Buy More Cookies!

Girl Scout cookies are being boycotted by members of the Religious Right based solely on a non-existent Planned-Parenthood/Girl Scout seminar that never happened, never would happen and really, couldn't possibly happen.

From the insane Moonie rag The Washington Times:

What has Girl Scouts headquarters in highest dudgeon, however, is the revelation that their “girls only” meeting at the United Nations included a sex book by Planned Parenthood. The meeting occurred during the annual Commission on the Status of Women in 2010 and the book, “Healthy, Happy and Hot” had tips for kids such as this one: “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse. … But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!”

Now, that pamphlet does exist, and Planned Parenthood had been using that room earlier that day, so it is entirely possible that a copy of the sex brochure might have been left in the meeting room when the Girl Scouts came in to use it. No one in their right minds would think that anyone left that pamphlet there intentionally to be read by little girls. Fortunately, being in your right mind is not a prerequisite for a job with the lunatic religious right.


Again from the Moonie Times:

Girl Scout officials feigning shock that a nasty Planned Parenthood book was found in their meeting is like Captain Renault in “Casablanca” feigning shock that gambling is taking place. It just doesn’t ring true. Planned Parenthood and Girl Scout executives are kindred spirits.

Kindred spirits in that they both try to improve the lives of female persons, I suppose.
Other than that. . .
Also, the Planned Parenthood brochure was about living with HIV, so it really wouldn't make any sense to distribute this to little girls. Unless you buy in to the idea that organizations like Planned Parenthood exist only to advance an agenda of corrupting the innocent and destroying all that is pure and good. And if you do believ that, then you are probably already on the mailing list for Tony Perkins' Family Research Council, so this will be old news for you:

In a 'prayer alert' today, the Family Research Council claimed that its campaign against the Girl Scouts was working: “Their cookie sales are suffering.”
Back in January, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told followers to boycott Girl Scout cookies because the treats allegedly fund a political agenda which includes Planned Parenthood and "promoting sexual diversity."

And by "promoting sexual diversity," I assume that Perkins means this:

The Girl Scouts of Colorado recently stirred up the entire nation when they admitted a 7-year-old-boy into their troop. The boy’s mother says he identifies himself as a girl. The Girl Scouts of Colorado released a statement saying that "if a child identifies as a girl and the child's family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout."

This has, naturally led to a collective anuerysm by the anti-everything-but-them right.

If you want to get a look at some of the hate, and you have a strong stomach, click here: www.HonestGirlScouts.com, 

Meantime, whenever you see adorable children selling cookies, buy some! Buy a bunch. But more that you could possibly eat. They last forever! Share them with friends! Send some to your homophobic relatives! Include a personal note, something like "Here, enjoy these cookies knowing that I bought them specifically to support Planned Parenthood and transgender scouts! haha, fuck you!

Nikki Haley Can Teabag Like a Man

I don't know why I always expect women to be less evil and stupid than their male counterparts.

 

And I'm almost always disappointed.

 

You were expecting, maybe, Mother Theresa?

Aaaaanyway. . .  Somehow South Carolina ended up with a budget surplus of around $210 million dollars. Now you'd think that South Carolina could figure out a lot of things it needs to spend money on, 

 

 

  

Like a less embarrassing school mascot?

But, this being South Carolina in the teabagger era, they could only agree to spend half of that money on schools, while the other half would go to lowering business taxes in the state.

 

Mah Distillin' bizness needs a tax break more'n them kids need that fancy book-lernin'!

( I kid South Carolina, I've been there, it's a fine state. )

But even that was too much for Governor Nikki Haley.

Gov. Haley Would Veto Spending Surplus on Schools

Gov. Nikki Haley says she would veto a Senate plan 
to spend $105 million in surplus funds on schools.

"If you're not giving it in tax relief, if you're not giving it to pay down debt, you send it back to the taxpayers. That's where it belongs," she says.

Okay, South Carolina has a population of about 4.5 million people. So if Haley sends that $105 million back to the taxpayers, that comes out to about Twenty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents per South Carolinian. I'm sure that will be a real life-changer for them.  Or you could hire 2,100 teachers at $50k per year. But yeah, it's generally accepted teabagger wisom that the people know better how to spend their money than guv'mint does! So, I'm sure each set of parents will take their $46.66 and use that to make a much smarter investment in their kids' futures. What ever they spend their $46.66 on will obviously have a much more positive impact on their children's lives than some dumb old teacher would have.

 

Forty six dollars? Here's to you, South Carolinians!

Heck, I'm sure the schools probably don't even need the money anyway! You know how well-funded these darn socialist schools are what with their commie teachers' unions, and their PTA bakesales and whatnot!

"It's a bad situation out there as far as education is concerned and good teachers are being laid off because the school districts just simply don't have the money," says Sen. John Land, D-Manning, Senate Minority Leader.

"You've got to remember that we are way behind in education," he says. "Three years ago, we were giving $2,500 per student going back to the local districts to educate our children across this state. We are down now to about $1,700 per student."

Oh. Well still, though. Forty six bucks per family! Thank you Governor Haley!
Screw giving money to schools, right governor?

"We could give double this budget to education and there would be people saying it's not enough," Haley said, without specifying how much money public education should get. "It needs to go to students in the classroom."

Yeah, double the amount is still not enough, so it only makes sense to give nothing. It's like one meal a day isn't really enough food for a growing boy such as myself, heck even two meals might not be sufficient, so why eat at all? And the money needs to go to the students in the classroom. God knows you can't accomplish that goal by givng money to the schools!

Scott Walker is an Even Bigger Scumbag than I Thought

Gov. Walker: No hospital visitation for gay couples

Gov. Scott Walker wants Wisconsin to abandon legal defense of a new state law that gives same-sex couples the right to visit partners who are hospitalized.

Seriously?  No hospital visits? What is even the point of that? How does a guy visiting another guy in the hospital affect anyone else?

A Democratic-controlled Legislature, in 2009, approved a new law in which same-sex couples can sign domestic partnership registries with county clerks “to secure some — but not all — of the rights afforded married couples,” the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

Of course, even that is too much for some pricks. As long as any gay people anywhere have any rights at all, the prick brigade will be there to fight against them.

The law has been challenged by an anti-gay rights group, Wisconsin Family Action, saying the visitation privileges violate an amendment to the state constitution that bans same-sex marriages or similar legal agreements.

Wisconsin Family Action. That would be these asses:





Here's the mission statement from Wisconsin Family Action's website. See if you can spot the irony!

We take seriously our mission of advancing Judeo-Christian principles and values in Wisconsin by strengthening and preserving marriage, family, life and liberty.

Yes, liberty. The answer we were looking for was "liberty." They will fight tirelessly to preserve liberty, except for the liberty of certain people to marry certain other people or even visit them at the fucking hospital!  Or liberty for women to control their own uteri. But other than that, give them liberty of give them death!

This is what has this group of scumbags up in arms:

The registries allow same-sex couples to take family and medical leave to care for a seriously ill partner, make end-of-life decisions and have hospital visitation rights. But according to Fair Wisconsin, they still confer only about a quarter of the rights associated with marriage, lacking provisions to allow couples to file joint tax returns or adopt children together.

So, if a person is in the hospital, seriously ill, facing death, Walker and the Family Action Dick Brigade feel that it is of the utmost importance to deny that person the comfort of the person they love most in the world if that person is of the same gender. Because, why, exactly? What's the point? Do they really think that Bob visiting Jim in the hospital is really a threat to boy-girl marriage? Really? They can't possibly be that insane, can they?

I think that maybe they really believe that if you make life difficult enough for the gay people, they will eventually give up and stop being gay. Or maybe that if they aren't senselessly cruel enough to the gay people, being gay will just seem so attractive an option that breeders will defect in droves?

AFA's Bryan Fischer Still Allowed to Comment Publicly, For Some Reason

And apparently, he's still obsessed with how nobody better try giving America back to them Injuns!

And you know why? 'Cuz they don't deserve it. Just being here first is no defense against God-sanctioned genocide!

Native Americans Morally Disqualified Themselves From the Land

Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM

By Bryan Fischer

In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.

I got nothing. How do you even respond to a statement like that?

International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest. Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons.

Um, really? Conquest is considered a legitimate transfer of sovereignty?  So if I beat you up and take your wallet, do I have a legitimate legal claim to your money? And does "settlement" really count if someone else is already living there? Can I "settle" in your living room and claim your house as mine since I've already unpacked my stuff and I'm pretty much settled in? I think I might like these rules, assuming that I could take you in a fight.

Oh, yeah. I'm gonna like these rules.

Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit’s purchase of Manhattan being merely the first. 

I don't know where you're getting this, but even if we pretend that Manhattan was a legitimate purchase, that's still a pretty miniscule fraction of the North American land mass. "Buying" a tiny portion doesn't excuse or mitigate taking the rest by force of arms.

And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil. 

"Contested lands?" When I kick your ass and take your money, will you refer to "contested funds?" How in the hell do you get the idea that forceful conquest somehow equates to legitimate acquisition?

But another factor has rarely been discussed, and that is the moral factor. 

I think the moral angle would have to be that stealing and killing is bad?

In the ancient tradition of the Hebrews, God made it clear to Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to his descendants. But he told Abraham the transfer of land to his heirs could not happen for 400 years, for one simple reason: “[T]he iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16). 

Hmm, what an odd coincidence. The book says that God promised the land to the people who wrote the book? What are the odds? And why would God wait until their "iniquity" was "complete?" If He knew that there was 400 more years of iniquity coming, why not just launch a pre-emptive strike? Had He not seen "Minority Report?" 

The Amorites, or Canaanite peoples, practiced one moral abomination after another, whether it was incest, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, bestiality or child sacrifice, and God finally said “Enough!”
His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God’s custodian to empty the bucket and start over. 

Really? So how does this work? How many child sacrifices can I get away with before God gets fed up enough to do something about it? Is any of this in writing? How do I know how much sexual immorality I can indulge in before the slop bucket fills up? (Insert your own filthy joke here)

The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality. 

Okay, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I certainly don't pretend to know anything about the sex lives of Native Americans 

(I'm guessing this wasn't a documentary)

but I can tell you that the Native Americans that the first white folks encountered were pretty peaceful.

 

Does this ring a bell?

 

And those groups that were more bellicose were certainly not any more guilty of "savagery" than the Europeans who developed practices like the "Blood Eagle"  burning at the stake and Crucifixion.

One of the complaints listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was that King George “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Sounds a lot like "shock and awe." And of course, there's no way that Thomas Jefferson would just be saying something totally racist! (*cough* had slaves *cough*)

The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization. They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase. 

Oh, well, why didn't you say so? Fuck 'em then. If they won't adopt the ways of the guys with guns, then they deserve to be wiped out and. . .  wait, that doesn't sound right.

God explained to the nation of Israel that because of the “abomination(s)” of the indigenous Canaanite tribes, the land had become unclean and “vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).”
Is this to say the same holds true for native American tribes today? In many respects, the answer is of course no. 

Oh, wow, I thought for sure you were going to say "yes!" It's nice to see that you have some shred of dignity. . .oh, you weren't done yet, were you?

In many respects, the answer is of course no. But in some senses, the answer is yes.

Oh, Goddammit!
 

 Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture. 

You do know how alcohol came to America, right? Maybe once the Indians tried the European custom of booze and saw how much harm it could do, they decided not to adopt other European practices? Just a thought. And we all know that there are no alcoholics in Christendom!

Sadly, this column will likely generate a firestorm of nuclear proportions among wingers on the left rather than the thoughtful reflection the thesis deserves.

Oh my God, I've seen episodes of Sponge Bob that deserve more thoughtful reflection than your "thesis!" 
If I'm understanding this right, your "thesis" is that anyone who doesn't share your religious beliefs is undeserving of land and whoever takes it from them is doing God's will. I assume that that would include the Christian epicenter of Europe, 8th Century Spain being conquered and ruled by the Moors for almost 8oo years. And the Ottoman Empire. And the empire of Alexander the Great? 


Also, you're a racist asshole. And no one has defended Manifest Destiny in decades. 


Idiot!

The AFA's Bryan Fischer May Have Topped Himself

Fischer is usually a crazy little prick, but this time he may have reached a new low (or high, depending on your perspective)

Today he starts out with this:

President Obama likes the “U.N. Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” He says it can “help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future.”   

Now any normal person would read that and say, "Oh, the Prez likes human rights, or at least likes paying lip-service to human rights, that's sorta nice." But Bryan Fischer is not a normal person. Not by a long shot!

This declaration - which carries”considerable moral and political force,” don’t forget - contains this little gem of a paragraph, in Article 26: 

  

“Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” and nations “shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources.” 

Okay. That seems fair. But only to a normal person. Because this is the conclusion Bryan Fischer draws:

In other words, President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords. 

While I, for one, would welcome our new Indian overlords, because really, how much worse could they possibly do?  there is no way Barack Obama would turn over the USA to Native Americans. They're not Muslim!

So maybe Fischer is joking, hmm? Not a chance!

I see no reason why the president, after he leaves office, can’t submit himself to the authority of any Indian tribe he wants to. Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire. 

Um, where to begin? First, there never was any "Indian empire" in the land now known as the USA, so such an empire couldn't ever be revived. The Natives in North America were organized into dozens of tribes, some of whom fought against each other and -- fuck! haven't you ever seen a John Ford movie? Now south of the border, sure, you had your Inca empire in Peru and your Aztec and Maya in what is now Mexico, but no "Indian Empire" ever existed up here.

Second, if there was some new "Indian Empire" why would they put a non-Indian in charge? He knows nothing of their ways!

And third, fuck you!

You know, there was a time when someone like Bryan Fischer would have been relegated to standing on a milk crate on a street corner with a battery-powered bullhorn, but now this nutso gets taken seriously.

Stupidest Headline of the Millenium

Of course it's from the AFA's Bryan Fischer:

Julian Assange Not the Bad Guy Here - The Homosexual Soldier Is

Is he serious? You bet he is!

The out-of-the-mainstream media has collaboratively kept the focus on the sex criminal, Julian Assange, and off the guy who has committed actual treason, the homosexual soldier Bradley Manning, who sold out his country in what may turn out to be fit of gay pique.

A "fit of gay pique!" It's not that PFC Manning thought that the public should know what is being done in their name. It couldn't possibly be that he is super-committed to freedom of information. No, it's just what gay guys do when they get into one of their little snits.

Manning was, at a minimum, seriously confused about his sexuality, and at worst, launched the WikiLeaks campaign to strike back at the military for its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which he vehemently opposed. 

So, wait. You don't even know if he's gay? It might have been breeder pique? Or bi pique? Well, I guess that since he opposed DADT, he must be at least a little bit gay, right?
I think I see how this works. Let me try.
Um, Bryan Fischer is at a minimum a self-loathing closet queen and at worst writes his column to strike back at the gay guys for being so damn hot.

Regardless, he is a one-man argument for keeping open homosexuals from serving in the military in the first place. If the 1993 law - which flatly prohibits homosexuals from a place in the armed services - had been followed, there would be no PFC Bradley Manning and no WikiLeaks. 

He is a one-man argument for keeping open homosexuals from serving in the military, even though he might not be gay and if he is, he's apparently not all that open about it, since you, the most gay-obsessed man on the planet, don't even know if he's gay or just "seriously confused about his sexuality."

does not "flatly prohibit homosexuals from a place in the armed services." It allows gay lesbian or bisexual soldiers to serve as long as they keep their orientation a secret. Big difference.

Manning was quite open about his flirtation with all manner of sexual orientations on social networking sites, evidence the military could not use to discharge him because of inane rules established 

under DADT. 

DADT allows a soldier to serve as long as he keeps his sexual proclivities a secret. 

That's what I just said! 

It’s no wonder that the Old Media rarely if ever even references Manning any more. And I believe it is for one simple reason: Manning singlehandedly torpedoes their argument that homosexuals can be allowed to serve in our military without consequence. 

Well, it's hard to argue with flawless logic like that! Seeing as how one soldier who may or may not be gay did something bad completely un-related to sexuality, the only conclusion one can possibly draw is that the gays are all bad and shouldn't be allowed in the Army. Just like we had to kick all the white hetero trailer trash out of the military after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

 

Seriously Fischer, you need help. Dan Savage doesn't spend as much time thinking about gay sex as you do. You need to see a shrink. It's not healthy to keep your true desires bottled up inside. That's how people like you get obsessed. You're obsessed with the gay, Bryan. Either come out of that closet or shut the door so the rest of us don't have to hear you.

The American Family Association Continues to be Completely Psychotic

Back to AFA

Blog Home

SEARCH

Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing
in letting house burn to the ground

Honestly, is there even any reason to read this crap past that headline?

Oh, what the hell. . .

A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TN fire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the ground because the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fire protection.

The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandson accidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish the flames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority or responsibility to do so.

No moral responsibility? A man's house is burning down, you are professionally trained firefighters with firefighting equipment at hand, and you have no moral responsibility to put out the flames?

It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, it likely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liability insurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into a legally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate” Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreement and put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimited risk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebody violate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the same time.

Yeah, if there's one thing that Jesus used to talk about a lot, it's the sanctity of a legal contract!

The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The right thing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be no difference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christian thing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing to do.

So does that apply to slavery?

(Col 3:22 - "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters")
(Eph 6:5 - "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling)

Or Marital rape?

(1Cor 7:4 - "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.")

Or genocide?

(1Samuel 15:2-3 - " Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant")
(Joshua 6:21 - "They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.")

If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christian thing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused about Christianity, or both.

Yeah, there's no "If" here. You are definitely confused about both things.

In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.

Yeah, it's not about those girly virtues like "Compassion." Jesus didn't care about compassion!

"He was moved with compassion."—Matthew 9:36.

Matthew 20:31: "Two blind men sat by the wayside begging, and when they heard that Jesus passed by, they said, 'O Lord, thou Son of David, have mercy on us.'. . . so Jesus had compassion on them, touched their eyes, and immediately they received sight.

but Christ was moved with compassion, -- Mark 5:19

and when Jesus saw the disconsolate mother, he was moved with compassion, and he restored her son. -- Luke 7:13

When he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them and cured their sick.’ (Matthew 14:14).

The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.

Is it just me, or does that not even make sense? What does "sowing to the flesh" and "reaping corruption" have to do with one's house burning down?

The same folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailing out Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out Wall Street firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companies for making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?

Seriously? What's the difference between preventing someone's house from burning down and bailing out multi-billion dollar corporations? Yeah, I guess it's pretty much the same thing, like what's the difference between children skipping down the street and soldiers marching along a parade route? It's all the same thing. They're both in motion. They're both propelled by legs. Same thing.

Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 on something other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice to accept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christian claim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himself made.

True. Except that he didn't actually make a decision, he just forgot to pay, and he didn't appeal to any moral or ethical claim on the fire department, he offered to pay them any amount of money to put the fire out, but other than that, yeah. Good point!

Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a wedding feast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had the chance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil, and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. The bridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matthew 25:13).

Right. Also, there was the story of the ten lepers. I don't remember the details, but it ends with Jesus healing them and not asking for any payment. But I guess the story about lamp oil is way more relevant here.

The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves as accusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless.

No, that's you doing that. That's you saying that Jesus was so cold and heartless that he would stand idly by while a family's home burned to the ground saying "dude, that's what you get for not paying your bills! No house for you, jerk!" The critics of South Fulton aren't weighing in either way on Christ's personality.

Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorry for Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and do what I could to help him in his time of need.

But since he's not my friend, fuck him! That's the moral of the Good Samaritan story, right?

let me see if i can remember a few more Bible stories. Let's see, there was one with a blind man. . . . .
And they brought unto Jesus a blind man, that he might heal him. And his disciples asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"
And Jesus said unto them, "It may have been him, it may have been his parents, but it darn sure wasn't me, so I don't see why I should be responsible for healing him." And lo, Jesus did go back home to watch TV, leaving his disciples to apologize to the blind man."Sorry, that's just how he is. He can be a real jerk sometimes," said Saint Peter.

And another day, the people brought to Jesus their sick and lame that they might be healed. And Jesus said unto them "hold thine horses. Saint John, check the tabernacle registry to see who amongst them has paid his deductible." And only then did Jesus heal those who had paid in advance.

One more.

And Jesus said unto his disciples "I go before you unto Heaven to prepare a place for you there, so be sure to book in advance, because if thou waitest until the last minute, the prices are going to go up. Yea, I say unto thee, book online, for it is convenient and I hate to make reservations over the phone. For verily, it is a pain, and hey, I'm trying to run a business here!"

And in case anyone doesn't completely understand how big a jerk the AFA thinks Jesus would be, Bryan Fischer issued a clarification (here, is you're interested) Here's the key line from the new piece of crap column:

What would Jesus do? That’s easy. He’d tell Mr. Cranick, “Man up, accept full and total responsibility, and don’t blame anybody but yourself for what happened. That’s the Christian thing to do. And next time, Gene, pay the 75 bucks, all right?”

Man up? Man up? So, not only is this version of Jesus a cold, heartless bastard, he's also a douchey frat boy? And this is the guy you worship, huh?

Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter Might as Well Just Go Ahead and Gay-Marry Each Other!

The AFA keeps sending me things. Things like this:

Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck go AWOL in the culture war

Which is weird, because if there's one thing those two enjoy, it's a culture war. Or an actual war, as long as someone else is doing the actual fighting.

Count Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck as the latest deserters in the culture war and in the battle for sexual normalcy. They have flinched at “precisely that little point which the world and the devil....are attacking,” and so have forfeited the right to consider themselves any longer culture warriors.

So now they're going to have to consider themselves what, normal people? Cuz that ain't gonna work!

Ann Coulter is the headliner at “Homocon 2010,” a September 25 gathering of so-called gay “conservatives.”

Really "Homocon?" Is that a thing?


Um, yeah. Apparently it is:

It's apparently put on by the group "GOProud" which is an organization of gay homosexuals dedicated to supporting the party that would deny basic rights to gay homosexuals. It's kind of like a "Chickens for Colonel Sanders" sort of an outfit.

So here is what GOProud believes:

What we believe

We are Republicans and conservatives who believe in limited government, individual liberty, free markets, a strong national defense and a confident foreign policy. We believe that every individual should be equal under the law.

You know, every individual except ourselves!

GOProud’s Conservative Agenda

The so-called “gay agenda” is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. While hate crimes and employment protections may be worthy goals, there are many other important priorities that receive little attention from the gay community. GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

Really. Some may think that protecting gay folks from being beaten up and fired is maybe a worthy goal, but those people are totally gay! What's really important to the gay people is a "confident foreign policy" and "free markets!"

1 – TAX REFORM - Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians;

Because right now, gays and lesbians are totally getting screwed on this whole "death tax" thing. This is so much more important than hate crimes and employment protection.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform.

Okay, the "free market" is what we have now for healthcare, so I'm not sure how that would be considered reform.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Oh, wait. That's part of the narrow prism of the left's "gay agenda." Scratch that last one!

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians

Also, supporting conservative Republican. . . wait, something's not adding up here. Oh, that's right, we're only opposed to discrimination in the name of Allah! As long as it's done in the name of traditional family values, it's just fine with us!

So anyway, these self-loathers invited Ann Coulter to come speak at their little circle jerk and I guess she accepted, and that has apparently touched off a firestorm of ridiculous pearl-clutching outrage on the right.

Ann Coulter Dropped By WND Over GOProud Homocon Appearance

Conservative speaker Ann Coulter has been asked to step down as a keynote speaker at WorldNetDaily’s “Taking America Back National Conference”.

The conference organizers said that it was Coulter’s involvement in “HOMOCON”, an event that is put on my GOProud and represents, “gay conservatives and their allies”, that let to her being booted from the program.

The CEO of WND, Joseph Farah, had a few comments to make about the situation.
“Ultimately as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud,” he said.

"Apparently," he continued," Ms. Coulter has forgotten that we hate fags!"

Although Coulter has defended her agreement with GOProud, she has announced that her speaking at the event does not interfere with her personal beliefs.
“They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time,” Coulter said. “I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. Giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to.”

"I have no principles," she continued. "I'll take their money, make a stupid speech, then go back to calling them fags and homos as soon as the check clears.

So, anyway, that's the AFA's problem with Coulter.
What's their beef with Beck?

Glenn Beck has completely and shamelessly surrendered on the issue of gay marriage, and did so on Bill O’Reilly’s program, only the most watched cable news program in all TV land.

Beck said “we have bigger fish to fry” than protecting natural marriage, which, outside of being the bedrock and foundation of any healthy society and the cornerstone of Western civilization, is apparently not that important to Mr. Beck.

Oh, because Beck thinks that the bogeymen of his paranoid delusions are scarier than the thought of two dudes getting married. And you think that the two dudes are just the most scariest thing ever, way more than Beck's imaginary Nazis and Stalinists? Is that the problem?

Here’s hoping - and praying - that both of these two former stalwarts in the cause will come to their senses in time to return to their posts on the wall instead of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Um, I thought the enemy was Al Queda, not Big Gay Al.

You wanna know how upset the AFA is about these two going all soft on the gay thing? Check this out:

As far as Ronald Reagan’s dictum that "[t]he person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor," let’s have the average husband try that out on his wife. “Honey, I’m faithful 80% of the time. There’s no reason for you to come after me with the frying pan.”

Yeah. They just dissed Reagan. Ronald Freakin Reagan! That's like a Catholic dissing the Pope, or a Buddhist dissing Buddha. Or a communist dissing Marx. How pissy do they have to be to throw Reagan under the bus just because his "dictum" supports their not jettisoning Beck and Coulter? And it's not like Beck and Coulter are going to stop being totally horrible people.

The AFA sends me things

I get e-mails from the American Family Association from time to time. They generally range from the unintentionally humorous to the outrageously offensive. So this latest was not at all unexpected:

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Cindy Roberts

August 4, 2010

AFA condemns marriage ruling tyrannical, abusive and unconstitutional

I would like to at this time condemn your tyrannical abuse of English Syntax, but that's not really germane to the matter at hand. Seriously, though - is that supposed to be a sentence? You would think that the person whose job it is to write press releases would have a working knowledge of sentence structure. Maybe at least a high-school level of competency in English composition. But anyway. . .

Statement from Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, in response to Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling overturning California’s marriage amendment, also known as Prop 8:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

Honest to God, Timmy, you people just have no idea how our system works. We have here in America what is known as a Constitutional Republic. It's not set up to be a direct democracy. We have rules set up in a little document that you people pretend to love called the "Constitution." And one of those rules is that if a law gets made and someone thinks it may be in violation of the Constitution, there are courts and judges whose job it is to examine that law and decide whether or not it is allowed by the Constitution. That's how the Founding Fathers set things up. It's called "Judicial Review," and you should have learned about it in school.

And if the courts decide that your little hate law is in violation to the Constitution, but you still really, really want to have your little hate law, there is a mechanism in place to ammend the Constitution so that your law will comply with it. You could change it to say "equal protection under the law except for people that I think are gross."

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity."

Yes, only a heterosexual judge would be un-biased in deciding whether heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.

The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society.

How is that the fundamental issue? I mean, seriously, the fact that you and your fellow nutjobs imagine that there are imaginary "physical and psychological risks" inherent in homosexual conduct should not have any bearing on anything. I happen to think that there are serious psychological risks in living your life as a repressed, hate-fueled, bigoted, self-righteous prig, but I certainly recognize your right to choose that lifestyle.

And why are you people always so afraid that gayness is going to be "promoted and endorsed" by some entity or other. Do you really think that if the gay people come up with a clever enough marketing campaign young hetero people will find themselves talked into switching teams? Society has been promoting and endorsing hetero relations forever, but somehow the gay people remain unconverted. Shouldn't that tell you that it is impossible to convince someone to change their sexual orientation?

That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

Or, it's no different than a judge who is, say, a Christian being asked to rule on a separation of church and state case. A Christian judge would have to recuse himself, he couldn't possibly be impartial.

Or the next time there's a group of, say, firefighters bringing a reverse-discrimination case, obviously all the white judges would have to be disqualified! I'm just using your logic.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior

I might go so far as to say that this ruling was very very VERY bad behavior! Although the term "bad behavior" is obviously subjective, obviously a matter of opinion, so I wouldn't be so stupid as to use the phrase "in fact" in my assessment, since no behavior can ever be good or bad as a matter of "fact," only in the judgment of the observer, but don't let that get in the way of a pompous rant.

- in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Yes, if you respect the Constitution, you must impeach any judge who performs his duties as laid out in the Constitution. Obviously, following the rules of the Constitution is unconstitutional!

The AFA continues to be homophobic assholes

Here's the latest headline from the tools at the American Family Association:

Homosexual Supreme Court Justice? Not under any circumstances

Now the problem with starting off a diatribe with a headline like that is that you have to do some impressive mental gymnastics to justify your position. You can't just say "Ungh. Gay judge bad! Gay sex icky. Make Og uncomfortable! Og no like gay judge! Og hate gay!" Even thought that is the basis of your position, that kind of shit just ain't gonna play in Peoria these days. So you have to come up with BS like this:

Sen. John Cornyn has regrettably opened the door to the possibility of an openly gay Supreme Court justice, saying he'd "have to think about" it, and adding, "As long as it doesn't interfere with their job, it's not a particular issue."
The problem with Cornyn's position is that a gay judge's sexual preference will, without any question whatsoever, "interfere with their job." It's not possible for it to be otherwise.

Now any sane person is going to be a bit confused by this, since it doesn't seem to be, for instance, Scalia's heterosexuality that makes him an asshole, or Thomas's porn and harassment predilection that makes him a sort of Charlie McCarthy to Scalia's Edgar Bergen.

Sodomy is still a felony in the criminal code of about a dozen states. The Lawrence decision of 2003, an egregious act of judicial activism, prohibited enforcement of these laws, but the fact remains that 25% of the states in the Union still regard it as criminal behavior.

We simply should not elevate to the highest court in the land people who are known for engaging in sexually abnormal behavior which would technically make them felons in a quarter of the states over which they will have jurisdiction.

By the same logic, Clarence Thomas should be excluded from the court because his wife is white and mixed-race marriages were illegal in many states until fairly recently.

Also, any judge who has ever gambled in a Nevada casino is disqualified because gambling is illegal in many of the states over which he would have jurisdiction.

A homosexual judge cannot help but give the home-field advantage to every legal team appearing before him who represents homosexual causes. It will be impossible for the visiting team, the team representing sexual normalcy and natural marriage, to get a fair shake in his courtroom.

Just like Antonin Scalia has to recuse himself from any case in which one of the litigants is Italian. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayor can not be involved in any cases involving any women. And Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedey, and Sotomayor all have to refrain from involving themselves in any case in which Catholics are involved.

Cases involving same-sex marriage are sure to arrive before the Court. Cases involving domestic partnerships and homosexual adoptions are sure to arrive before the Court. Cases involving special rights for homosexuals in the workplace are sure to arrive before the Court.

Special rights like not being fired for no good reason? Or the right to not be harassed at work, or denied promotion because some asshole at your company doesn't like your private life?

Cases involving homosexual service in the military are sure to arrive before the Court.
Only an utter fool could convince himself that an active homosexual judge could be impartial in rendering judgment on such cases. The scales of "justice" would be tipped irrevocably toward the homosexual agenda and it would be moronic to think otherwise.

Almost as moronic as not understanding how scales work. Even if we accept your retarded premise that a gay judge would be inherently biased in favor of gay litigants, that would be one gay judge one side of the scale, and eight breeder judges on the other. No matter how fat the gay judge is, the scales would still be tipped towards the heteros.

With an active homosexual on the bench, Lady Justice will no longer even pretend to be blind. She will be peeking out from under her blindfold to determine the sexual preference of those standing before her, then will let the fold slip back into place before ruling in every case to legitimize sexual deviancy.

Bottom line: the American ideal of absolute equality before the law will inevitably be shredded by a homosexual judge.

And God knows how much I treasure the principle of equality! The kind of equality in which the people I consider deviant are assumed to be less than equal.

Hey, Brian Fischer of the American Family Association:

Congratulations, you're a stupid, hateful asshole!

from the AFA:

Bible ignored, trainer dies

You are aware by now that a 12,000 pound killer whale at SeaWorld Orlando killed his trainer Dawn Brancheau yesterday by pulling her into a pool and dragging her around until she drowned, in front of a crowd of stunned guests.

Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture.

Wait, what? What did the Scriptures have to say about Orca-training techniques?
And since when does keeping a whale in a glorified swimming pool and teaching it to do tricks qualify as animal rights?

But mainly, what about Scripture?

If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone's misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives.

Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)

What the???? Stoned?!?! Seaworld should have STONED the Whale?

So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death.

That's your moral responsibility? You capture an unsuspecting wild animal, drag it away from its home, keep it in captivity and force it to put on shows, and when it finally remembers how to act like the wild animal it is, then your MORAL RESPONSIBILITY is to KILL IT????

But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:29)

If I were the family of Dawn Brancheau, I'd sue the pants off SeaWorld for allowing this killer whale to kill again after they were well aware of its violent history.

No, you know what, fuck that. No one gets sued in the Old Testament. Everyone involved in the SeaWorld business get fucking stoned! I might accept drawn and quartered, but a lawsuit? Hell no! This is clearly a capital offense.

Also, we should stone anyone who commits adultery (Leviticus 20:10 ), any stubborn or rebellious children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), or anyone who ignores a priest (Deuteronomy 17:12). source
Stone 'em all!

Oh, killing things, is there no problem you can't solve?

The Latest Threat

When you get an e-mail with this as the subject line:

Join us to see the next religion to threatening Christianity

You gotta figure you're in for some good crazy.

If nothing else, the phrase "to threatening" promises some nuttiness.

And the first line of the actual e-mail?

Join us to see the next religion to threatening Christianity

So the writer apparently believes this is correct English!

Important free broadcast - Not Evil Just Wrong – Global Warming Science or Religion?

This Should be the shortest broadcast ever. "Science. Thank you, and good night."

Tim Wildmon and Crane Durham of AFA will be joined by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, the makers of the movie "Not Evil Just Wrong" along with other guests including members of Congress and business people as we discuss the Green Religion that is being scared upon us by the secular humanists.

Not involved in this discussion: anyone who knows what the fuck he's talking about.

So who are Ann McElhenney and Phelim McAleer? Here's what i turned up with a quick Yahoo search:

Laura Ingraham hosted Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, Irish husband and wife documentarians, on their soon-to-be-released film, Not Evil Just Wrong.

Hmm, Laura Ingraham and atrocious syntax? This should be good.

McElhinney said that environmentalists seem to leave people out of the equation as with the number of children who have died thanks to the pesticides ban.

Also left out of the equation was the fact that there isn't actually a pesticide ban. Sure, DDT has been banned and I'm sure a few others have, but many many pesticides are still readily available. Just walk into any Home Depot and ask someone to point you to the pesticide aisle. So how is it that the imaginary ban has killed a bunch of children? They don't say, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that the answer is "it didn't."

McAleer said that environmentalism is anti-capitalism, anti-human, anti-American.

So clearly, they're taking a sober, objective look at the issue, and the obvious conclusion is that a movement which seeks to prevent Earth from becoming unlivable for the Human race is undoubtedly Anti-Human.

They said that banning CO2 will be as deadly as banning DDT.

Of course no one is considering banning CO2, since it would be impossible, like banning dirt. But don't let that get in the way of a good diatribe!

But back to the e-mail.

Get the facts and counter the myths. We have brought out the experts to arm you.

Oh, experts? You mean climatologists? Physicists? Scientists of some sort?

Yeah, not so much.

. . .guests including members of Congress and business people as we discuss the Green Religion. . .

None of whom remotely resemble "experts" in any field of science.

See why our leaders have embraced this movement to grab total control of our lives and use population control to satisfy there [sic] reckless desire for power.

Um, I'm sorry, our leaders are doing what now? I thought healthcare was their tool to seize total control of everything.

Global warming alarmists want Americans to believe that humans are killing the planet. But Not Evil Just Wrong, a new documentary by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, proves that the only threats to America (and the rest of the world) are the flawed science and sky-is-falling rhetoric of Al Gore and his allies in environmental extremism.

Yeah, someone needs to explain the difference between "proves" and "states emphatically" to these bozos.

Not Evil Just Wrong warns Americans that their jobs, modest lifestyles and dreams for their children are at stake. Small towns in the heartland, like Vevay, Ind., will become bastions of unemployment and poverty.

Which would be different from what we have now?

Breadwinners like Tim McElhany in Vevay will lose their jobs

Okay, what's the obsession with Vevay, Indiana?

Breadwinners like Tim McElhany in Vevay will lose their jobs -- and will have to start borrowing money again just to buy bread for their families.

And then Inspector Javert will pursue him across France! Oh Noes!

Not Evil Just Wrong exposes the deceptions that experts, politicians, educators and the media have been force-feeding the public for years.

They're all in on it!

Man-made pollution is not melting the polar icecaps. The ocean will not rise 20 feet in a flash. And the only polar bears dying because of man are the ones who try to eat men.

yep, for solid-gold crazy, you just can't beat

Intersting news From the AFA

I got another e-mail from the American Family Association today. Apparently, someone who doesn't care for the Rev. Wildmon's message has attacked him and put him in the hospital. The chief suspect? GOD.

As has been reported, my dad, Don Wildmon, was admitted to the North Mississippi Medical Center over the weekend and diagnosed with a serious case of meningitis. He has been in intensive care for three days, but has shown some signs of improvement in the last 24/48 hours. We are taking it day by day. We thank all those who have let us know they are praying for Dad, our family and the AFA/AFR family. Dad has served the Lord for many years and he is in His hands.

Repent, Wild man! Stop spreading your hate and claiming it comes from Me! Or I shall smite thee with another pestilence!







In the meantime, AFA will continue to tackle the moral issues confronting our country and give leadership to those who have trusted us for over 32 years now.

So the hate will continue? What a relief!