WND's Subtle (Or Not So Subtle) Bigotry Of Placing Quotes Around "Gay"

You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat ~ Romans 14:10, The Christian Bible.

Has anyone else noticed that when the Rightwing site World Net Daily (AKA Wing Nut Daily AKA Black Mob Central) prints the word "gay", they place quotes around it? What they're saying is that being gay isn't a real thing. People aren't born gay, they choose to be gay (these bigoted nuts are saying).

"Christian Homosexuals" plot Church's transformation... Evangelist Ray Comfort issues warning: "Do not be deceived"... Christians considering how to respond to the Supreme Court's creation of "same-sex marriage" face a challenge from within – those who call themselves "gay Christians" and contend the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior. One of the most conspicuous figures in the movement is Matthew Vines, who has written a book arguing Scripture does not condemn same-sex sexual relationships. ... [sez Comfort] "Matthew Vines would do well to take notice that the verses begin with Do not be deceived. There's a reason for that. We mustn't be deceived of the fact that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals and thieves will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Or to put it more soberly, they will end up in a terrible place called Hell. ... "So let's summarize. There is no such thing as a fornicator Christian, an adulterer Christian, a homosexual Christian or a thieving Christian. Those who call themselves Christians but continue to cling to their beloved sins will see their great deception on Judgment Day". (7/25/2015).

Ray Comfort is a Rightwing bigot minister demagogue who sez one of the ways we will know the end of days is upon us is that "homosexuality will increase [and] the institution of marriage will be forsaken". Which means we should all start preparing for the Lord's return, I guess. Although as a Progressive Christian I agree with Matthew Vines and categorically reject the irrational homophobia and hatred of those like Comfort.

In quotes (signifying they don't believe they are real things) are... "same-sex marriage" and "gay Christians". The Supreme Court "created" same-sex marriage... as opposed to recognizing that the 14th amendment protects marriage equality. And, of course there are no gay Christians, just sinners who are going to burn for eternity in Hell. Huh. Sounds more like "hate the sinner" to me than "love the sinner, hate the sin".

Personally I think these un-Christian bigots are going to be muy surprised when they stand in judgement before the Creator. Specifically, The Lord is not going to be pleased that these "Christian" bigots judged their gay brothers and sisters and treated them with contempt (by condemning them to Hell). Judgment is the Lord's alone (James 4:12).

In regards to Comfort's anti-homosexual propaganda film Audacity, WND notes that he sez "homosexuals and those who consider themselves supporters of homosexuality will... be pleasantly surprised [because] there's not an ounce of hatred or stereotyping in it".

Sure, I can believe that. It's pretty easy to put on a different face in order to soft-sell a message of hate that has gay people burning in Hell for all eternity. In interviews conducted within the film, Comfort asks his dupes if they think adultery and fornication are human nature, to which the dupes reply "yes". Then Comfort sez "But even if it's human nature, we don't act on that, because we know it's bad".

Presto, being gay is a "choice". Because, even though it's human nature for people to want to fornicate or adulter, good Christians suppress these desires. Thus gay people can suppress their "sinful" desires as well.

Except that when people are married they usually AGREE to be faithful to one another. Unless you and your mate agree that your marriage will be an open one, you are betraying the agreement you made when you got married. It is the betraying of your mate's trust that is sinful, not the acting according to your nature (straight or gay).

Being straight or gay is not a choice. Acting on either behavior is a choice. Although this "acting on" is not a sin. The sin is hurting a person you love deeply by betraying their trust.

Regarding Comfort's interviews, one critic says, "in these manipulative, cringeworthy clips, he tricks people into saying that being gay is a choice through a series of faulty comparisons and leading questions". The people being manipulated are "random LGBT people and allies on the street"... so, yeah, that's why they don't ramp up the hate and stereotyping. It wouldn't work with the people being interviewed. But just about anyone can be manipulated.

I would strongly disagree, however, that there is "not an ounce of hatred". There is hatred present, it's just subtle and the interviewees are manipulated into accepting it. Which stands in stark contrast to the up front hate presented on WMD. Because that's the audience they're catering to (the rabid haters).

Which doesn't mean they can't utilize subtlety as well (such as the quote marks around "gay"). WND-types can appreciate the subtle stuff in addition to the front and center hate. Although I'm not sure how subtle the quote marks are... I mean, it's pretty obvious what they're implying when they use them. It's just a tad less obvious than most of the hate WND peddles.

Video: Matthew Vines, the gay Christian that has Ray Comfort and other Christian bigots freaked out, speaks on "the Reformation Project" (AKA "plot the Church's transformation"). Published on YouTube on 11/7/2014 (5:45).

See Also
[1] The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality by Matthew Vines. (Hour-long video w/transcript).
[2] Willis Hart sez "I strongly suggest that you check out the black on gay violence chapter in Colin Flaherty's disturbing volume, White Girl Bleed a Lot". The reason Willis recommends Colin Flaherty's work of demagoguery is because it, in addition to revealing the "disturbing" extent of just how violent Blacks are, also covers Black homophobia. BTW, concerning WND (the bigot online rag Flaherty works for), the Rational Wiki says, it "regularly runs stories that engage in base racism, often focusing on white fears of violent blacks. The website regularly features the work of journalist and alleged human being Colin Flaherty, who has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse". Yea, figures Willis would be a fan, given that he regularly traffics in this kind of demagoguery on his blog. Although he calls it "a fuller rendering of the narrative".

SWTD #299

Faking Fiscal Conservatism

Republicans used to be, once upon a time, for fiscal conservatism, and there are a few of those left, and they're starting to murmur more, and, you know, people forget Ronald Reagan raised taxes, you know, he cut taxes, but then he raised taxes. George Bush, the father, raised taxes ~ Evan Thomas (DOB 4/25/1951) an American journalist and author who currently teaches journalism at Princeton University.

That the Republican Party is socially conservative can't be denied. Examples of Republican "social conservatism" include their homophobic defense of "traditional marriage", their phony claim that American is a Christian nation, that Christians are discriminated against and that there is a "War on Christmas". These socially conservative Republicans, represent the morally superior "Religious Right" (or "Culture Warriors", according to Bill O'Reilly). Liberals, on the other hand are godless "secular progressive" atheists whose moral decadence is responsible for all of society's ills.

As far as their political agenda goes, however, enacting their fiscal policies are paramount. The "social conservative" nonsense is simply a means to achieve that end. The socially conservative issues are how they motivate the poor, ignorant and gullible to vote against their own interests (these saps are often described as "misinformed" or "low information voters" by those wishing to be polite).

George W. Bush ended up the fall guy for some of them. Others blame the Democrats who controlled the Congress during Bush's final two years in office. They let Fannie and Freddie get out of control and the Republicans couldn't do a thing to stop them. I'm sure that if you asked any Republican that they'd blame social programs. Even though corporate welfare dwarfs the money we spend on social programs it seems to be completely off the radar of most self-identified Conservatives.

According to Conservatives the patron saint of all things fiscally conservative is Ronald Reagan, but they conveniently overlook the fact that it was Saint Reagan that increased the national debt more than all the administrations that came before him combined. Conservatives may attempt to assert that it was Congressional Democrats that ran up the debt, and poor Saint Reagan couldn't stop them. Or that Reagan needed to drive us deeply into debt to "win" the cold war.

Neither claim is true. Saint Reagan requested $29.4 billion more in spending than Congress passed. His tax cuts did not stimulate the economy and increase revenue. The nonsensical "supply side" theory was a "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate" - this according to Reagan administration Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman.

Ending Communism through an arms race that would cause the Soviets to go bankrupt when they futilely attempted to keep pace was a scam for funneling billions to the military industrial complex. Revised CIA estimates indicate that "the Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures". And Saint Reagan's military buildup actually prolonged the cold war.

To pay for the increased military expenditures - including the ridiculous boondoggle dubbed Star Wars and the inane "trickle down" economy stimulating tax cuts for the wealthy - Saint Reagan raised payroll taxes (the largest tax increase in US history) and raided the social security trust fund.

Is this fiscal conservatism?

Disciples of Saint Reagan currently bemoan the "fact" that George bush Junior strayed from the path, becoming a "Big Government Conservative". But Junior was following the Reagan playbook! First on his agenda was cutting taxes for the wealthy (and getting rid of President Clinton's surplus). Next he ignored the numerous warnings of a potential terrorist attack and was rewarded with the "new Pearl Harbor" that the "Project For The New American Century" had been praying for.

The "war on terrorism" replaced the "cold war", two illegal wars were launched, and the money flowed. A former attorney who filed dozens of civil "whistleblower" lawsuits against Iraq war contractors, Congressman Alan Grayson concluded, "The Bush administration doesn't give a damn about contractor fraud in Iraq". The reason they didn't care may have had something to do with the fact that a lot of the contracts went to bush administration cronies like Halliburton - whose stock tripled in the 2 years after the invasion.

"Fiscal conservatism" is clearly code for running the government in order to benefit the wealthy and spending as little as possible on social programs. The only problem is that people like social programs, and will vote for politicians who provide them (and vote against those who threaten to take them away). The "fiscally conservative" solution is to outsource these programs to their private sector cronies. Apparently there isn't any job the government can do for less (since anything the government does involves no profit for CEOs or stockholders) that they don't think should be outsourced at greater expense to the private sector.

One example of this during the bush administration would be the never fully funded "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB), which took a multi-million dollar testing industry and turned it into a multi-billion dollar industry. Beneficiaries of NCLB include Bush brother Neil's Ignite!, and former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett's K12 Inc. -- that would be the same Bill Bennett who wants public schools "to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers, charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education". Would you hire someone to help students in public schools succeed if they had a publicly stated desire to see public schools fail?

I could go on, but this article is already running long. Instead I'll again ask - is this fiscal conservatism?

The theory of crony capitalism states that, "since businesses make money and money leads to political power, business will inevitably use their power to influence governments". Republicans (and some Democrats) call it fiscal conservatism - I call it theft.

Further Reading
[1] Was Ronald Reagan an Even Worse President Than George W. Bush? by Robert Parry, Consortium News 6/5/2009.
[2] Bush Budget Would Inflate Corporate Welfare, Slash Social Programs, The New Standard 2/8/2005.
[3] The Myth of the Gipper: Reagan Didn't End the Cold War by William Blum, Counter Punch 6/7/2004.

SWTD #25

Regarding What Being Banned Means On This Blog

Scroll down to the GREEN box for a list of people/IDs that are banned.

Most people would interpret being "banned" from a blog as meaning that no further comments will be accepted. That is NOT how I have decided to run my blog, however.

The following is from my "Mission Statement and Blog Commenting Rules" commentary from 2/7/2006 (this blog's first post).

I reserve the right to publish or not publish any comment. This includes publishing comments from people who are banned. If I ban you, then allow through a comment later, this does not mean you aren't banned! Banned individuals will remain banned (which means most of your comments will likely NOT be published) until/unless I lift the ban. Comments being published (if the banned individual decides to keep submitting comments) do NOT mean the ban has been lifted. It ONLY means I've decided to let that particular comment through.

The reason I decided to write this post is because I wanted to make this point clear. I banned the individual who uses the ID TOM. Later, I allowed some TOM comments through (published them).

As a result of this, TOM indicated to me that, in his opinion, he was not banned. This was in the context of him asserting that it reflected badly on me because I've been banned from a few blogs, while he (in his mind) has been banned from none.

TOM: Banned? You post my comments, RN posts my comments, I am not banned anywhere you butt f**king fa**ot. (6/04/2016 AT 11:59am).

Note that the censored words were censored by me. This is one of the reasons that TOM is banned (excessive foul language). He is also banned because he started spamming my blog with similar comments on a regular basis. I published some, but for the majority of them I clicked "Spam" and Blogger moved them into the Spam folder.

This, btw, is the PRIMARY reason for enacting bans. And it's likely the ONLY reason I'll ever ban anyone. People spamming me with profane and idiotic comments. I'm not going to bother banning anyone if they make a nuisance of themselves for awhile but then go away. You'll only get banned if you make a MAJOR nuisance of yourself and do it over a prolonged period of time.

Steve was the first individual to do this. Swearing, name calling, idiocy, never (or almost never) being on topic, and homophobia. Although I have not received a comment from the Steve ID in a long time (He did send me MANY for several months). Although I strongly suspect that Steve was another ID that belongs to TOM.

What follows is an example of a comment that caused me to ban Steve.

Steve: I just found out you are a bottom boy butt f**king gay boy, figures. (1/26/2016 AT 5:27pm).

Note that (in addition to censoring Steve) the homophobia. This is why I concluded that the Steve ID and the TOM ID are both controlled by the same person. There is more evidence than the many homophobic posts by both (and I did start writing a post laying out the evidence), but I abandoned it. Because I haven't received a TOM or Steve comment for awhile, so why bother.

I did get a TOM comment a few days ago, but I sent it to Spam and haven't gotten any more. If he starts bothering me again I might have to finish my commentary on him. Right now I think it's not going to happen. Unless some Blogger I know reads this and says they would like to see it (unlikely).

The 3rd ID that is banned is Luke.

Luke: Since you insist on stealing my posts, I'll post them on your thread and make it easy for you. [post from Luke's blog titled "The Clinton Machine"]. (7/27/2016 AT 5:43pm).

I pasted Luke's comment into Word, and "The Clinton Machine" clocks in at 440 words. Now, have I seen the ID "Luke" before? I don't recall. I do know, however, that this is the 1st time that he's commented on my blog. Or the 1st time he's commented in a LONG time (maybe he commented years ago, but I don't recall). Whatever the case, I have no frigging clue what the hell he's talking about with the "since you insist on stealing my posts".

I've never stolen any of Luke's posts. I did ask Luke for a link that would prove his accusation, but he refused to provide one. And, when I told him "I have zero interest in stealing any of that", he called me "f**king liar".

Then he proceeded to send me every new commentary from his blog (via the commenting system) under the pretense of doing it "so you don't have to steal them".

Weird, right? I'm not sure what's going on with Luke. All I know is that I've never stolen any of his posts. Weirder yet, is that Luke has accused multiple bloggers of "stealing" his posts. On my blog he said (in addition to accusing me) that I should check Shaw's blog for his posts (a reference to Progressive Eruptions).

He also accused Pamela D. Hart of The Oracular Opinion, and she promptly banned him. Which I probably should have done. As opposed to engaging him (asking him for proof of his accusations multiple times. Proof he never provided).

Which I'm guessing is his gambit. Act like a jackass (swear and make absurd accusations) just to see how long the blog host will tolerate him. Must be how he gets his jollies. Who knows.

Which brings me to the list of banned IDs. How many actual people we're talking about here is anyone's guess. It might be three individuals, or the 3 IDs may be only 1 person. IMO the IDs are owned by either 1 or 2 people (2 being my best guess).

Banned Blogger IDs Luke, AKA Luke Spencer. Luke Spencer is his Google Plus name. I know this because he commented on my Google Plus page using his GP profile (his comment on my GP page was another commentary from his blog). I deleted his comment and blocked him. Steve. A Rational Nation detractor who accused people of "Jew hate". Note that the person behind the "Steve" account changed the name on the account to "Luke" (DSD #33). TOM AKA TOM (WordPress account). This is an individual who used to post commentaries on his WordPress blog Stay A While. TOM's MO was to accuse other bloggers of attacking him (because he expressed disappointment with President Obama). First he feuded with Rational Nation, then Sue, then others (including myself) who he claimed were guilty of Jew hate.

This commentary was published on 8/9/2016 and updated on 9/29/2016.

Image: Steve (the only one among those who are currently banned) actually threatened me, saying "I will have to make life hard for you in blog land" (9/3/2013). He never followed through, however. Or maybe he did and I just didn't notice. Note that I only have the comment as an image because I removed the comment instead of sending it to spam. I wish I had kept it, but there's nothing I can do about it now. It's gone. FYI, Steve did not apologize. I was yanking his chain.



 swtd-neg2.  20160809.