Just another WordPress.com site

Posts tagged ‘intimidation’

Thomas Sowell is one of those fascists who loves free speech

Sorry, I haven’t been updating lately. The Nor’Easter that hit Massachusetts knocked out my internet for a while. I blame global warming for the surprise October snowstorm. Unfortunately, I was completely cut off from my favorite gay porn sites. After a few days, I was in quite the foul mood, as you can imagine.

When I finally got back online, I was incensed to read Thomas Sowell’s latest column,” The Media and ‘Bullying'”.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/10/25/the_media_and_bullying

In short, he argues that homosexuals are “special” victims of bullying. When they are bullied, the media pay attention while ignoring other types of bullying. The result is to create a special kind of victim class.

Thomas Sowell, Stanford economist and known homophobe. Somebody ought to tell him that butt sex is kind of like black skin.

I don’t want any special victim status for gays. I just want the same equal treatment that blacks get. You know–separate gay proms just like blacks have separate black proms. Separate gay dorm floors just the same way blacks get separate black dorm floors.  I want to be treated with kiddy gloves, to be able to break the rules with impunity. I want standards to be lowered so that I can get my dream job without actually possessing the qualifications. I want my sexual escapades to be considered when applying for a job, just so long as they work in my favor. The same way we do for the blacks. Gay is the new black.

And I think we’re owed as much, Dr. Sowell. I’ve spent years toiling in the trenches, fighting for the civil rights of black people not to be held to the same standards as white people. I understand that as a conservative, you don’t want lowered standards for your particular group. But I have fought for those lowered standards nonetheless. The least you could do is return the favor.

Okay, Dr. Sowell, if you are reading this, let me spell it out for you. Two men sodomizing each other is the equivalent of having black skin. Behavior is the same as identity so long as you really, really want to engage in the behavior. Oddly enough though, I don’t usually engage in behavior that I don’t want to engage in. In any case, the desire to engage in behavior (sodomy, in this case) is genetically programmed and therefore comparable to skin color. It’s still my choice whether I will act on the impulse, but that’s not really relevant. When your dick tells you to do something, there’s just no sense in resisting.

Sowell’s column really starts to tick me off here:

The current media and political crusade against “bullying” in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment. But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.

First off, he puts “bullying” into quote marks, just the same way that I put terms such as “Christian”, “family values” and “traditional marriage”. He’s mocking the term bullying. It’s almost as if he’s saying that “bullying” is a term so vague that it’s become almost meaningless, which it’s certainly not. The meaning of the term bullying is crystal clear. You are guilty of bullying if you hurt the delicate feelings of butt pirates like me.

But then he starts comparing gay kids to…Asians? That’s so ridiculous. A bunch of Asian kids got beat up. Uh, so? The guys who did it were punished, right? Of course they were. Just the same way that any student should be punished for beating up any other student–gay, straight, Asian, black, Latino, white, Christian, Jewish, handicapped, whatever. So beating people up is already against the rules. It kind of makes you wonder why the explosion of special bullying laws have become absolutely necessary in recent years if they only punish things that were already prohibited.

I think the point that he’s trying to make is that the media didn’t jump into action after the Asian kids got beat up. They didn’t work overtime to create a media-driven hysteria about anti-Asian bullying. Despite the fact that the Asians in question were hospitalized, reporters didn’t think that the story was newsworthy. Just another brainy Asian kid being beat up by blacks. Unless the Asian kid liked giving blowjobs on the side, I don’t see how this can be considered news. So let’s not talk about it.

Reporters don’t have time to waste on Asian kids in the hospital. Not when there’s real bullying going on!There’s a kid in Texas named Dakota Ary who said “I think being a homosexual is wrong.” Now that’s bullying!

Sowell’s main point seems to be that the relative importance of an incident of bullying depends more on the identity of the victim and possibly the aggressor, and less on the severity of the incident. Hence, words directed at sodomites are just as bad as barbaric acts of violence directed at Asian kids. Wait a second, did I say “just as bad”? No, it’s infinitely worse to disapprove of homosexuality than it is beat up Asian kids.

Sowell:

Most of the stories about the bullying of gays in schools are about words directed against them, not about their suffering the violence that has long been directed against Asian youngsters or about the failure of the authorities to do anything serious to stop black kids from beating up Asian kids.

Well, duh! That’s because we’re trying to criminalize dissent. Everyone already agrees that physical violence is terrible and shouldn’t be tolerated. In fact, there isn’t a single school in the whole country in which it’s permitted. Our obsession with bullying is really an obsession with gagging our opponents.

If you think it’s wrong for people to sleep with persons of the same sex, you are a monster. You are a bully. And we have a zero tolerance policy for bullying in our school. Ergo, you may not express your opinion in our school. What do you think this is–America?

Unfortunately, most Americans are raised with a healthy respect for freedom. They think that speech is a protected right. They think that people have a right to disagree with each other and with authorities, and to express that disagreement. We had to think of a new way to frame our censorious, thought-stopping, speech-gagging policy in such a way that people would be so filled with shame that they would never stoop to the old “freedom” arguments to oppose us.

And this is what we came up with. We exploit the deaths of gay children. Sometimes we even exploit the deaths of children who aren’t gay.

Sure, we will all still enjoy free speech in America. But you can’t say that! Our constitutional rights must be curtailed or some gay kid might kill himself! When gay people are exposed to shame, they tend to blow their brains out. Interestingly, shame is the primary weapon that we use against those Christofascists.

Sowell continues:

“But there is still a difference between words and deeds — and it is a difference we do not need to let ourselves be stampeded into ignoring. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech — and, like any other freedom, it can be abused. If we are going to take away every Constitutional right that has been abused by somebody, we are going to end up with no Constitutional rights.”

Uh, excuse me? There’s a “difference” between words and deeds? No, there isn’t. Violence is the same as words. Because if you say the wrong words to me, I might commit violence against myself and it would be your fault, not mine. So now that we’ve established that words are equivalent to violence, we can now get to work gang-raping the free speech rights of people I don’t want to hear–Christofascists, for example. And that’s how we will circumvent your silly argument about the First Amendment “protecting” speech. We will just say that your speech is killing poor, abused gay teenagers.

This woman is a genius! See? When you say things I don't want to hear, it's the equivalent of murder. And murder is illegal, so why shouldn't speech be illegal too?

More idiocy from Sowell:

“Already, on too many college campuses, there are vaguely worded speech codes that can punish students for words that may hurt somebody’s feelings — but only the feelings of groups that are in vogue.”

So what? I’m on that list of “in vogue” groups and so the censorship codes are never exercised against me and always against my enemies. And Sowell thinks that makes me a “special class” of victims! Ha! Aren’t all groups of people entitled to live their lives without ever hearing an idea that hurts their feelings? I’m all for campus speech codes, so long as they continue to used as weapons against those I disagree with. Try again, Tom.

“Women can say anything they want to men, or blacks to whites, with impunity. But strong words in the other direction can bring down on students the wrath of the campus thought police — as well as punishments that can extend to suspension or expulsion. Is this what we want in our public schools?”

Yes! With one important addition–homosexuals can say whatever they want to Christofascist H8ers, but not the reverse. That’s a perfectly acceptable policy to me.

The tiresome Sowell blathers on:

Meanwhile, a law has been passed in California that mandates teaching about the achievements of gays in the public schools. Whether this will do anything to stop either verbal or physical abuse of gay kids is very doubtful. But it will advance the agenda of homosexual organizations and can turn homosexuality into yet another of the subjects on which words on only one side are permitted.

There he goes again with that “gay agenda”. When is he going to learn that our only “agenda” is equality? And when I say equality, I mean outlawing the religious beliefs of hateful religions.

But he’s right about one thing. Teaching about the achievements of homosexuals in schools probably won’t have the effect of reducing bullying. We wouldn’t want that because we need our martyrs. It’s about sending the message that homosexuality is good.

And yes, we do want words on only one side to be permitted. OUR SIDE. That’s the American way. If you disagree with me, that’s like saying that slavery should be permitted. Opposition to homosexuality is kind of like slavery. That’s the catch-all excuse I use, anyway. You can borrow that if you’d like. What I mean to say is that this issue is beyond discussion. Opposing viewpoints are not allowed. If you attempt to voice them, we will discipline you.

And to think that Sowell and his band of wailing hysterical conservatives think that we want CENSORSHIP! Isn’t that ridiculous? We don’t want censorship. We just want to make your beliefs unspeakable under penalty of law, that’s all.

Advertisements

Banning Christianity: The British Model

Boy, I sure do love the United Kingdom! Those British chaps over there have all the fun. Besides the great gay scene in Brighton, they also have tea, crumpets, and the Georges–George Michael and Boy George. It’s real Cool Britannia.

Cool Britannia: Where Christianity is being incrementally outlawed. Cheers, mate!

The best part about the UK has to be all of the censorship and anti-Christian repression. Now that’s an import we could use over here in America. Seriously. Freedom has gotten out of control. When people are free to speak their minds and  practice their religions, gay people tend to kill themselves. So we need to tighten down on all of this “freedom” crap to protect the very delicate feelings of homosexuals.

For a comprehensive picture of the justified marginalization of Christians, check out this report. (Warning: The report is from the Christian crybaby perspective. In other words, the underlying assumption is that the anti-Christian trend in Britain is a bad thing. Ridiculous.)

http://www.christian.org.uk/wp-content/downloads/marginchristians.pdf

As you may have heard, a “Christian” cafe owner in Blackpool England was recently visited by the local constabulary who warned him that he should cease and desist with a television screen that runs the text of New Testament in a continuous loop in his cafe.

I put “Christian” in derisive quotation marks because anyone who actually follows what the Bible says about homosexuality is not really a Christian at all. Real Christians affirm sinfulness. It’s the only Christian thing to do. Because when you tell someone that their behavior is wrong, no matter how mildly you phrase it, you hurt their feelings. When you hurt someone’s feelings, that’s the opposite of loving. And loving is what all Christians should aspire to. There is no such thing as loving the sinner and hating the sin. In order to love the sinner, you MUST love the sin too. If you disagree with this interpretation I will blow my brains out, so don’t push me!

This is what happens every time I hear anyone disapprove of homosexuality. In order to prevent me from doing this, all dissenting opinions must be outlawed. Wouldn't it be easier for the state to just police everyone else's thoughts than for me to just get some damned counseling?

Okay, so this rule isn’t absolute. It’s still okay to tell adulterers that adultery is wrong, just as long as the adulterer in question is a Republican elected official. So if you want to tell Newt Gingrich that he’s an awful person because he cheats on his wife, go ahead. And stealing is wrong too, I suppose. I’ll still permit you little Christofascist bigots to speak that out loud. Drunkenness, sloth, cheating, and lying are all bad too. Okay, so I admit it–this rule I have about not judging others really only applies to people who commit my own pet sin. It’s okay to say that theft is wrong, just not to say one boy bending another boy over is wrong. If you say that, you are extremely un-Christian. Christians are still free to speak out against all the other  sins, just not my favorite sin. Because it makes me cry, that’s why.

So let’s examine what happened. Some time last month, Jamie Murray, the owner of the Salt and Light Cafe in Blackpool, was visited by police. The bobbies informed him that they had received a complaint from an anonymous woman who claimed that the cafe was displaying messages on a television screen that were “insulting” and “homophobic”. So far, so good. That’s the purpose the of police, isn’t it? To tell people what they can and can’t say?

As it turns out, the messages being displayed on the television screen were Bible passages. The Salt and Light cafe is a Christofascist coffeehouse and the owner plays a set of DVD’s on the screen that contain the New Testament in its entirety. Apparently, some of the verses caused offense.The police questioned him for an hour and then warned him to stop displaying the New Testament because he was committing a crime.

The Watchword Bible on DVD. This is the offending material. Unfortunately, the police failed to confiscate this contraband before leaving. That's my only complaint. Other than that, the bobbies did everything just perfectly.

Professional Christian crybaby Jamie Murray had this to say about the confrontation with the heroic police:

“I couldn’t believe the police were saying I can’t display the Bible. The officers were not very polite, in fact they were quite aggressive. It felt like an interrogation. I said ‘surely it isn’t a crime to show the Bible?’ But they said they had checked with their sergeant and insulting words are a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I was shocked.”

Oh, quit your bellyaching, you insolent little bitch. You know what these Christians’ problem is? They think the law doesn’t apply to them. The Public Order Act of 1986 is very clear. No one is allowed to display material that is “threatening, abusive, or insulting”. And I find the Bible to be all three of these, and therefore they can’t display it. No threat to free speech there. Never you worry, your freedoms are still completely intact.

But these Christians think they are above the law and cite “religious freedom” every time a cop threatens to arrest them for the crime of showing Bible verses on the screen. Religious freedom does not mean that you can break the law. So any time I feel like restricting your religion (which is all of the time) I can just pass a law making the exercise of your religion illegal. See how this works? Guarantees of religious freedom are essentially meaningless once we make the free exercise of your religion a crime. Because religion is not an excuse for breaking the law!

We are not a threat to your freedom. Never have been, never will be. If you think that we are, you must be a Christiofascist bully. And we will punish you. Understand?

Mike Judge of the Christofascist “Christian Institute” came to Murray’s defense.

“Yes, the Bible speaks about morality, of course it does. But the Bible isn’t hate speech. Disagreement isn’t hatred. If a café customer dislikes parts of the Bible, the right response is to take their custom elsewhere – not dial 999.”

Disagreement isn’t hatred? Yes it is! That’s the entire foundation of my argument. If you tell me that my behavior is wrong, THAT MEANS THAT YOU HATE ME. Because I’m just born this way. I have no free will, I just have to do what my dick tells me to do.

The logic of my conclusion is inescapable. Disapproval of another person’s sexual behavior is hatred, case closed.  No, I will not walk out of your Christian cafe and have my coffee elsewhere. I will ring the cops just as fast as possible and they will threaten you with arrest.

Now don’t go accusing me of “intolerance”. I’m a very broad minded person and I have no problem tolerating other people’s religious beliefs, so long as I never see them or hear them. They should be hidden at all times. And if I happen to walk into a Christian cafe, I expect to be able to sip my coffee without being assaulted–I said assaulted!–with anything that wreaks of Christianity. Don’t you force that Christian stuff on me!

Did you know that some passages of the New Testament preach that sodomites don’t go to heaven? That’s so ridiculous. From First Corinthians 6: 9-10:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

Hate speech! That’s hate speech against homosexuals like me. I suppose it’s also hate speech against thieves, adulterers and drunkards. But they aren’t organized like we homos are. Upon further consideration, it only makes sense that they should be protected too. Some thief might take offense at the idea that he’s not going to heaven. Or a drunkard. And I then he would feel bad about himself, and we can’t have that. We could have anti-thief bullying in our schools, or a rash of suicides in the drunkard community.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in heaven. It’s an imaginary place made up by uneducated people who think that some guy named Jesus came back from the dead and performed miracles and other such hogwash. From time to time, I like to pretend that I believe in this Jesus fellow, but only as a means of undermining the people who actually believe in him.

But I’m a Christian too, and my church teaches me that sodomy is just fine! We’ve evolved past the Bible over here in my church. So we’re better Christians than you!

But still, it hurts my feelings when people tell me that I’m not going to a place I don’t believe in, just because I open my anus to other men. I bet they even believe that I’m going to that other place that I don’t believe in. The hot one that smells of sulfur.

It’s important to be very sneaky about our efforts to criminalize their religion. If people have the foresight to see where our little censorship campaign is headed, they tend not to allow even small steps in that direction. So we employ stealth, moving little by little toward a society that is completely intolerant of Christian belief. Er, I mean “Christian” belief. I forgot the derisive scare quotes there. And if anyone ever sees clearly enough to discern our ultimate goal, we scream at them to quit making up ridiculous excuses to justify their bigotry.

There go the Christofascists again, fearmongering the way they always do. Next thing you know they’re going to be telling people we want to ban the Bible, which is just so absurd.

But of course we DO want to ban the Bible.  Because it’s hate and hate cannot be tolerated. You’re going to love the new hate free society. Everyone is forced to be nice to each other and no one has any freedom. Well, let’s not be extreme about this. No one will be forced to be nice to Christians. We will still treat them like dogshit the way we do now.

A few years ago, the Arkansas GOP sent out this ridiculous mailing to its mindless followers enjoining them to vote for conservatives because the liberals have a very radical agenda. I’ll just let you read it yourself.

Unfortunately for us, the flyer correctly lists the points of the liberal agenda. Notice the Bible on the side with the word "banned" stamped on it.

Oh for crying out loud, have you ever seen such hyper-paranoid scare tactics? I bet you they ate this up down there in the Bible belt. You’re aware that they all go to church and they’re boinking their sisters, right?

So the inbred voting bloc thinks that we want to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, which is just stupid. I want to ban the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, not one stinkin’ phrase. Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent? I suppose, although I’d prefer if all of their sexual relationships were homosexual in nature. Then they wouldn’t need to kill their unborn children. Overturning the ban on partial birth abortion? Ditto.  Allowing same sex marriages? You betcha!

So only one of the above is actually correct, and the other three are partially correct from a certain point of view. I suppose you could say that “liberals” want all of the above. Not me personally, but liberals generally. It’s not really a secret.

Take note of the Bible on the right side stamped with the word “banned”. Damn it, they’re on to us! They see where this tolerance train is heading and they want to get off RIGHT NOW! At the time, I said that the flyer was absolute bullshit. No one wants to ban the Bible. No one except the secular progressives of Europe and Canada who are now intimidating Christian cafe owners like common criminals. Because, according to British law, they are common criminals. And as we’ve already established, religion is no excuse for breaking the law.

"Open up, guv'na! This is the tolerance police! We'd better not find any Bible reading going on in there!"

Don’t doubt for a minute that I emulate these countries and that I want to bring their Stalinist repression here. So long as it’s always and everywhere employed against Christians, I’m all for this kind of censorship and intimidation.

I’m going to have to make a visit to Albion in the near future. I wonder if they’ll let me be “queen” for a day. I would really like that! Cheerio!

This day in LGBTQXYZ History: October 7, 1998

The date October 7th may represent one of the most solemn days on the entire calender for members of the LGBTQXYZ community. It was on this date that two thugs robbed and murdered Matthew Shepard, a gay college student, in Laramie Wyoming.

Matthew Shepard 1976-1998. They killed him because he was GAY!

Poor kid was murdered because he was gay. That was how the media reported it anyway. And the media never get the story wrong. Luckily for us, we have about 99% of the media in our pocket so they basically write what we tell them to.

I remember when I first heard about the story, I thought it sounded like a piece of gay propaganda. Which would be awesome. I mean, we couldn’t have written a better morality play if we had tried. All this story needed was a few Mormon missionaries cast as the bad guys!  It was all just too good to be true: nice looking gay kid, beaten by a bunch of rednecks in Wyoming, of all places. And they killed him for no other reason than because he was different. I smell an ABC After School Special!

You know what we need? Some hate crimes laws. I mean, murder is already illegal. And Wyoming has the death penalty, which these two would have received if they hadn’t pleaded guilty. The punishment for murder is pretty darned stiff.

But we need a special law that makes murdering a gay kid worse than murdering other people. The penalty won’t be any more severe, since it’s pretty much impossible to impose a sentence worse than death. But at least people will know that the perp is being punished for killing a homo.

And killing a homo is worse than killing a deep sea fisherman, fly fisherman, libertarian, Rotarian, valedictorian, professional athlete, amateur magician, Tae Kwon Do champion, Democrat, Republican, Freemason, swinger, or saxophone player.

We need special protection. Cause we’re special, that’s why.

Now, don’t go getting all smart ass with me and insist that we homosexuals want to punish thought crimes. It’s not the thought that we’re punishing, at least not yet. It’s the deed. Well, the deed is already illegal so I can’t really explain why else we need another law. Okay, we want to punish the deed plus the thought behind it. If that weren’t the case then we would be happy with the law as it stands now, which says that it’s illegal to murder anyone except an unborn child. It’s already illegal to murder gay college students, straight college students, high school drop-outs, and just about anybody else.

So let’s face it–we are trying to punish thought. We’re trying to outlaw hate– a human emotion that has always existed and will always exist. But we think we can ban it from existence by passing a law. We’ll call it Matthew Shepard’s law. And then there won’t be any more hate in the world because anyone who has that emotion will be in jail.

It won’t take long before we’re obfuscating the entire equation. At the moment we’re fighting for something that resembles this: HATE + ACTUAL CRIME = HATE CRIME. Again, I can’t explain why we need this law when the actual crime is already illegal other than to say it would make me feel a lot better. But the first equation is just to get people used to the idea of hate being something criminal in and of itself. When we’re done with what we really want to accomplish, it will look more like this HATE = HATE CRIME.

This is where Matthew Shepard perished, pistol whipped to death.

And if you don’t believe me, look at Canada’s Human Rights Tribunals that now punish people for comments made in books, or laws in Europe about “inciting hatred”. That’s the endpoint. We’ll just lie every step of the way, insisting that we don’t want to reach the point that our trajectory so clearly leads us to.

If anybody asks, just tell them that Canadian/European style fascism can’t happen here because we have a first amendment. Not that the first amendment has ever stopped us before, but it gives the rest of America a false sense of security that we respect their rights.

Which we don’t!

ABC News revisited the Matthew Shepard murder in 2004, much to the chagrin of cock-gobbling activists like me. They basically reported that the original narrative–the one that we liked so much because it was just too good to be true–was in fact, too good to be true. The After School Special version of events was actually bullshit.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=277685

ABC News took a lot of heat from gay activists about this. They’re LYING!!! We know they’re lying because…we don’t want to hear what they’re saying. Basically, we slipped into emotional fits of rage because the kid wasn’t actually killed for being gay. Which is something you’d think we’d want to hear. I mean, isn’t that good news? Don’t we all sleep a little safer knowing that the kid wasn’t victimized for being a homosexual?

The answer is no. Because we need the Matthew Shepard story to buttress our claim to victimhood. We liked the first version of the story much better.

Okay, so Matthew Shepard’s murder had nothing to do with his sexual activities and everything to do with the fact that he was mixed up with drugs.  Shepard was well-known in the local college party scene, which was closely intertwined with the local methamphetamine scene that both Shepard and his murderers were involved in. Tina LaBrie, a friend of Matthew’s, commented:

“He said ‘Everywhere I move, it seems like I get sucked into the drug scene,'”

Shepard was at the Fireside Lounge the night his killers–Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson–walked through the door. McKinney hadn’t slept for a week, having been on a serious meth binge. A few days prior he had traded a gram of meth for a pistol. It was his intention to use the pistol to rob a drug dealer of methamphetamines but instead used it to beat the shit out of Shepard.

The Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming. This is where McKinney and Henderson met their victim. They later lured him away from this bar, robbed and murdered him.

When he saw Shepard, McKinney thought he’d found a good target to rob. Which is kind of a disappointment for me, because I was still hoping that McKinney had killed the kid for being a homo. I liked that version of the story better because then I get to share in the victimhood. Which is what I want.

So why did they tell the court originally that they had killed Shepard because of Shepard’s gay advances? I know this is going to sound hard to believe, but they were hoping to get off easier. McKinney had been sexually abused as a child by an adult man (who was definitely NOT gay!), and he believed that he would get some sympathy from the court if he claimed that he had killed Shepard because of his homosexual advances. The court refused to even hear the defense, much less let them off with a lesser punishment because of it. Oops.

When Shepard told McKinney and Henderson that he was too drunk to drive home, the two offered him a ride. They were, of course, intending to rob him. On the way home, Shepard placed a hand on McKinney’s leg and McKinney responded by pistol whipping him.

“I was getting ready to pull it on him anyway.”

After driving him out onto a country road, McKinney proceeded to rob him of his wallet, coat, and shoes before smashing Shepard’s face in with the pistol. Then the two left the victim to die.

The two men then drove to Shepard’s apartment, hoping to burglarize it. They encountered another group of men in the parking lot where they had a violent altercation and were arrested by police who discovered the bloody pistol from the first crime in the truck.

Obviously, robbery wasn’t the motive here. I mean, it can’t be. Let’s see–a bunch of meth heads rob another meth head for meth money. They take his wallet, his coat, and his shoes. Then they head to his apartment to burglarize the apartment too. We know they went there because that’s where they were arrested. But obviously, they killed him because he was gay. Not because they were whacked out on drugs and wanted more. That’s such a ridiculous theory.

The killers stand trial. These two are going to spend the rest of their lives in jail, but that doesn't sit right by me. I want them to spend the rest of their lives in jail because they killed a gay kid, not because they killed a kid who looked like he might have some money in his wallet. Even though the evidence doesn't support the idea that he was killed for being gay.

And now we’re stuck with the ultimate irony of hate crimes legislation. The slaying of Matthew Shepard was indeed brutal. It was a vicious act of barbaric violence. But was it less heinous because it was motivated by money? Was the same murder any less atrocious because the killer was a meth-head out of his  mind and desperate for money to buy his next fix?

Well, yes. Because if Matthew was killed for being a homo, then…that’s worse. Than killing him for money. I can’t say why. I blame Christians though.

Yeah. I mean, obviously these two learned this type of behavior in church. Neither of them is religious, and Shepard wasn’t really killed for being a pickle smoocher. He was killed because one of the guys wanted money for meth. But I think we can lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of Evangelicals and pretty much anyone who’s ever opposed us.

And that’s what this is really about. We steam roll our opposition whenever we insinuate–or declare explicitly–that anyone who has ever said anything negative about homosexuality is in fact partially to blame for the murder of Shepard. If you think that homosexuality is contrary to the laws of God, well you’re a killer too.  Your religious fanaticism created the environment for this kind of hate. You’re just like Henderson and McKinney.

Okay, so you’re nothing like Henderson and McKinney. Neither of them were church boys. If they had been church boys they probably wouldn’t have been in a bar looking for a drug dealer to roll for his dope.

In fact, McKinney was was partial to sodomy too. McKinney’s long time friend, Tom O’Connor, claims to have had a three way with McKinney and his girlfriend, both of whom happened to live on O’Connor’s property. Says O’Connor:

“I know he’s bisexual. There ain’t no doubt in my mind. He is bisexual.”

Well geez. That kind of changes things. The version of the story I liked better went something like this: two raging homophobes, bathed in hatred after years of going to church in backwoods America, kill poor gay college student who basically angelic. That’s really what I prefer to believe.

I don’t like what actually happened: two meth heads hit the town looking for a drug dealer to rob. They stumble upon Matthew Shepard, who is in fact a meth head himself. One bisexual meth head kills a gay meth head and takes his wallet only to discover that it contains a measly thirty bucks. So they drive to the dead meth head’s apartment, planning to burglarize the place, then get arrested.

Damn. That story doesn’t give us much of a martyr. And that’s what we need–a martyr. So that we can silence all opposition. Jason Marsden of the Casper Star-Tribune commented:

“I remember one of my fellow reporters saying, ‘this kid is going to be the new poster child for gay rights.”

Well, yeah. And we need one. Because Matthew’s death went a long way in shutting people up. We made people who opposed us feel guilty for his death, despite the fact that it was actually motivated by drugs, and even if it hadn’t been, the blame would still have fallen on the heads of those who actually committed the crime, not every person who finds buttfucking immoral.

But we want every person who finds buttfucking immoral to share in the blame. So we invented this little fairy tale and it upsets us whenever it’s contradicted.

Enemy of the state suspended in Fort Worth

Thought crimes abound at Western Hills High School in Fort Worth, Texas. The school recently gave an in-house suspension to fourteen year old Dakota Ary, an honors student, varsity athlete, and Christian, for commenting to another student in class that “being a homosexual is wrong”.

Western Hills High School. Remember to check your rights at the door!

Dakota’s teacher immediately rebuked the young homophobe, losing his temper and yelling, then sent him to the office where he was given a two day in-house suspension. Tell me, has the school been to lenient? I mean, how about we waterboard him until he tells us about the rest of his homophobe network?

Predictably, the right wing has gone ballistic, claiming that the kids’ “first amendment” rights were violated. When are these people going to learn that the first amendment does not protect speech that hurts my feelings?

Now, don’t get me wrong. Whenever statist thugs use the force of law to censor Christians in other countries, I always tell those right-wingers to calm down because that can’t happen here. We have a first amendment. For example, when Ake Green was arrested out of his pulpit in Sweden for preaching against homosexuality, I told conservatives to cut it out with the alarmism because we have a first amendment and that can’t happen here. When an LGBTQXYZ police officer in England arrested street preacher Dale McAlpline for for reading from his Bible that homosexuality is a sin, I told these nutty conservatives to take a chill pill because that can’t happen in America.

But then when it actually does happen in America, I applaud it. I will argue that such comments aren’t really protected by the first amendment because…well, because I say so. That’s why.

The first amendment is very clear on this subject. Let me quote it:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (except when protecting the feelings of homosexuals who need constant affirmation or else they tend to kill themselves), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Come to think of it, this is just like using the N-word. Yes, when Dakota turned around and mentioned to another student that he thinks that homosexuality is wrong, that’s the same as chasing a black kid down the hall and yelling racial epithets at him.

Dakota Ary, public enemy and threat to public safety. His existence makes me want to kill myself. And if I kill myself, it will be Dakota's fault, as well as the fault of his school for not restricting his free speech.

See if you can follow my logic here. It’s a little bit circuitous, I know. I read it in my official gay talking points memo I got from Kevin Jennings. Sodomy is basically equivalent to having black skin. You’re just going to have to take my word for that, okay? I don’t know how a person’s sexual behaviors somehow equate to race and I can’t even prove that the desires to commit such behaviors are inborn–not that it would matter if they were–but skin color and buttfucking are basically the same thing. And then, a mildly phrased opinion about such behavior is the same as inflammatory racial name-calling.

In the end, when I compare the Dakota’s opinion about my sex life to racism, what I’m really saying is that we’ve already surrendered out rights to speak freely on matters of race. And I want the same gag rule extended to negative opinions of homosexuality as well.

Okay, so the truth is that I just don’t think that Christians have any rights. There isn’t a single scenario I can think of in which I would ever side with a Christian who objects to homosexuality. I will always invent new rationalizations for why the Christian must be gagged. Just give me a new scenario and I will give you a new rationalization. I can do this all day; try me.

I agree with Chai R. Feldblum, the lesbian activist recently appointed by President Obama (peace be upon him) to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She’s a great legal mind. Says Feldblum:

“There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty. But in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

That’s true. And the major difference of course is that the Constitution is chock full of sexual rights–the right to take it in the poopchute, the right to anonymous hookups in the bushes in Central Park–but is oddly silent about matters of religious liberty. Ergo, my sexual freedoms must trump some one else’s religious freedoms. In fact, my right to exercise my sexual freedoms without negative judgements trumps religious freedom. That means that you’re not allowed to think bad things about me just because I’m a sodomite.

Chai Feldblum, homosexual activist and all around gay bully. We owe her a debt of gratitude.

When asked under what circumstances she believes religious liberty should take precedence, Feldblum replied:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Unfortunately, the kid went out and got a lawyer from the gay-hating Liberty Counsel. I say that Liberty Counsel hates gays because it refuses to compromise on first amendment freedoms just to spare the delicate feelings of butt pirates like me. Enter Matt Krause, a self-styled “first amendment attorney”. He calls himself that because he takes up cases that involve the defense of first amendment rights, which, as we’ve already established, Christofascist H8ers like Dakota Ary are not entitled to.

Matt Krause on the Ary case:

“Students don’t lose their first amendment rights just because they go in the schoolhouse doors.”

Krause is of course quoting the majority opinion from the landmark Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines. In it, several high school students sued their school because they were suspended for wearing black arm bands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The students won their case.

In the majority opinion, the court found that a school may limit speech, but it must

“be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

Which clearly this was! I mean, it was offensive! And to drag out my catch-all, speech restricting, thought-stopping weapon of mass destruction…SOME KID MIGHT KILL HIMSELF! Yep, that’s basically what my argument boils down to–our first amendment rights must be curtailed or else some kid might blow his brains out. I will continue to exploit acts of suicide for the purposes of censorship until the cows come home.

If other people are allowed to hold differing opinions, some gay kid might kill himself.

By the way, don’t get cute with me and ask if I think we should suspend our constitutional rights every time a Christian kills himself. This doesn’t work both ways. And besides, the suicide rates for pickle-smoochers is much higher than for Christians, which I think might be because Christians are well-adjusted, mentally balanced people and homosexuals are batshit crazy emotional basketcases.

As I read more into this case, I was thrilled to find that the teacher was himself a member of the LGBTQXYZ community! Can anyone find out if the gentleman is single? His blatant homosexual fascism is such a turn-on! I get hard every time I think about an adult teacher bullying a fourteen year old Christian honor student. It’s so GAY-STAPO of him.

Like most gay teachers, this particular unnamed educator brings his advocacy to work with him. He’s a change agent! He considers it his job to seek out kids like Dakota and reform their wayward thinking. That’s spectacular.

“There has been a history with this teacher in the class regarding homosexual topic. The teacher had posted a picture of two men kissing on a wall that offended some of the students.”

That’s great. I can see how that ties into German. Sure. I’m sure he put it there because it has some relationship to German, and not because he is himself a homosexual and he has an agenda to push.

“He told the students this is happening all over the world and you need to accept the fact that homosexuality is just part of our culture now.”

So homosexuality was a frequent topic in this teacher’s German class, which is really a great development. I took German for a semester or two back in high school just because I wanted to learn how to read Mein Kampf in the original German. All the goose-stepping and the gayness in the SA really turned me on. I also admired Hitler’s militant atheism and the LGBTQXYZ members of his staff like Ernst Roehm. And guess what? My German teacher never even touched on the topic of homosexuality. We learned verb conjugation, vocabulary, adjective endings, cases, word order, and tenses. What we should have been talking about was gayness in Germany.

I can completely understand why homosexuality might be a frequent topic in German class. After all, some people in Germany are homosexual. Some people in Germany are also vegetarian, but we don’t spend time in German class talking about that. Some people in Germany are also into Scheisse porn, but we don’t spend time talking about that. Some people in Germany are also Jehovah’s Witnesses, but we don’t spend class time talking about that.

But we do talk about homosexuality, loudly and often. We ALWAYS portray it in a good light, and discussion is only permitted if you agree with the teacher and his opinion. Otherwise, STFU or we’ll suspend you for two days.

Weaving homosexuality into any class is as easy as 1-2-3. Let’s see…French class? Yes, there are gays in France. So let’s talk about gayness in France. Biology? People are just born gay, get over it. History? Abe Lincoln was gay and so was Alexander Hamilton! English Lit? How about we read some of the books from the GLSEN teen reading list that include gay sex between teachers and students?

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/sunday-commentary/20091210-Rod-Dreher-GLSEN-s-toxic-7559.ece

This game is easier than playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Seriously, I can tie gayness to virtually anything. It appears that this particular teacher did just that. Western Hills High School hired him to teach German, but he had other ideas.

Sadly, it appears that the school is backing down. After a lot of whining from his bitchy Christian mother, Dakota was let off with just one day of in-school suspension. Still, she won’t shut up about her son’s “constitutional rights”.

If only I loved poor children as much as I hate Christians…

I take pleasure in announcing another great victory for the movement towards full equality. We are now depriving third world children of shoes!

Recently, entrepreneur and TOMS shoes founder Blake Mycoskie appeared at a speaking engagement sponsored by the anti-gay, anti-choice, “Focus on the Family”. I’m pretty sure these people don’t believe in dinosaurs, actually. Focus on the Family is so evil that they must not be allowed to do good. In fact, if they try, we should prevent them from doing good.

Focus on the Family flyer advertising its "Feet on the Ground" event with Blake Mycoskie. Very incriminating. This flyer is very hateful. It appears that Focus on the Family is conspiring with a shoe manufacturer to...distribute shoes to poor people! This is the smoking gun.

Here’s all you need to know about Focus on the Family. They oppose gay marriage, just like half of the country. They oppose abortion, just like a slim majority of the country. They don’t believe in evolution just like 61% of Americans.  And they’re VERY much on the fringe. They’re not hip, they’re square. They’re basically the mothership of the Christofascist movement. Focus on the Family also sponsors an annual “Day of Dialogue” in which they encourage students to talk about “God’s plan” for sexuality. The day is scheduled to coincide annually with the pro-gay National Day of Silence. Personally, I don’t really care about “God’s plan” for my dick. I care about my plan. In any case, the National Day of Silence is a time for people to shut up. The name of the day is very clear. They want dialogue and we want SILENCE!

When word got out that Mycoskie was associating with the likes of Focus on the Family, the shit hit the fan. The feminists went berserk, and so did the sodomites. The gay blogosphere was abuzz with vitriol for TOMS. I immediately ran to my shoe closet to see if I owned a pair. After searching through the seventy pairs of shoes I own, I found that in fact, I DO own some of TOMS shoes. They’re pink and they have sequins on them. I ran to the deck and hurled them out into the ocean just to show my disgust for Mr. Mycoskie and his company.

Blake Mycoskie, founder of TOMS shoes and known accomplice of the Focus on the Family hate group. He stepped off the reservation for just a second, but we brought him back into line. Here he is distributing shoes to some impoverished kid in the third world, which he does quite a bit. Just one question: Is the handsome young gentleman single?

Ms. Magazine immediately started an online petition asking TOMS shoes to drop any relationship with Focus on the Family. LGBTQXYZ people and their allies alerted each other via facebook and twitter to get over there and sign the petition. It didn’t take more than a few minutes before the handsome man got back on the right side of things. Let’s face it, we homos have POWER! We just have to pretend that we don’t so that we can continue to perpetuate the myth that we’re poor, downtrodden victims, abused by society. We’re nothing of the sort.

Irene Carmon of Jezebel.com explains her thinking in regards to TOMS shoes and Focus on the Family:

“There’s nothing inherently political about distributing shoes to African children, of course. In theory, it’s a good thing for Focus to spend less time trying to police sex and more actually helping people, but they’ve not really cut back on the former. And Focus On The Family isn’t the only group TOMS could have turned to for collaboration, nor is it the only Christian group involved in charitable missions. It carries significant cultural and political baggage, for good reason. TOMS is at major risk of alienating a constituency that has enthusiastically adopted their product, including yours truly.”

I couldn’t agree more. For years, I’ve said that “Christian” groups like Focus on the Family should spend more of their time and effort trying to feed and clothe the poor and less of their time worrying about sodomy and baby-killing. When I phrase it that way, it sounds like a zero sum game, as if they can’t do both. Every time you say that homosexuality is wrong, another child dies in a third world village. It’s just one of many schemes I’ve come up with to shut people up. It makes them feel like a “bad Christian” for opposing my agenda, and that’s what I want them to believe.

The truth is that the Christian groups that I hate so much DO perform lots of acts of charity to the poor. That really pisses me off. So when they actually take my advice and do what I think they should be doing, I get pretty upset about that too. I’d rather the kids not have shoes if hateful, hate-mongering haters are going to have anything to do with it.  

Mr. Mycoksie quickly distanced himself from the far-right hate group with an official apology:

Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family’s beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company’s part and one we regret…Furthermore, contrary to what has been reported, Focus on the Family is not a TOMS giving partner. So there is no misunderstanding created by this mistake, let me clearly state that both TOMS, and I as the founder, are passionate believers in equal human and civil rights for all. That belief is a core value of the company and of which we are most proud.

Nice apology, I suppose. I went down to the waterfront after I read that to see if I could fish my pink shoes out of the ocean, but it appears they are gone. I’ll check again at low-tide.

TOMS Shoes is a big fan of helping poor children. I'm just glad they don't allow their love for children to overshadow their hate for Christians who actually believe the Bible. It's more important that we shun and punish those we disagree with than to acheive humanitarian goals.

Mycoskie stressed that Focus on the Family will NOT be part of the “One-for-One” program that gives shoes to children in the third world.  For each pair of shoes you buy, TOMS donates one pair to needy children. Mycoskie learned the value of shoes during his trips to Argentina, where he sometimes encountered people who had none. TOMS explains on its website why shoes are so important:

1. Many children in developing countries grow up barefoot. Whether at play, doing chores or going to school, these children are at risk:

2. A leading cause of disease in developing countries is soil-transmitted diseases, which can penetrate the skin through bare feet. Wearing shoes can help prevent these diseases, and the long-term physical and cognitive harm they cause.

3. Wearing shoes also prevents feet from getting cuts and sores. Not only are these injuries painful, they also are dangerous when wounds become infected.

4. Many times children can’t attend school barefoot because shoes are a required part of their uniform. If they don’t have shoes, they don’t go to school. If they don’t receive an education, they don’t have the opportunity to realize their potential.

TOMS also partners with other organizations in order to further its mission. From a video on their website:

“We partner with humanitarian and health organizations around the world. They can help us give shoes year after year, providing shoes to the same children as they grow.

But they won’t partner with Focus on the Family and I’m glad for that. If that means that thousands of kids will have to go barefoot and get communicable diseases and other icky stuff like that, then I suppose that’s the way the cookie crumbles. If that means that they can’t go to school and get an education, I’m fine with that too. If their little feet get cut up and infected, that’s just too damned bad. I’d hate to think that somewhere in Somalia or Myanmar there’s some kid walking around with a pair of shoes on his feet that were paid for by a homophobic American pastor. So it’s better this way. A lot better.  

 
Thanks to all of you who signed the petition. TOMS shoes really heard us loud and clear!  As I’ve said before, we have corporate America in our pocket. We say ‘jump’, and they say ‘how high?’ Just remember–eternal vigilance is the price of guilt-free sodomy!

Safe schools budget slashed. Gay suicide epedemic follows.

Considering our recent victory in New York State, a lot of angry homosexual activists think that we can now rest on our laurels. Sad to say, we cannot. As sweet as the victory in New York was, the threat to queer normalization is, in fact, greater than ever.

I’m speaking, of course, about the recent budget cuts impacting the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS) and the resignation of its first director, Kevin Jennings. The upcoming 2012 budget will likely slash this department’s budget by seventy-five percent.

The OSDFS has been headed, until this month, by an aggressive homosexual who really deserves credit for mainstreaming perversion in our public schools. You may know Jennings as the founder of GLSEN and the author of “One Teacher out of Ten”, a reference to the myth that ten percent of the population is homosexual. We took that statistic from sexologist Alfred Kinsey, a known pervert of the first degree who studied human sexuality in a vain attempt to prove that his activities were actually normal. The real statistic for the general population is somewhere between two and three percent, but we’ve lied about that for years in order to exaggerate our numbers.  Now, if you’re talking about teachers, that stat would be something closer to 80%, as a result of the concerted efforts in the realm of homosexual evangelism. 

Jennings also wrote the foreword to the book “Queering Elementary Education”. Personally, I think the nation’s elementary schools suffer from a deficiency of queerness and I’m glad Jennings is working on that.  Or at least he was until he resigned.

This guy has been fighting in the trenches of America’s culture wars since the days of Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly.If you’re gay, you owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Jennings. He wants everyone to tell you that you’re wonderful just the way you are. Until the day that happens, you are not “safe”.

Kevin Jennings, Obama's "safe schools" czar. He's one pushy faggot, and that's what I like about him. I really like his ideas about "queering" elementary education.

Get it? “Safety” is a code word! By extension, so are “safe schools”! Ha! “Safe schools” means no one is allowed to think poorly of homosexuality. Or at least they can’t say it out loud, which is essentially the same thing.

If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language — “promoting homosexuality” is one example — is laced with subtle and not-so- subtle innuendo that we are “after their kids.” ….

Yeah, I know. As if anyone is “after their kids”. Well, we are after their kids, but only in a good way. Why else do you think I became a guidance counselor? I, for one, agree with the sentiments of a recent article from Queerty.com entitled “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?”

They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it-that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.

I couldn’t agree more! What the hell is the point of infiltrating the public schools if I can’t push my own personal agenda?

Me too! The whole reason I became a guidance counselor was so I could oversee the school district's homosexual indoctrination program. But don't worry, we can't "make" your kid gay. Despite all of our best efforts, we can't. I swear. Someone ought to send that memo to the author of the Queerty article listed above. He needs to stop telling people that "our future" depends on recruiting their kids.

Everyone should really read the article in its entirety. All in all, it earned eleven “LOL’s”, five “HOT’s”, and forty-two “MORE PLEASE’s”. A few prudes voted “WTF”. Anyway, I completely endorse every word in this fantastic article. Is it possible for an online publication to win the Pulitzer?

http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/

Jennings was a key architect of the homosexual blitz on America’s schools. He started right here, where Michael and I live, in the progressive bastion of Massachusetts. His strategy was simple–people will either accept homosexual indoctrination in their schools, or they will be accused of having blood on their hands.

In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent’s calling card–safety–and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students’ safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report ‘Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,’ we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one. Finding the effective frame for your community is the key to victory. It must be linked to universal values that everyone in the community has in common. In Massachusetts, no one could speak up against our frame and say, ‘Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves’: this allowed us to set the terms for debate.

Brilliant! Let’s break it down to its most simple level. There are only two sides here–those who want gay kids to blow their brains out, and those who don’t. If you oppose our agenda, you want teens to kill themselves!  If any teens actually do kill themselves, then it’s. all. your. fault. The appeal to emotion, rather than reason, is very strong. People tend to shut the fuck up when you phrase it that way, which is really what we want.

We want silence, and we achieve it through intimidation. Now, most people generally support the First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. They tend to agree that 1) here in America, people have the right to hold their own religious beliefs, and that 2) here in America, people have a right to express their beliefs, even in the public schools. As a result of this backward thinking, most people tend to think that students have a right to disapprove of homosexuality and to say so, just the same way they have the right to object to the war in Iraq or tax cuts for the wealthy, or anything else under the sun. They don’t think that homosexuality is a special subject about which the protections of the First Amendment don’t apply.  

But they get a little squeamish when we start accusing them of killing gay kids through their attachment to “freedom”. People tend to resign themselves to the withering of constitutional rights once we portray them as de facto murderers of fifteen year olds. Okay, okay. We can accept a gag order in public schools if you’ll just stop telling people that we’re killing children.   

And then they shut up.

Let me take a moment to sound the alarm bells here…ALL OF THIS IS NOW IN DANGER! With Jennings out and the budget for his former office slashed to pieces, we may lose the ability to bully our opponents. If we don’t act now to rescue the safe schools office, our schools might lapse back into being unsafe. And when they do, parents might decide that they don’t like us handing out pornographic gay literature to their kids as we have in the past. So let’s not get too cocky in the wake of New York’s marriage equality vote. The forces of anti-gay bigotry are still alive and well. We need to be vigilant in the post-Jennings era.

I ♥ NY (The Jews? Not so much.)

As I’m sure you have all already heard, New York has become the sixth state in the union to pass marriage equality.  I was absolutely giddy to hear the news.  Finally, those guys from the Village People can start pairing off together!

Now that we have vanquished our bigoted foes, I think it’s about time we seek to personally destroy anyone who opposed us. Democracy works a lot better when we intimidate, blacklist, harass and persecute our opponents. Wait, did I say democracy? I usually don’t like democracy, not unless it yields the results I want, as it did last night in Albany. Minority rights must never be voted on, unless my side wins and then I get a tear in my eye and I celebrate with champagne. In the future, we must devise a form of democracy that ensures that my side wins every time.

I really like how the homosexuals of California handled their Prop H8 defeat. Blacklisting their (mostly Mormon and Catholic) opponents guarantees that anyone who disagrees with us will think twice in the future about voting, speaking, or donating money. Blacklisting used to be a bad thing, back when the Hollywood studios used it against the Stalinist Left for about fifteen minutes during the McCarthyite 1950’s. I know it was bad because I’ve seen about sixteen movies and four PBS documentaries about it. But those were just utopian visionaries who wanted to bring the oppressive Soviet system to America, so let’s not compare them to the moral monsters who object to redefining marriage.

That’s why I was thrilled to discover a website pop up after Prop H8 called stopthemormons.org. Click on the site on my blog roll. As the bloggers explain in their FAQ, “Stop the Mormons” is not a bigoted, anti-Mormon site because Mormons really do deserve all the hate they get. Personally, I’ve never met a Mormon, but I kind of agree. Hating people who deserve to be hated isn’t hate. Also, the bloggers filled their website with testimony from all sorts of token non-Mormon Mormons that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t hate Mormons. They even have a picture of noted Mormon Harry Reid on their site. And everyone knows that Harry Reid is a super-devout Mormon. He just pretends that he isn’t in public.

Harry Reid, a devout Mormon. See? He's praying! Right there at the podium. Ha! Just kidding. Harry Reid doesn't believe any of that Mormon crap, and if he did we'd kneecap that motherfucker too. Still, it's nice to have guys like him around that provide us cover for our anti-Mormon hate.

As it turns out, there aren’t many Mormons in New York, so they weren’t as much of a force as they were in California.  I’m sure they were still hanging out in their caves in the desert, meddling in the affairs of New York from afar and marrying multiple underage brides.

But from what I saw, the main opponents of New York’s marriage equality bill were THE JEWS! So I immediately ran to my computer and tried to register the domain name “stopthejews.org”. But then I thought to myself, “Wait a second, Patrick. That sounds kind of anti-Semitic”.

But no, it isn’t true! I have lots of Jewish friends. None of them actually practice Judaism, but at least they’ve had their kosher franks circumcised. I know this because I’ve seen all of my friends’ dicks up close.  So I had a little debate with myself, right then and there. I asked myself, if someone had a website called “Stop the blacks” or “Stop the Mexicans”, would I consider that racist? Yes, I would.  If someone had a blog called “Stop the gays”, would I consider that homophobic? Yes, I certainly would. If someone had a blog called “Stop the Muslims”, would I consider that Islamophobic? Yes. And heaven knows that I’m deathly afraid of being called Islamaphobic.

But this is different! I would even go out of my way to find Jews who agree with me and lace the website with quotes from them, thus proving that a website about “stopping the Jews” is not really anti-Jewish. It’s kind of the same thing with the Mormons. I DO NOT hate Mormons. I just hate people who subscribe to the Mormon faith. If, for example, you are a Mormon who doesn’t actually believe any of that Mormon crap, then we’re cool. That way, you can provide cover for me against the charge that I am anti-Mormon. It’s the same with the Jews.

So let me clarify what I mean by “stop the Jews”. I am NOT against Jews. I love secular Hollywood Jews like Steven Spielberg. The well-known director and Eagle Scout even told the Boy Scouts of America to piss off over their no homosexual policy. Which is great, because I really think that the BSA should allow me to take little boys camping. It’s a travesty that they don’t. It’s good to know that when a wholesome youth organization dedicated to building character and helping little old ladies across the street is in a pitched battle with a group of foaming-at-the-mouth homosexuals, Steven Spielberg knows which side he’s on. I REALLY like the secular Hollywood Jews who happen to be gay–David Geffen and Joel Schumacher, for example. They make lots of great propaganda films.

And there are loads of good Jews in politics. Take, for example, Anthony’s Weiner, the recently deposed Congressman from New York. Now there was a nasty, arrogant, loud-mouth, in-your-face Jew that I could have really gotten along with. And since he’s never had the pretense of standing for “family values” (quote-unquote), then what he did was not hypocritical. And so it’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with being a dirtbag so long as you never pretended to have any moral standards in the first place. And really, you gotta like a Congressman who plays dress up in a bra and panties. My husband and I did that last weekend, so it’s kind of neat to know that a congressman does the same thing.

Anthony Weiner in his crazy college days. I thought he was just an arrogant prick. Who knew he had a softer side? He's a good Jew. We like this Jew.

No, the kind of Jews I hate are the ones with the hats and the beards and the lamb chops. Y’know–the churchy Jews. I guess you would call them synagogue-y Jews. Just last week, a group calling itself “Jews for Decency” descended upon the state house in Albany like locusts, doing their best to ambush senators and persuade them to vote “no” on marriage equality. Yeah right, more like “Jews for Fascism”. As I’ve found in the past, “decency” is basically a code word for fascism. Beware of anyone who uses it. Check out their website here:

http://www.jewsfordecency.org

Oh, the Jews and their “decency”. Don’t they know that religious organizations have no say whatsoever in governmental affairs? That’s what we patriotic Americans like to call the “seperation of church and state”. It’s been part of the American legal tradition ever since a KKK member named Justice Hugo Black inserted it into his majority opinion in order to deprive Catholics the use of public facilities. It’s not actually in the Constitution, but that’s good enough for me. Now, if some short, dumpy, bi-curious, genderqueer Methodist minister from some ultra-left wing church in a college town wants to come testify before the New York legislature, that’s okay. It’s okay because everyone knows (s)he doesn’t really believe in God, and thus the seperation of church and state no longer applies.

Rabbi Leiter of Jews for "Decency" walks and talks with Republican Senator James Alesi. Thankfully, Alesi told this Jew-boy to take a hike and voted YES on marriage equality. Good for him. And as for Rabbi Leiter--now I know why your people have been hated down through history. Don't you dare try to twist that as some kind of anti-Semitic remark.

I was thinking to myself that we should handle these Jews just the same way we handled the Mormons. For example, we should boycott Jewish-owned business, just like we boycotted Mormon-owned businesses. We should vandalize their houses of worship just the same way we did to Catholics and Mormons after Prop H8. But then a thought occurred to me–wait a second, if we treated Jews the same way we treated Mormons,  someone might draw a connection between our intimidation campaign and Kristallnacht. And then the Jews would be able to claim “victimhood”.

"Kauft nicht bei Juden!" (Don't buy from Jews!) I was thinking we could mount a campaign like this after last night's marriage equality vote. It seemed to work with the Mormons. But someone might see some historical parallels, so let's not do it. We're going to have to find another way to punish the Jews. I'm open to ideas, just leave a comment.

So let’s recap. I want to find a way to punish the Jews for participating in the democratic process on the other side of an issue about which I feel strongly. That does not mean that I am anti-Jewish, because I don’t hate all Jews. I only hate Jews who practice Judaism and believe that silly book they’ve been lugging around for like five thousand years. I’d like to treat them just like the we treated the Mormons after Proposition 8–unleash so much bile and discrimination against them that they’ll never even dream of opposing us in the future. Not that I’m anti-Mormon. Of course, if I treated the Jews the same way that I treated the Mormons, someone might see shades of Nazism in my actions. And I don’t want that.

Tag Cloud