feminists’ Reclaim The Night march took to the streets. And when I did reach home and logged into my computer, I was bombarded by emails and Tweets from those cis women feminists who had attended the evening’s trans exclusive march to highlight the risk of street violence faced by cis women in London. In the light of the overwhelming sense of sadness and loss that I was feeling after TDOR, the sense of self-congratulatory complacency was almost too much to bear. It did, however, make me think again about my earlier suggestion (link here) that the trans community in London might wish to consider holding our own, trans centred, march – although I also accept that, realistically, it’s unlikely ever to happen, for a number of reasons.

My weekend hit rock bottom in the early hours of Sunday following a couple of “robust exchanges” online with cis women feminists. Their ciscentric apologism for other of their sisters’ transphobic bigotry improved neither my mood nor my belief that too many cis women feminists still have far too much work to do before this transsexual woman can really begin to believe the all-too-frequent assertion that:

“Not all of us cis woman feminisits are transphobic, promise!” (link here)

As much as I’d like to believe it, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence to support this claim. For example, how many of these self-appointed allies attended the TDOR memorial event on Saturday? (The event finished at about 4.30pm, a good hour in advance of the start of the RTN march; the timing couldn’t have been better). How many have bothered to contact the organisers of the march to ask if they would make the much-requested public confirmation (on the website and associated publicity materials) that the march is trans inclusive?

“Trans inclusion is not defined by the absence of ‘no’, it is the presence a clearly stated ‘yes’” (link here)

Because, really, telling me that…

“the event had trans women in attendance and pro-trans women rhetoric on the stage.” (link here)

…completely misses the point. As Aunty Sarah so eloquently says over on her LJ (link here):

“The point is not that women like me would probably be OK on an RTN march, the point is that we don’t feel safe.”

The irony, of course – as many trans women have pointed out, many times before – is that we have just as much right to be in these “women only spaces” as cis women. The reason we’re not there is because those spaces have been taken from us by cis women feminists, often by force and always without accountability. And that, I believe, is why so many cis women feminists are so contemptuous, so aggressively hostile, when trans women speak of our inclusion in “women only spaces” – attacking us and policing the borders of “their” feminism allows them to ignore their guilt about not accounting for their actions and those of their cis sisters for nearly half a century.

“Women only” = “Cis women only”. Remember Sandy Stone/Olivia Records, Rachel Padman/Germaine Greer, Michfest, VRR. And on, and on (link here)

And while cis women feminists continue to indulge their denial, and pat each other on the back for walking arm-in-arm along one of the major shopping streets in London at 6pm on a Saturday evening, out here my sisters are still dying alone, three a week, every week.

I maintain that any cis woman feminist who talks about “ending violence against women”, whilst simultaneously excluding trans women from that equation, is as much part of the problem as the patriarchal society which condones her abandonment of her trans sisters, whose loss to transphobic violence some of us mourned on Friday and Saturday.

—————

Note: The images used in this post are from onequeerone’s TDOR London photo set and are used in compliance with the Creative Commons License for non-commercial use.

—————

See also:

• 16 November 2009: The F-Word: Reclaim the Night London
• 22 November: auntysarah: Facing Fear
• 23 November 2009: The F-Word: More on RTN London

—————

Other, related posts on this blog:

• TDOR 2009 event in London, Saturday 21st November (November 20, 2009)
• How many more of us must die? (November 20, 2009)
• 11th International Transgender Day Of Remembrance, 20th November 2009 (November 20, 2009)
• TGEU press release: More than 160 murders of trans people in the last 12 months (November 19, 2009)
• London woman’s murder: cis man arrested (November 13, 2009)
• London woman strangled; cis man arrested and bailed (November 10, 2009)
• Request for comments – Claim The Night march (October 28, 2009)

Pun.

Damn right, you are.

This week, a large number Conservatives began purchasing bumper stickers, t-shirts, and Starter Jackets adorned with Psalm 109:8 as a “prayer for Obama.”  It reads:

“May his days be few; may another take his office.”

This seems innocuous enough.   I mean, it’s almost Christmas – you want to balance that political opposition with some practical biblicality before leaving the house.

After all, Bumper Sticker Liberals slapped 1/20/09 all over their Subarus for the last 4 years.

However, while certain people thrive on to taking quotes out of context, the snooping widow in me was curious to check out the following line. This reads:

“May his children be orphans, and his wife a widow.” (Psalm 109:9)

Yikes. That just went from pious opposition to hateful desire.  Apparently, these Psalmericans don’t want to wait for the wheels of democracy to turn to 1/20/13.

Some further background:

Psalm 109 belongs to a special category of the psalms known as “imprecatory” prayers — it is a lament in the form of petition to destroy one’s enemies.  It is the personal prayer of an individual, someone who has been dealt an injustice by another (usually more powerful) person.  The words of Psalm 109 are those of deep agony, the longings of a victim for retribution and justice.  This psalm is considered one of the most difficult of all the psalms — full of violent images of vengeance and death.   Many a biblical critic has struggled with its words, and not a few — including Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant theologians — recommend it not be used in public worship, much less as a bumper-sticker political slogan.

I guess it’s not surprising the people who have toiled through 10 months of oppressive Obama policies (such as the tax cuts for 98% of working Americans) maintain this ongoing feeling of victimization that so suddenly arose in January.

Former evangelical activist Frank Schaeffer put into a little more perspective on Maddow’s show:

The situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement, for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it’s coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler…as something foreign to our shores, we’re reminded of that he’s born in Kenya, as brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin’s “not a real American.” But now it turns out that he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed, who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there’s a direct parallel here with Timothy McVeigh’s t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing in which he said the tree of liberty had to be watered occasionally by the blood of tyrants. And that quote we saw again at a meeting at which Obama was present being carried on a placard by someone carrying a loaded weapon.

…This is serious business. It’s unAmerican, it’s unpatriotic and it goes to show that the religious right, the Republican far right, have coalesced into a group that truly wants revolution and if it turns out to be blood in the streets, so be it.

Will someone please wake me up when these clowns get to one of the many parts of the Bible that condemns blind hate or extols selfless love?

Jesse Jackson: ‘You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man’
November 18, 2009 by Mike Soraghan

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Wednesday night criticized Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) for voting against the Democrats’ signature healthcare bill.

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill from Alabama,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

He added that he wasn’t saying that black lawmakers must vote a certain way. Instead, they should vote the interests of the people in their districts, and he said the healthcare bill would help Alabama because it’s one of the poorest states in the country.

“The poorest people need healthcare protection,” Jackson said. “They have the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy. They’re dying from lack of access.”

Other members of the CBC found no fault in Jackson’s words. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) was in the audience. He called Jackson’s criticism of Davis “accurate,” but said he did not hear Jackson say “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

“If it is an issue that disproportionately impacts black folks, race has to be considered,” Cleaver said. Jackson, he added, “is expected by his constituency to call balls and strikes.”

Democrats, bullies, congress, elitism, government, hate speech, health care, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, public policy, racism, racist, scandal

J. Grant Swank, Jr.

Compare then and now. We are now reaping the rot that was sown in weeds back then:

“When Moses finally escaped the Egyptians, he turned to God and asked, ‘There could surely be no one as bad at those people?’ God said to Moses, ‘Yes there are. Beware the honkeys. Beware the crackers. Especially beware the Jews. I hate all those people. Frankly, if you blow up their buildings, that’s okay with me.’

God hates the Jews. Wright said it. That is bold, orthodox Muslim preaching. So blow up Jews’ buildings. That’s Muslim Muslim Muslim written all over it.

“We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God,” Jeremiah Wright preached.

And this: “How many children of biracial parents can make it in a world controlled by racist ideology?”

I don’t believe Barack Obama saying he never sat under Jeremiah Wright’s preaching rant sermons against America. It is simply impossible to believe that considering Wright’s hatred for America and whites especially.

Obama is lying in order to become President.

When reading Wright’s sermonic sentences, Wright sounds very much like a mosque cleric.

All the more that I believe Obama to be a Muslim mask. I believe that wife Michelle likewise is a Muslim mask. I believe that they wholeheartedly agree with Wright’s anger against the USA, his hatred against whites and are covering all that up to get into the White House.

Here are some of Wright’s Muslim-like sermonic sentences:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.

“No! No No!

“God damn America … for killing innocent people.

“God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.

“God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

Obamas heard those sentences and many more like them. I have been a Christian preacher for nearly half a
century. I know what sermonic themes I have accented over the years. Wright had his accents as well. They are dittoed for a congregation that in fact was brainwashed cultic style. Obamas were a part of that.

Here are more of Wright’s Muslim-like sermonic sentences:

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

In my preaching files, I was preaching my understanding of the Bible. Wright does the same. But he twists the Bible toward blackism. In that, his congregation was fed unreasonable, anti-American tirades in the guise of biblical preaching.

Obamas were a part of the listeners’ intake. They sat in the pews. They did not walk out when Wright was raving mad. The congregation frequently stands to its feet, claps in favor of Wright, and chimes in with Amens and such enthusiastic support.

Obamas would have been party to that over twenty years. Here are more Muslim-like sermonic sentences:

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Then turning to Barack Obama as potential US President, Wright said the following:

“There is a man here who can take this country in a new direction,” Wright said during his Jan. 13 sermon.

During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama’s upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the
Romans.

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said.

“Hillary would never know that.

“Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

Wright preached against “the white value system.” Obamas heard that over and over again. It’s part of sermons and literature and Bible studies. Obamas could not have missed it.

Wright had more to say about Hillary. And this was couched in a so-called Christian sermon from a Christian pulpit from the Trinity United Church of Christ—one of the most liberal denominations in the world.

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

And more:

“We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college. Racism is alive and well.

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”

Racism is in Wright’s blood. It has been transferred to his loyal congregation. It had to be relayed likewise to Obamas or they would have left that church ages ago. Instead, they stayed. They stayed because they believed what Wright was preaching. It was the cultic clutch on hundreds in the pews.

“America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . .

“We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers.

“We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi.

“We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

White supremacy. Black inferiority. Those were two of the most believed political creeds held to by that congregation. And it was because Wright molded the church’s thinking agianst whites and into blackism.

Obamas had to get in on all of this. Obama lies when he says that all of these beliefs of Wright are now foreign to his understanding. That is simply impossible to believe.

Obama lies to further his campaign. Lies are permitted Muslims as trophies to Allah. I believe that Obama lies, holding that as a Muslim he has that right.

“We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means.”

The end for Muslims that justifies the means is Islam World Rule. I believe that Obama is in league with Islam World Rule and sleeper cells throughout the USA. There is too much evidence over twenty years’ listening to Wright to not think that real.

“We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . .”

America started AIDS.

America is to be held accountable for worldwide poverty.

That’s vintage Wright sermonic content. It is a pity that a congregation was so brainwashed over years. Wright has molded them into the Muslim mold.

Obama says he never heard those kinds of words from Wright. That is a lie. It has to be a lie. Wright did not change his sermonic content from Sunday to Sunday.

Instead, he built his large congregation by such hateful “messages” and created an anger-based following, more a political center than a church. It certainly was not a Christian church.

In another sermon, Reverend Wright suggested that the song “God Bless America” should be substituted with “God Damn America.”

He has also suggested that we deserved what we got on 9/11.

More from Wright:

“That’s right: NASA is going to send the black man to Venus where it is inhospitable to life and we will all die.”

And still more from the Muslim-like preacher:

“When Moses finally escaped the Egyptians, he turned to God and asked, ‘There could surely be no one as bad at those people?’ God said to Moses, ‘Yes there are. Beware the honkeys. Beware the crackers. Especially beware the Jews. I hate all those people. Frankly, if you blow up their buildings, that’s okay with me.’

God hates the Jews. Wright said it. That is bold, orthodox Muslim preaching. So blow up Jews’ buildings. Muslim Muslim Muslim written all over it.

“How many children of biracial parents can make it in a world controlled by racist ideology?

“Children born to parents who are of two different races do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of making it in America, especially if the momma was white and the daddy was black. A child born to that union is an unfortunate statistic in a racially polarized society,” he said.

“But, if you use your mind, instead of a lost statistic in a hate-filled universe, you just may end up a law student at Harvard University. In fact, if you use your mind, you might end up as the editor of the Harvard Law Review. If you use your mind, instead of [being] a statistic destined for the poor house, you just may end up a statesman destined for the … Yes, we can!” Wright said, using the popular Obama slogan to bring the crowd to its feet in cheers.

Rev. Otis Moss will follow the recently retired Wright. Moss said that the congregation was fortunate to have had a pastor who accented politics and not a prosperity gospel.

“While other ministers and ministries have allowed the winds of the current culture and market to reshape the gospel into formulaic catchphrases and false hopes of financial success, Dr. Wright, you have etched out a unique homiletic of recovery and redemption,” Moss said.

Look at these lovely hats and bumper stickers that you can buy! Oh so sweet and supportive, right? They are praying for our President. Hallelujah & pass the cookies!

Wait, what does Psalm 109.8 say anyway?

Ooooh. Perhaps not so sweet then. Thankfully they stopped at 109:8 or else they would have Secret Service going after them. 109:9 reads “Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.” Eeep!

So if you see that bumper sticker, you know it – it’s a Christian who is praying for Obama to not have many days in office. No word on if that simply means holding him to a single term or something else.

Considering the blog postings and internet forums that I stumbled into when I Googled Obama+109:8, well, let’s just say the people posting in there are not alluding to a 2012 election as a means of removing Obama from office. Of course they are not risking a visit from the SS, but they are also not quite skirting the issue all that well either.

Violent rhetoric. I wonder why people think that’s OK?

Ah. Nice. And when I first starting writing in here I opined that Hannity, Limbaugh, Dobbs and especially Beck had gone so looney tunes over the deep end with Obama in the White House that O’Reilly had started to seem *reasonable*!! I guess Bill O got tired of them taking up the crazy assed conservative limelight.

They speak of their FEAR of absolutely *everything* the Obama administration stands for (even if it something which they thought was a-ok when Bush was in office!).

You know what I fear?

I fear where all of this truly extremist rhetoric and tone in political debate (debate? I wish, it’s political bomb throwing at each other!) is leading. How does it end? Because it has to end somehow right? We cannot just keep escalating this shallow, divisive, do nothing rhetoric can we?