Franklin Graham: Anti-Christ Alive In The US, Not Enough Jesus In Tuscon

Speech is an important aspect of our existence as human beings. Many have learned the hard way that sometimes it isn't what you say but what you don't say that makes the greatest impact. Sometimes, it is what isn't said that becomes a perceived slight against a person or group of people. During the Tuscon, AZ memorial service, one such perceived slight was felt by Franklin Graham on behalf of all Christians throughout the known Christian universe.

Because the President didn't come out and say “Jesus, God Jesus JESUS!”, Franklin Graham is letting the world know that the anti-Christ is alive and well in the US.

Graham also expressed his dismay at the way the recent memorial service for victims of the Tucson shooting was handled, contrasting the event with other memorial services that he attended. While memorial services for the Oklahoma City bombing and a prayer service after 9/11 called upon the name of God, the Tucson memorial featured an Indian man who was calling upon "father sky and mother earth."

“There was no call for God to put His loving arms around those who were hurting,” he observed. "Why did they leave him out? They scoff at the name of Jesus Christ."

He said the scoffing and persecution against believers of Christ is only going to get worse.

"The spirit of anti-Christ is everywhere," stated Graham, who noted that television networks have pushed out reporters who cover Christian-related topics. "We're being secularized so quickly. Anything that has to do with Christian faith is slowly being taking out of society."

According to Graham, we as a people should mention God or Jesus in every sentence during a being accused of persecuting Christians. It is funny how persecution of Christians went from feeding them to lions (actual persecution) to not mentioning them in every public forum possible (whining).

Would Franklin Graham have found this sentence satisfactory?

“Why would God allow something terrible like this to happen and expect us to sing his praises afterward?”

People like Franklin Graham will not be happy until there is a theocracy in the US. It is exactly this kind of extremism and, to be honest, pathetic cry-baby behavior that will ruin this country if any citizen lets it. To fight against extremism means to fight against the idiocy of people like Franklin Graham.

P.S. The racist undertones of his comments did not go unnoticed.

Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?

Originally posted by Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks. For all links referred to in the original post, please check out the article here.


Was Jared Loughner's act in shooting Rep. Giffords political? Apparently this is what's being debated with a straight face now. Is this a joke? He shot a politician in the head. He called it an "assassination." What part of that was unclear?

He didn't shoot Gabrielle Giffords randomly and it turned out she just happened to be a politician. He sought her out, targeted her and then tried to kill her based on the fact that she was a politician. He thought the government was the problem and it was unresponsive to his psychotic demands on grammar and currency.

So, is Loughner a psycho? Obviously. And that's not just because he shot all of those innocent people, but also because it is abundantly clear from his writings and videos that he has significant mental issues.

But why does the act have to be either psychotic or political? It's obviously both. It was a psychotic act driven by his political beliefs. What's so hard to understand about that?

Then, the next question is whether both sides are equally at fault. Again, I'm confused by this question. What the hell did the Democrats or liberals do here? Nothing, except get shot. How can the media possibly attach false equivalency to this? Are the Democrats equally culpable for getting shot as the conservatives are for shooting them?

Loughner shot a Democrat. Gee, I wonder which side he was on? He hated the government and thought they were out to get us. Gee, I wonder which side he was on?

I thought conservatives said liberals love big government. But now some have the audacity to claim Loughner was a liberal . But if one thing is obvious from Loughner's political writings, it was that he hated the government. So, which one is it -- do liberals love or hate the government?

Come on, this is all a smoke screen to make sure people don't see what's going on here. In the last two years, there have been dozens of attacks and shootings aimed at government officials and political organizations. Every single one of them was directed at liberals, Democrats or the government. Now we're to believe that's the world's largest coincidence?

The conservative hate-mongers don't create psychos. We get that there will always be disturbed individuals out there. But the right-wing directs these lunatics to a source. They channel their fear, anger and paranoia -- and they point them toward the Democrats. They use them as hate seeking missiles.

They load them up them up with violent imagery, whether it's talk of cross-hairs or second amendment remedies or the tree of liberty being refreshed with blood. Then when they get a violent reaction they pretend to be surprised and outraged that anyone would suggest they were the least bit culpable. The reality is that it is a simple formula -- violence in, violence out. Violent imagery in, violent results out.

If pretending this isn't political or that somehow it is both-sided doesn't work (which they shouldn't worry about because so far it has worked perfectly in white-washing their culpability in the media), then they say it's political exploitation to point out what they have done.

How the hell are we supposed to point out the problem if we can't mention the issue for fear of being charged with political exploitation? Would it be exploiting the tragedy of the BP oil spill to point out that maybe we should be a little careful about oil drilling? Or are we not supposed to make the most obvious points so that we don't offend the other political side's delicate sensibilities?

You know who exploited a tragedy for political gain? George W. Bush and the entire Republican Party. They used 9/11 as a gimmick to get re-elected. Then they exploited it to attack a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It is nearly impossible to exploit a tragedy anymore than they did with 9/11. And maybe that's why they level the charge against us now, because they know that's the first thing they'd do.

But pointing out that conservative commentators and politicians have been inciting their followers isn't done to get anyone elected. I don't even know whose election this would theoretically effect. This isn't done to press some policy agenda (again, outside of gun control, I can't even think of what agenda we are supposed to theoretically be pushing for). This is to point out an obvious fact that is getting people killed -- if you incite violence, you get violence.

To pretend that isn't happening all across the country everyday on talk radio, etc. is to be willfully blind to reality -- and to allow it to happen again. And trust me, next time they'll also say no one could have seen it coming and that whatever we do we mustn't talk about it. Preventing another tragedy like this would be such terrible exploitation. Better to be quiet and let them do it again.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Clarifications:

I didn't think these clarifications were necessary, but apparently they are for some. So, here it goes.

1. I am not saying all conservatives are responsible. I got an e-mail from a conservative saying I am blaming him for breathing. I am not blaming him at all (unless he had a national platform and talked about "targeting" liberals, Democrats, etc.), let alone for breathing.

2. I don't believe the proper remedy is limiting anyone's freedom of speech. I never suggested that. In fact, I am sure if anyone passed such a law, not only would it be unconstitutional, but it would be almost exclusively used against the left.

2A. Of course, I don't mind Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin attacking Democrats. That's their job. I am asking them to use some caution in how they frame their attacks and not to use violent imagery that eggs people on.

On the show, I was very specific on what kinds of language I was referring to (I also have a link in the story above to examples). Here is the video where I list some of the examples of conservatives using violent imagery.

3. I don't think that Jared Loughner necessarily listened to an episode of the Glenn Beck show and then went and did this (although others, like Byron Williams did specifically do just that). I am saying that these conservative leaders are purposely creating an environment in which this type of violence festers.

4. Lastly, I am not saying that these conservative leaders celebrated this news or wanted this specific outcome. I assume they are still human. But they knew, or should have known, that they were creating the environment that led to this kind of violence -- and they didn't give a damn.

What did you think was going to happen when you kept telling people to grab their guns, the government was endangering their family and way of life and that they should defend themselves? This was going to happen. Don't pretend otherwise.

Do Not Define Me, You Arizona Dirt Worshiper

One thing that pisses me off a great deal is when other people try to tell me what I believe. The ideas that they have in their thick, Neanderthal-like skulls all sound the same and sound like something from a Chick Tract. It came as no surprise to find that this letter that was posted to a news paper came from Arizona, a land replete with morons and the super-religious (same thing).

Follow the link and read the letter. I shall not sully my blog with its vapid contents. All I have to say is ATHEISM DOESN’T MAKE ANY STATEMENTS. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity. Now, if this dirt worshiper from Arizona would like to debate the origins of the universe with an evolutionary cosmologist or debate the intricacies of biogenesis with, I don’t know, a biologist, perhaps he should do just that. Something tells me the conversation would be very confusing for one of the participants.

A person can be an atheist and not have a degree in biology or quantum physics. It doesn’t take Einstein to see how stupid the idea of a creator is. However, since we are defining each other here and making demands, I want to know where Steve Miller’s (the author of this letter) proof is for a 6000 year old universe? What papers has he written to prove that Adam and Eve gave birth to the world population? I am pretty sure he would have a hard time finding proof outside of the Bible.

I know we say it often and it pisses of the mental midgets of religion, but when you make a claim, you had better have some goddamned evidence to back up that claim. Atheism doesn’t make a claim. Religion on the other hand is nothing more than a series of claims with either no evidence or evidence to the contrary. I’ll stick with atheism.

In Arizona We Trust

Gov. Jan Brewer has enlisted the help of Sarah Palin to help dress up the image of Arizona's new immigration law. What they had to do first was divert the blame from the governor to someone else. Take a wild guess who the blame is being placed on.

Jan Brewer and Palin blamed President Barack Obama for the state law, saying the measure is Arizona's attempt to enforce immigration laws because the federal government won't do it.

"It's time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say, 'We're all Arizonans now,'" Palin said. "And in clear unison we say, 'Mr. President: Do your job. Secure our border.'"

I think we can all agree that our immigration system needs to be reformed. However, when you pass a state law that supersedes federal law and is also explicitly racist, you have lost all credibility in calling out the president for his lack of action when it comes to immigration.

Of course Palin and Brewer are upset that the rest of the country is recoiling in horror at the mere thought of racially profiling people. But according to the governor, that is not at all what they are doing.

Obama and some city, state and foreign governments have condemned the law, which critics say will lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. Brewer on Saturday reiterated her assertion that profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated.

So how in the hell do you intend to implement this law? What would tip the police off that someone was an illegal immigrant? It couldn't be that they had brown skin.

Now the AFL-CIO and the LCCHR have written a letter to DHSS Janet Napolitano urging her to cut homeland security ties with the state. I think that is a great idea. If Arizona wants to make their own version of federal law, then I say let them. Cut all federal funding. Let them rely on the good people of Arizona for their continued survival. Then, when the racist utopia of Arizona is created, all of it citizens can raise their voices together and chant "In Arizona We Trust." But it will only be one group of people that have that trust.

Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies

This past Tuesday, Arizona nutjob governor Jan Brewer signed a bill into law which basically bans ethnic studies classes throughout the state, sending Arizona further down the dark spiral towards complete teabaggery chaos. It's just so skeevy the way it was done because the language of the bill makes it almost come across as hand-wringing political correctness---if you were only half-reading it, of course.

“Public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people,”

This bill bans any classes that advocate “the overthrow of the United States government,” “resentment toward a race or class of people,” “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group” or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.” Ironically, these things all describe most of the "classes"at teabagger homeschools and private Christian schools but anywho.

Apparently governor Brewer and others have a problem with students learning about American history: that the founders committed genocide, enslaved and tortured whole races of people, and built this country with greed, inequality, and violence. They also think they can keep Hispanics from learning that Republicans hate them. This is laughable, really---I am actually laughing right now---that they think they can pull that off. Too late!! You might have wanted to try a different technique than ARREST ALL THE BROWN PEOPLE, STAT!

It's also hilarious that a state official is actually trying to rewrite history because he's pissed off that the white people of this country have been the assholes for the majority of their involvment. Tom Horne said, "It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it," Uuuh, what the fuck is he trying to say? I actually have no clue. I am seriously confused on this one. Because the last time I checked, we used to own black people down here. So I'm not sure how students taking a class where they learn that white people used to treat them like shit is "just like the old South" and needs to be prohibited.

The Politico article also points out that neither the governor nor any supporters of the bill have identified a single example of a course that advocates overthrow of the US government.

Arizona bans 'ethnic studies'
Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies