Tag Archives: Harry Reid

Bernie has nothing to apologize for

Corrected and updated below (on Wednesday, May 18, 2016)

In a Saturday, May 14, 2016 photo, supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders react as U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., speaks during the Nevada State Democratic Party’s 2016 State Convention at the Paris hotel-casino in Las Vegas. The Nevada Democratic Convention turned into an unruly and unpredictable event, after tension with organizers led to some Bernie Sanders supporters throwing chairs and to security clearing the room, organizers said. (Chase Stevens/Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP) LOCAL TELEVISION OUT; LOCAL INTERNET OUT; LAS VEGAS SUN OUT Photo: Chase Stevens, AP / Las Vegas Review-Journal

Associated Press photo

Thuggish supporters of thug-in-chief Bernie Sanders thuggishly display their displeasure at the Nevada Democratic Party convention in Las Vegas on Saturday. They were supposed to take their railroading by the pro-Billary Clinton Democratic Party establishment silently and meekly, like a good Democrat caves in to evil, you see.

Billarybots, frustrated that Bernie Sanders won’t drop out of the race like he’s supposed to do, are trying to make a big deal of the reported fracas in Las Vegas on Saturday. (So much for what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas…)

No one has been hurt, mind you, but the Billarybots are going to maximize the charge that “Bernie bros” are thugs and that they are poor, civilized, wholly innocent victims. I mean, their candidate is a treasonous Repugnican-Lite sellout who is disliked more than she is liked by the American electorate by double digits in most polls, whereas the opposite is true of Bernie, who is beloved by millions, so what else do they have?

Reports The Associated Press today:

Under pressure from Democratic Party leaders to denounce ugly tactics by his supporters, Sen. Bernie Sanders instead struck back with a defiant statement [today] that dismissed complaints from Nevada Democrats as “nonsense” and asserted that his backers were not being treated with “fairness and respect.”

It followed chaos at the Nevada Democratic Party convention Saturday night, where Sanders’ supporters threw chairs, shouted down speakers and later harassed the state party chair [Roberta Lange] with death threats.

Gravely alarmed, Democrats pressed Sanders to forcefully denounce it. The dispute stands as the most public rift yet between the Sanders camp and other Democrats, and may undermine the party’s attempt to maintain a unified front as frustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.

“Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals,” Sanders said.

But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night, something Democratic officials deny. “The Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place,” he said.

Sanders issued his statement moments after speaking with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who told reporters that Sanders had condemned the violence in Las Vegas. “This is a test of leadership as we all know, and I’m hopeful and very confident Sen. Sanders will do the right thing,” said Reid, D-Nev.

The head of the Democratic Party, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., also condemned the events in Las Vegas. “There is no excuse for what happened in Nevada, and it is incumbent upon all of us in positions of leadership to speak out,” she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who was booed when she spoke at the convention, told reporters [today] that she’d feared for her safety and said Sanders should give a “major speech” calling on his supporters to reject violence and opt for unity. …

Gee, what to say? Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another DINO shill for Billary who has been instrumental, as head of the Democratic National Committee, in ensuring that Billary be crowned, the democratic process be damned, and also on Team Billary are the ineffectual and uninspiring center-right Harry Reid, who should have stepped down as Democratic “leader” of the Senate years ago, and Barbara Boxer, who used to be a progressive years ago but who over the past several years has become worthless (I’m quite happy that she decided not to run for re-election this year; had she run, I would not have voted for her over her support for Repugnican Lite Billary alone; no true progressive could support Billary Clinton).

So of course all of these DINO assholes on Team Billary are going to trump up the Las Vegas fracas. They have a horse’s ass in this race.

Let’s unpack that Vegas fracas: Chairs were thrown. Horrors! OK. One probably shouldn’t throw a chair at a public gathering, but no one was injured by any flying furniture. Speakers were shouted down. Oh, boo fucking hoo! It sucks to be shouted down, but it doesn’t put you in the hospital.

Count three: Death threats! Hmmm. Until and unless any of the alleged “death threats” is investigated by law enforcement, I wouldn’t rule out that a Billary supporter or supporters did it or even that the supposed recipient(s) of any death threat(s) fabricated it. There is no proof that any supporter of Bernie Sanders issued a single death threat to anyone. We have only allegations.

As far as death threats go, let law enforcement handle any alleged death threats, and in the meantime, if there is a claim of a death threat in the midst of a heated political campaign, take it with a grain of salt until and unless it’s investigated by law enforcement and proven to be actual.

I wasn’t there, but the Vegas fracas sure looks trumped-up to me — trumped-up for political purposes by the Billarybots exasperated by the fact that not all of us have given up, sold our souls to Satan, and settled for Billary.

What’s funny, I think, is that as a U.S. senator in October 2002, Billary voted for the Vietraq War, in which more than 4,000 of our troops died for the unelected Bush regime’s lies for Big Oil and for the war profiteers (including Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, with its no-bid contracts with the federal government in Iraq), and in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died.

Bernie, as a U.S. representative in October 2002, voted against the Vietraq War, but the Billarybots actually would have everyone believe that war hawk Billary Clinton, whose talons are dripping with blood, is the candidate of peace while Bernie Sanders, democratic socialist of Vermont, is the ruthless, evil leader of murderous hordes!

This is some fucking bullshit.

Bernie Sanders has nothing to apologize for. He wasn’t even fucking there in Las Vegas on Saturday. He didn’t throw any chair. He didn’t shout anyone down. He didn’t issue any death threat (although it can’t be long before a crazy, lying Billarybot alleges that he has).

Nor can Bernie Sanders be held responsible for anything and everything that anyone claiming to support him does or says. Bernie can’t control millions of people, and we are responsible for our own words and actions.

At the Bernie Sanders rally that I attended here in Sacramento last week, at which at least 15,000 people attended and where I was for several hours, I didn’t see even a verbal altercation. Not one. I saw nothing but peaceniks, so there’s no fucking way in hell that I’m going to sit back while the Billarybots try to paint us supporters of Bernie Sanders as thugs. (Unlike the typical effete Democratic Party hack, I believe in fighting back.)

But, of course, this isn’t even about what happened in Vegas (that certainly wasn’t going to stay in Vegas).

No, what this really is about is the Democratic Party hacks/the Billarybots trying to bring Bernie Sanders and his supporters to heel — you know, the way Billary said that “super-predators” must be brought to heel.

These are the last gaps of the obsolete, irrelevant, self-serving Democratic Party establishment — the corrupt-beyond-belief Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the worthless Harry Reid, yes, even the now-pathetic Barbara Boxer, et. al., et. al. — who want to claim victimhood even while they’ve hardly been nice themselves, but have used the Democratic Party as a vehicle to their personal enrichment while the Democratic Party, year after year, more and more serves the moneyed elite at the expense of the rest of us, the commoners, the rabble.

These Democrats in name only are not nice people. Oh, they don’t throw chairs or even shout (that would be “uncivilized”!), but the damage that they have caused to millions of Americans (and to millions throughout the world) through their cowardly caving in to the Repugnican Tea Party and to their corporate sugar daddies over and over and over again and their craven selfishness and their having dragged the once-venerable Democratic Party so far right that with each passing year the two duopolistic parties are more difficult to distinguish, is much, much, much worse than is an airborne chair.

The smooth-talking weasel in the business suit is much more harmful and much more dangerous than is the person who tosses a chair or shouts. Don’t be fooled by the fine garb and the “polite” behavior. Underneath lurks the rabid wolf.

Bernie Sanders is correct to point out how much the Billarybots have disrespected the democratic process throughout the entire presidential primary season. He would be guilty of dereliction of duty to democracy if he did not. Every opportunity to unfairly and unjustly boost Billary over Bernie, the Billarybots have taken. This is the context in which the events unfolded in Las Vegas on Saturday, context that the guilty Billarybots of course don’t want to discuss.

Even the Associated Press news story isn’t neutral and unbiased. Look at the word choices: “ugly tactics.” I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism. In a news story you can describe events, but you don’t judge them, such as with the adjective “ugly.” A “defiant statement.” (Bernie Sanders is defiant!) “Gravely alarmed.” Hyperbolic much?

“[F]rustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.” Is the AP writer’s opinion that Sanders should shut down his campaign? (Or is the writer supposedly merely reporting the facts?) Why should Sanders shut down his campaign when Billary hasn’t secured the 2,383 delegates necessary for the nomination?

Sanders’ statement on the Las Vegas drama proclaimed: “Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.”

But that wasn’t enough for the AP writer, who notes, “But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night…”

Why should Bernie Sanders apologize for something that he did not do? Why does the AP writer have a stake in the Democratic Party hacks’ assertion that Bernie should apologize for something that he did not do?

Why would Bernie’s condemnation of “any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals” not be enough for anyone?

Why should Bernie not reiterate the grievances of his supporters in Nevada? (Because the rabid Billarybots want him to act like a castrated man; they’re to lie and to attack and he’s to just stand there and take their hypocritically sex-based abuse, lest they call him a misogynist for defending himself. This, my friends, is neo-feminism.)

This bullshit is enough to make me want to shout and throw a chair.

Because I’m a “Bernie bro” and that’s all that we’re about, right?

It’s fine, though. The Billarybots/Democratic Party hacks do themselves no long-term favors by attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Fact is, the ranks of independent voters, disgusted by the treasonously self-serving D.C. elite and their Coke Party and Pepsi Party, are growing while the ranks of the party hacks, both of the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Party, are dwindling.

The Democratic Party hacks don’t have enough numbers to win a presidential election on their own. If they make Billary their nominee, there is a good chance that they’ll see startling evidence of this on Election Day in November.

And we progressives are patient. The Billarybots are just trying to shove their widely despised candidate into the White House, even if they must cheat to do it (they have no conscience, so cheating comes easily to them). They think in the short term, because their lemming-like brains are incapable of long-term thought.

By continuing to alienate us progressives — who are Berners now because he’s our champion right now, but who will remain progressives long after this presidential election has come and gone — the DINO dinosaurs only speed up their own inescapable extinction.

P.S. Here’s an Associated Press photo of Bernie supporters protesting in Las Vegas on Saturday:

Do they look as dangerous to you as they do to me?

P.P.S. You should read the AP story in its entirety. It’s a wonderful piece of “unbiased” “news” reportage. It includes these humdingers, too:

… It [Las Vegasgate] comes as Donald Trump is wrapping up the nomination on the Republican side, yet Democrats remain divided and now some Democrats fear that Sanders’ supporters are starting to mimic backers of Trump in their sexist and aggressive behavior.

Democrats also fear that the unrest in Nevada could be a taste of what is to come at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia this summer.

Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, an influential political committee devoted to electing women that is backing Clinton, said in a statement: “These disgraceful attacks are straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, and Bernie Sanders is the only person who can put a stop to them. Sanders needs to both forcefully denounce and apologize for his supporters’ unacceptable behavior — not walk away.”

… The Nevada Democratic Party sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee accusing Sanders supporters of having a “penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting.”

Sanders dismissed that as “nonsense.” “Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence,” he said.

“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics,” he said. …

Yup. The Democratic Party troglodytes ignore the changing political landscape at their own political peril.

Slanderously comparing Bernie Sanders’ supporters to Donald Trump’s supporters (replete with “sexist and aggressive behavior”) is complete and utter bullshit, the epitome of unfairness and untruthfulness — there have been no documented cases of any violence at any Sanders rally — and Billarybots Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the head of EMILY’s List, which is a blatantly sexist organization that endorses Billary even though she’s never met a war criminal she didn’t love (including Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, who is buddy-buddy with Donald Trump, too) it’s enough for the sexists of EMILY’s List that Billary is a woman, you seehardly are unbiased sources for this “news” story.

Correction and update (Wednesday, May 18, 2016): Rachel Maddow’s coverage of this “controversy” is fairly enlightening. Las Vegas political “journalist” Jon Ralston apparently has shilled Team Billary’s version of events without having even bothered to talk to Bernie’s supporters, which is typical of a pro-establishment/establishment “journalist,” and very apparently there is no video of any chair actually having been thrown — only video of one individual raising one chair off the ground and then putting it down again.

So that (along with yelling) constitutes the “violence” that the Billarybots claim happened in Vegas on Saturday. Fucking liars.

Rachel Maddow — who (along with all of MSNBC) as of late has been slanted toward Billary but who still can do real journalism, unlike Ralston — interviews a Nevadan delegate for Bernie named Angie Morelli who is quite well-spoken and who gives us a lot more context to the events in that convention hall in Vegas on Saturday — again, context that the Billarybots don’t want mentioned, because it weakens their self-servingly exaggerated narrative of events.

Reportedly one or more supporters of Bernie Sanders publicly released the phone number and other personal contact information of the state’s Democratic Party chair, and nasty messages were left for her. “Death threats” some of them have been called, but I’ve only heard one voice message proclaiming that for her crimes against democracy she should be publicly “hung” (sic), not a direct death threat as in “I am going to kill you.”

If the voice message about public hanging isn’t a false flag, yes, of course that would be intimidation, but, again, there is zero proof that any Bernie supporter did it, indeed, no proof that any of the nasty messages was left by a Bernie supporter. Some, most or all of these messages were created by Billary supporters trying to tarnish Team Bernie with a false-flag campaign, for all that anyone knows.

That said, one or more Bernie supporters might be guilty of verbal intimidation, but that would be a tiny minority of Bernie supporters (and, again, Bernie Sanders can’t control and can’t be blamed for the words and actions of millions of people).

And verbal intimidation is a form of violence if you use a broad definition of the term “violence,” but most people’s own personal definition of “violence” includes physical violence, of which there was none perpetrated by a supporter of Bernie Sanders in Las Vegas on Saturday — none of which there is any evidence, anyway. (Morelli claims that the only act of violence at the convention that she is aware of is that a Billary supporter intentionally shoved her.)

So when the Billarybots claim that we “Bernie bros” have become “violent,” they’re not just exaggerating — they knowingly are lying, slandering and libeling for attempted political gain.

As I just wrote earlier today:

With Billary only around 3 percent to 5 percent ahead of Trump in the match-up polls right now — and this is because the nation’s electorate apparently hates Billary just a little less than the nation’s electorate hates Trump — you’d think that the Billarybots would be a lot nicer to us Berners instead of painting pretty much all of us as sexist, misogynist, violent animals who are just like Trump’s supporters.

But no.

The Lemmings for Billary are determined to go right off of that looming cliff that is in plain, clear view.

P.S. Yet another update: Rolling Stone claims to have verified that at least three male supporters of Bernie Sanders left nasty messages for the chairwoman of Nevada’s Democratic Party.

Rolling Stone actually contacted these three individuals, of whom it reports:

… None of them were [sic] present at the convention, or even live in Nevada. They watched from their homes in Texas, Georgia and Utah, and felt the brazen theft they saw validated their actions. All of the men we spoke to reject the idea that their words could be interpreted as threats or harassment. And all of them were concerned about the media contorting their words. So, in their words — edited only for length and clarity — here is what they had to say for themselves. …

I read what the three young men had to say for themselves, and overall I’d say that they are young and socioeconomically struggling and thus frustrated (which is a fairly redundant way to describe our young people here in the U. S. of A.), fairly new to paying attention to politics and therefore passionate, and more or less contrite that their passion gripped them to the point that they sent nasty messages to the head of Nevada’s Dem Party. (I’d say more, such as about testosterone and how it can make a young man behave, but I’ll stop here.)

Even if these weren’t three socioeconomically frustrated young men who let their political passion get the best of them, even if they were just three flat-out evil men, three people, or even 3,000 people, aren’t representative of a movement of millions, yet the Billarybots gleefully are pretending that this is the case, as happens in political dogfights.

As far as intimidation goes, anyone who is demonstrated to have broken a law (or even terms of service) should be dealt with accordingly, but if we’re going to define the term “violence” broadly, let’s also include the act of not just exaggerating, but quite intentionally lying in order to try to disempower an entire group of people based upon the words and actions of only a tiny fraction of them.

It is a lie that supporters of Bernie Sanders were physically violent in Las Vegas on Saturday. No one was physically stricken by a Sanders supporter or even physically harmed.

It is a lie that even a sizable chunk of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are prone to violence or even to intimidation, so it’s even a much bigger lie to assert that “Bernie bros” (itself a sexist term) are just like Donald Trump’s worst supporters.

In any group of millions of people, a small number are going to act like juveniles or otherwise utter words and/or commit actions that could be used by the group’s opponents to try to embarrass and disempower the entire group. That is no lie.

P.P.S. For the record, I don’t represent Bernie Sanders. I represent myself. I always have and I always will. I am an American citizen, not a campaign worker (paid or even volunteer), so I’ll say whatever the fuck I wish, as the First Amendment gives me the right to do.

The term “Bernie bro” is funny to someone like me, a gay man, but whatever; its widespread use only shortens the political survival of both the pseudo-feminists (themselves spiteful, mean-spirited, man-hating sexists) who use it and the Democratic Party that stopped representing the interests of the people many years ago.

Finally, there are many forms of violence if we want to define the term broadly. Limiting the number of debates, as corrupt national party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz blatantly did (apparently the promised 10th debate between Billary and Bernie this month isn’t going to take place, by the way) is a form of violence. Party operatives (from Wasserman Schultz on down) doing everything in their power to give their preferred candidate an advantage (a.k.a. cheating and rigging the game), as has happened in Nevada and throughout the nation, is a form of violence.

The people who perpetrate this anti-democratic bullshit aren’t “nice.” They’re perpetrators of violence. It’s that their violence is indirect and passive-aggressive and widely socially considered (incorrectly) to be acceptable, but it causes as much harm as textbook violence, if not even more.

When these passive-aggressive perpetrators of violence finally evoke a response in their victims, they then hypocritically accuse their victims of being the violent ones.

This is textbook bullshit. Worse, it’s pretty much PSYOP.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

DINO Reid joins anti-Muslim crusade

Top US senator opposes mosque near Ground Zero

AFP photo

As a religious minority — a Mormon — you’d think that U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate, would know something about religious discrimination. But hey, it’s an election year, and dog-piling upon Muslims is all the rage right now — and seems to be that long-sought “bipartisanship.”

“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. [Politician X] respects that, but thinks that the mosque [that is proposed to be established near the former World Trade Center] should be built someplace else.”

You’d think that of course Politician X would be a Repugnican, but nope — in this case, Politician X is Democrat in name only U.S. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, whose spokesweasel today declared: “The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”

Someone please, please explain to me how in one breath one can claim to respect freedom of religion but in the very next breath proclaim that a religious group should not establish a place of worship.

I understand that Harry Reid is trying to keep his U.S. Senate seat against wingnut dingbat Sharron “Second Amendment Remedies” Angle, who as a “Christo”fascist of course opposes the establishment of the mosque in lockstep with the rest of her tea-baggin’ ilk, but he should have kept his fucking mouth shut.

To shit and piss upon a minority group is a despicable way to try to win election or re-election. It’s what the fucking Repugnicans do, for fuck’s sake.

And on the same day that Reid announces, for political gain, that he opposes the establishment of a Muslim center near the former World Trade Center, a scandal breaks in which it is revealed that a former Israeli soldier posted humiliating images of Palestinian prisoners on her Facebook page. It’s a bit of Abu Ghraib deja vu for me.

Where do these young people, like the female Israeli soldier and the American personnel of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq learn their anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment?

From their “leaders.”

Harry Reid has just contributed to anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment that might have real-world consequences, such as acts of discrimination and perhaps even abuse (or worse) against Arabs and/or Muslims — treatment that makes some members of this fairly universally mistreated group commit acts of revenge that we Americans call “terrorism” (because it’s never called “terrorism” when an American or an Israeli does it to an Arab or a Muslim) and then scratch our heads and ponder, “But why, why do they hate us so much?”

Words have consequences, Harry. You’re supposed to be a fucking national leader. You fucking suck ass.

Harry Reid is a fucking Mormon. I fucking hate the Mormon cult. While no Muslim to my knowledge ever has infringed upon my rights, my right to marry my boyfriend is now tied up in the federal courts because of the Mormon cult’s multi-million-dollar promotion of anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition H8.

But does Harry Reid want to be discriminated against because of his fucked-up religion? No, I’m sure he fucking doesn’t. I’m sure that he wants the full protection under law of the Mormon cult, which, speaking of law, should have had its tax-exempt status revoked already for its illegal, immoral and unethical political activity.

Why, then, as a member of a lunatic fringe that itself has been the victim of religious persecution in the past, does Reid feel that it’s perfectly OK for him to shit and piss upon Muslims?

Again, Reid could have and should have kept his mouth shut on the issue of the establishment of the Muslim center in Manhattan, which is quite far removed from his home state of Nevada, and which, under the First Amendment, isn’t even for the people of Manhattan to decide; religious freedom is not subject to a popular fucking vote. I agree wholeheartedly with the Huffington Post blogger who declared, “I can’t believe we are even discussing this.”

Oh, but we are. It’s election season, and therefore it’s wide open season on the relatively defenseless minority groups. Even babies. Babies.

Again, I expect this kind of evil from the Repugnican Tea Party, but Harry Reid has crossed the line.

I can’t see that it much matters who wins in Nevada in November: Reid or Angle.

They’re both haters, both members of the duopolistic parties that increasingly are looking more and more alike in their mad dash to the rock bottom.*

*The Associated Press reports:

A spokesman for Republican Sharron Angle, Reid’s opponent, said Muslims have the right to worship anywhere, but Obama’s support for construction of the mosque at ground zero “ignored the wishes of the American people, this time at the expense of victims of 9/11 and their families.”

Please tell me how Reid’s public position on the subject is substantially any different from Angle’s.

Again, freedom of religion is a constitutional guarantee not a matter to be put up for a fucking vote.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Assorted shit

I don’t fucking trust that British Fucking Petroleum has fucking plugged the fucking hole in the fucking Gulf of Mexico

Really, need I say more about today’s “good news”?

Minority advocacy groups aren’t inherently “racist”

Now that the wingnutty white supremacists don’t have ACORN to kick around anymore, they’re targeting other groups that advocate for black Americans, such as the NAACP.

These black-advocacy groups are “racist,” the “tea-partying” dipshits allege.

The “tea party” is almost all white, yet its members claim that they’re not racist.

No!

They are all about “freedom” and “liberty” and “democracy” and “small government” and puppies and kittens and butterflies and cotton candy and…

(I was having this discussion with a conservative co-worker of mine today and at least twice I very apparently Freudianly referred to the “tea party” as the “white party.”)

You can’t compare such groups as the NAACP or the National Council of La Raza and the “tea party.” Such groups as the NAACP and La Raza, first of all, are comprised of historically oppressed minorities. Each word there is important:

Historically.

Oppressed.

Minorities.

The “tea party,” in contrast, is comprised of the historically oppressive majority. Again:

Historically.

Oppressive.

Majority.

Apples.

Oranges.

Even if there are plenty of blacks and other racial minorities who hate whitey (and whitey has given them plenty of cause), the sociopolitical fact is that, although the white demographic is shrinking (thank Goddess), the white race still has the most sociopolitical power in the United States of America.

But that’s not enough for the white supremacists and the members of the white party — er, the “tea party.”

They want all of the power.

They’d love nothing more to put all of the minority-advocacy organizations out of business. They’d do that by any means they could, such as by repeating their bullshit, slanderous allegation that for a historically oppressed minority group to stand up for its own interests constitutes “reverse racism” or some other form of hatred.

An individual Anglo can be victimized, of course, as can any individual. But Anglos, as a group, hardly are victims.

It isn’t about race in and of itself that racial minority advocacy groups exist. They exist to counteract an historical gross power imbalance, and to gain more sociopolitical power by acting together, instead of being divided and conquered, which is what the “tea-party” dipshits and their ilk want to happen to all of the historically oppressed minority groups.  

In a similar vein, I’ve supported the Human Rights Campaign, the largest advocacy group for non-heterosexuals in the U.S., not because I hate heterosexuals, but because we non-heterosexuals have to work hard at balancing the scales of sociopolitical power and because I want to make conditions for those non-heterosexuals who come after me to be better than they were for me.

As far as the “tea-party” dipshits are concerned, those of us Americans who abhor gross injustice and unfairness have the patriotic duty to stand up against them when we see them — just as we did during the Civil War era.

The Devil told me to finally write about Sharron Angle

Sharron Angle

Associated Press photo

“Tea-party”/Repugnican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle (shown above in Las Vegas last month) compares her time as a Nevada state legislator to Moses’ and Jesus Christ’s “preparatory time.” You know: Moses, Jesus — Sharron Angle. The lineage that God intended!

Sharron Angle, the Repugnican/“tea-party” candidate for the U.S. Senate in Nevada, says, in effect, that God is her campaign manager. Well, at least God has wanted her to run for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Democratic Sen. Harry Reid, she says.

That’s a fascinating claim. If God wants one candidate to win, then clearly He wants the other one to lose, right? So if you want to win an election, you just be the first candidate to claim God’s endorsement, right?

And how can anyone argue that God doesn’t support you over your obviously satanic opponent? Where’s his or her proof?

It’s a beautiful strategy — uh, one that might win.

Never misunderestimate the power of the dumbfuck vote. (Three names: Jesse Ventura. George W. Bush. Arnold Schwarzenegger.)

A writer for Salon.com makes an interesting argument that Angle’s victory or loss against Reid in November might be a factor in whether or not her fellow “tea-party” pea in a pod Sarah Palin-Quayle will emerge as the Repugnican Party’s presidential nominatee in 2012. It’s worth reading.

The Associated Press notes that “Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician who prays daily. Among her positions, she opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.”

For all of Angle’s supposed good Christian and family (and “pro-life”) values, chillingly, she has spoken repeatedly of the deployment of “Second-Amendment remedies” should she and her ilk not succeed at the ballot box in transforming the United States of America into what the “tea party” wants it to be — a “Christian” version of the Taliban.

Rachel Maddow covered this Angle angle a while ago, but it’s worth watching if you aren’t already aware of what a dangerous lunatic Sharron “Second Amendment” Angle is.

Sharron Angle makes Harry Reid look damned good — and that’s pretty bad.

Please cry for me, Argentina

Argentina has legalized same-sex marriage.

Argentina.

Here in the United States of America, the so-called “land of the free,” we have legalized same-sex marriage in only a handful of states because of the death grip that the theocratic “Christo”fascists have on our democracy.

In my home state of California, we had legalized same-sex marriage briefly after the Repugnican-dominated California Supreme Court ruled that to prohibit same-sex marriage violates the rights guaranteed to Californians by the California Constitution.

Then, the Mormon cult and the Catholick church poured millions of dollars into a last-minute campaign of lies and smears to get the anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition 8 passed in November 2008, 52 percent to 48 percent. (Prop Hate altered the state’s Constitution itself, thus overriding the state’s Supreme Court’s decision.)

For all of the wingnuts’ blather about freedom, if I wanted to marry my boyfriend of nearly three years, I’d have to marry him in another state or in another fucking country. Like Argentina.

It’s long been my belief that Latin America, which is rapidly democratizing now that the United States has been too busy meddling in the Middle East instead of in Latin America for the past several years, is our best hope here in the U.S. for true democracy, freedom and opportunity for all.*

I hope that that democratic socialist spirit spreads here — sooner rather than later.

*Admittedly, we need to keep an eye on Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who, while I still love him, and who I hope maintains democratic socialist control of Venezuela, which is better for the people than is exploitation by greedy capitalist swine, seems to have been going a bit overboard as of late

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Harry Reid is NO Trent Lott

So race and racism continue to dominate the national dialogue, such as the national dialogue is. (Hey, at least it got me off of the topic of how much I hate the fucking baby boomers…)

The Repugnicans are now asserting that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s private comments about Barack Obama’s race — that Obama is light-skinned (true) and that Obama doesn’t speak with a “Negro” dialect (also true) — are equivalent to Repugnican former Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott’s public comment that the nation would have been a lot better off had segregationist Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948. Lott, of Mississippi, which never has been known for racism, stepped down as Senate minority leader in 2002 because of his controversial remark. Repugnicans are calling for Reid to step down, too, and are asserting that if he doesn’t, it’s indicative of a double standard.

Gee, there’s no difference there at all! One guy said that Obama is a light-skinned black guy and that he talks like a white guy, both of which are, um, true, and the other guy said that the nation would have taken a much better course had a segregationist from Mississippi been made president in 1948. Presumedly, had we had a President Thurmond instead of a President Truman in January 1949, that whole stupid, unnecessary Civil Rights Movement thing might have been avoided, and Negroes today would still know their place! 

Oh, puhfuckinglease. There’s no valid comparison between Reid’s comments and Lott’s.

Harry Reid, who was born in 1939, for fuck’s sake, is as old as dirt and was born and raised in the very lily-white state of Utah, for fuck’s sake, and so he’s still saying “Negro.”

The word “Negro” grates on these much younger white ears, but, as Rachel Maddow recently discussed on her show, as “Negro” routinely was used by blacks themselves during the Civil Rights Movement, some blacks, especially older blacks, still embrace the term. So I’ll leave it to blacks to decide whether or not they find the term “Negro” offensive. (Personally, I find it at least antiquated if not offensive.)

Then you have Trent Lott, born in 1941 — more or less Reid’s contemporary — but he hails from the former slave state of Mississippi, where he was born and raised. In December 2002, at segregationist Mississippi Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday gathering (Thurmond would die the following year, thank God), Lott said this:

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president [on the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948], we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

So blacks are a “problem,” I guess, not too much unlike the Nazis’ “Jewish problem.”

Repugnicans: When you compare Reid’s comments to Lott’s, are you lying, as usual, or are you actually that fucking stupid?

Continuing on the topic of race, the racist Repugnicans (I know, redundant) are also having major buyer’s remorse over their knee-jerk, racist selection of Michael Steele as the head of the Repugnican Party in January 2009 in reaction to Obama’s election to the White House a couple of months before.

Just as the stupidly impulsive selection of Sarah Palin-Quayle as John McCainosaurus’ running mate was the Repugnicans’ knee-jerk reaction to Obama’s having choosen a male running mate over Billary Clinton — and cynically was meant to tell the nation, “See? We Repugnicans love women even more than the Democrats do!” — Steele’s stupidly impulsive selection apparently cynically was meant to tell the nation, “See? The Repugnicans love black people, too! (Nevermind that whole Hurricane Katrina thing…)”

Regardless of his skin color, the self-serving, book-promoting Steele (it’s not surprising that he’s self-serving, since he is, after all a baby boomer, and, true to his boomer self, Steele must have figured: Why take a big job if you can’t further personally profit from it by writing a book?) has been a fuck-up for the Repugnicans, but, as Politico notes, should the Repugnicans dump him, as many if not most of them want to do, it could make the Repugnicans look like the racists that they are. Reports Politico:

Among top GOP operatives in Washington, there is overwhelming majority sentiment that the Republican National Committee blundered a year ago when it tapped Michael Steele as its chairman.

There is equally strong sentiment among members of the RNC about what Republicans can do it about it now: nothing.

Steele’s status as a high-profile African-American at a time when Republicans are facing serious headwind because of their weakness among non-white voters was a big part of his appeal a year ago. And it is a part of the reason many GOP strategists lament that he is untouchable even though they think the party would be better off to make a change from someone they regard as an unfocused and gaffe-prone leader.

 “I don’t think there is any chance he’s going to be dumped before the next election for the obvious reason,” said one of the party’s most influential strategists and a key player on presidential campaigns.

Asked why that would be, the Republican, who is not on the party committee, shot back: “You’re not going to dump the first African-American chairman. That’s the only reason. Otherwise, he’d be gone.”

A longtime member of the party committee added: “The optics of pushing any chairman out don’t look very good, but [Steele’s race] puts a much finer point on it.”

Those optics are fairly straightforward.

The perception of an overwhelmingly white party launching a coup to take out a black leader when the country has its first African-American in the White House would be disastrous, say senior Republicans — a bigger distraction to the party than Steele’s frequent off-message detours are now.

As always, the politics of race is a delicate matter. Few in the party’s ranks want to discuss the matter openly. But in recent days the volume of the on-background second-guessing over the original pick of Steele has reached new levels.

Just in the past month, he’s drawn fire for giving paid speeches, not calling major donors, writing a book that criticizes the GOP, not alerting members of Congress about the book, promoting the book and, worst of all, saying in a national television interview that his party couldn’t retake the House this fall….

While it’s true that Jesus Christ himself couldn’t perform the miracle of making the Repugnican Party look good, again, regardless of his race, it seems to me that the bumbling Steele should be canned. His ouster wouldn’t make me believe now that the Repugnican Party is racist, since it was his selection in the first place that demonstrated how racist the Repugnican Party is.

To me, it’s racist to make any hiring decision regarding a person primarily because of his or her race (with very few exceptions, such as, say, casting a movie or a play). I see little difference between hiring a man because he’s black and not hiring him because he’s black. In either case, if race is your main criterion, you’re a fucking racist.

Anyway, Politico notes of Steele:

Still, barring a major revelation that would prompt the votes of the two-thirds of committee members necessary to get rid of a party chair, Steele will almost certainly serve out his two-year term, which ends a year from now. But should he decide to pursue re-election, the same dilemma will probably loom in January 2011…. 

Note that in all of this discussion over race, President Obama is, as usual, for whatever reason or reasons, keeping out of it…

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Reid’s not racist — you are

Updated below

FILE - In this Jan. 18, 2006, file photo Senate Democratic Leader ...

Associated Press photo

Then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid are shown in a photo from 2006. It’s funny that the words “honest” and “open” should appear in the background, because when it comes to the issues of race and racism, there’s no such fucking thing as honesty and openness in the United States.

I find it ironic that Americans’ overreaction to racially related statements demonstrates how racist Americans — especially whitey, of course — actually are.

This from The Associated Press today:

Washington – The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized [today] for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light-skinned” and “with no Negro dialect.” Obama is the nation’s first African-American president. [That’s a news flash for those of you who have been hanging out in a cave; when you go back to your cave, please give Osama bin Laden the “news.”]

“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,” Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were reported on the website of The Atlantic.

“I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.”

Reid remained neutral during the bitter Democratic primary that became a marathon contest between Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom Obama tapped as the United States’ top diplomat after the election.

Reid’s comments are included in a book set to be published on Monday. Game Change was written by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann; the pair describe the book in interviews during Sunday’s “60 Minutes” on CBS….

Now, it is a fact that Obama, being half-white and half-black, has a lighter complexion than do most fully black individuals.

It’s also a fact that Obama does not have any sort of dialect associated with black Americans; his English is quite stiff and proper — indeed, his English is superior to that of most of his detractors, many if not most of whom are white supremacists.

Vice President Joseph Biden created a stir in February 2007 when it came out that he’d said of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” 

Obama is articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking, although he did punk us progressives into thinking that he had our backs.

Oops — I just slipped into a Negro dialect.

Speaking of which, um, yeah, memo to Senator Reid: We don’t use the word “Negro” anymore for black people, and that’s my main problem with Reid’s “controversial” comments about Obama’s race (the ones that I’ve seen, anyway).

One of my pet peeves is when people use the wrong name of a minority group. You use the name that the minority group itself uses for itself.

So when I hear people (usually stupid white people, of course) call Asians “Orientals,” I cringe. And it’s not “Hispanics” anymore, and it’s certainly not “Mexicans” for all people who call themselves Latinos these days, as not all Latinos originate from Mexico.

And don’t fucking call me a “homosexual.” We call ourselves gay, fuck you very much.

People who use terms for minority groups that aren’t even used anymore — like “Negro” or “Oriental” or “homosexual” — demonstrate that they are completely fucking out of touch with that minority group, or they’d be using the name that the group uses for itself.

(Of course, as I’ve noted before, sometimes the haters use the wrong name for a minority group on purpose, as a pejorative, probably especially with the term “homosexual.” The homo-haters — who are in such great company, as the Nazis hated and persecuted us homos, too — routinely use the term “homosexual” instead of “gay” because their intent is to degrade and dehumanize us non-heterosexuals. They know that we use and prefer the term “gay,” but out of disrespect for us they refuse to use our preferred term for ourselves, and also, they like to emphasize the “-sexual” part, because they have their sick and twisted [usually “Christianity”-induced] hangups over sexuality, even though their mothers had sex.) 

Anyway, I doubt that Harry Reid, from the almost-all-white state of Utah, has very many close black friends. If he did, he probably wouldn’t be using the term “Negro,” which apparently was ingrained within him decades ago when the term was still widely used.

(My dead mean and racist Southern Baptist white grandmother, who was born and raised in Texas, used the word “Negro” too,  only she pronounced it like “Niggrah,” which sounded waaaaay too close to “nigger” for me.)

But I digress.

I don’t like Harry Reid, don’t get me wrong. He’s weak. We need someone with balls, a real Democrat, in charge of the U.S. Senate. I hope that the Democrats can maintain their fragile 60-vote majority after Election Day this year, but if it takes his trouncing at the polls in Utah in November to remove Reid as head of the Senate, then so be it. 

But let’s not dog pile upon Reid for stating the simple truth, which is that Barack Obama never would have been elected as president of the United States of America if a critical mass of white American voters had perceived him as threatening to them in any way.

I’ll be even more blunt: Obama acts whiter that I do, and I’m a white guy.

Obama’s black father split from his white mother when Obama was quite young, and Obama was raised by his white mother and her white side of the family; apparently his mother’s parents took care of him from about age 10 to his graduation from high school — quite the formative years. (A little Obama bio is here.)

My guess is that Obama’s upbringing by mostly white Americans is the main reason that he acts like a white American. Maybe he also has done the political calculus and he figured out some time ago that “angry” (my term) blacks, like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, can go only so far in U.S. politics. (Shit, even Uncle Toms like Repugnican Party head Michael Steele — whom the Repugnicans elected as the head of their party only in a knee-jerk reaction to Obama’s election to the White House — can go only so far.)

And that, friends (I’m practicing to be the Rush Limbaugh of the left, so please bear with me, friends), is the real problem here: not that Harry Reid stated the obvious, which is that Barack Obama is “light-skinned” “with no Negro dialect,” but that only a “non-threatening” (my term) black — which means, of course, that he or she never shows an iota of anger over the whole racism thing, because anger, you see, is baaaaad — can ascend to the White House.

That is the problem, and that screams RACISM.

That it’s so stupidly fucking taboo to bring up the issue of race at all, to the point that people like Harry Reid and Joe Biden feel compelled to apologize for only having spoken the obvious truth, shows how racist this nation is.

A nation that won’t even talk about racism obviously has no real interest in resolving racism, which can be resolved only if we talk about it. A lot.

Update:

The Associated Press, which continuously updates its news stories (but doesn’t always update the links to those news stories), now is reporting that Reid’s more complete words were that Obama was “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” (emphasis mine).

Yikes.

I’m not sure what Reid meant by that; was Reid accusing Obama of having adapted his speech patterns to the locals’ speech patterns while he was on the campaign trail, the way that I seem to remember Billary Clinton was accused of doing? (She was accused of speaking redneck while in redneckland, if memory serves.)

In any case, I’m not even sure how much such adaptation of one’s speech would be politicking — that is, conscious deception in order to gain votes — and how much such adaptation would be human nature (to do in Rome as the Romans do).

Anyway, we’ll see how long Harrygate lasts. Hopefully it won’t make it alive past this weekend, as there’s no scandal here.

Update No. 2:

Oy, vey. Why can’t the Associated Press get it right the first time?

The AP now reports the story this way:

Washington – Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologized [today] for saying Barack Obama should seek — and could win — the White House because Obama was a “light-skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Obama quickly accepted, saying “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid made the comments in private during the long 2008 campaign, according to a new book about that election, which elevated Obama from first-term Illinois senator to the first black president.

OK, so apparently Reid was encouraging Obama to be fake on the campaign trail if it could score Obama some political points. Nice, Harry.

Have you noticed that whenever anything racially related comes up and there is an apology to Obama, Obama always immediately accepts the apology and wants us all to immediately forget about the whole thing?

It seems that Obama doesn’t want a real dialogue about race and racism any more than the racists do…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Health care reform is not the new black

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is taking flak for having said, on the Senate floor, of the Repugnicans’ obstructionism in expanding health care for all Americans, not just for those who can afford to pay for for-profit health care (a.k.a. wealth care): “You think you’ve heard these same excuses before? You’re right. In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough’ — about slavery.”

Well, it’s absolutely true that the Repugnicans are all about slowing down progress. Anything and everything that has benefitted someone at the expense, literal or figurative, real or perceived, of the stupid rich white man, the Repugnicans have fought tooth and nail.

But comparing the Repugnicans’ obstructionism on health care reform to their obstructionism on equal civil and human rights for non-whites is a strange comparison, unless you want to get into detail, such as how most Americans are wage slaves for rich white masters who don’t want their wage slaves to have even adequate health care and who want to profit obscenely even from their wage slaves’ illnesses and medical problems.

Gay, not health care reform, is the new black, and has been for some time now. It was anti-equal-civil-and-human-rights-for-non-heterosexuals ballot measures that brought the wingnuts to the polls in 2004 and that continue to bring them to the polls today.

The wingnuts, most of whom claim to be followers of infamous hater Jesus Christ, have to hate someone, and while they hate blacks, they can’t be overtly racist these days, so they use code for “nigger,” such as by asserting that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, a socialist and/or a citizen of Kenya, not of the United States. (Again, this otherness is just a substitute for the otherness of “nigger.”)

The wingnuts still can openly hate non-heterosexuals, however. While virtually no one would have a KKK bumper sticker on his or her car, and few would attend a public KKK rally, you see these homophobes at public anti-gay rallies with their signs (often with their children in tow) and you see their hateful anti-gay bumper stickers on their cars, because it’s still OK to openly hate on non-heterosexuals.

Because, again, gay is the new black.

And while Harry Reid criticizes the Repugnicans for proclaiming on health care reform, “Slow down, it’s too early. Let’s wait,” that’s exactly what many if not most of the Democrats are telling us non-heterosexuals where it comes to equal human and civil rights for us: Slow down. It’s too early. Let’s wait.

Did I say that gay is the new black?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

American Taliban (a.k.a. Catholic church) tries to sink health care reform

Iran seeks to calm prison abuse outrage

Reuters photo

They look the same to me: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is surrounded by clerics during his swearing-in ceremony in Tehran in August (above). Although Ahmadinejad holds the title of president, it is Iran’s clerics who hold the power and call the shots in Iran. Below is a meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops earlier this month in Baltimore. The bishops’ conference is doing all that it can to sink U.S. health care reform unless its demands regarding abortion rights are met.

Chicago Cardinal Francis George, far right, the president of ...

Associated Press photo

That a council of clerics calls the shots in the Muslim nation of Iran is ridiculed by the majority of Americans as oppressive theocracy, yet in the United States of America — “the land of the free” — we have shit like this (from The Associated Press today):

The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

A top Obama administration official is praising the new Senate health bill’s attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage — even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says Sen. Harry Reid’s bill is the worst he’s seen so far on the divisive issue.

The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill.

Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of a handful of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through. Republicans hoping to block the health bill in the Senate are relishing the Democrats’ predicament….

Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion-rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that beneficiaries’ own premiums are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current restrictions that bar federal funding of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother….

But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops’ conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid’s “is actually the worst bill” on [anti-abortion] issues….

On Friday, the bishops’ conference sent each senator a letter saying the Senate bill violates federal policy on abortion funding and must be changed. “If that fails,” the letter said, “the current legislation should be opposed.”

Reid’s bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.

In all cases, the money to pay for abortions would have to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries themselves, kept strictly separate from federal subsidy dollars. Supporters say that would keep government funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother as allowed under a current law known as the Hyde amendment….

Of course, there’s no question that things like Viagra and other boner-inducing drugs and vasectomies and other forms of male birth control should be covered in every health care plan, right? It’s only abortion that is the problem. No misogyny or patriarchy there!

Worst, though, is that we have Catholic clerics dictating U.S. government policy – giving a brand-new meaning to the term “American Taliban.”

Politico notes:

The big player here isn’t Reid or Pelosi but the Catholic Church, which helped get the Stupak [anti-abortion-rights] amendment into the House [health care reform] bill. Any abortion language may have to win the backing of the church for members to sign on – and the church is sticking by a tough anti-abortion stance that angers many liberals.

So the fate of health care reform is not up to our elected officials but is up to the Catholic church? Even though only about a quarter of Americans identify themselves as Catholic (and about 15 percent of Americans identify themselves with no religion at all or identify themselves as atheist or agnostic)?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: fuck the Catholic Church. That we non-Catholics still are battling these theofascists in the year 2009 is incredible.

First the Catholic church, with its partner in crime, the Mormon cult, pumped millions of dollars into a campaign of fear, hatred and lies that denied same-sex couples equal human and civil rights in my home state of California — equal human and civil rights that the California Supreme Court already had ruled belong to same-sex Californians.

Now, the Catholic church threatens national health care reform unless it contains prohibitions on abortion, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that first-trimester abortion is a legal medical procedure (and that later-term abortions are legal if the mother’s life is in jeopardy by the pregnancy).

If Catholics, Mormons and other “Christo”fascists want to enforce their backasswards beliefs among their own members, that’s fine – people (adults, anyway) have the option of leaving such dysfunctional, ironically anti-Christian organizations. But for the “Christo”fascists to force their backasswards beliefs upon all Americans is theocratic and is against the principles of the United States of America, which include the separation of church and state.

It’s time that we non-Catholics (and non-Mormons) do something about the theocracy that is being shoved down our throats. It’s past time, actually, to push back. 

I, for one, refuse to be dragged back to the Dark Ages.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized