The ‘Primitive’ Conservative Right Wing Brain


Tory voters found to have larger ‘primitive’ lobe in brain

Our political allegiances could be hard-wired into our brains, neuroscientists believe.

Researchers have found evidence that the brains of conservatives are a different shape to those of Left-wingers.

Scans of 90 students’ brains at University College London uncovered a ‘strong correlation’ between the thickness of two particular areas of grey matter and an individual’s political views.

David Cameron and Nick CleggBrain buddies? Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron (right) is more likely to have a thicker amygdala while Liberal Nick Clegg could be expected to have a larger anterior cingulates

Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala – a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion.

It is an almond-shape set of neurons located deep in the brain’s medial temporal lobe.

However, those aligned to the left had thicker anterior cingulates – which is an area associated with anticipation and decision-making.

The research was carried out by Geraint Rees director of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience who said he was ‘very surprised’ by the finding, which is being peer reviewed before publication next year.

It was commissioned as a light-hearted experiment by actor Colin Firth as part of his turn guest editing BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme but has now developed into a serious effort to discover whether we are programmed with a particular political view.

An MRI scan of the brain. The right amygdala - an ancient part of the brain - was larger in those people who described themselves as conservativeAn MRI scan of the brain. The right amygdala – an ancient part of the brain – was larger in those people who described themselves as conservative. It’s located where the yellow area meets the red in the centre of the picture

Professor Rees said that although it was not precise enough to be able to predict someone’s stance simply from a scan, there was ‘a strong correlation that reaches all our scientific tests of significance’.

‘The anterior cingulate is a part of the brain that is on the middle surface of the brain at the front and we found that the thickness of the grey matter, where the nerve cells of neurons are, was thicker the more people described themselves as liberal or left wing and thinner the more they described themselves as conservative or right wing,’ he told the programme.

‘The amygdala is a part of the brain which is very old and very ancient and thought to be very primitive and to do with the detection of emotions. The right amygdala was larger in those people who described themselves as conservative.

Colin Firth commissioned the study as a light-hearted experiment but that has now developed into something more seriousColin Firth commissioned the study as a light-hearted experiment but that has now developed into something more serious

‘It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes.’

Mr Firth – who recently declared he had ended public support for the Liberal Democrats – said he would like to have party leader and now Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg subjected to the tests.

‘I think we should have him scanned,’ he said.

He said the coalition made him ‘extremely uneasy’ but would not rule out voting Lib Dem in future.

‘I would have to see what identity they took on because I don’t recognise them at the moment. I think all three parties are in a state of re-evaluation.’

Talking about the experiment, he said: ‘I took this on as a fairly frivolous exercise: I just decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don’t agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it and they actually came up with something.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342239/Brain-study-reveals-right-wing-conservatives-larger-primitive-amygdala.html#ixzz1qDdxqUtp

Why The Right-Wing Brain Is Dysfunctional


How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives

            There really is a science of conservative morality, and it really is vastly different from liberal morality. And there are key lessons to be drawn from this research.

March 20, 2012  |

Photo Credit: ShutterStock.com
Editor’s Note: This essay draws upon Chris Mooney’s forthcoming book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality (due out in April from Wiley), as well as his interviews with George Lakoff, Jonathan Haidt and Dan Kahan on the Point of Inquiry podcast.

If you’re a liberal or a progressive these days, you could be forgiven for being baffled and frustrated by conservatives. Their views and actions seem completely alien to us—or worse. From cheering at executions, to wanting to “throw up” over church-state separation, to seeking to “drown” government “in the bathtub” (except when it is cracking down on porn, apparently) conservatives not only seem very different, but also very inconsistent.

Even the most well-read liberals and progressives can be forgiven for being confused, because the experts themselves—George Lakoff, Jonathan Haidt and others–have different ways of explaining what they call conservatives’ “morality” or “moral systems.” Are we dealing with a bunch of die-hard anti-government types in their bunkers, or the strict father family? Are our intellectual adversaries free-market libertarians, or right-wing authoritarians—and do they even know the difference?

But to all you liberals I say, have hope: It’s not nearly so baffling as it may at first appear. Having interviewed many of these experts over the course of the last year, my sense is that despite coming from different fields and using different terminologies, they are saying many of the same things. Most important, their work suggests that there really is a science of conservative morality, and it really is very different from liberal morality. And there are key lessons to be drawn from this research about how to interact (and not interact) with our intellectual opponents.

That’s what I’m going to show—but first, let me first emphasize that morality isn’t the only way in which liberals and conservatives differ. They differ on a wide variety of traits–and it is not necessarily clear, as Jonathan Haidt recently put it to me, what’s the root of the flower, what’s the stem and what’s the leaves.

But set that aside for now. Moral differences between left and right tend to draw the greatest amount of attention, and for good reason: They seem most directly implicated in policy disputes and the culture wars alike.

Another thing that you need to know at the outset about conservative “morality” is that it’s not at all the sort of thing that moral philosophers debate endlessly about. We’re not talking about a highly developed intellectual system for determining the way one ought to act, like deontology or utilitarianism. We’re not paging Immanuel Kant or Jeremy Bentham.

Rather, we’re talking about the deep-seated impulses that push conservatives (or liberals) to act in a certain way. These needn’t be “moral” or “ethical” at all, in the sense of maximizing human happiness, ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number, adhering to a consistent set of rules and principles, and so on. Indeed, they may even be highly immoral by such standards—but there’s no denying that they are very real, and must be contended with.

The Science of Left-Right Morality

So how do conservatives think—and more important still, what do we know scientifically about how they think?

Perhaps the earliest and most influential thinker into this fray was the Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff, with his classic book Moral Politics and many subsequent works (most recently, this item at Huffington Post). Lakoff’s opening premise is that we all think in metaphors. These are not the kind of thing that English majors study, but rather real, physical circuits in the brain that structure our cognition, and that are strengthened the more they are used. For instance, we learn at a very early age how things go up and things go down, and then we talk about the stock market and individual fortunes “rising” and “falling”—a metaphor.

For Lakoff, one metaphor in particular is of overriding importance in our politics: The metaphor that uses the family as a model for broader groups in society—from athletic teams to companies to governments. The problem, Lakoff says, is that we have different conceptions of the family, with conservatives embracing a “strict father” model and liberals embracing a caring, empathetic and “nurturing” version of a parent.

The strict father family is like a free-market system, and yet also very hierarchical and authoritarian. It’s a harsh world out there and the father (the supreme and always male authority) is tough and will teach the kids to be tough, because there will be no one to protect them once the father is gone. The political implications are obvious. In contrast, the nurturing parent family emphasizes love, care and growth—and, so the argument goes, compassionate government control.

Lakoff has been extremely influential, but it’s important to also consider other scientific analyses of the moral systems of left and right. Enter the University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, whose new book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion has just come out. In his own research, Haidt initially identified five (and more recently, six) separate moral intuitions that appear to make us feel strongly about situations before we’re even consciously aware of thinking about them; that powerfully guide our reasoning; and that differ strikingly from left and right.

Haidt’s first five intuitions, or “moral foundations,” are 1) the sense of needing to provide care and protect from harm; 2) the sense of what is just and fair; 3) the sense of loyalty and willingness to sacrifice for a group; 4) the sense of obedience or respect for authority; and 5) the sense of needing to preserve purity or sanctity. And politically, Haidt finds that liberals tend to strongly emphasize the first two moral intuitions (harm and fairness) in their responses to situations and events, but are much weaker on emphasizing the other three (group loyalty, respect for authority, and purity or sanctity). By contrast, Haidt finds that conservatives more than liberals respond to all five moral intuitions.

Indeed, multiple studies associate conservatism with a greater disgust reflex or sensitivity. In one telling experiment, subjects who were asked to use a hand wipe before answering questions, or to answer them near a hand sanitizer, gave more politically conservative answers. Haidt even told me in our interview that when someone like Rick Santorum talks about wanting to “throw up,” that may indeed signal a strong disgust sensitivity.

More recently, Haidt and his colleagues added a sixth moral foundation: “Liberty/oppression.” Liberals and conservatives alike care about being free from tyranny, from unjust exertions of power, but they seem to apply this impulse differently. Liberals use it (once again) to stand up for the poor, the weak; conservatives use it to support the “don’t tread on me” fulminating against big government (and global government) of the Tea Party. This, incidentally, creates a key emotional bond between libertarians on the one hand, and religious conservatives on the other.

Haidt strives to understand the conservative perspective, and to walk a middle path between left and right—but he fully admits in his book that conservative morality is more “parochial.” Conservatives, writes Haidt, are more “concerned about their groups, rather than all of humanity.” And Haidt further suggests that this is not his own view of what is ethical, writing that “when we talk about making laws and implementing public policies in Western democracies that contain some degree of ethnic and moral diversity, then I think there is no compelling alternative to utilitarianism.” It’s hard to see how thinking about the good of the in-group (rather than the good of everyone) could be considered very utilitarian.

But to my mind, here’s the really telling thing about all of this. When you get right down to it, Lakoff and Haidt seem to be singing harmony with each other. It’s not just that they could both be right—it’s that the large overlap between them strengthens both accounts, especially since the two researchers are coming from different fields and using very different methodologies and terminologies.

Lakoff’s system overlaps with Haidt’s in multiple places—most obviously when it comes to liberals showing broader empathy and wanting to care for those who are harmed (nurturing parent) and conservatives respecting authority (strict father). But the overlaps are larger still, for the strict father family is also an in-group and quite individualistic—in other words, prizing the conservative version of freedom or liberty.

What’s more, both of these systems are also consistent with a third approach that is growing in influence: The cultural cognition theory being advanced by Yale’s Dan Kahan and his colleagues, which divides us morally into “hierarchs” and “egalitarians” along one axis, and “individualists” and “communitarians” along another (helpful image here). Conservatives, in this scheme, tend towards the hierarchical and the individualistic; liberals tend toward the egalitarian and the communitarian.

Throwing Kahan into the mix—and yes, he uses yet another methodology–we once again find great consistency with Lakoff and Haidt. Egalitarians worry about fairness; communitarians about protecting the innocent from harm; hierarchs about authority and the group (and probably sanctity or purity—hierarchs tend toward the religious). Individualists are, basically, exercisers of the conservative version of freedom and liberty.

Terminology aside, then, Lakoff, Haidt and Kahan seem to have considerably more grounds for agreement with each other than for disagreement, at least when it comes to describing what actually motivates political conservatives and political liberals.

And in fact, that’s just the beginning of the expert agreement. In all of these schemes, what’s being called “morality” is emotional and, in significant part, automatic. It’s not about the conscious decisions you make about situations or policies—or at least, not primarily. Rather, the focus is on the unconscious impulses that shape how you think about situations before you’re even aware you’re doing so, and then guide (and bias) your reasoning.

This leads Lakoff and Haidt to strongly reject what you might call the “Enlightenment model” for thinking about reasoning and persuasion, and leads Kahan to talk about motivated reasoning, rather than rational or objective reasoning. Once again, these thinkers are essentially agreeing that because morality biases us long before consciousness and reasoning set in, factual and logical argument are not at all a good way to get us to change our behavior and how we respond.

This is also a point I made recently, noting how Republicans become more factually wrong with higher levels of education. Facts clearly don’t change their minds—if anything, they make matters worse! Lakoff, too, emphasizes how refuting a false conservative claim can actually reinforce it. And he doesn’t merely show why the Enlightenment mode of thinking is outdated; he also stresses that liberals are more wedded to it than conservatives, and this irrational rationalism lies at the root of many political failures on the left.

Getting Through

On the one hand, the apparent consensus among these experts is surely something to rejoice about. Progress is finally being made at understanding the emotional and cognitive roots of the culture war and our political dysfunction alike. But if all of this is really true—if conservatives and liberals have deep seated and automatic moral and emotional differences—then what should we do about it?

Here, finally, we do find real disagreement among the pros. Lakoff would have liberals combat conservative morality by shouting their own values from the rooftops, and never falling for conservative words and frames. Haidt would increase political civility by remaking our institutions of government to literally make liberals and conservatives feel empathetic bonds and the power of teamwork. And Kahan has done experiments showing that talking about the same issue in different value laden “frames” leads to different outcomes. For instance, if you discuss dealing with global warming in an individualistic frame—by emphasizing the importance of free market approaches like nuclear power—then you open conservative minds, at least to an extent. We’ve got data on that.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the experts become dissonant as they move from merely describing conservative morality to outlining strategy. After all, there’s a heck of a lot more uncertainty involved when you start to prescribe courses of action aimed at achieving particular outcomes. Understanding conservatives in controlled experiments is one thing; trying to outline a communications strategy with Fox News around, ready to pounce, is another matter.

Nevertheless, here’s what I’ve been able to extract.

Clearly, you shouldn’t try to persuade your ideological opponents by citing threatening facts. Rather, if your goal is an honest give-and-take, you should demonstrate the existence of common ground and shared values before broaching anything controversial, and you should interact calmly and interpersonally. To throw emotion into the mix is to stoke automatic, moralistic, indignant responses.

Such are some scientific tips about trying to communicate and persuade–but liberals should not get overoptimistic about the idea of convincing conservatives to change their beliefs, much less their moral responses. There are far too many factors arrayed against this possibility at present—not just the deeply rooted and instinctive nature of moral intuitions, but our current political polarization, by parties and also by information channels.

You can’t have a calm, unemotional conversation when everything is framed as a battle, as it currently is. Our warfare over reality, and for control of the country, is just too intense. And in a “wartime” situation, conservative have their in-group preferences to naturally fall back on.

But if we merge together Lakoff and Haidt, then I think we do end up with some good advice for liberals who want to advance their own view of what is moral. On the one hand, they should righteously advance their own values, not conservative ones. But they should remain fully aware that these values are somewhat limited since, as Haidt shows, conservatives seem to have a broader moral palette.

To reach the political middle, then, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to demonstrate much more loyalty than liberals are used to emphasizing, and to show respect for authority as well—which doesn’t come so naturally to us. What authority should we respect? I suggest either the authority of president, or perhaps better yet, the authority of the Founding Fathers. Let’s face it: Conservatives have insulted, defiled, and disobeyed the secular, rational, and Enlightenment legacy of the people who founded this country (if you want to get moralistic about it).

When it comes to loyalty and unity in particular, liberals could stand to look in the mirror and try to be more…conservative. Not in their substantive policy views, but in their ability to act as a team with one purpose and one goal that cannot be compromised or weakened. Diversity is great for our society—but not for our objectives. And that means we have something to learn from conservatives: They may not know how to make America better, but they certainly know how to take a strong, united and moralistic stand in order to get what they want.

That’s an example that liberals could do worse than to follow.

Chris Mooney is the author of four books, including “The Republican War on Science” (2005). His next book, “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality,” is due out in April.

Young Turks Kick Callista Gingrich When She’s Down (VIDEO)


Young Turks Kick Callista Gingrich When She’s Down (VIDEO)

by Rebecca Schoenkopf

To Serve Man
Everyone hates Moon Empress and Lizardoid “V” Queen Callista Gingrich, this is not “news.” But why? Wonkette’s own Jim Newell explained she has never done anything to anyone (we guess Jim forgot about Newt’s second wife) and is not even running for anything so what who cayuhs. Well, Cenk [Last Name] of The Young Turks apparently does, that’s who, and put together a nightmare video, after the jump.
VIDEO:-

Toxic Cannibal Newt Gingrich Manages to Find Obama’s Trayvon Comments ‘Disgraceful’


Toxic Cannibal Newt Gingrich Manages to Find Obama’s Trayvon Comments ‘Disgraceful’

by Rebecca Schoenkopf

The horror
Well, guess we got one more post in us this evening, huh? Here we were, drinking wine, sitting on the couch, and braiding Kirsten Boyd Johnson’s hair, and this little bit of happiness and rainbows and unicorns and magic flitted across our (somewhat impaired) field of vision: Newt Gingrich, Great White Hope, has turned his attention from protecting the honor of white ladies from Robert DeNiro’s terribly offensive (not at all offensive) jokes, and focused instead on the honor of everyone in this great nation of ours who had the misfortune to not be born black. See, the President noted, somberly and steadily, that Trayvon Martin looked like he could have been his son. Even the Daily Caller, try though it did, wasn’t able to find anything wrong with Obama’s statement itself, only that it had clearly been made at the behest of the Black Panthers, because duh of course it was. But you, Newton, are a special fellow. Open that pretty piehole, show us what you’re working with: “What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful.” Because the president is racist? Yes.

“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background.

“Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because it didn’t look like him. That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot. It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point, we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American, it is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

So what Newt Gingrich is “working with” then is “unallayed fucking sociopathic evil.” What did we say this morning? Yes, here it is, ctrl-c/ctrl-v:

But how can a black man be in charge of the Executive Branch when the Justice Department is investigating a possible hate crime against a black boy? That would be like a black man pointing out that it’s stupid for a cop to arrest a black man in his own home for suspecting him of being an intruder, or a gay judge being in charge of a case about gayness. Unpossible! Racism! Bias!

Right. Haha, remember, like 9 hours ago, when that was funny? (Eh, it was never that funny.) So how many hours did that take you, Newty, to decide to let it all go, that last shred of humanity that might have been hiding in there, the speck that knew you were doing wrong before you did it anyway? When did you decide, for your ambitions, to go full-Colonel Kurtz and let all your homicidal tendencies run free? Newt Gingrich, destroyer of souls, ruiner of humanity, really not-good-looking manthing! It’s got a good beat! You could dance to it! Anyhoo, sure hope you at last manage to peel off a few voters from Santorum, otherwise that just wasn’t a very good deal you got for what was left of your soul. [National Journal]

Dan Riehl Proves He Is Not Racist By Being More Racist


Dan Riehl Proves He Is Not Racist By Being More Racist

         By: TBogg

After being mocked for his The Darker The Skin, The Blacker The Soul post on Trayvon Martin, Breitbart blogger and urban warrior Dan Riehl explains that he is not racist; all you guys are the real racists, particularly now that President Obama has joined the Holy Trinity of Race Pimpism: Jackson, Sharpton & Farrakhan.

Explains Riehl why this makes him sad:

Said leaders, I use the term loosely, seem only interested in fueling  outrage and a mob mentality for political gain. It’s sad to see so many  black Americans still falling for it after so many decades. Their minds  haven’t been freed, all that’s changed is the owners of the plantation. Too many would be black leaders are too happy to lead them down a path  through a cotton field of ignorance and hate ending at the ballot box,  before just going on and on with no real end in sight.

Black Americans, please! Do you not want to taste the sweet nectar of freedom that can be be found in the watermelon patch of liberty? Or are you too fried chicken? Dan Riehl wants to know.

You know, I remember when Riehl was much more subtle as when he accused Matt Ortega of “ringing the taco bell” and then asked if his parents were illegal immigrants. Looks like he has uppitied his game…

Also, I blame Obama. And Robert Byrd…

Andrew Breitbart’s Children: The Dickening


Andrew Breitbart’s Children: The Dickening

         By: TBogg

NYU Journalism professor Charles Seife has a terrific post up ( a shorter version of which can be found at The Hunting of the Snark) regarding Breitbart orphan and future subject of an SVU episode James O’Keefe, wherein Young Master James attempts his special brand of “veritas” after being exposed for being not very veritas-y in his dealings with the public.

Journalists are stubborn creatures by nature. I’m no different. Deny me information that I’m entitled to, and I won’t let go. It doesn’t matter if you’re a nonprofit organization or an Obama-administration government agency, I’ll fight. So I took the next logical step to put pressure on Project Veritas — I filed a complaint with the IRS, telling them that Project Veritas wasn’t playing by the disclosure rules. Either that, or Project Veritas wasn’t really a nonprofit.

That got them talking. I called that morning to tell them that I had filed a complaint, and the woman I got on the phone was, surprisingly, quite cooperative. I put my request in writing, and after a string of e-mails, she admitted that application for nonprofit status had been filed, but it had not yet been approved. Contrary to what the website said, Project Veritas was not a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and donations were, as a result, not tax-deductible. James O’Keefe had apparently committed an illegal act that could have caused donors unwittingly to make false claims on their taxes.

I finally had my answer. James O’Keefe was apparently breaking the law. So did I contact my friends in the liberal elite press establishment to try to make it a huge story? I could have gone to Romenesko, or sent it to my colleagues on major papers around the country. But I didn’t….

Needless to say, zany hijinks ensue and, like most episodes in James shoddy life, it ends in shame and ridicule and humiliation with James Edward O’Keefe III once again left standing there with just his dick in his hand.

Ron Paul | Biggest Loser


Ron Paul | Biggest Loser

He’s a loser who still keeps on losing!

Ill Papa Visits Mexico


Benedict Palpatine

bigotry

Catholic Church

cults

evil

hate groups

Mexico

religion

condomns

papal perverts

evil empire

child abuse

sexual predators

Catholic fascism

religious fascists

Catholic crimes

papal dictators

inquistion

papal bigots

Catholic

papal Rome

papal parasites

Vatican billions

Nazi pope

Catholic Nazi

Catholic pedophiles

Hitler‘s pope

Hitler’s priests

 

Also via:-

Almost EASTER Holiday in the world and the Pop-ey meets vics of drug violence in Mehico!

Posted by

Derivative Work. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Po...

Derivative Work. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI since 2005) on May 10, 2003, during the celebration of the 750th anniversary of the canonization of Saint Stanislaus in Szczepanów, Poland. Picture taken by Janusz Stachoń and released under CC-BY license by Szamil (www.szczepanow.pl). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Nazi Catholic Pope went to Mexico to meet victims of drug violence but I don’t recall him meeting with all those adults who were victimized by the Catholic pedophiles he sent out to do the Devil’s work back when the scandal broke in the Catholic church. OR SHOULD I WRITE, when victims began coming forward in droves and the police started listening to all of them. HUNDREDS of them.

So this Nazi Catholic Pope goes to Mexico and preaches against the evil in narcotics. Oh my! That must have been a short sermon for the old nazi unless he took his own pharmaceutics, he couldn’t have possibly said much to those poor people. Raped by their own people, by the Catholic Religion and the world. C’mon Americans have everything to do with these Mexican drug cartels in fact I wouldn’t be at all surprised if our own Feds are involved up to their balls with these “drug dealers” in Mexico.

Let’s face it, human’s prey on other humans because, well, there are too many people alive today on this planet and we need to cut down the population. I got great ideas on how to do that but heyyy – I digress.

— Bonju

The Blasphemy of Thomas Jefferson


Jefferson’s Blasphemy on Display at the Smithsonian

By Steve Lowe

This article first appeared in the WASHLine, the Washington Area Secular Humanist’s January 2012 newsletter. Reprinted with permission.

Living in the Washington area provides numerous opportunities not available to most Americans because the Smithsonian Institution is in our backyard. One such occasion is visited upon us until May 28th, 2012.  The so-called Jefferson Bible has been placed back on display in a new, expanded exhibit at the Smithsonian’s American History Museum on the National Mall. Having deteriorated in the 191 years since its creation in 1820 by Jefferson and his book binder in Richmond, it was taken into the museum’s conservation laboratory where it was gingerly deconstructed, examined forensically, digitally photographed, repaired and reconstructed into its original leather binding. It can be visited again in a gallery dedicated to it on the Museum’s second floor.

Essentially, Jefferson took the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in which each—differently—tell the story of one man, and merged them into one chronological story only 82 pages long. Of the 3,779 verses in all four books, he extracted only 1,089, or 29%! In a letter to his friend William Short he said of this: “I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross.” He left out redundancies, miracles, and parts he considered unbelievable, unreliable, or unnecessary to appreciate the moral teachings of Jesus, which Jefferson considered to be:  “… the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.”

Having selected the verses, which he listed in a Table of Contents, he went about constructing a book–like a scrapbook–by literally cutting out his selected verses from the Bible and pasting them onto blank pages of paper. If you have ever cut out coupons from a newspaper or magazine, you quickly realize the potential of ruining one coupon by cutting out one on the reverse side of the page. Realizing this in advance, Jefferson acquired two exact copies of the same edition of the Bible from which to cut his verses!

These two English Bibles, with verses cut out, are also on display in the Smithsonian exhibit. To see these scissor-and-knife scarred “holy books” desecrated by Jefferson is a most inspiring experience!  Even more impressive, being a man of letters and able to read several languages, he did the same cut-and-paste exercise in four languages: Greek, Latin, French, and English. Thus, when you look at the opened book, there are four columns, two on each page, where one can read the same verses in each language from left to right. So, if he had compiled just the English texts, the book would have been only 20 pages long!

He starts with Luke, chapter 2, leaving out that whole ‘virgin birth’ thing; and ends with Matthew 27:60: “There laid they Jesus, ….and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed”, thus dropping the ‘raised from the dead and resurrection’ thing.  In between,  all of the miracles are left, so to speak, on the cutting room floor leaving only what Jefferson titled his work: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth: Extracted textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French & English.

Jefferson had his pages bound by a printer in Richmond and never intended for it to be published or even known about by others. It was in the possession of his great granddaughter when it was bought by the librarian of the Smithsonian Institution in 1895 for $400. In 1902 the U.S. Congress commissioned 9,000 copies of Jefferson’s book to be printed by the Government Printing Office and made available to all congressmen. When these copies ran out in the 1950s no more were printed for this official distribution. A copy of this Congressional edition is on exhibit along with Jefferson’s single original bound (now restored) book. The contents of his book have been transcribed and available from book publishers for many years and numerous editions of it are available from book sellers. The Smithsonian has created a new life-sized facsimile on quality paper and leather binding using the high quality photographs of each page taken while the book was being examined and conserved in the laboratory. It is available in the Smithsonian bookstore or it can be read on-line at the new website dedicated to this exhibit at http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/.

I highly recommend visiting this exhibit to be inspired by it and to make your telling of this courageous feat of Jefferson even more interesting.

Defend Blasphemers


International Day of Action to Defend Blasphemers – Guest Post
Bjarte Foshung     From Fevic, Norway.
posted in the comments section of the Guardian (in response to the recent debate between Richard Dawkins and Will Hutton regarding the role of religion in Britain’s public life) which I hope bears repeating:

It should be pretty clear by now that anything other than discrimination in religion’s favour will be construed as anti-religious discrimination or “imposing atheism”. The appalling thing is that in the west in the 21st century “secularism” (i.e. the absence of any religious bias from politics) still needs defending at all.

In Saudi Arabia Hamza Kashgari faces prosecution, and possibly execution, for being insufficiently deferential when tweeting about Mohammed. In Indonesia Alexander Aan is in jail (after being violently attacked by the religious mob) for making an atheist remark on Facebook (atheism is officially a crime in Indonesia). In India Salman Rushdie had to cancel his appearance at the Jaipur literary festival because of death threats. In Amsterdam muslim extremists stormed a book launch by muslim reformist Irshad Manji, threatening to break her neck. In London the Atheism, Secularism, and Humanism Society at Queen Mary College had to cancel a meeting after a muslim began filming the attendants and threatening to kill them. And some people want to tell us to that “militant” secularism is really the problem here (Notice the double standard btw: Atheists are called “militant” if they use logic and humour, whereas militant believers use threats and violence.)

Atheists are not the ones who are advocating a double standard. We are not singling out religious beliefs for special criticism. We just don’t see why it should be singled out for special protection, and we are confident that no religion could survive in the absence of the astronomical double standards that are now applied in their favour. The moment we start judging religious claims by the same standards of logic and evidence by which even the believers themselves judge secular claims, then religion will have been dealt a mortal blow. Even weak scientific hypotheses generally have more going for them than any religious claim ever had (the argument from design is just embarrassing, and all the other arguments for God’s existence are even worse), yet no scientist worth his weight in salt refrains from criticizing a weak hypothesis (or indeed a strong one) for fear of causing offence. Those who have good reasons for what they believe, appeal to those. Appeals to “respect for the beliefs of others” are only ever heard when there are no good reasons to appeal to. But a belief can hardly become any more worthy of respect for being based on bad reasons. As Sam Harris so eloquently put it: “Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail”.

There is an equally appalling moral double standard. As a thought experiment, imagine a ruler of some foreign country (preferably a white, western, secular one, otherwise we might just have to “respect his culture”) who said and did all the same things that the biblical god supposedly said and did (ordering genocides, demanding rape victims to be stoned, threatening to force anyone who disobeys him to eat their children etc.). Now imagine the reaction if someone in our part of the world publically sided with this disgusting monster. My guess is that they would be met with public outrage and charges of “hate-speech”. Leftist radicals would organize protests wherever they went, and we would see attempts to have their views censored. Substitute our imaginary dictator for an equally imaginary god, and much of the indignation suddenly turns against those who criticize the same evil. If this is not hypocrisy, then nothing is.

Even if the Bible represented the very best of its day (which it clearly didn’t), the best of the Iron Age is still awful by the standards of the 21st century and should not be allowed to influence modern life in any way. If you believe in a god who literally said and did everything that Yahweh is supposed to have said and done according to the Bible, and in spite of this you still take God’s side, then there is nothing you can accuse anybody else of that is worse than what you, yourself actively favour. Religious moderates and liberals, on the other hand, may not promote intolerance and violence themselves, but through their disingenuous whitewashing of their holy texts they give legitimacy to books and doctrines that definitely promote intolerance and violence. And just in case you wonder, I have read the Bible, and if there is any overarching message to be derived from this disaster area of a book it’s that God is not a moderate.

International Day of Action to Defend Blasphemers and Apostates

 

Latest Science News


A reconstructed partial skull (right) from a Chinese cave displays a peculiar mix of ancient and modern traits (seen in illustration, left), indicating that these late Stone Age people interacted little with nearby, modern-looking humans. Full Story D. Curnoe; Peter Schouten

seperator

Measuring the leap of a lizard Creatures use their tails to balance during complex maneuvers Vying for the title of World’s Fastest Cell Scientists film 58 kinds of mobile cells to study movement Back to the moon’s future Orbiter scouts oldest spots on the lunar surface for prospective landing sites
        3.13.12        –        Species that transmits brain virus in the Southeast may turn to mammals earlier in warmer years        Found in: Environment and Life

GOP Contest of Clowns | Last Clown Standing


Random Notes From the GOP Clown Show

This is getting embarrassing. First you have Mitt Romney claiming that Rick Santorum is too liberal and does not have “the fiscal conservative chops” that he, Mr. Flip-Floppin Conservative, has. Then Santorum fires back in typical schoolyard one-upmanship by claiming that Romney is a socialist.

Mitt first.

I find it interesting that he [Santorum] continues to describe himself as the real conservative. This is the guy who voted against right-to-work. This is the guy who voted to fund Planned Parenthood. This is the person who voted to raise the debt ceiling five times? […] Rick Santorum is not a person who is an economic conservative to my right.

Little Ricky’s response.

I didn’t back Romneycare, which is a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy,” Santorum told conservative radio host Mark Levin on Monday night, pointing to his own work with Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) on health savings accounts during the Clinton administration. “When Mitt Romney’s solution to a healthcare problem is to take over one-sixth of the economy, you can’t call yourself a conservative,” Santorum said. “You can call yourself a socialist, but you can’t call yourself a conservative.

These guys are duking it out to see who’s going to be the last clown standing in a battle of witless wonders.

Most depressing thought for Republicans has got to be the good possibility that this stuff is going to carry on all the way to the Tampa convention.

__

(The base source photograph for the above illustration is a Library of Congress digital image. The Mitt Romney source photograph is a Creative Commons licensed image from photographer Gage Skidmore. )

Rush Limbaugh Promises All Ladies Whore Diamonds


Rush Limbaugh Promises All Ladies Whore Diamonds

by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Come slither

Big ol’ teddy bear Rush Limbaugh simply cannot understand for the life of him why some stupid idiots think the GOP is having a war on women. Your editrix cannot understand this either. (Nor does she have a passport and some Katrina Kash at the ready before they seal the borders of the Republic of Gilead.) Anyhoo, Rush has Logic for why Republicans are way more awesome than stupid effete lieberals when it comes to treatin’ little ladies just right. Are you ready, everyone? Really, are you ready for this? Okay. *CLEARS THROAT* Republicans take women to dinner and buy them diamonds, that why. MediaMatters-brand audio, after the jump!

Honestly, who can even be mad at this dumb fuck any more? It is like being mad at an incredibly stupid, fat, drug-addicted, offensive head of lettuce. Why even bother? Fine, Rush, give us some whore diamonds, for our whoring, whore whore whore. Yeah, we get it kiddo, we’re whores. No, no, you got us, we’re super offended, we promise! No really, really, we are! Run along now sweetie, there’s some cookies on the counter. Remember, Jesus loves you, and good job.

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf

Rush Limbaugh The Talking Asshole

[MediaMatters]

SCIENCE NEWS


Skulls from Triceratops (bottom) and Torosaurus (top) have revealed old and young individuals in both species, challenging the claim that one dinosaur is merely the younger version of the other. Full Story N. Longrich

seperator

Measuring the leap of a lizard Creatures use their tails to balance during complex maneuvers Vying for the title of World’s Fastest Cell Scientists film 58 kinds of mobile cells to study movement Back to the moon’s future Orbiter scouts oldest spots on the lunar surface for prospective landing sites

Jewish Fascism | Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran’s Refusal to Sing the National Anthem


The Hatikvah affair: This is what a Jewish state looks like

The storm about Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran’s refusal to sing the national anthem shows us just what a ‘Jewish State’ means.

A political storm broke out last week, when it turned out Supreme Justice Salim Joubran declines to sing the Israeli national anthem, “Hatikvah” (The Hope). Many Jewish Brotherhood MKs suffered from an unusually farcical attack of national erection. This was indeed another occasion to note that there is no practical (or even ideological) difference between Kahane’s representative in the Knesset, Michael Ben Ari, or Yisrael Beitenu’s David Rotem, or the Likud’s Danny Danon and Moshe Feiglin. But that is not the main issue; neither is the fact that the Jewish Brotherhood’s attack on Joubran means they think that most of the Jewish population agrees with them on this point.

The issue is the single demand made by Netanyahu to the Palestinians recently: that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Joubran brouhaha is precisely the reasons they cannot accept this demand. A Jewish state is a state, which – inherently by its very existence and by its very declaration as such – discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens. It is a state, which, by its very definition, says they do not belong, that they are unequal and never will be equal, that they are nothing but temporary guests who exist at the sufferance of the Jewish majority. A Jewish state is one that proclaims itself to contain two types of populations, separate and not at all equal.

It would be herrenvolk state, where the will of the majority wouldn’t be just that the minority make it tea (as a famous Israeli song notes ironically) but that it should kowtow as it serves it. This would be a state where people would be ordered to sing, in a broken voice and a trampled soul, “The Jewish soul is moved,” so that day by day and hour by hour, they would be forced to remember their home is not their home. As of now, the Jewish Brotherhood targets justices; soon enough it will target school principals, physicians, advocates – anyone whose head is held too high. Therefore, it is clear that Abbas or any other self-respecting Palestinian leader cannot acquiesce to Netanyahu’s demand: doing so would be selling the rights of Israeli Palestinians down the river, something no one has authorized him to do. This, of course, is precisely why he presses for that demand.

This has happened before. Most Israelis have forgotten 1949-1966, when Israeli Palestinians were under military rule; most American Jews were never aware of it. Under this rule, Zionist Israel carried out a huge land grab – legal, of course; there is no villainy which state attorneys will not commit – which deprived the Nakba-surviving Palestinians of most of their lands. Policemen and secret policemen were on the hunt for any hostile utterance, any unpleasant wedding song, and Palestinian leaders had to learn “Hatikvah” by heart to maintain their position. We are no longer in the 1950s and 1960s, thankfully, but there are people who would like to take us back there.

As usual, one should be thankful for Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin for trying to save the dignity of the Knesset and of the Likud party. One should also thank, through gritted teeth, Bogie “Moshe” Ya’alon, who defended Joubran against his own home crowd, which takes courage anytime, but particularly these days. Both of them went on record saying that Israeli non-Jews cannot be expected to sing Israel’s anthem.

This unfortunately is not enough. In this way, they accept the concept of Israeli Palestinians as a tolerated minority, since we can’t demand it pretend to be Jewish. But that should not be the case: a country with a large minority should learn to accommodate it. Former state comptroller and supreme court justice Miryam Ben Porat, who came from a Revisionist home, had no qualms about suggesting some 20 years ago that “Hatikvah” be amended and a new stanza added, and that a new symbol be added to the flag so that non-Jews could also relate to an anthem and flag that, after all, are supposed to represent them as well. There have been other suggestions, like replacing “Hatikvah” with Shaul Tchernichovsky “Ani Ma’amin” (“I Believe”):

Mock me, mock my dreams of glory It is I who dreams, still bowed, Mock my faith in all things human As in you my faith stands, proud.

Yet my spirit still craves freedom Not sold out to calves of gold I still believe in all things human, Human spirit, spirit bold.

(Translated by Dena Shunra)

This did not happen and is not likely to happen soon. This is where we see the importance of civics lessons in schools: the right wing has been sabotaging them for a generation now, claiming they neglect the Jewish aspect of the state. But that, after all, is precisely the point of lessons in civics: to build the supra-religious, supra-ethnic, supra-tribal infrastructure that will create a civic consciousness, for Jews and non-Jews alone. The sabotage was not incidental.

The right wing does not want a civil state: it is looking for an ethnocratic theocracy. And not just the right wing: Yair Lapid, the most accurate barometer of the precise center of Israeli politics, recently wrote he opposes the separation of synagogue and state. Even he understands such a move will undermine the ethnocracy – and he chooses it over a liberal Israel.

There will be no reconciliation in this tortured land, if the country is considered first and foremost Jewish. This would mean a total victory for the Jewish nationalists and would significantly damage (and justly so) Israel Palestinians’ ability to identify with Israel. This ability is surprisingly strong, given the country’s history.

One is led to thinking that the mass hysteria of the past 20 years, the overpowering urge to emphasis Israel’s Jewishness, is the result of a deep fear among central parts of the Jewish population that if this is not achieved, then there will be no escape from living aside Israeli Palestinians. This, in turn, leads to the worst of Jewish fears: the loss of blood purity (AKA “assimilation”). This shouted insistence on Israel’s Jewishness is in some ways tactical: it says to Israeli Palestinians “go away, no matter how hard you try to be Israelis, Israel will never be yours. Keep away from us: you’re getting too close and it’s making us scared.”

And how do you treat a whole population driving itself into post traumatic stress disorder? This is not a question I’m sure I can answer.

Palin: Obama Seems To Want To Go Back To The Days Of Slavery


Palin: Obama Seems To Want To Go Back To The Days Of Slavery

by Liz Colville

Sarah Palin went on Heinity on Thursday to do some sort of to-the-core-of-the-earth analysis of something Obama-related, god knows what, but perhaps hugs? (Hannity describes it as a “sort of bit of information,” which is the closest any conservative has come to admitting how flea-sized this incident is.) And the gist was Sean Hannity asking Palin what all “this” “means.” Something something, Obama’s hug of a guy, “class warfare” and attempts to help the broke suggest that the president is “bringing us back” to the era in which blacks were considered to be 3/5 of a person. It’s true, this — wanting equality, supporting others who do — is a true replica of slavery, you can’t even tell the two apart.

Some of the exchange:

Hannity: Bleebloopityblahblah?

Palin: He is bringing us back, Sean, to days, uh — you can harken back to days before the Civil War when unfortunately too many Americans mistakenly believed that not all men were created equal.

What a thing. What a day. Palin goes on to say (WARNING: CRAP ENGLISH FOLLOWS):

Palin: And it was the Civil War that began the codification of the truth that here in America, yes we are equal, and we all have equal opportunities, not based on the color of your skin. You have equal opportunity to work hard and to succeed and to embrace the opportunities, god-given opportunities to develop resources, to work extremely hard, and to, as I say, to succeed. Now, it has taken all these years for many Americans to understand that — that gravity, that mistake took place before the Civil War, and why the Civil War, had to really start changing America. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards instead of moving forward –

Hannity: Whu–

Palin: — with that understanding that as our charters of liberty spell out for us, that we are all created equally.

Incuriouser and incuriouser! Whatever could this white lady be talking about? That welfare encourages people historically deprived of opportunities to continue to not have them? That rich people are more sensitive than others and poor people should be considerate of that? That health care saves people’s teeth from falling out, which causes them to be too elitist? Please let us know, if you know. [Media Matters]

‘Radicalised agnostics’ threatening to derail Middle East war process


‘Radicalised agnostics’ threatening to derail Middle East war process

nothing wrong with a little healthy disagreementThe irresponsible actions of a group of radical agnostics are threatening to jeopardise the glorious battle that awaits the holy lands, warned Israel and Iran today.

‘These people are dangerously sensible and naively human in their outlook,’ said Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a joint statement. ‘We have a clear roadmap for war in the region, but the soft-line approach to international politics of these fundamentalist equivocators could prevent millions of martyrs from fulfilling their destiny. The Middle East is like a powder keg that could explode any minute – the last thing we need is some crazed pacifists standing around with fire extinguishers.’

Radical agnostics have hit back at the attack, but insist they don’t want to offend anyone. ‘We’d just prefer it if religious leaders didn’t blow the world to oblivion,’ stated Daniel Olszewski, a spokesman for the group known as The Silent Unsure. ‘We may be in the minority, but we just think that mass human extinction through warfare should be avoided. Agnostics get a lot of stick from both believers and atheists for sitting on the fence, but the one thing we’re sure about is that we’re not quite ready yet to find out if there is an afterlife.’

Using insidious techniques such as writing sensible letters to people in power and offering to grovel if that would help, the group claims that war might be avoided if everyone just thought about things logically for a while. It’s a stance that has earned them some powerful enemies, but there were signs today that it might be beginning to bear fruit with Israel and Iran finding some common ground.

‘It turns out that we and America have a lot more in common than we thought with Iran, Russia and China,’ said Netanyahu. ‘When what you believe in most is under attack from the nagging voice of reason and an underground network of people that discusses things, listens to both sides of the argument and looks for compromise, it’s time to join with your enemies and act. Diplomacy, sanctions, military action – we will do whatever it takes to defeat this threat to international warfare.’

Major Advertisers Dump Misogynist Rush Limbaugh


Unprecedented: 98 Major Advertisers Bail on Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh’s misogynistic binge costs him dearly
By Charles Johnson

In an unprecedented exodus, Rush Limbaugh has now lost 98 major advertisers. And it’s apparently becoming contagious for some other right wing talk show hosts with similar levels of vitriol.

Industry website radio-info.com has the scoop:

When it comes to advertisers avoiding controversial shows, it’s not just Rush From today’s TRI Newsletter: Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments.” The list includes carmakers (Ford, GM, Toyota), insurance companies (Allstate, Geico, Prudential, State Farm) and restaurants (McDonald’s, Subway). As you’ll see in the note below, those “environments” go beyond the Rush Limbaugh show.

“To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory…They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).’

Right Wing Watch | Sarah Palin Neo-Confederate Racist Cheerleader


Obama Campaign Ad: Sarah Palin and the Far Right

“Back to the days before the Civil War

An official Obama campaign ad directly confronts the ugly race-baiting of Sarah Palin, who claimed yesterday that the President wants to “bring us back to the days before the Civil War.”

Latest Science News


Latest Science News

This composite image captured by the Hubble shows the positions of the dark matter core (blue), galaxies (orange) and gas (green) in the train wreck cluster, formed by colliding galaxies. Full Story NASA, ESA, CFHT, CXO, M.J. Jee/UC Davis, A. Mahdavi/San Francisco State Univ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

seperator

Measuring the leap of a lizard Creatures use their tails to balance during complex maneuvers Vying for the title of World’s Fastest Cell Scientists film 58 kinds of mobile cells to study movement Back to the moon’s future Orbiter scouts oldest spots on the lunar surface for prospective landing sites
Plants’ reproductive weaponry unfurled

        3.5.12        –        Botanical tricks include adhesion and bubbles to spread their spores        Found in: Life and Matter & Energy

Neofascism Within the Catholic Church


Opus Dei: Neofascism Within the Catholic Church

by OllieGarkey

What we are seeing today in the fight over birth control is a revival of a very old, and very dangerous kind of Catholicism. It is not one supported or practiced by most Rank and File Catholics. It is a kind of Catholicism which has done irreparable harm. It is a kind of Catholicism unfit for existence in the modern world.

It was the underpinning of the regimes of Mussolini in Italy, The National Catholicism of Francisco Franco, in Spain; The Parti Rexiste in Belgium; The Irish Blueshirts; The Croatian Ustaše, the Nazi puppet government in Croatia, and ultimately, was the kind of Catholicism practiced by the Sainted Josemaría Escrivá, founder of the Catholic order Opus Dei.

That’s where the story begins and ends: Opus Dei.

Spain, The Founding of Opus Dei

Josemaría Escrivá is the best place to start. He was a catholic priest during the Second Spanish Republic, who developed a kind of Catholicism in the late 1920’s which Fascists found very attractive. He rose to prominence and political influence during Franco’s spain. His book describing Opus Dei was first published with an introduction by a Pro-Franco bishop, which contained many statements in support of National Catholicism. Saint Escriva personally preached to Franco during a week-long prayer retreat at Franco’s Palace.

Saint Escriva has been accused by catholic priests who knew him of Holocaust Denial, and many recall statements by Escriva defending Hitler. Saint Escriva has said that hitler couldn’t have killed 6 million Jews, and that “Hitler against the Jews” really meant “Hitler against communism.”

He famously wrote a letter to Franco in the 1950’s saying

Although a stranger to any political activity, I cannot help but rejoice as a priest and Spaniard that the Chief of State’s authoritative voice should proclaim that, “The Spanish nation considers it a badge of honor to accept the law of God according to the one and true doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church, inseparable faith of the national conscience which will inspire its legislation.” It is in fidelity to our people’s Catholic tradition that the best guarantee of success in acts of government, the certainty of a just and lasting peace within the national community, as well as the divine blessing for those holding positions of authority, will always be found. I ask God our Lord to bestow upon your Excellency with every sort felicity and impart abundant grace to carry out the grave mission entrusted to you.

None of this is to say that all Catholics supported Franco. Plenty of Catholic bishops and priests opposed him, including bishop Mateo Múgica, and Cardinal Francisco Vidal Y Barraquer. I would also like to point out that neither Vidal Y Barraquer or Mateo Mugica were sainted. They are relatively forgotten. Múgica doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page in English.

You’ll notice that this will become a recurring theme in our history of Opus Dei and Catholicism in Fascist Europe. Those who stood against the tide end up forgotten, while those that supported the brutal regimes end up sainted.

And so courageous men that fought a military dictatorship and died in exile are forgotten while Escriva is the sainted founder of Opus Dei. Racist. Fascist. Holocaust Denier. Despite the fact that we know about his writings, his views, his pretension to political power, and his support of Franco, all of these facts surrounding the man have been referred to as “Black Myths.”  Catholic authorities deny that any of this happened, and call anyone who dares point out indisputable facts “anti-catholic.” Just like those laws about birth control.

Ireland: O’Duffy’s Blue Shirts

But it wasn’t just Spanish Catholics who supported Franco, either. The current Irish Conservative party, Fine Gael, was founded in part by another catholic fanatic, and an admirer of Benito Mussolini. His name was Eoin O’Duffy.

In the Early 1930s, O’Duffy had taken command of a paramilitary organization and reorganized them into what he called the National Guard. They fought running street battles with the IRA for most of the 30s. They were known as the Blueshirts, and were a Fascist organization on par with the UK’s BUF or Mousollini’s Blackshirts. In August of 1933, O’Duffy planned a march on Dublin. The president of the Irish Republic, Eamon De Valera, banned the march, and ordered the military to stop it. He wrote later that at that moment he recalled Mussolini’s march on Rome and expected a coup. Neither he nor his government knew if the military would agree to carry out their commands.

In the end, O’Duffy backed down, eventually uniting his blueshirts with another opposition party to form Fine Gael. The Catholic Church gave quite a lot of support to Francoism and O’Duffy’s political party. Thankfully, the other parties which had joined the Fine Gael coalition wanted little to do with Fascism, and Expelled O’Duffy, who left with a number of his supporters to form an ultra-fascist National Corporatist Party, and his Blueshirts became Greenshirts.

He took his paramilitary forces with him to fight for Franco in the Spanish Civil War. It was a dark day in Irish History when a group of bishops blessed O’Duffy’s Greenshirts who departed from Dun Laoghaire on a German ship, flying the Swastika.

O’Duffy returned to find that his National Corporatist Party had collapsed. O’Duffy was part of a group of IRA extremists who met with the German Abwehr to attempt to set up recruiting for the Russian Front. Thankfully nothing came of it.

O’Duffy’s health failed, and he died in November of 1944. Because of his heroism during the Irish Civil War, when he led an IRA Geurilla group, he was given a state funeral, and a requiem mass was held for him in the Dublin Pro-Cathedral.

Frank Ryan and the 15th International Brigade also traveled to Spain, to fight against Franco and O’Duffy. They were defeated, and Ryan was captured. He escaped to Germany where he operated as double agent under the name Frank Richard, and interfered with German attempts to recruit Irishmen into Hitler’s ranks. He didn’t have to do much interfering, actually, as the German attempts were fairly incompetent. He died in June of 1944, and was buried in Dresden. His remains were returned to Ireland in 1971.

So Frank Ryan, the man who Fought Fascism, lay forgotten in Dresden for thirty years, while the Fascist O’Duffy received a state funeral and requiem mass. Throughout it all, Catholic Priests were expounding on the war with communism, and supporting Franco’s National Catholicism in Spain.

Croatia: Forced Conversions and Genocide under the Ustaše

Not many people know about the Ustaše and its leader, Ante Pavelić. Before 1941, the organization was a radical fascist terrorist group. But when Axis powers invaded, it was given control of Croatia by the Nazis. They shared Hitler’s goal of ethnic cleansing.

Their plan, which they began enacting in 1941, decreed that one third of the Serbs in Croatia would be killed. They specifically targeted the Intelligentsia, all non-catholic religious leaders, all businessmen, all master tradesmen, all figures of cultural importance such as musicians and authors, and anyone else who might have some importance. Another third of the Serbs were to be expelled to aid in ethnic cleansing. The final third would be converted to Catholicism at gunpoint.

The Ustaše were radically catholic, and their leader had personally received a blessing and audience from Pope Pius in Rome just after his ascension to power. Pope Pius wrote of the church’s unique opportunity to reestablish the medieval church/state relationship, and his ministers referred to the ethnic cleansing as Croatia’s “Teething Pains.” The Ustaše’s plan for forced conversions could not have been successful without the participation of Catholic clergy. Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac and other Catholics eventually opposed the regime, but refused to publicly condemn the Ustaše until most of the Serbian Jews were already dead, and supported the forced conversions.

Without the support of the Catholic Church, the Ustaše would never have been able to move from a terrorist organization into an effective government. Indeed, Stepinac had originally welcomed the Ustaše to power, meeting with the leaders even before the surrender and defeat of the lawful Yugoslavian government. The Ustaše’s stated intent to ethnically cleanse Croatia was clear, but the Catholic Church maintained ties with the Ustaše through 1943, when Pope Pius again met with Ante Pavelić. Many catholic clergy directly participated in the extermination and forced conversion. One of the most famous of these was Miroslav Filopovic, a Fransiscan Priest, who ended up as the commandant of a concentration camp. The Croatian Catholic Movement, and Catholic Action, both catholic laity organizations, were mobilized to take part in the Genocide. Stepinac cooperated with all of this.

It was Later in 1943, when the Ustaše had almost completed their plan for the extermination of Serbian Jews, that the Archbishop finally spoke, weakly, against the activities of the Ustaše. The sermons and statements against mass killings did not directly mention the Serbs.

When Tito’s partisans defeated the Ustaše, Stepinac was tried for war crimes. It was portrayed in the west as a show trial, and all of  the Catholics who participated in the trial, including the majority of the jury, were excommunicated by the pope. Stepinac was imprisoned for collaborating with the Ustaše, but was released by the Communist government in an attempt to garner the good will of Croatian Catholics.

Despite the fact that Stepinac gave consistent support to the Ustaše, and the totality of his storied resistance was to ask, pretty please, if they could stop killing people, while allowing his own clergy to participate in the genocide and become the commandants of concentration camps, he is remembered as someone who stood up to the Nazis. He was called a martyr by Pope John Paul II.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center had asked that the Beatification be postponed until a full historical review of Stepinac’s actions could take place, but their request was ignored. The truth is, we just don’t know who Stepinac was, where his loyalties were, or the effect he had on the Serbian holocaust. There are some Croatian Jewish groups who say that Stepinac did in fact help the Jewish population, but those claims are treated with suspicion by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Yad Vashem, both of which consider him to be a Nazi Collaborator. We also know that Tito’s partisans included Serbs who were fairly brutal towards many Catholics in revenge for the genocide. Several hundred priests were killed by the partisans, though many of them were serving with the Ustase as chaplains. I don’t know how many, and sources on what really happened are still difficult to find in English. From my research, he appears to have been a collaborator, and appears to be complicit in Genocide. This may not be the case, but I could not find significant evidence to the contrary, other than a few relatively gutless statements.

So despite the fact that he appears to have done little good, is seen by many Jews as a collaborator and participated in a Fascist government, Stepinac is considered a sainted martyr, while those Catholics who testified to his actions in (an admittedly communist) court, were excommunicated.

I could go on, but this post is already far, far too long. I also planned to discuss the Fanatically Catholic Hungarian Arrow Cross Party, who slaughtered 100,000 Jews while being in power for only three months, sending death squads into nursing homes, hospitals, and ghettos. They received support from some priests for their anti-communist actions, as communism was seen by many Hungarians as a Jewish phenomenon. I already mentioned Belgian Rexism. There are others, too, that I studied in order to write this diary.

The notable exception is Poland, where Catholics were victims, but the Vatican has treated this as the rule, when history seems to say it is the exception. I have intentionally avoided filling this diary with pictures of priests giving the fascist salute, but we’ve all seen those photographs many times, and the information here is already inflammatory enough.

The fact is that most of the fascist parties across continental Europe during included a great many Catholics, who saw Fascism as a way to combat Communism. In many cases the Nazi parties were nothing less than Catholic political parties, supported by the local priesthood, and Pope Pius in Rome. The core ideology that linked Catholicism to Fascism came directly from Franco’s Spain. The same place where  the ideas for Opus Dei were developed and refined.

The truth, it seems, is that the Catholic Church was not superior to any other organization in Fascist Europe. It was not just Churches and Priests that became Fascist, but Businesses, Stores, Schools, Newspapers, Professors, Architects, Scientists, and almost every other institution, profession, or organization. Because that’s what fascism did. It took over everything, absolutely everything, and the Catholic church was no different.

This revisionist history that somehow the church was different from everything else and stood strong against the tide is a lie, plain and simple. It’s wishful thinking.

The good news is that almost all of the radical catholic fascist groups and parties either no longer exist, or have been commuted into relatively harmless “christian democrat” parties, such as Fine Gael in Ireland. They’ve let go of being exclusively Catholic, and are now simply the remains of Anticommunism in Europe. Many of them are about as left wing as the Democratic party. Many Christian Democrat parties have no roots in Catholic Fascism, though they shared its anticommunist goals, such as Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats.

Despite all this progress, there is one Catholic Fascist organization which still survives today:

Opus Dei.

The goal of fascism was to have the state take over every aspect of ordinary life. To live under a fascist state was to be part of the state itself. Family life, social life, and the professional world were all absorbed into state and party identity in fascist societies. The intent, ultimately, was for to make it impossible to have an individual life or identity outside of the context of the state.

This is the case, too, with Saint Escriva’s Opus Dei:

From Wikipedia: Opus Dei emphasises the “universal call to holiness”: the belief that everyone should aspire to be a saint, that sanctity is within the reach of everyone, not just a few special individuals. Opus Dei does not have monks or nuns, and only a minority of its members are part of the priesthood. A related characteristic is Opus Dei’s emphasis on uniting spiritual life with professional, social, and family life. Members of Opus Dei lead ordinary lives, with traditional families and secular careers, and strive to “sanctify ordinary life”.

In the same way that a fascist state sought to unite the state with professional, social, and family life, Opus Dei wishes the church to do the same. The intent is to destroy any sense of individual identity outside of the Catholic Church.

The ideas of this organization are uniquely neofascist, though they seem to have modernized enough to dispense with the ideas of ethnic superiority. It’s no surprise, again, that the Catholic archbishop leading the charge against prophylactics is a leading member of Opus Dei.

Jose Gomez is the Archbishop of Los Angeles, and one of the first Opus Dei leaders to be given a position of significant ecclesiastical authority. In the past few months he has fought for a California Ballot initiative which requires doctors to inform a teenager’s parents if she’s attempting to have an abortion, saying “Who could possibly oppose such a reasonable law?” He has called  birth control Tyranny, and described the church as the last line of defense. He has held a requiem mass for aborted zygotes. And was the key player behind our current storm in a teacup over birth control.

The reason, ultimately, why Archbishop Gomez has been silent on Troy Davis and other issues where the Catholic Church is in agreement with the Democratic party, is that Gomez is completely uninterested in Catholic theology or doing the work of God. What Archbishop Gomez is interested in is exactly what the founder of Opus Dei was interested in: Politcal Power. It’s about controlling rank-and-file Catholics. It’s about exercising political power. It is about once again uniting the power of the Church with the power of the State, as it was in Franco’s Spain.

Update: I have been provided with links showing that I have been somewhat unfair to Gomez. Catholic Bishops have in fact spoken out on the death penalty, Gomez included. H/t to irishwitch and Villanova Rhodes for the catch.

None of this, though it may be inflammatory, is meant to condemn all Catholics, or the whole of the Catholic Church. Indeed, most Catholics aren’t members of Opus Dei. Most Catholics are relatively normal people, who use birth control and aren’t particularly theocratic. Most Catholics are catholic because they don’t want a church as controlling or touchy-feely as a number of protestant denominations. The services are shorter, and there’s a clear set of things you’re supposed to do. They see it as easier. A lot of my catholic family members see the church as a way of relating to god without all the drama of Protestantism. I can respect that.

Catholics have done plenty of good. For every priest who supported the Nazis, there was another who sheltered Jews. The problem is that most of the Bishops who supported fascism and used fascist methods to acquire power ended up being sainted, while the priests and nuns who fought fascism and focused on doing good for their people and communities are much less well-known, and many of them ended up forgotten in unmarked graves.

In the same way, rank-and-file priests and nuns fought the American propaganda machine convincing the public that everyone could easily survive a nuclear war. This action on the part of Catholics did more, in my mind, to prevent Nuclear war than any other action, because it prevented the government from telling a lie that would make a nuclear first-strike politically acceptable. Many of these priests have since left or been forced out of the Church, while the priests and bishops who opposed them have been elevated to positions of power. There are elderly catholic clergy in prison in the US right now for protesting nuclear weapons.

The problem with the Catholic church is that powerful conservatives are being elevated, while priests who simply want to be servants of the human race are being ignored – or worse – prevented from teaching peace and social justice.

The only people who can stop this process are rank-and-file Catholics. And for them, it will be a hard road.

The laity has almost no power within the catholic church, except for one thing. They’re the ones that attend the services, and they’re the ones who tithe. I’m no Catholic, and I wouldn’t know how to go about fighting the authority (which clearly needs to be fought) but I would suggest refusing to Tithe until the Church reverses its current policies.

If I were catholic, I would refuse to give the church a single red cent until:

1. Jose Gomez is removed from power, and Opus Dei is banned from the church as a neofascist organization. 2. The church ceases exclusively right-wing political intervention, and begins living up to its views on the sanctity of life, such as intervening on the part of people like Troy Davis. 3. The church ceases its protection of paedophiles. 4. The church allows priests to marry. 5. The church allows the ordination of women. 6. The church ceases its persecution of LGBTs. 7. The church accepts the necessity of birth control in a world wracked by famine, and localized overpopulation.

The list goes on. Catholics, I can’t make the list for you, and you might disagree with some of the items on this list, and that’s okay. I can’t fight this fight for you. But if you step out and fight the authority, I promise I will have your back. I will write about you and draw attention to your fight. I don’t know if that means anything, and I hope it does.

Because I know something that some progressives refuse to accept: the only cure for right-wing religion, is progressive religion. If we can get the churches of the world focused on curing the sick, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, and visiting and supporting prisoners – you know, “the least of these,” and all that other Jesus Stuff – we’ll be living in a better world. But we have to convince them to stop attacking innocent people first.

So Catholics? Let me know how I can help. Because I see the problem, and can point out the people behind the problem, and I can write about the history of the problem, but only you guys can lead this particular charge.

Historiographical NoteThis is a very difficult topic to write about for a number of reasons. First, the Catholic Church does not want to believe that its members, priests, and bishops were complicit in or integral to the fascist governments and parties of the 1930’s and 40’s. There is also quite a bit of anticatholic pseudohistory written about these issues. The response by catholic scholars is overwhelmingly denialist, and argues that the Catholic church was as much a victim of the times as every other religious organization.

There is a way to sort the fact from fiction, and it’s to examine some very specific sources.

First, reading the writings and letters of priests and others who opposed and were horrified by the Nazis. We find in the writings of nonpolitical or leftwing priests statements of disgust in reference to the actions of right wing Catholics. It is the statements of current, active priests that I find the most trustworthy for the sake of historical argument. The statements you read by Saint Escriva on Hitler are not sourced to a recovering catholic, or someone who left the priesthood, or someone who has an axe to grind, they’re sourced to a Catholic Priest in London who knew him.

Indeed, many of the Catholic critics do not criticize the history, facts, or sources, they criticize the people writing the history. Rather than dispute the history, which is fairly clear, many of the deniers argue that the historians are simply writing a political hatchet work because they hate Catholics and Catholicism.

In my research, I have done my best to avoid sources which might be even slightly biased towards anticatholic pseudohistory, and have instead relied on scholarly works from people who don’t care about catholicism, or on accounts from people who despite their experiences remained Catholic. I think this is the best way to come to a position which can’t be argued away by Catholic Apologists as an anti-catholic assault. One of the best books on the subject is searchable in google books here. Wikipedia links have been provided, but remember to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, as many of the articles on these subjects are very poorly cited and constructed.

I will reiterate one point about my politics. I am not and never will be Anti-Catholic, though unless there are significant changes in the Church’s theology, I can’t see myself ever agreeing with the Catholic church. I count a great many Catholics among my friends and family. I am and always will be antifascist, and that means opposing Opus Dei and organizations like it with everything I have.

Orthodox Jews Arrested for Medicaid Fraud


Monsey – 3 Orthodox Jews Arrested for Medicaid fraud

Continuing Rockland County crackdown on welfare fraud resulted in the arrests of 10 more people on accusations of filing false documentation to get more than $42,000 in state and federal social service benefits administered through the county government.
Most of those charged — including two married couples — face charges of of third-degree grand larceny or third-degree welfare fraud. Both felony charges carry a prison sentence ranging from 1 1/3 to seven years in prison, along with probation and restitution.
In previous cases during the past four years, the Rockland District Attorney’s Office has pressed for
restitution of pilfered funds from dozens of people, as opposed to prison sentences. Prosecutors also sought probationary sentences and some jail terms.
Rooting out fraud helps ensure the integrity of the programs and those who legally qualify for social services, whether it’s food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment, and other programs, authorities said.
“Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment benefits are all finite resources of critical importance,” District Attorney Thomas Zugibe said Tuesday. “These individuals not only cheated the system, but also cheated law-abiding Rockland County taxpayers who play by the rules.
The 10 people were arrested following an investigation by the Rockland Special Investigations Unit, with assistance from the Rockland Social Services Department, the state Labor Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of the Inspector General.
The collaboration began after Zugibe took office in January 2008, starting with more than 40 arrests and an offer of amnesty for those who admitted fraud and paid back the money. Few people took advantage of the amnesty offer in 2008. Officials estimated up to 70 people have been arrested since.
In the latest investigation, the 10 people charged are accused of concocting various schemes to steal welfare benefits, including underreporting income, concealing either home or business ownership or both, using false names and bogus Social Security information, and providing misleading household composition.
Astrel Auborg, 50, and her husband, Georges Falaise, 48, of 50 Springbrook Road, Nanuet, each charged with third-degree grand larceny in the theft of $6,569.
John Corry, 58, of 199 Goebel Road, New City, with third-degree grand larceny in the theft of $3,146.
Michael Lafuentes, 32, of 9 Overlook Road, New City, with third-degree welfare fraud in the theft of $6,743.
Chana Landau, 33, and her husband, Israel Landau, 37, both of 63 Carlton Road, Monsey, each charged with third-degree welfare fraud in the theft of $3,513.
Corwin Moore, 39, of 110 Union Road, Apt. 1E, Spring Valley, with fourth-degree grand larceny in the theft of $2,002.
Naftali Wagschal, 29, of 6 Horizon Court, Monsey, with third-degree welfare fraud in the theft of $4,167.
Jonathan Desvarieux, 24, of 311 N. Main St., Spring Valley, with third-degree grand larceny in the theft of $12,887.
Angela Smartt, 44, of 5 George St., Apt. 5, Spring Valley, with third-degree grand larceny in the theft of $3,516.
The latest arrests — with people ranging in age from 24 to 58 and from around the country — involves accusations of theft from $2,002 to $12,887 between 2008 and 2011.
Zugibe said that in one case, Jonathan Desvarieux, 24, of 311 N. Main St., Spring Valley, is accused of falsely reporting that he was unemployed when recertifying eligibility for Social Services-Medicaid benefits between September 2009 and February 2011.
An investigation revealed that he was working at a Dunkin’ Donuts location in Rockland during the same period, Zugibe said, and received benefits totaling $12,887 to which he was not entitled.

Yarmulke Wearing Sex Trafficker Gets 8 Year Sentence


Sex Trafficker Gets 8 Year Sentence

Glenn Marcus

Told that the man who tortured her wore a yarmulke  to court for the first time Monday, Jodi chuckled. “That makes me  laugh,” she said.

Glenn Marcus

Victim of sex trafficker Glenn Marcus tells tormenter she carries ‘scars of torture’ Marcus sentenced to 8 years in prison John Marzulli • NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

A former sex slave turned the tables on her tormentor in a Brooklyn court Monday, delivering a verbal lashing before a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison.
“I walk around and carry the physical scars of the torture you put me through. The cigarette burns, the knife carvings, the piercings,” the woman, referred to in court simply as Jodi, told Glenn Marcus.

“How a human being can see humor in the torture, manipulation and brainwashing of another human being is beyond comprehension. You have given me a life sentence.”
Marcus, 58, had appealed his sex trafficking and forced labor conviction all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to Brooklyn for resentencing.

Facing more than 20 years for torturing Jodi after she tried to break off their master-slave relationship, Marcus asked for a nonjail sentence so he could care for his elderly mother in their suburban Long Island home.

Marcus appeared bored — and his adult daughter snickered audibly in the gallery — as Jodi described needing counseling for depression, panic attacks and posttraumatic stress disorder.

“I suffer from nightmares in which I wake up reliving the horror of what you did to me,” Jodi said through a speakerphone in Brooklyn Federal Judge Allyne Ross’ courtroom.

“You, Glenn Marcus, have single-handedly destroyed my life; your self-centeredness, your hatred and extreme violence toward women has impacted my life.”

Jodi later told the Daily News she had been eager to confront Marcus in person, but an ear infection barred her from flying in from her new home out of state.
“He has no remorse, no regret and no sympathy. That’s who he is,” she said. “I don’t think he’ll ever change.”

Told that the Svengali she met on the Internet in 1998 wore a yarmulke to court for the first time Monday, Jodi chuckled. “That makes me laugh,” she said.
She used to call Marcus “God” — he called her “It” — but now, she says, she sees him as “evil personified.”

After they met, they played consensual games until the summer of 2001, when she tried to leave and he unleashed horrible violence on her in the basement of a friend’s house in Hewlett, L.I.

During the 2007 trial, Jodi testified he went medieval on her: he hogtied her and suspended her from a ceiling pipe, pierced her tongue with a surgical needle, whipped her and left her hanging for hours.

The attacks continued when he sealed her inside a garment bag, mutilated her genitals, stuffed a plastic ball in her mouth and carved the word “slave” in her abdomen and his initials into the soles of her feet, she said.

After the graphic trial, Marcus was sentenced in 2007 to nine years in prison. His conviction was reversed in 2008, and he was released from prison on $1 million bail on Jan. 7, 2009. Before Monday, he had been living at home.

At Marcus’ new sentencing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Pamela Chen urged the judge to throw the book at Marcus.
Home confinement with his mother would be an “insult to the continuing injury of the victim,” Chen argued.

She said Marcus is likely to continue participating in bondage and S&M activities, which makes him a continued danger to nonconsenting victims.
Then the judge sentenced Marcus to eight years, revoked his $1 million bail and had him hauled off in the custody of U.S. marshals.

His 82-year-old mother, Belle, who told the judge in a sealed letter that she does not want to live with her other son in Pennsylvania, will go to a nursing home.
Nearly five years ago, Marcus rejected a plea deal that carried no jail time, insisting the sex games were consensual.
“My client maintains his innocence,” said defense attorney Mildred Whalen.

Jodi said she was pleased Marcus was back in prison.
“Although nothing can compensate for what he did to me, I am very satisfied with the sentence,” she told The News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/sm-svengali-glenn-marcus-_n_318637.html

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/marcus.htm

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/glenn_marcus/11-the-appeal.html

http://www.care2.com/news/member/616982338/3127469

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/victim-sex-trafficker-glenn-marcus-tells-tormenter-carries-cars-torture-article-1.1033743

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/23/supreme-court-hear-sex-offender-case-sotomayor-set-aside-lower-court/

 

 

Jewish Superstitious Penis Blood Sucking Ritual Kills Another Baby


Jewish Superstitious Penis Blood Sucking Ritual Kills Another Baby

Family Of Dead Baby Killed By Bris Stonewalls Cops, Health Department

Maimonides Medical Center Brooklyn

An infant died at Maimonides Medical Center on Sept. 28 from herpes contracted from metzitzah b’peh performed during a bris milah, circumcision. But the family of the dead boy is refusing to cooperate with the investigation into their son’s death.

Maimonides Medical Center Brooklyn

Family stonewalling authorities after newborn dies from herpes contracted in ritual circumcision Sources in Orthodox Jewish community say baby’s parents were related to herpes-infected rabbi who did circumcision By Simone Weichselbaum And Reuven Blau • NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

An infant died at Maimonides Medical Center on Sept. 28 from herpes contracted during a ritual circumcision.

Authorities are being stonewalled by the family of a newborn boy who died after contracting herpes through a controversial religious circumcision ritual, the Daily News has learned.

Multiple sources in the Orthodox Jewish community said the 2-week-old boy’s parents were related to a herpes-infected rabbi who conducted the circumcision according to tradition — using one’s mouth to remove blood from the wound.

The Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office is investigating the death and trying to identify the rabbi, or mohel, but family members have not been cooperative, sources said.
“You guys are barking up the right tree,” a law enforcement source said of word that the mohel was related to the boy. “But we don’t know yet who did what.”

City health officials have criticized the religious practice, saying that putting the open wound into contact with the mouth of the rabbi carries “inherent risks” for the infant.

The unidentified infant died at Brooklyn’s Maimonides Medical Center last Sept. 28. An autopsy listed the cause of death as “disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction,” according to a spokeswoman for the city Medical Examiner.

Mayor Bloomberg Tuesday vowed to work with the Orthodox Jewish community to prevent future tragedies.

The Immoral Rush Limbaugh and the Lord’s Resistance Army | Rush Limbaugh Defended Inhumane Christian War Criminals


The Immoral Rush Limbaugh and the Lord’s Resistance Army | Rush Limbaugh Defended Inhumane Christian War Criminals
President Obama, Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh, and the Lord’s Resistance Army
This isn’t breaking news, but in light of Rush Limbaugh’s vicious attacks on Sandra Fluke, I wanted to remind people—including companies that have recently pulled their advertising from his show—that this isn’t the first time that Mr. Limbaugh has engaged in morally reprehensible behavior. It’s good to have a couple of things in one place sometimes, lest we get distracted and forget.

Even more egregious than Limbaugh’s attack on Ms. Fluke, at least in my opinion, was his ignorant, knee-jerk defense of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) last year, apparently due to an overweening desire to smear President Obama at every opportunity. I say this not because I think President Obama needs protection from such a repugnant buffoon, but because of the legions innocent men, women, and especially children who have been brutalized by the LRA (more on them in a minute).

Do you remember this? On October 14, 2011, President Obama announced that he had ordered the deployment of 100 U.S. military advisers to help combat the Lord’s Resistance Army:

“I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield,” Obama said in letter sent Friday to House Speaker John Boehner and Daniel Inouye, the president pro tempore of the Senate. Kony is the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army.

More at CNN…

On the very same day, Limbaugh went off on one of his typically ugly rants, Obama Invades Uganda, Targets Christians (link goes to Limbaugh’s site, full transcript). He characterized them as oppressed freedom- and democracy-loving Christians fighting Muslims in Sudan, then went so far as to imply that President Obama was sending U.S. forces to kill them because they are Christian (which they’re not, at least not in any rational, practical sense—they’re savage thugs, terrorists, war criminals). He also implied that President Obama supported Muslim violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt. Read the transcript for yourself at the link above. There’s audio of the relevant parts at Media Matters if you’d prefer to listen instead (the embed code they use won’t work here).

Now, contrast that with actual factual information about about the LRA:

What is the Lord’s Resistance Army?

The Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA (PDF), is a violent rebel group led by a self-proclaimed messiah, Joseph Kony. Formed in 1987, the group was first called the Uganda People’s Democratic Christian Army but changed the name to the Lord’s Resistance Army in 1991. The fight between the Ugandan government and the LRA is one of the longest running conflicts in Africa, and the LRA is one of the most brutal forces in the world, known for targeting civilians, perhaps most notably, children it forcibly recruits to fight. Though the LRA originated in northern Uganda, it has since spread to neighboring Congo, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic.

In its early years, the LRA claimed to fight against the Ugandan government to defend the rights of the Acholi, a local ethnic group in northern Uganda. However, the LRA’s extreme brutality against fellow Acholi quickly contradicted those claims. The rebel group is notorious for murder, torture, mutilation, rape, widespread abductions of children and adults, and pillaging. […]

Since 1987 the LRA has abducted tens of thousands of children, forcing them to serve as soldiers, porters, or sex slaves.

Though they are often portrayed as a Christian fundamentalist group bent on establishing a government in Uganda based on the Ten Commandments, religion no longer practically serves as a raison d’être for the LRA; rather it is used selectively to ensure adherence to military discipline and create an environment where commanders are respected and feared. […]

More at the Christian Science Monitor…

Here’s more recent news, from today, about how over the past 30 days the LRA has been going on the attack again, this time in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The U.S. special forces trainers sent to Uganda have these monsters on the run, but they’re still deadly. God only knows how much worse things would be, how many more lives would have been lost, if they hadn’t been sent to assist:

Lord’s Resistance Army: After long silence, the US-tracked rebels attack

Its numbers may have dwindled to just 200 fighters, but the Lord’s Resistance Army continues to kill, terrorize, and displace people by the thousands.

One hundred US special forces trainers are working with the Ugandan military to put an end to the rebel group. And while they may have succeeded in sending the group on the run, the LRA has proven dangerous in its desperation.

The latest attacks have occurred in the last 30 days, with LRA attacks reported in the village of Bagulupa, 35 miles east of Dungu in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The attacks occurred on Feb. 10 and 24, and appear to have been standard raids for food. One person was killed, and 17 villagers abducted, probably for use as porters or sex slaves, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Most of the villagers of Bagulupa have fled toward the larger town of Dungu, the UNHCR says.

Fatoumata Lejeune-Kaba, the UNHCR’s spokeswoman in Geneva, voiced concern about the recent uptick in violence in the DRC, after a six-month lull in the latter part of 2011. […]

More at the Christian Science Monitor…

This is Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA):

Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army

Here is some of Joseph Kony’s handiwork:

A former abductee of the Lord’s Resistance Army

This is what Rush Limbaugh has defended. Even a contributor over at Foreign Policy was sufficiently appalled by Limbaugh’s comments to write a short piece.

I want us to have a civil society again, but as long as Americans are willing to not only tolerate—but also to even applaud or desire to emulate—the ignorant, hateful, distorted rhetoric that issues forth from the mouths of people like Rush Limbaugh, the recently deceased Andrew Breitbart, Pamela Geller, Dana Loesch, etc. then I’m afraid there’s little hope for anything approaching the civility that my parents taught me was so important as I was growing up.

By the way, I was going to include a short documentary video about Kony & the LRA from Vimeo, but while I was busy collecting & typing all this someone else posted it on another LGF Page, so I’ll just point you over there to watch it.

One last note: If you’re on Twitter #StopKony is the hashtag to use when tweeting about (or looking for info on) Joseph Kony & the LRA.

ralphieboyre: #211 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks We want maximum info for minimum words. With the main priority being on the shortness of the soundbyte. Preferably a good catch-phrase. The information content then becomes optional. Note: we are a lot more receptive… 3 minutes ago

Palin Might Run For President Because Of Raging Non-Limbaugh Misogynists


Bird Brain Sarah Palin Might Run For President Because Of Raging Non-Limbaugh Misogynists

Thanks to:- Liz Colville

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Sarah Palin went on — or should we say, was transmitted through someone’s phone-toy in the direction of — CNN during Tuesday’s Super Snoozeday parade, and proclaimed that who knows whether she’ll run for president today, tomorrow, or after the Mayan apocalypse, but anything is possible because Americans can do anything they put their minds to, emphasis on “minds” and excluding jobs. Later on, while Romney was disappointing America, CNN spent a good portion of the long process of cell degeneration we call life talking about Palin some more, with what little comprehensible English was made available by her mouth yesterday. Conclusion: Sarah Palin is an alive person. Plus, hates misogynists as long as they are liberal.

Seeing as Election 2012 is like a very long airplane ride from which there is no escape and very poor in-flight entertainment or food, we may as well delve into this one-inch-deep story, as we delve into movies like “What’s Your Number?” or “The Help” when they are the only ones Delta is allowing us to see tinily through our dehydrated Brut goggles.

Disregarding the fact that if nobody asked Sarah Palin if she’ll run for president, she probably never would (trees falling in forests and all that), Palin Tuesday responded to CNN’s deeply unoriginal question by saying:

As I say, anything is possible. And I don’t close any doors that perhaps would be open out there. So, no, I wouldn’t close that door. And my plan is to be at that convention.

Here’s a video, with Sarah looking very mineral powdery and happy-angry.

The subplot of this family fun is that Sarah Palin was not excited about Barack Obama pandering to tears with his “I made a phone call to Sandra Fluke” comment. Mr. Man said he felt for Fluke re: Limbaugh because he has daughters or something. So Palin released a statement telling Obama to return the money that Bill Maher (a “rabid misogynist,” according to Palin, because he once called her a “c—,” which, yes, that was too bad) donated to one of Obama’s super PACs to the tune of one million dollars. Anyway, linking to FOX NOOSE for this only to show everybody that the Fox website has been redesigned to look like the Constitution.

Palin closed out the iPhone clip with these words, directed at CNN, which sum up everything nicely:

I APPRECIATE U. [Houston Chronicle/Fox News]

Hate Zealot Pamela Geller’s Fixation With Sandra Fluke’s Vagina


Pamela Geller‘s Fixation With Sandra Fluke’s Vagina

Pamela Geller: ‘I’ve Had It Up to Here With Sandra Fluke’s Vagina’
Crazy hater just keeps ranting
Thanks to:- Charles Johnson

After his repellent misogynistic comments about law student Sandra Fluke, almost all of Rush Limbaugh’s major advertisers have dropped his show like a hot potato.

In response, a weird hush has fallen over most of the right wing blogosphere; they seem to have realized that when 32 major advertisers bail out on Rush Limbaugh, it might not be very smart to keep trying to defend him.

But who ever accused anti-Muslim hate group leader Pamela Geller of being smart? She’s still in auto-hate mode, spitting venom at Sandra Fluke like a deranged street person.

Today, Geller triples down on her hate speech, calls Sandra Fluke a “fraud” and a “pig” and “an embarrassment to decent young women,” says she was “planted” by nefarious hidden forces (probably Obama himself), and then offers a freakishly bizarre analogy about Wal-Mart handbags vs. Hermes handbags to explain … something.

FRAUD FLUKE’S OBAMA-ENDORSED VAJ!!!!! – Atlas Shrugs

  

SKELETOR‘S TWIN – PAMELA GELLER

Update: I removed the photo that Atlas reader Leon Blue sent from daleygator via facebook — looks photoshopped.

I have had it up to here with Fluke’s vagina. Seriously. Clearly she’s a plant. I don’t have to exalt or honor women who debase and lower themselves to meat status. I will not honor this pig. I will not teach children to debase themselves. I will not teach children that this is “empowerment.”

I explain it to young girls this way. Go into any Wal-Mart or Target. There are hundreds of black handbags for sale in bins, hung on display walls, all cheap or moderately priced, and they can’t give them away.

Now go into Hermes. There is one black, gorgeous, impossible to get, crocodile Birkin bag. There are waiting lists for this bag. No one can get that bag. It costs a fortune and still everyone wants that bag.

Be that bag.

I despise the women’s movement. I despise what they have done to women (and men). Just look at Fluke. She is a full-fledged activist and an embarrasment to decent young women…

And worse, the President of the United States called her to congratulate her and tell her how proud he was of her. Who has done more harm to the status of American women then [sic] feminists? How they destroyed our standing, respect, and reverence we held not forty, fifty years ago.

Oh, and that photo she removed when she figured out it wasn’t actually a BOMBSHELL scoop, but a lame photoshop job? Here it is:

The Twisted Twins | Catholic Fascist Warmongers Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum


Bomb! Bomb! Bomb!!!!!!!  . . .   Bomb! Bomb Iran!!!!! (Christian Warmongers, Good Catholic Boys Div.)

by Rev. Paul McKay

SANTORUM & GINGRICH HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TORTURE AND THE CASUAL DROPPING OF BOMBS THAT WILL DESTROY THE LIVES OF SCORES OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN; THESE ARE A COUPLE OF REALLY, REALLY VIOLENT, HATEMONGERING, WARMONGERING CATHOLICS AND WE CANNOT LET THESE PEOPLE GET US INTO ANOTHER CATASTROPHIC AND VIOLENT WORLD EVENT; SPEAK OUT, PEACEMAKERS: SPEAK OUT LOUD AND CLEAR AGAINST THIS MADNESS WITH ME

For Catholics who purport to care so deeply and passionately for the sanctity of life–for Catholics who claim to be all about the Catholic Church’s teachings–the Rick Santorums and Newt Gingriches of the world sure do talk casually about nuking people.

Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church were adamantly opposed to the mere invasion of Iraq, remember? So much so that the Pope dispatched an old Bush family friend and Catholic clergyman to try to persuade Bush that invading Iraq could in no way be justified on any Christian or moral grounds whatsoever.

At least President Bush heard out the old family Catholic friend before dismissing him with that typical Bush absolutism. (Absolutely to the right on war and peace.) Bush, a United Methodist (who left the Episcopal Church largely because of Laura’s Methodist ties and because “the Episcopalians kneel too much! he! he!”), turned a totally deaf ear to the United Methodist Bishops who joined every other mainline Protestant denomination in virtually begging him not to go venturing off on an unjust and unnecessary war.

Now, the Santorums and Gingriches of the world talk casually about dropping bombs–nuclear, no less–on Iran with no evidence to justify such draconian action (Ron Paul is right about that–walleyed crazy Ron Paul is right about a lot of things, not that I could ever vote for him except as a protest vote).

It seems to be lost on these Catholic politicos that their own Catholic Church, which they say they love and they defend so vigorously, extends the sanctity of life to all life–not just to life in the womb. It’s why the Vatican predictably speaks out loud and clear and justifiably every time there is a scheduled execution of a death row inmate in this country. It’s why the Vatican consistently opposes torture which Santorum and Gingrich have no prob with.

For all their problems and all the weird and twisted theology they have, in my humble opinion–as I noted in a recent posting, the theology of “every sperm is sacred” ain’t my deal–the Catholics at least are consistent on the sacredness of life and viewing a life as created in the very image of God. Santorum and Gingrich seem to think a lot of lives are born in the image of a literal Satan that doesn’t even literally exist (again, that opinion is my own humble and theologically informed opinion–send your nasty disagreements to revpaulmckay@gmail.com and put your name on your nastiness if you want to tell me how misguided a Christian I am because I don’t believe in a ridiculous literal Satan).

The Santorums and Gingriches speak as if they have no respect for their own church’s teachings and preachings whatsoever when they start fanning the flames of war. They speak of bombing without so much as any moral perspective. You won’t hear them say, “As much as I hate war, as much as I would tremble at the heavy responsibility of taking lives and wreaking havoc in the world, I would do it out of moral concern for the greater good of saving other lives.”

Nope, you won’t hear that kind of moral and Christian equivocating, acknowledging that people will suffer and die—living, breathing human beings outside of wombs–will be maimed if not killed and killed in the most gruesome way possible with nukes melting their bodies down. They won’t approach their violent positions on countries like Iran with any perspective on of the scores of innocent men, women and children who will be left starving, without shelter or clean water to subsist on.

And of course, they are clueless as to how kids growing up in Iran will see the U.S. as maybe being “the Great Satan” that their crazy ass dictator loud mouth clowns portrayed.

Kids in Iran want American Apple gizmos and cool blue jeans.

Bomb the country and kids in Iran will hate America’s guts because the Santorums and Gingriches didn’t give a shit if they and their loved ones lived or died.

I’m sorry, but Santorum and Gingrich are some really twisted sisters and haters.

And we can’t let the haters win.

Speak your voice.

Right Wing Fox News Harpy Claims Jews Worst Enemies of the Country


Right Wing Fox News Harpy Claims Jews Worst Enemies of the Country

Sandy Rios Says Secular Jews Have Been ‘The Worst Enemies of the Country’
      Submitted by Brian Tashman on Mon, 03/05/2012 – 3:55pm

The American Family Association recently hired Fox News contributor and former Concerned Women for America president Sandy Rios to host her own show on American Family Radio, and here’s what we get to look forward to: attacks on Jewish Americans for supporting President Obama. Earlier today she spoke with the AFA’s Tim Wildmon and Bryan Fischer, where she suggested that secular Jews are enemies of America. Rios bemoaned that “the Jewish vote in this country is so confused, so many of the Jews in this country are atheist and their hearts are with this President.” “They’re far-left,” Wildmon said, “Most of the Jews in this country are far left, unfortunately.”  Rios said that “a lot of Jewish atheists are some of the ones who have done, just like former Christians or quasi Christians, people who have some dealing with Judeo-Christian ethics, sometimes turn out to be the worst enemies of the country.”

Later on in the show, Rios said that “there are very few” religious people in Israel, “by and large Israel is an atheistic country, they don’t really believe in the God of their fathers, there’s no question about that,” and maintained that Christians must “evangelize and pray for our Jewish brothers and sisters.”

The Lunatic Ravings of Birther Crackpot Sheriff Joe Arpaio


There’s Something in the Water in Maricopa County

Breaking news on the batshit crazy front Wingnuts
Via Charles Johnson

Here’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County, where there must be something in the water, explaining that the birth certificate for Barack Obama released by the White House was forged, and pledging to bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice. And if you have the gall to criticize him for being a conspiracy-minded loon, “there’s something wrong.”

In another section of this bizarre event, Arpaio said that he has identified “a person of interest” in the case. Weapons grade idiocy, from a pretty highly placed elected official.

More from this pathetic spectacle:

So his career has to be over now, right? Oh wait, Arizona.

Live Video: Sheriff Arpaio’s Ridiculous Birther Press Conference

Idiotfest in Arizona Wingnuts
Via Charles Johnson

Arizona’s far right Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now holding a press conference to announce the findings in his utterly stupid investigation into the dreaded birth certificate of Barack Obama. Here’s the live video feed, so we can all make fun of it.

Right now, there’s a moron explaining that the “optimization” and “layers” and “white halos” in the scanned document prove it’s a sinister forgery by the Impersonator in Chief.

[Surreal crypto-racist event now finished, video removed.]