Tag Archives: bigoted

AFTAH claim TSA gays should not do airport pat downs

Sure, why not jump on the issue? All you silly people freaked out about the gays and the things they do, knock yourselves out. While everybody is pissed, throw the gays onto the airport screening bonfire.

Should Gay TSA Agents Be Barred from Giving ‘Same-gender Pat-downs’?
November 16th, 2010 | News Release, November 16, 2010
Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

If it is not proper for male TSA agents to frisk female travelers, why would the TSA allow homosexual men to “pat down” male travelers, or lesbians to “pat down” women?

. . hey, who are these idiots?

Terrific. Carry on . .

CHICAGO – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) today questioned the propriety of “same-gender” TSA (Transportation Security Administration) “pat-downs” – if the TSA agents doing the “patting down” are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual . .

“But what about homosexual TSA agents?” AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responded. “Isn’t it just as inappropriate for a ‘gay’ male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?

Wait — who wrote this crazy thing? Who’s paying any attention to Peter LaBarbera anyway? Who’s quoting him? Lemme see . . (shuffle shuffle) . . uh . . it’s some guy named Peter LaBarbera. Well, at least we’ve got that straight. Oh, heh . .

“The reality is, most traveling men would not want Barney Frank to pat them down at the airport security checkpoint,” LaBarbera said. “Neither would it be fair to assign Ellen DeGeneres to pat down female travelers.”

If Barney Frank were allowed to pat me down at an airport, he’d pull his penis out and ask me to put it in something. And seeing as how he’s a government agent, I’d have to do it. No thanks.


Hideous homophobe Clint McCance and the ‘True Christian’ Facebook page war

“Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”

“No because being a fag doesn’t give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it.”

“I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone.”


A few thoughts on the firing of Illinois Professor Ken Howell for airing his gay-hating Catholicism

Hold your church’s millenia-old beliefs at your own risk?

University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
Published July 09, 2010

URBANA, Ill. — The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech Professor Ken Howellby saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral . .

Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

An unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell’s e-mail “hate speech.” The student claimed to be a friend of the offended student. The writer said in the e-mail that his friend wanted to remain anonymous.

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

This is a tough call. On its face, the professor’s case seems like a reasonable one: if he makes it clear that he’s airing his beliefs, then what’s the harm? It’s a venerated tradition in university settings to allow personal views to be expressed without them limiting or defining the intellectual discussion. In a best case scenario, one’s personal feelings can be ultimately changed by a decent battle of ideas. One realm is considered to be both bigger and more rigorous than the other.

But then intellectual arguments can be slippery. Your position can change pretty quickly depending upon the day, the arguers and the facts on hand at the time. Your beliefs are much more likely to be solid and un-changing.

So I can understand that a gay man would take offense at hearing that his professor believed him to be ‘immoral’ in both the religious and natural sense. You can’t imagine a professor saying the same thing about someone who happened to be black. Even if it’s only his silly belief, even if it’s merely (ostensibly) in a classroom discussion, it’s probably shocking and painful to hear.

So, how did we get to this unfortunate place, where a professor’s routine (for many Catholics) beliefs ended up getting him fired? It sounds like some sort of law has been broken, doesn’t it?

It’s because this particular religious belief is dangerously out of step with modern thinking and understanding. Specifically, religious folks Here we are!who damn what appear to be a group of behaviors, homosexuality, are actually damning a whole group of people. It’s tantamount to hate speech.

Even if it’s a sacred part of your religion, why should society tolerate this? Calling murder, or incest, or even theft a sin is a valuable tenet from society’s point of view: these behaviors cause damage to people. Society seeks to prevent and punish such things.

But the key difference that swings the religious view to publicly intolerable is that homosexuality is no crime: there’s no victim by definition in a routine, consensual homosexual act. In a civilized society, two adults certainly should be able to engage in this manner without condemnation or harassment. Or being barred from society’s benefits, or barred from work, or their animal persecutors being barred from prosecutions and imprisonment.

Especially when, as we are aware now, homosexuals appear to be born homosexual. It is almost always the case that a gay person will tell you that they have no recollection of ever being any different. I have no reason to doubt them. And any intention to disregard these memories because one prefers to view the reporters as morally flawed is a callow one.

Homosexuals are simply born gay, there’s no debate on this any more. So, when you call their behavior — natural behavior — unnatural or immoral or evil, it’s not just factually wrong, it’s an egregious act. You can try to hide behind whatever you like, but the net result is the same: it’s particularly uncivilized speech. You’re harming society. Period.

Thus, a college professor gets fired. Understandably, fired.

There was a time, centuries ago, when religion led society as a moralizing, civilizing power. It taught people to obey the rules, to respect life, to love one another and to get along when little was known of the natural world, or the people in the next hamlet, or county, or country. The secular world wasn’t quick to learn, but there’s no denying that religion worked as perhaps the only major institution to enlighten it.

Now, it seems as if the roles have reversed: it’s society which seeks to drag religion into the new world. I see no reason to be shy about expanding secularism’s role here as long as we can agree that it’s not anything to be taken lightly. The facts that homosexuality has always been and always will be part of humans’ existence, is a naturally occurring expression of sexuality and is a positive, not remotely criminal, way of behaving are damning of religion’s moribund or alabaster responses to the discovery of truths. If religions now refuse to honestly accept or discuss man’s essential worldly and spiritual characteristics, then we’ll be forced to shift the heeding of voices wholly into the public, secular realm.

This discourse, absent of ancient religious dogma, then becomes more than a cosmopolitan exercise, it becomes critically important for us to function in a meaningful way. It carries a bigger, more universal responsibility than it once did. And maybe it’s time that it should — do we really need to indulge people who believe that “sexual acts are only appropriate for people who areSexually uncomplementary. And demonically possessed. complementary, not the same”? That’s an argument conspiratorially stupid, one that any decent high-schooler would shred in mere seconds. For someone like me, with a background in Genetics, it’s a howler.

Well, then, what should the poor professor have done? After all, they’re only his personal beliefs, right? Yes — but his beliefs are insulting to civilized society. Sounds bad, but that’s because it is bad. Iron-clad religion can be very bad for us, and that’s a truth we’ve got to openly admit to if we’re to do right by our fellow man. If we’re to do more than pretend to make a moral world for everyone to exist in, we’re demanded to say it.

A wise professor might wonder if stating his beliefs, though they be held dear, amounts to categorically abominating a blameless fellow man. Society only increasingly sees this as anachronistic bigotry. I’ll ask that he refrain from it at the University, or at any other public place.


Twitching red meat for Michael Savage despisers: Townhall’s Matt Towery tries to defend him. FAIL.

Poor Michael Savage. Can’t summer in Dover any more, which he would hate and wouldn’t ever do absent a fat check or a penitentiary sentence. Matt Towery goes out of his way to try to pretend Savage is only a sharp-tongued radio provocateur, but he’s obviously a hate-monger.

Britain’s Ban on an American Talk Show Host is An Outrage
by Matt Towery

It’s been decades since I was a student at England’s Cambridge University. Since I graduated in 1984, I have returned only a few times to this wonderful country, which I love so dearly and whose people so warmly embraced me.

So I admit to shock over British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s publication of 16 names of persons now banned from the United Kingdom for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred…

So militants who advocate or glorify terrorism are now somehow the equivalent of one of the most listened-to talk radio hosts [Savage] in America?…

Most likely media disdains him partly because he is both well educated — he holds Master’s degrees and a Ph.D. from Berkley [sic]– and because his on-air personality is often gruff and cantankerous. Savage is prone to take on controversial social and political issues, often pushing things to the edge of opinion.

I went to Berkeley. And I remember running into guys like him there. The place was full of morons, believe me. Savage on autism: “[a] fraud, a racket. … I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, ‘Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.’ “

There is no controversy about the existence of autism. This is an incendiary, idiotic rant. It’s also guaranteed to hurt the already-hurting parents of these poor kids.

While some may find Savage’s opinions offensive — for example, he often acidly comments on what he refers to as his hometown of San Francisco’s obsession with gay and lesbian issues — he to my knowledge has never urged listeners to incite riots, harm other humans, commit terrorism or advocate other acts of hatred. Indeed, more often than not he bemoans the ineffectiveness of both Republicans and Democrats. He often drifts from political and social issues altogether to discuss everything from the food he ate the night before to some funny story from his childhood.

That was very slippery of you, saying he hasn’t urged his listeners to do those awful things. See, he’s not so bad, he’s not really fomenting violence, right? Savage merely urges reality that it should happen. That’s so much better, Matt.

Back in 2004, Abu Ghraib prison was one of his anti-Arab/Muslim hate-jump points. Savage:

–repeatedly called it “Grab-An-Arab.” Classic ethnic hate-mongering.

–said “Nick Berg, an American, not military, over there building transmission towers, was captured by the Untermenschen the sub-humans, who wrap themselves in a religion. He is seen saying his mother’s name, his father’s name, sister’s name, his brother’s name and then the smiling Arabs cut a living human beings head off as he screams.” The ‘Untermenschen’, or ‘smiling Arabs’? More of the same.

–said of Muslim women’s attire: “Don’t give me this crap that they’re doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It’s not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She’s doing it to spit in your face. She’s saying, ‘You White moron, you, I’m going to kill you if I can.’ That’s how I see it! What do you want me to do, mince words with you?”

–…and–for kickers–said of our home-grown foreigners: “Twenty-nine percent of all inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens. No, Mr. Bush, they do not all come here to work, they do not all come here to work. They come here to work the system, sell drugs, rape, and kill on contract. Don’t lie to us.” […and I got those last two here, Matt: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=503156]

But on what you think is your salient question–how could he possibly get thrown in with the types who “advocate or glorify terrorism”? Well, you screwed up big time, Matt. If Savage isn’t out to glorify terrorism, then what the hell is this?

–said of the Abu Ghraib prisoners: “And I think there should be no mercy shown to these sub-humans. I believe that a thousand of them should be killed tomorrow. I think a thousand of them held in the Iraqi prison should be given 24 hour — a trial and executed.”

–said “Instead of putting joysticks, I would have liked to have seen dynamite put in their orifices and they should be dropped from airplanes. How’s that? You like that one? Go call somebody that you want to report me to, see if I care. They should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail.”

Matt, there were about 7,000 detainees at Abu Ghraib at that time, and virtually all of them have been released back into the population. 1,000 of them alone were released in one week back in 2005. The homicidal mega-terrorists weren’t there, they were elsewhere: you’d have a difficult time finding even a single prisoner from there that was tried and executed, as Savage would have summarily done to the entire population. By dynamite sodomy and splatter-ment. But then, we both know he doesn’t care about such details of reality. Because the point of his rant was to take out his infinite rage on the people he supremely loathes, clearly wishing he could slaughter, or at least punish and permanently scar, them all.

More of the Savage ethos:
–‘On his September 21, 1999 broadcast, while voicing his contempt for San Francisco’s homeless and the efforts to help them, Savage, a long time Bay Area radio personality, said that female students who come from a Marin County private school to feed and provide services to the homeless “can go in and get raped by them because they seem to like the excitement of it…”‘

–‘On the March 18, 2003, broadcast of The Savage Nation Michael Savage called Elizabeth Smart, “Snow White.” Savage then went on to say that if he were writing a newspaper article about what had happened to Elizabeth Smart that the headline would be, “Snow White Gets Raped By Bum In White Robes.”‘

But then, what’s this? “She’s saying we killed tens of thousands of innocent people? Is that what’s she’s saying? What does this idiot know? Everyone knows she’s a communist. She’s a prostitute– she should be raped.”

That’s spicy, you’d say. The manner of provocateurs. It’s free speech, you might add. But that wasn’t Savage. Those were the comments of Warlords in the Afghan Parliament after a female MP, Malailai Joya, accused them of murder.

I’d bet, Matt, that the Britons would have a problem granting the pro-rape lobby access to their country. I’d even venture that a political warlord would get into the UK more easily than a useless radio fatmouth who called for the rapes of women who annoyed him. Savage adores violence and terrorism. He shouldn’t be tolerated by any country, Britain included.

It pains me to say this, but it appears that in this unfortunate instance, the true Savage Nation isn’t Dr. Savage, but the United Kingdom, for its equating of a talk-show host with killers and advocates of terrorism.

No, what’s painful is that you don’t have the courage to tell the truth. Michael Savage is a national troll.