Bomb Throwing Hate Peddlers

These are all groups that are dangerous and should be kept under a watchful eye.
All of these groups have one thing in common; they spread hatred towards people who don't think like they do, in most cases incite violence towards those people. For the most part they are on the border between sanity and being completely brain washed. Although they have different goals, they go about achieving these goals in basically the same way, with lies, exploitation, violence, misinformation, brain washing and so on, in order to further their own personal goals. Please don't ever take what these groups have to say seriously. And just because a group uses the word family in their name doesn't mean they have any intentions on helping people raise children, or have anything to do with actual families. I am part of a family and I consist of me, my girlfriend and my dog, and trust me, these groups don't offer me anything. Typically, when you see one of these lobbyist groups with the word family in it, you can often substitute the word family for one or all of the following:
"Fag haters"
"Abortion clinic Bombing"
"Free speech only for Christians"
"We love white people"
"We hate minorities"
"God"
"Hitler was right"
"Shut up, that's not what the bible says"
"I don't have to listen to you"
"Gun Lovers"
"Save embryos because they're people"
"Kill Convicts"
"Kill Arabs"
"The south was right"
"We love Bush"
"Michael Moore is fat"
"Teach your kids to hate"
"We're such fundamentalists that even the Taliban thinks we are nuts"
"We really don't want to take time to raise our kids ourselves, so we should make the rest of you, who didn't make the same life style choice as we did, suffer and let the government raise our kids for us, thus further restricting everyone else's freedoms."

http://www.godhatesfags.com Westboro Baptist Church
http://www.cc.org Christian Coalition (founded by Pat Robertson)
http://www.aclj.org American Center for Law and Justice (founded by Pat Robertson)
http://www.afa.net American "Family" Association= American "Fag Hater" Association
http://www.frc.org "Family" Research Council= "Shut up thats not what the Bible says" Research Council
http://www.cwfa.org They actually think Subaru is a gay car company
http://www.moralityinmedia.org
http://www.generationlife.org
http://www.family.org/ Focus on the Family AKA Sponge Bob is gay
http://www.patrobertson.com
http://www.falwell.com
http://www.faithandvalues.us
http://www.anncoulter.org
http://www.aqsa.org.uk
http://www.hamasonline.com
http://www.kingidentity.com Christian Identity Movement
http://www.cofcc.org Council of Conservative Citizens
http://www.dixienet.org League of the South
http://www.noi.org The Nation of Islam
Al-Qaeda: No explination needed
KKK: Hardly dangerous at this point, but still retarded


I have begun explaining each of these groups in greater detail, I will post a blog on each of them when I get around to it. And by no means is this list complete.

Which would you rather be?

lib-er-al adj.
1 Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2 Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.


con·ser·va·tive adj.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Bible belter values

I thought this was pretty interesting reading. We all know that the south and the bible belters feel the need to force their values onto everyone else, but just what kind of values do they really have? We all know that the south has the highest crime rate along with the highest murder rates, and those are excellent values to have, but don't get too caught up on that whole "sanctity of marriage" bullshit that they spout every time they get home from a gay bashing.
Here are some good numbers to combat these hypocrites.

From the www.ncpa.org website:
Aside from the quickie-divorce Mecca of Nevada, no region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible belt. Nearly half of all marriages break up, but the divorce rates in these southern states are roughly 50 percent above the national average.
According to federal figures:
Nationally, there were about 4.2 divorces for every thousand people in 1998.
The rate was 8.5 per thousand in Nevada, 6.4 in Tennessee, 6.1 in Arkansas, 6.0 in Alabama and Oklahoma.
Of southeastern states, only South Carolina's rate of 3.8 was below the national average.
By contrast, the divorce rate is less than 3.0 in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.
Why so many divorces in the Bible belt?
Experts cite low household incomes (Oklahoma ranks 46th and Arkansas 47th), and a tendency for couples to marry at a younger age than in many other states.
Religion may play a role, since some of the lowest divorce rates are in northeastern states with relatively high household incomes and large numbers of Roman Catholics whose church doesn't recognize divorce.
Bible belt states, in contrast, are dominated by fundamentalist Protestant denominations that proclaim the sanctity of marriage but generally do not want to estrange churchgoers who do divorce.
No state has been more embarrassed by the divorce problem than Oklahoma. Over the past few months, Gov. Frank Keating has enlisted clergymen, academics, lawyers and psychologists in a campaign to reduce the divorce rate by a third within 10 years. In neighboring Arkansas, state officials hope to halve the divorce rate by 2010.
Source: David Crary, "Bible Belt Leads U.S. in Divorces," Associated Press, November 12, 1999.
For text http://wire.ap.org/
For more on Divorce http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/social2.html

Also consider that RI, NY, IL and MD were the only "blue states" that had a higher than national average of births out of wedlock in 2000.
SC, SD, TN, OK, NC, NM, NV, MO, OH, IN, AL, AZ, GA, LA (45.6%) and MS (46%) are all above the national average of 33.2%.
Again when these states start talking about morals and values, just remember these statistics.

Separation of Church and State

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If this sounds familiar, its because its the 1st amendment to our constitution. Respecting an establishment of religion would consist of actions such as putting artifacts of certain religions in government buildings or allowing the practice of christianity into public schools and adding words like God on our money and in our country's pledge of allegiance.
Does putting the five pillars of Islam in our courthouses make much sense? No, neither does putting up the 10 commandments, they both endorse a religion.

Heres what one of the members of the Continental Congress, Contributor to the Bill of Rights, author of the Decleration of Independence and the third President of the United States had to say about it:
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Thomas Jefferson 1802

Christians and Republicans

Maybe Christians are wrong in supporting Republicans:

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

I’ve never heard a Republican talk like that, actually sounds a lot like most Democrats, maybe Jesus was a socialist.

The Bible says not to bear false witness against our neighbor and to love our enemies. Hmm, "theres weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." Actually no that was false.

“Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers.” No ones ever accused this administration of making peace.

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” Hmm, that almost sounds like they are saying to live and let live and not punish people who think or live differently from you.

Again these are not things the Republicans are known for.

Kinsey Sex

I saw an article on CNN saying there were people protesting a new movie about Alfred Kinsey the sex researcher. Forget about faulty polling stations that gave a born again extra votes, forget about the war, poverty, crime, jobs going over seas, what we need to do is to keep people from watching a movie about a guy who studied sex.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Indignant conservative groups are protesting this week's opening of the film "Kinsey," denouncing it as propaganda seeking to glorify the researcher they blame for inspiring the sexual revolution.

For those of you who never took Psych 101, Alfred Kinsey was a professor at Indiana University and one of the first Americans in the 20th century to really study sexual behavior and did so by inviting people to be interviewed by him, about their sexual histories, from childhood to adulthood. His subjects ranged from ordinary married couples, to people recalling childhood and pre adolescent sexual encounters to pedophiles and rapists. He wrote a book called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female in 1953, both made the best sellers list at a time when a husband and wife not having separate beds was a taboo subject. His basic conclusion was that there was no such thing as normal sex, only common and uncommon.

Robert Peters of Morality in Media http://www.moralityinmedia.org/ a conservative media watchdog group and anti free speech Nazis, and Brandi Swindel (no pun intended in her name) of Generation Life http://www.generationlife.org/ a bunch of planned parent hood bombing, dried up, prick teasing prudes, says that Alfred Kinsey is to blame for Aids, Divorce, Abortion and pornography. If that’s the case, I want to start off by thanking Kinsey.

To say that because Kinsey started introducing his findings to the American mainstream was the cause of things like Divorce, Aids, abortion and pornography just because those things didn’t exist or weren’t talked about before that time is like saying AC/DC is responsible for white trash trailer parks and primered Monte Carlos with 6x9 speakers on the dashboard.
There were several other things going on during this time period, why isn’t the Korean War blamed, or what about the Suburbs? The Korean war started in roughly the same time period, 1950, and there was no such thing as a prefab suburb until 1949, and what better place for white people to cheat on their wives and husbands than a Suburb that’s an hour way from the office and where everything looks the same, hell you could easily walk into the wrong house and accidentally fuck the wrong wife with the same bee hive hairdo without even knowing it.
Anyway I thought Rock n Roll was blamed for all those things, now these Christians want to blame something else? What happened? Was the Christian rock cross over too successful and you don’t want to bad mouth Creed?
I say pick your evil, if its rock and roll that ails society then fine, stick with that, if its rap fine, what about TV? if its Kinsey’s fault ok, but you people need to figure it out because I’m sick of hearing God bobs blaming everything that they don’t like or don’t understand on everything except themselves and their stupid white brainwashed families.
Can’t anyone live and let live, IF YOU DON’T LIKE SOMETHING DON’T (insert one or all of the below here ) IT!

Insertable Phrases: READ, WATCH, LISTEN TO, FUCK, SUCK, ASSOCIATE WITH, COPULATE, DO, BOTHER, BUY, EAT, DRIVE, SUPPORT, WORSHIP, SPOON WITH, SLEEP WITH, LIVE WITH or BUY IT FOR YOUR KIDS TO PLAY WITH!

American Jesus

Originally written 11/3/04

Welcome to the American Theocracy. When will people realize that there’s a place for religion in government, its called Saudi Arabia. Religious "values" is what decided this election, plain and simple. From gay marriage, abortion, stem cells to censorship, that is what pushed Bush over the edge. Exit polls show Bush got 83 percent of the conservative vote, 58 percent of the protestant vote and 63 percent of the vote from people who attend church more than once a week. That is no coincidence.Keep in mind that no one issue on this planet has caused more wars, turmoil, conflict, division and death than an imaginary man that no one has ever seen, heard or been able to prove even exists.

Backbone of America

Who really has the power? Who are the people who make this country work? People in the south and the “heartland” say it’s they who embody what America is all about and they who are the backbone of the nation. But what I am finding is that since one of their main institutions is the church, and churches don’t generate tax revenue, (they generate plenty of cash, they just don’t have to pay taxes) and that institution limits free thought and free speech, puts limitations on science, medicine, and since they typically don’t believe in birth control and end up with too many damn kids, they aren’t producing the economic or cultural contributions that the blue states contribute to the country.
Here are some red state blue state comparisons: First off, blue states and red states are a little hard to define because technically Florida and Ohio are what I would consider blue states. The reason they are blue states is for one, Florida did cast the majority of their votes for Gore, although that slut bag Katherine Harris (chairman of the Bush 2000 Florida campaign) and Florida’s Secretary of State, decided she would give it to Bush. The other reasons are that the last two elections there were so close and both of the states have large urban populations and are not considered to be ultra conservative bible thumpers.From the 2004 elections the blue states represent about 45 percent of the US population, with Florida added that brings you to about 49-50 percent and with Ohio and Florida you’re looking at 52 percent of the total population of the US. That’s only 21 states that encompass roughly 30percent of the US land mass.First off, let’s look at what makes a blue state a blue state, generally its based on the percentage of urban vs. the percentage of rural residents, what kind of jobs the residents have, their ethnic make up and education. Blue states on average have about 1.5-2 point higher general IQ among its residents and of the top 15 colleges in the United States only Duke is in a red state. And when you look at the Ivy League schools, where are they? Columbia-NY, Dartmouth-NH, Princeton-NJ, Harvard-MA, Yale-CT, U of Penn-PE, Cornell-NY, and Brown which is in Rhode Island, all blue states.The 21 blue states account for roughly 65 percent of the GNP and account for about 65 percent of all federal taxes paid.I know a lot of conservatives bitch about welfare moms wasting US tax payer’s money, but since a lot of these people come from red states I thought they might like to know that they are just as guilty as the fat lady in the projects with 5 kids who buys potato chips and grape drink with her food stamps. Blue states, including Florida paid in roughly 65 percent or more, of all the taxes collected by the federal government. That is roughly 800 Billion more than the all red states paid!* There are some exceptions, OH (blue state wannabe) TX, NC, NV, CO, and GA paid more than they received in federal money and some blue states such as Pennsylvania received more than they paid in.* But compared to California which paid out over 250 billion more than it received in federal money*, that’s basically the same as a guy who works hard and makes a lot of money but is taxed 40 percent of what he makes so that someone who decided to have 3 babies when they were 17 and drop out of school to smoke meth all day can pay less taxes or live for free. So red states, it’s either one or the other, should we keep this welfare mess going? By the way California’s GNP is about the same as all the former confederate states combined, yet California lives through brownouts and goes thirsty in the summer so Alabama and Indiana can keep their taxes low and talk about small government and put the 10 commandments on bathroom walls and take out menus, or where ever else they can post them.
Some examples of what I am talking about, for every dollar New Jersey pays in taxes it gets back $.57 in federal subsidies, California gets $.81 back, Illinois gets $.77 back and for every dollar Oklahoma pays in taxes, it gets $1.48 back, Montana $1.57, Alabama $1.61 and Mississippi gets $1.84 in federal subsidies for every dollar it pays in taxes.
So why do these states get more tax dollars than the other states? One reason is because there is a 190 billion dollar farm subsidy that congress provides farmers, and where do the farmers live? Red states tend to be farmers, as where blue states tend to be in manufacturing, finance and technology fields.
You could also blame obesity on the red states, not just because they fry everything in butter fat but because the largest beneficiary of the 190 billion dollars is corn, and since corn syrup is cheaper and more fattening than sugar, we put corn syrup in almost every sweetened product on the market, and when you look at the rise in obesity with the rise in the use of corn syrup, the curve is almost identical.
So who is the real America, who is the real backbone, who makes the cars, finances those factories, cures diseases, educates their populations, and allows the flow of ideas and free thought, who are the innovators of technology? Where are companies like Apple, Microsoft, Ford, General Electric, the companies that changed the world located? Is the real heartland the great lakes, and the east and west coast? Is the south and Midwest just a bunch of fat, freeloading welfare moms? And if so, why do we let them elect our leaders and make our laws? Shouldn’t they just shut up, take what they can get from us and be happy? Don’t bite the hand that feeds you because sooner or later it'll bite back, again.

* The Cultural Divide http://www.retrovsmetro.org/

Brady Bill

The Brady bill expired not too long ago, so since I know people who were killed by guns I think I have the right to talk about them and the weapons ban.
I'm not saying outlaw guns totally; I just wish people would be rational about it. I know the old saying that if you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns, and that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but no kids playing on a swing set ever got killed in the crossfire of a drive by stabbing. And of course the people who usually say that tend to be found nailing their sister in a compound with a cache of weapons the size of my balls. But why do they take the 2nd amendment to such an extreme when it actually never says a thing about owning guns, machine guns, tanks, or anything else that can fire 10 rounds per second. The 21st amendment gave us the right to drink alcohol but there are several limits to this right that very few conservatives would object to. Some say that outlawing handguns in Chicago is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, well then with that rational outlawing drinking and driving is unconstitutional under the 21st amendment since it repeals an amendment that banned alcohol entirely, and realistically so is outlawing the sale of alcohol on Sundays and the completely dry counties in KY, TN, etc. And by the way what a perfect combination, alcohol, cars and guns, let the good times roll!
For me, I'm willing to live with the common sense law that you shouldn’t operate a car while your drunk, and if I can't drive down the street with a 40oz, then the asshole next to me shouldn't be driving around with an AK-47. I have no problem with guns that have a purpose other than killing people, and are owned by smart responsible people who's favorite show doesn't include the words Jerry Springer or Hee Haw, but that’s what an AK-47 street sweeper is intended to do. Rifles are for deer, shotguns are for rabbits and AK-47s are used to kill people. They are called assault weapons for a reason. And you also have to think about this, if more guns make you safer, then America would be one of the safest places on earth. Forty percent of American households have guns, there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US a year, of those 30,000, only between 100-200 deaths is a result of self-defense. But, in Canada about 30% of the households have guns and they have a tenth (per-capita or 0.4%) of the gun deaths that we do, so it’s not always the guns. But I would assume in Canada most of the people who have guns live 50 miles away from their nearest neighbor, and in American its probably more like 50 feet, and they have about a tenth of the population and about twice the space.
And as far as the cost of outlawing guns goes, consider this: each illegal shooting costs over 1 million dollars starting with the 911 and police involvement, hospitalization and or funeral for the victim, the prosecution and incarceration of the offender; 80% of those hospital bills are paid by tax payers, as most gun shot victims have no insurance.
To me, I just think that the Right to bear arms is just that, you can have a weapon to defend yourself, and you can have a weapon for sport. The 2nd amendment was written when we didn’t have an effective military, foreign countries wanted to overthrow us, it took 5 minutes to load a single inaccurate bullet /round, and most people lived in rural areas and hunted to survive, or they just liked shooting Indians. Nowhere does it say you have a right to own, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, grenades, M-16s or any other military weapons. And banning military weapons from psychos, gangbangers, criminals and militias doesn’t mean you can't go hunting with the guys anymore. And supporting, or admitting that, doesn’t make you a left wing liberal homo; it just means that you realize there are limits to things such as free speech, limits to the 21st amendment and limits to the 2nd amendment.