Friday, November 23, 2012


Radical Right Joins in Secession Frenzy

Posted in AntigovernmentExtremist PropagandaWhite Nationalism by Mark Potok on November 14, 2012

Print This Post Print This Post
Hundreds of thousands of disgruntled conservatives, still smarting from the re-election of President Obama last week, are signing petitions to allow more than 30 states to secede from the United States — and they are being joined by a motley collection of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and Klan sympathizers.
As of midday today, eight of the petitions, which are being posted on a government website set up to encourage citizen participation, have crossed the threshold of 25,000 signatures required to prompt a guaranteed official reply from the White House. (The states are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, the state with the most signers.) But the petitions carry no legal weight at all, and almost no one anywhere on the political spectrum expects them to result in anything more than a collective blowing off of right-wing steam.
Still, that hasn’t stopped the denizens of Stormfront, a huge white nationalist Web forum run by a former Alabama Klan leader, from enthusiastically embracing the cause. Starting last Saturday, a large number of comment threads began appearing on the site that encouraged the radical right to join in on the fun.
Of course, the discourse on the forum has that special Stormfront kind of feel — which is to say, the underlying concern of most participants there is how to create a country, or perhaps countries, that is all, or at least mostly, white.
“We would be better off using all of our strength to secede 80% white states,” wrote “MattwhiteAmerica” in one of more than a dozen threads discussing secession. “A state like Texas, LA, MISS, AL, CA etc are going to need a good old fashion [sic] war to remove the non-whites. …  I’m saying this as most non-whites are socialists and takers. We won’t get a good constitution without a solid white majority.”
“We need to form a WHITE republic,” MattwhiteAmerica added a little later. “One that is for whites by whites!”
Responded “Buffalo”: “I have a feeling a lot if not most of the coloreds would be more than willing to leave a state that actually seceded. I have a feeling they would be smart enough to know that it would be either leave on your own or your [sic] going to be removed by whatever means needed.”
One unexpected dissent came from “Britannic Nationalist,” a foreigner. “Either you’re a country or you’re not,” the poster wrote. “Either all the States should be completely independent, or they should all be a single country. … Will what is now the USA just turn into a land mass of warring factions, states and peoples?”
Most of those posting at Stormfront seemed to realize that they were engaging in a pipe dream. But a few had definite hopes. “Once the cumulative secession petition count exceeds one million then Obama will be very worried,” wrote “Disappointed American.” “One million pissed off armed Americans, coupled with the [antigovernment group] Oathkeepers 3%, can defeat the military. At 2 million signatures, it’s basically a certainty at least one state will secede.”
Well, maybe. Of course, if that’s true, it’s just as likely that some of the other petitions at the government’s We the People website will eventually win their causes, too — causes like “Not Allow The FDA To Regulate Premium Cigars,” “outlaw offending prophets of major religions,” “Restore Fairness And Objectivity To Our Media,” and even “Peacefully grant the city of Austin Texas to withdraw from the state of Texas & remain part of the United States.”
And then there were two direct responses to the secession petitions: “Force all states to pay their portion of the national debt before they can secede from the union” and “Strip the Citizenship from Everyone who Signed a Petition to Secede and Exile Them.” Which is just the kind of thing Stormfronters might actually like.

Kentucky Rep. Tom Riner: THEOCRATIC FUCKTARD!


Kentucky Rep. Tom Riner Likes Forcing Citizens to Make Declaration to 'Almighty God'

article image
The Kentucky state legislature passed a controversial homeland security law in 2006 that mandates its citizens to recognize safety cannot be achieved without the Almighty God — or face up to a year in prison.
American Atheists now wants to the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the law.

State representative and Baptist minister Tom Riner sponsored the law, which has been a subject of debate since it passed. The Kentucky state Supreme Court, however, refuses to evaluate its constitutionality. 
Edwin Kagin, legal director of American Atheists, has been challenging the court's lack of action since 2008.

“This is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I’ve ever seen,” Kagin said.

American Atheists is a national organization that fights for the civil liberties of atheists and “the total, absolute separation of government and religion,” according to its website. The organization won a lawsuit against the law in 2008 at the Circuit Court level, but that decision was overturned by the state Court of Appeals.

“The church-state divide is not a line I see,” Riner told The New York TimesRiner contends that his devotion to his faith takes precedence when it conflicts with his job as a state representative even when -- critics argue -- it infringes on other’s rights.

The law states, “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God as set forth in the public speeches and proclamations of American Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln’s historic March 30, 1863, presidential proclamation urging Americans to pray and fast during one of the most dangerous hours in American history, and the text of President John F. Kennedy's November 22, 1963, national security speech which concluded: ‘For as was written long ago: Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’”

The law also requires plaques declaring the power of the Almighty God be installed outside of the state’s Homeland Security building. The plaque’s inscription begins, “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”


Thursday, August 30, 2012


Paul Ryan, at a young age, is an old fool. Whether it is the Catholic Church or Ayn rand or both of these incompatible loves of his, thre man is NO INTELLECTUAL. He is a mouthpiece for pre-1900s economic abd social beliefs.







On Wednesday night’s edition of “The Colbert Report,” host Stephen Colbert talked about the fact that “the Libertarians are having their moment.” Or, at least, given that the show tapes at 7:30 p.m. on weekdays, Colbert said, the Libertarians will be having their moment.

“Great political philosopher” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was set to deliver a tribute to his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the erstwhile presidential candidate and longtime party gadfly.

“It’s so sad that Ron Paul isn’t around anymore to speak for himself,” Colbert mock-lamented. “I’m sure he’s in a better place, like…Orlando.”

The real headliner moment for Wednesday, however, was the speech by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)’s pick for vice president.

Colbert remarked that the thing that unites the three Pauls is their devotion to “Libertarian philosopher and lost Addams Family cousin Ayn Rand,” author of books like Atlas Shrugged and Anthem.
Colbert did what no one ever seems to do, which is to pull up actual interview footage of Rand, telling an off-camera interlocutor that the “cult of altruism” in which humanity indulges is wrong and that the weak are undeserving of love.

“Sorry, fellas,” he quipped. “She’s taken.”

Ryan has told interviewers on multiple occasions that Ayn Rand is one of his primary inspirations. In 2005 he said that he requires all of the interns who work in his office to read her work, which Colbert said mirrors Rand’s beliefs perfectly, “that you should work for free and think exactly like your boss tells you to.”
In fact, Ryan’s budget, said Colbert, is a work of “Ayn Rand fan fiction,” in that the weak are punished for being weak, the mighty rewarded, and society’s parasites die off because they can’t get health care to treat their parasites.

However, in recent months, Ryan has been trying to put some air between himself and Rand. He liked her novels, sure, but “later in life” he said in an interview with Fox News, he found out more about Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, which he now says he “completely” disagrees with.

“See? He loved the economic ideas in Atlas Shrugged, but it wasn’t until later that he found out about the book’s subtle anti-religious messages,” Colbert explained. “I mean, who could see the atheism buried in such coded language as ‘that dark, incoherent passion within you, which you take as the voice of God…is nothing more than the corpse of your mind.’?”

Watch the video, embedded via Comedy Central, below:

The Colbert Report  


Whoever has the most babies wins

I’ll never forget reading an article in the December 6, 2004 issue of Timeby Michelle Cottle, in which she concluded that the battle over morals is over, but the war continues to rage. She saw the pro-homosexual forces winning in the end. She based this on the way the American public is more accepting today of “lifestyle issues” like homosexuality. Will & Grace, a TV show with a flaming homosexual theme, appears each week with little fanfare. This would have been impossible 20 years ago. Then there’s the popular Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, the title of which says it all.
So what about these TV shows plus Sex in the City, the bed-hopping Friends, and Desperate Housewives? How do we count for their popularity? Does she have a point? Given the fact that 55 million Americans voted for John Kerry, less than a third of this number watched the top-rated show of 2004, Desperate Housewives, which got an inordinate amount of free publicity because of one raunchy ad that the networks played repeatedly. People were curious. The other 19 of 20 shows were tame by comparison. Law and Order showed up twice. The three major networks are losing audience share. A better question might be: Who’s not watching these shows or not watching anything? There will always be a segment of society that will watch the seamy side of life.
Cottle concluded that “while the Bush White House may be on the side of social conservatives, time is not.” She based this on demographics: younger Americans are generally more accepting of homosexuality than the population in general. Of course, younger Americans are more accepting of drugs, binge drinking, speeding, promiscuous sex, and loud incoherent music. Young people can afford to be accepting when they don’t have children to feed and a mortgage to pay. Generally, people get more conservative as they get older because their responsibilities increase.
Then there’s the baby factor. Homosexuals do not have children; heterosexuals do. Those who support abortion generally have fewer children than those who oppose abortion. Christians are having more children than non-Christians. If these trends continue, America will see a demographic shift in terms of who has the most children. This is why I believe the leftists have such a big problem with Christian families like the Duggars having so many children. The Learning Channel has been running a number of shows about big families (most of them Christian families) such as the Duggars’ 19 Kids & Counting for several years now, and these programs have received high ratings as well.
Liberals are on the losing side of this battle. Birth control, abortion on demand, and the homosexual lifestyle have built-in, self-limiting mechanisms. Already this year polls are showing that a new majority now favors ending abortion. As the Bible says, they will not make further progress for their folly will be obvious to all (2 Tim. 3:9).
Tipping points have a way of reversing themselves. Blue-state liberalism is on the way out if present trends continue. If there is a 30 percent high school drop out rate, and 10 percent of young people are being educated in private schools and at home, and public schools are turning out an inferior product, it stands to reason that the better educated and more responsible students will get the better jobs in the future.
There is a great opportunity here for Christians. Have more babies, encourage your friends to have more babies, start schools to educate this growing generation of young people—or, even better, homeschool your children—and then listen to the cries of “We’re melting. . . We’re melting” from the diminishing leftist worldview.

RNC Attendees Throw Nuts at Black CNN Camerawoman: “This is How We Feed Animals”

RNC Attendees Throw Nuts at Black CNN Camerawoman: “This is How We Feed Animals”

article image
During New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's speech, Tuesday night, at the Republican National Convention, two unidentified people were escorted out of the Tampa Bay Times Forum for allegedly throwing nuts at a black CNN camerawoman, reported
One man involved reportedly said “This is how we feed animals.” 
It is unknown if the attendees were delegates or spectators.
According to Slate, "The first account of the incident, unsurprisingly, came via Twitter in the form of a tweet from former MSNBC and Current anchor David Shuster: "GOP attendee ejected for throwing nuts at African American CNN camera woman + saying 'This is how we feed animals.'"
CNN said in a statement: “CNN can confirm there was an incident directed at an employee inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum earlier this afternoon. CNN worked with convention officials to address this matter and will have no further comment."
Meanwhile, convention organizers released this terse comment: "Two attendees tonight exhibited deplorable behavior. Their conduct was inexcusable and unacceptable. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated."


Anti-Abortion Arizona Law Says Pregnancy Starts Two Weeks Before Conception

article image
The 'Woman's Health and Safety Act' signed into law by Arizona Governor Jen Brewer in April goes into effect this month.
The law calculates a woman's pregnancy as starting the very first day of the last menstrual period, reports theDaily Beast, which could be two weeks before the actual conception.
Women usually ovulate [and conceive] two weeks after the start of their last period. By saying that pregnancy starts two weeks before conception, Arizona's new law narrows the window in which a woman can get an abortion.
The Tucson Citizen reports: “Current law allows abortions up until the point of viability, when a fetus could reasonably survive on its own outside the womb. That’s considered by many medical experts and abortion clinics to be from 22 to 24 weeks.”
The new law could also close the chances of a woman aborting a baby with a lfe-threatening illness as the ultrasound usually done at about the 20th week, which would be the 18th week under the new law.
The Tuscon Citizen states: “During the hearings on the bill, doctors said many women don’t discover their fetus has a severe or life-threatening problem until an ultrasound at about the 20th week. The doctors — and several women who had faced this issue — testified that this law would arbitrarily cut off the right for these women to have an abortion.”



How 34 States Are Adding To A Rape Victim's Nightmare

Our jaws are on the floor too.
Found on The Everlasting GOP Stoppers’ Facebook page. Thumbnail image courtesy of Flickr. Originally submitted by Brandon W.


comments_image 52 COMMENTS

The Bizarre Christian "Quiverfull" Movement Pushing Women to Procreate for "God's Army"

Leaders of the Quiverfull movement encourage women to have as many as 20 children, regardless of the effects on their health.
Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

During a recent interview on the Today Show, Jim Bob Duggar blurted out, "It's fun trying!" when asked if he and Michelle were actively seeking to have another baby.  Today's host, Savannah Guthrie responded to the mega-dad's salacious remark with, "Jim Bob - you sly dog!"
Viewers may have come away with the impression that TLC's "19 & Counting" celebrity parents, Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar hold very casual, perhaps even avant-garde attitudes regarding sex and sexuality.
But a quick look beneath the surface reveals that America's most celebrated Quiverfull couple believe and espouse decidedly unhealthy ideas when it comes to sex and babymaking.
Although Jim Bob makes frequent displays of romantic affection toward his prolific wife, Michelle, which would suggest that the couple might enjoy sex for non-procreative purposes, the "biblical family values" advocates-- whose "literal" interpretations of scripture inspire the Duggars to receive each and every pregnancy as an unmitigated blessing from God--also teach that the primary purpose of woman is to conceive and bear sons, i.e., "arrows" for God's army.
Consider Romans 1:27: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Quiverfull movement leader, Mary Pride, in her seminal book, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism and Back to Reality, offers the following interpretation of "the natural use of the woman" ...
Since the word used for female is connected so strongly with the idea of nursing babies, whereas it has no connection at all with the idea of sexual activity, I believe that God is saying here that when women exchange their natural function of childbearing and motherliness for that which is "against nature" (that is, trying to behave sexually like a man), the men tend to abandon the natural sexual use of the women and turn to homosexuality. (pp. 27-28)
Nancy Campbell, "editress" of Above Rubies--an international Christian women's magazine-- encourages "women in their high calling as wives, mothers, and homemakers" by explaining in her book, Be Fruitful & Multiply: What the Bible Says About Having Children, that the word "woman" is a combination of the words "womb" and "man." Woman means "womb man" or "man with a womb."
With regard to the Romans 1:27 "natural use of the woman" passage, Campbell says, "Women were created by God's design to function as nourishers by nourishing life in their womb and a babe at their breast.  When women deliberately turn away from their natural functions, they do it to their own detriment." (pp. 105-107)
Sure "family values" champion, Jim Bob Duggar puts on a nice show of desiring his godly wife for more than just her ability to produce yet another arrow for his already overflowing quiver ... but Jim Bob's hermeneutics as well as his politics belie enigmatic presuppositions about the purpose of marriage, sex, and Christian wives.
Speaking in regard to Todd Akin's recent "legitimate rape" and Paul Ryan's rape as a "method of conception" remarks, Amanda Marcotte explains the fundamentalist mentality that, "the fact that someone can make a baby means that making babies is what she is for. ... Women are among an array of objects to be used. The refrigerator is for storing food. The bookshelf is for holding books. The woman is for making babies. You no more give her a choice in the matter than you would give your refrigerator veto power over what food it holds because it didn’t like your method of shopping."
Could another pregnancy be life-threatening for Michelle Duggar? Might it be risky for baby #20? Could another pregnancy leave their 19 already-born children motherless? Yes - of course! Is Jim Bob Duggar having fun trying to get his wife pregnant nevertheless?  If making babies is Michelle's divine purpose - if that is why God made her ... why shouldn't her husband enjoy knocking her up one more time? It's only natural.
Jim Bob - you sly dog!
Vyckie Garrison, single mom of 7 kids, is a former adherent of the Quiverfull movement – a growing segment of Christian fundamentalist who advocate biblical patriarchy, prolific motherhood, homeschooling, courtship & betrothal, and other crazy shit like that. Garrison tells the story of how she came to embrace the extreme lifestyle and why she left at her “No Longer Quivering” blog and has created The Spiritual Abuse Survivior Blog Network.
Vyckie Garrison, single mom of 7 kids, is a former adherent of the Quiverfull movement – a growing segment of Christian fundamentalist who advocate biblical patriarchy, prolific motherhood, homeschooling, courtship & betrothal, and other crazy shit like that. Garrison tells the story of how she came to embrace the extreme lifestyle and why she left at her “No Longer Quivering” blog and has created The Spiritual Abuse Survivior Blog Network.


    • August 29, 2012
    • 5:38pm
  • Colorado’s Personhood Initiative Fails—For Now
  • Colorado’s fetal personhood ballot initiative petition failed to get enough valid signatures, and so the measure will not appear on the ballot, Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler announced this morning.
    According to the Denver Post, some of the signatures were deemed invalid, so the petition was found to have only 85,800 valid signatures—305 signatures short of the required 86,105. Jennifer Mason, speaking for Personhood Colorado, said that the group has hired an election attorney and is confident the measure will still appear on the ballot. (Ms. Mason is also the Communications Director for Personhood USA, the Colorado-based umbrella group coordinating the state personhood efforts.)
    The amendment’s text would make it illegal to intentionally kill “any innocent person”—with “person” defined as “every human being regardless of the method of creation,” and “human being” defined as “a member of the species homo sapien at any stage of development.”
    But the proposed text doesn’t define what to my theological ears is the more provocative term: “innocent.” 
    Presumably, its use here is meant to do several things: (1) portray the fetus as an agent with moral standing, one in need of protection; (2) allow for the taking of guilty human life (since many social conservatives support the death penalty while also being opposed to abortion); and (3) contrast the innocence of the fetus with the guilt of the father. Indeed, on the last point, the amendment draws this contrast specifically: “No innocent child created through rape or incest shall be killed for the crime of his or her father.”

    But notice, where rape and incest are concerned, it is only the fetus’ innocence that’s stipulated. 
    See, if I were talking about the innocent people injured by rape, I would eventually consider the person who was raped. I might even at some point think about her innocence. (Well, I probably wouldn’t put it in those terms. I would think, “[Expletive deleted], that’s horrible and should never ever ever have happened and it was WRONG!” And if that rape or incest led to a pregnancy, I would probably ALSO think, at some point, “[Expletive deleted], that’s horrible and should never ever ever have happened and it was WRONG!”) But basically, at some point, I would suspend by focus only on the possibility that conception resulted from rape or incest, and notice the person who suffered the rape or incest. 
    So is that woman “innocent,” on the personhood movement’s terms? (We know that a strict application of the Akin theory of reproduction would say no, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they don’t share his views.) Or, alternately, is she sorta innocent, but not to such a degree that she should be spared having to endure a pregnancy? 
    After all, if a pregnancy would actually directly kill her, the text of the initiative seems to make a provision: section 2(c) says “Medical treatment for life-threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life shall not be affected.” But if bearing her rapist’s child would just make her literally lose her sanity, say? Or if her pregnancy will invite further abuse from the male relative already abusing her? Well, then we’re evidently back to weighing the innocence of the fetus with the guilt of the father, with nary a consideration for the woman. 
    To be sure, neither rape exceptions nor life-of-the-mother exceptions really make a lot of sense if you truly think that a fertilized embryo is a rights-bearing human being. But a life-of-the-mother exception, without a rape exception, gives a pretty clear picture of where the pregnant woman’s welfare fits into the picture. It’s saying, in essence: “Is being pregnant going to actually directly literally kill her? No? Oh, so it might just completely wreck her life and re-traumatize her in ways I can never really understand since I’m not her? Yeah, that’s fine. I’m okay with that possibility. Make sure she does what I think she should do. Make sure it’s not her decision.”
    I doubt most supporters of personhood measures would actually say that. I’d like to think most of them don’t think that. But that just shows how important it is to remember, when the subject of fetal “personhood” comes up, that women are still fighting to be recognized as actual people who should be taken into account. A woman pregnant by rape is an actual person (with a heartbeat! and brain waves!). She is an actual member of the species homo sapien, at an honest-to-goodness stage of biological development. She has a body and a life, about which she gets to make decision. She has circumstances, which she takes into account when she makes those decisions. And I’m betting she understands all those things—body, life, circumstances, the whole deal—better than does the average voter, even a well-meaning voter who doesn’t like to think about pregnancies being terminated. 

    So. In light of that, might I suggest that framing this exhaustively in terms of innocent fetuses and guilty fathers is... maybe not as compassionate as I hope we all try to be?