Posts Tagged “2016 presidential election”

Letter sent to CA mosques: 'To the Children of Satan,|You muslims are a vile and filthy people. Your mothers are whores and your fathers are dogs. You are evil. You worship the devil. But, your day of reckoning has arrived.|There is a new Sheriff in town -- President Donald Trump. He's going to cleanse America and make it shine again. And he's going to start with you muslims. He's going to do to you want Hitler did to the jews. You muslims would be wise to pack your bags and get out of Dodge.|This is a great time for Patriotic Americans. Love live President Trump and God bless the USA!|Americans for a Better Way' / via Washington PostIn addition to fueling the rise of the “alt-right” and white nationalism, the election of Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump has brought out the bigotry and hate that’s been simmering out there for decades. The incoming president ran on a platform of barring all Muslims entry to the US (WebCite cached article), so naturally that’s breathed new life into the movement I call “the Great Neocrusade” — i.e. a Religious Right effort to abolish Islam from the US and drive out all Muslims.

(Granted, many doubt the Groper-in-Chief will be able to carry out this promise … but that’s not relevant here. He made the promise, and many Americans expect he’ll carry it out. The reality of actually implementing it is something neither the Groper-in-Chief nor any of his fanbois are interested in.)

The result of this is that hateful Neocrusaders have been emboldened, and are becoming more overt and confrontational. For example, as the Washington Post reports, three California mosques got threatening letters (cached):

Letters threatening that President-elect Donald Trump will do to Muslims what Adolf Hitler “did to the Jews” were sent to three California mosques last week, according to the Council on Islamic-American Relations, or CAIR.

The handwritten letter, which referred to Muslims as “children of Satan,” were mailed to Islamic centers in San Jose in Northern California and Long Beach and Pomona in Southern California. It called Trump the “new sherriff [sic] in town” who will “cleanse America and make it shine again” by eradicating the country’s Muslim population.

“You Muslims are a vile and filthy people. Your mothers are whores and your fathers are dogs,” the letter states. “You are evil. You worship the devil. But, your day of reckoning has arrived.”

The letter went on to say that Muslims “would be wise to pack your bags and get out of Dodge.”

There have been widespread reports of many other incidents of hate, in the wake of the Groper-in_-Chief’s election. Unfortunately, it’s not yet clear whether there has been an actual uptick in such incidents (cached).

Even so, it’s clear someone out there has chosen the arrival of “a new sheriff in town” as a signal that s/he should send letters to mosques threatening a Muslim Holocaust. And s/he did it not just once, but three times.

Yes, these are the sorts of things the Groper-in-Chief’s fanbois are willing to do, in the name of “making America great again.” Not that threatening a Muslim Holocaust will ever make America great — but clearly they think it will.

Photo credit: Washington Post.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 1 Comment »

'The Visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon', oil on canvas painting by Edward Poynter, 1890, Art Gallery of New South WalesChristians really despise what they call “moral relativism” — i.e. the notion that morality is decided by humans and not dictated from on high by the Almighty. The result, Christians claim, is a moral and ethical “free for all” with individuals deciding their own morals and ethics. They say this allows people to grant themselves license to misbehave, denying their deity’s role as the sole arbiter of morals (WebCite cached article). But even so, that doesn’t prevent these same Christians from engaging in moral relativism, themselves!

Perhaps no event has brought this relativism to light better than the revelation of Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump’s “hot mic” moment from the 1990s (cached) … which you, Dear Reader, no doubt have heard more about than you care to already. Keeping in mind that what Donnie talked about, in that moment, was — as vice president Joe Biden explained, candidly (cached) — sexual assault, it’s true that some Rightists have disavowed him, and some have even expressly revoked their endorsements (cached). Yes, at long last, some folks on that side of the aisle have finally recognized that Donnie is an infantile man-child, 70 years old going on seven months.

Yet, many others are standing firm with him and refuse to acknowledge there’s anything wrong with Donnie bragging about how he could assault any woman he wants and get away with it because he’s a star. Most of these are devout Religious Rightists who profess high morals. Among those who’ve doubled down in their defense of little Donnie is Sean Hannity of Fox News (cached):

Here, Seanie displays his ability to rationalize Donnie’s hypersexed frat-boy bravado using a variant of fallacious appeal to tradition: The legendary King Solomon, you see, had a whopping 300 concubines (in addition to 700 wives who were princesses). So gee, Sean, because Solomon had such a vast harem, I guess it’s OK for your pal Donnie to go and grab as many pussies as he wants and never be prosecuted for sexual assault? Is that what you want us to think? After you’ve blustered and fumed for over a decade over how morally bankrupt the American Left has been? Really!?

Note, it’s not just Hannity’s appeal to the Biblical Solomon being used to rationalize Donnie’s horrid spew. Former New York mayor (and Trump BFF) Rudy Giuliani used a couple different justifications for his pal (cached):

Rudy Giuliani defended Donald Trump’s crude remarks about women Sunday, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” that “men at times talk like that.”

But the former New York City mayor also admitted that what Trump was describing in a 2005 video is sexual assault.…

Tapper pressed Giuliani on Trump’s claim — in the video from a 2005 “Access Hollywood” interview published Friday by The Washington Post — that because he is a star, he could walk up to women and “grab them by the pussy,” asking who Trump did that to.

“First of all, I don’t know that he did it to anyone. This is talk, and gosh almighty, he who hasn’t sinned, throw the first stone here,” Giuliani said.

Tapper said: “I have never said that; I have never done that. I am happy to throw a stone. I have been in locker rooms. I have been a member of a fraternity. I have never heard any man, ever, brag about being able to maul women because they get away with it — never.”

Giuliani responded: “We’ve taken it to an extra degree of what he said. But the fact is that men at times talk like that. Not all men, but men do. He was wrong for doing it.”…

“Gosh almighty, there were an awful lot of things, particularly Hillary Clinton attacking the women that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted, sexually abused — and she was the leader of the attack against them — so maybe he felt that at least put in context the kind of anger there would be at him,” Giuliani said.

So, because everyone’s a sinner, according to the Rudester, no one is allowed to hold Donnie accountable for his words. Also, because Hillary went after her husband’s accusers in the 1990s, that also makes Donnie’s words just fine.

Call me crazy, but I’m with Tapper: I’ve listened to a lot of men brag about a lot of things, but never once have I heard of them say he could freely commit sexual assault (not because they’re famous, or for any reason). I have never heard any such words come from the lips of any man. Not once. Ever! So when Giuliani claims that “men talk that way” … well, no, Yeronner, as a matter of fact, they don’t.

Yes, the Rudester did tell Tapper that Donnie’s bragging was wrong, and said he wasn’t trying to excuse it; however, by using these rationales to dismiss Donnie’s words, that’s precisely what he was doing! If the Rudester had truly meant to say that Donnie’s bragging was wrong, he’d have said it was wrong — and then he’d have stopped talking. But he didn’t do that. Instead, he carried on, as though Donnie’s words weren’t inexcusable.

Look, let’s not kid ourselves here about the Right. Sure, they talk a good game about morality and how important it is and how everyone must live up to the highest moral standards, because the Almighty demands it of us … but whenever another Rightist they love is caught saying or doing something that’s undeniably immoral, they just reel off excuse after excuse, including the old reliable “we’re all sinners, no one should cast stones” thing (i.e. the Pericope Adulterae in the gospel according to John) and they whine that the Left is just as bad (which is the old “two wrongs make a right” fallacy). Sorry to say, that’s not going to fly, either.

If one wants to run around condemning the sins of others — as the Right is wont to do, especially in the case of Donnie’s despised opponent in this election — then one can’t say, on the other hand, that one isn’t allowed to condemn the sins of one’s own colleagues. It’s blatant hypocrisy, which — as it happens — the founder of Christians’ own religion explicitly ordered them never to engage in, not at any time or for any reason. Yes, that means even in the context of a presidential election.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Hat tip: Raw Story.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on If It Was Good Enough for King Solomon …

White House and the National Christmas Tree in Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2009The non-existent “war on Christmas” has been raging (solely in the vacuous minds of militant Christianists) for nearly 15 years now. This ridiculous trope is a complete fiction, as I’ve blogged so many times now, cooked up solely in order to stoke the fires of sanctimonious Christofascist outrage over the putative destruction of their religion.

That there is no effort to abolish Christmas, or to ban Christmas trees or outlaw the saying of “Merry Christmas,” doesn’t matter to these folk. They believe it’s happening anyway, because the psychopathology of their religion encourages them to think they’re “under attack”. This means they like feeling persecuted for their Jesus, and have no qualms about inventing persecution, even if there’s none going on.

Earlier this year, GOP presidential nominee Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump declared himself a Christmas warrior. His son Eric, in an interview with televangelist James Robison, recently doubled down on that. This interview is in two parts (WebCite cached versions here and here), but it’s the second which contains the relevant tidbit:

[Eric’s father, little Donnie] opens up the paper each morning and sees our nation’s leaders giving a hundred billion dollars to Iran, or he opens the paper and some new school district has just eliminated the ability for its students to say the pledge of allegiance, or some fire department in some town is ordered by the mayor to no longer fly the American flag on the back of a fire truck. Or, he sees the tree on the White House lawn has been renamed “Holiday tree” instead of “Christmas tree.” I could go on and on for hours. Those are the very things that made my father run, and those are the very things he cares about.

So there you have it … among the reasons little Donnie ran for president was because “the [Christmas] tree on the White House lawn has been renamed ‘Holiday tree’.” Thus, Eric hoped to endear the would-be Dear Leader to Religious Rightists who love their whole “war on Christmas” bullshit.

There’s just this one, teeny little problem with that: It never happened! The national Christmas tree is still called “the National Christmas Tree.” It even has its own Web page (cached), which shows its official name as such:

Cropped screen shot of National Christmas Tree Web page at National Park Service (URL: https://www.nps.gov/whho/planyourvisit/national-christmas-tree.htm)

Cropped screen shot of National Christmas Tree Web page at National Park Service (URL: https://www.nps.gov/whho/planyourvisit/national-christmas-tree.htm)

Snopes has a page on this particular lie, which dates back to 2009. I don’t doubt that little Donnie’s campaign will not issue any correction of Eric’s claim, even if confronted with unassailable evidence (such as the National Christmas Tree’s official Web page, above) that it’s not true. They’ll probably just stammer about “crooked Hillary,” and — perhaps — mention the “holiday tree” in Rhode Island (which wouldn’t make Eric right, since he specifically complained that the tree on “the White House lawn” had been renamed a “holiday tree”). That will be about it.

Trumpie’s campaign being caught lying is nothing new. The Trumpster has raised lying to an art form since starting up his campaign of endless fury last summer. He and his staffers lie far more often than other presidential candidates … by a very wide margin. And to date, neither he nor they have ever taken anything back. That policy — of ignoring reality in favor of whatever bullshit they spew — will surely continue, even past this election.

Photo credits: Top, Wikimedia Commons; middle, PsiCop screen grab from NPS.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on War on Christmas 2016, Part 2

Nuremberg Chronicles - Devil and Woman on Horseback (CLXXXIXv) / via Wikimedia CommonsI’ve already blogged a time or two about some of the asinine things retired neurosurgeon — and militant Christianist — Dr Ben Carson has said. The guy clearly is brilliant enough to have had a remarkable medical career; no one can take that away from him. But sometimes he can be an idiot. During an address at the Republican National Convention, as CNN reports, he offered up a “proof” of sorts that Hillary Clinton is a Satan worshipper (WebCite cached article):

At Tuesday’s Republican National Convention, Carson asked attendees if they could elect Clinton given her relationship to Alinsky, who critics have long accused of harboring communist sympathies.

“Let me tell you something about Saul Alinsky,” he said. “He wrote a book called ‘Rules for Radicals.’ On the dedication page, it acknowledges Lucifer, the original radical who gained his own kingdom.”

Carson asked, “So are we willing to elect someone as president who has as their role model someone who acknowledges Lucifer?”

So here’s Carson’s “proof”: Alinsky is a Satan-worshipper; Hillary met him once; this means she was his sworn disciple; therefore Hillary worships Satan too. If this sounds a little Glenn Beckian to you, you’re not alone. It sounds that way to me, too.

Alinsky has long been a bee in the Right’s bonnet. They’ve been incensed over the guy since before his famous book, Rules for Radicals, was published. It does contain a reference to Lucifer (aka Satan) in its acknowledgement, but that hardly constitutes any proof that he was a Satan worshipper. Mentions or portrayals of Lucifer (aka Satan) as the original rebel aren’t exactly uncommon in literature. For example, John Milton arguably did this in his famous Paradise Lost. But I don’t know anyone who’d claim Milton had been a Satan-worshipper (quite the opposite, actually).

Also, the degree to which Alinsky was Clinton’s “role model” is open to interpretation, too. Politifact reviewed Carson’s statement, including the relationship between Alinsky and Clinton (cached):

So is Alinsky a “role model” for Clinton? The most direct connection between Alinsky and Clinton is that she wrote her undergraduate thesis about Alinsky and interviewed him before he died. At the time, Clinton was Hillary Rodham and the student government president at Wellesley College.

The New York Times reviewed the 92-page thesis and summarized [cached] her views this way:

“Ms. Rodham endorsed Mr. Alinsky’s central critique of government antipoverty programs — that they tended to be too top-down and removed from the wishes of individuals.

“But the student leader split with Mr. Alinsky over a central point. He vowed to ‘rub raw the sores of discontent’ and compel action through agitation. This, she believed, ran counter to the notion of change within the system.”

It’s also true, as Politifact explains, that Alinsky offered Clinton a job, but she refused it because of her differences with him. That is, not only in words but in her actions, Clinton showed she was no lock-step sycophant of Alinsky.

The problem with Carson’s claim is that his audience (i.e. other militant Christianists) are predisposed to believe this, so the presumption that Hillary is a Satan worshipper is one of those lies that will, no doubt, stick to her (just as the very same folks are convinced President Obama isn’t an American citizen and is a secret Muslim).

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 2 Comments »

Albert Chevallier Tayler - The Christmas Tree 1911The annual “war on Christmas” is an agnostic blogger’s dream. Few things seem to bring out the juvenile insanity within America’s “Christian nation” like Christmas. (Which — contrary to what some of them have said — is most certainly not their religion’s most sacred holiday. That, I have to point out, is actually Easter.) They need to be surrounded, from Thanksgiving through New Year’s each year, by an endless chorus of “Merry Christmasses.” Everyone they come into contact with must say that to them, without regard to whether those they meet celebrate Christmas themselves or wish to have to say “Merry Christmas” continuously for 5 weeks or so every year. If that doesn’t happen, they think Christmas has been outlawed and they’re being denied their “religious freedom.”

Or something like that. I guess.

I honestly have yet to understand it, but then, I’m just a cold-hearted, cynical, godless agnostic heathen, so what the fuck do I know about it?

It’s only June, and early in the year for me to address the annual fraud which is “the war on Christmas,” but I find I must bring it up. You see, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump convened a meeting with a cadre of militant Christianists. (You knew nothing good would come from that!) As Raw Story explains, based on Right Wing Watch video, Trumpie promised he’d force people to say “Merry Christmas”: (WebCite cached article):

Donald Trump greeted religious right leaders [cached] by asking not what Christianity could do for them but boasting about what evangelical voters had done for him.…

Trump launched a broadside in the so-called “war on Christmas” Tuesday afternoon at the event organized by the anti-LGBT groups Family Research Council, Vision America and AFA Action.

“I’m a tremendous believer, and we’re going to straighten it out,” Trump said. “You know, oftentimes at some of my rallies I’ll have 25,000 (or) 35,000 people more, and I say in a joking fashion — but boy, do I mean it, we’re going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

Yeah, Trumpie. You tell ’em! You’re going to make those insolent Jesus-haters out there all say “Merry Christmas” until their faces break. Right? Fuck yeah!

Here’s an open invitation, Mr Trump: You track me down and make me say “Merry Christmas” to whoever you want me to say it to. Go ahead. You just do that. OK? If you haven’t got the courage to force me to say “Merry Christmas,” then you’re nothing but an infantile chicken-hawk who talks big but who refuses to get off his ass and actually do anything.

If you won’t do that to someone who’s invited you to give it your best shot, then what makes anyone — including the militant Christofascists you’re pandering to — think you’ll do it to store clerks around the country? Sorry to say, it’s not going to happen.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on War on Christmas 2016, Part 1

Glenn Beck speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC. / Gage Skidmore, via FlickrIn the continuing freak show that is the 2016 election, yet another weird metaphysical moment has cropped up. The paranoid Christofascist Glenn Beck, who’s a Mormon, has been promoting the candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz, an evangelical Protestant, for quite some time now. That in itself isn’t news, even if it is an example of the “strange bedfellows” effect — I say that because evangelical Protestants aren’t fond of Mormonism, considering it non-Christian (WebCite cached article).

No, their relationship has gone a little deeper. As the Salt Lake Tribune reports, Glennie suggested Cruz may be a Mormon savior (cached):

Beck said that he, like many Mormons, believes in a prophecy that the Constitution will hang by a thread in the last days. He said he believes that now is that time, and people like Lee and Cruz will save it.

He also said the Book of Mormon was created as a guide on how to protect freedom in our day. At the Provo rally, many responded yelling, “I believe.”

I’m not aware the Book of Mormon had anything to say about freedom, but I guess the Beckster is entitled to inject his Christocratic impulses into it if he wants to. The prophecy he’s referring to is called “the White Horse Prophecy.” While it’s not official LDS doctrine, a lot of Mormons believe in this “prophecy” which posits some Constitutional crisis will occur, which will be resolved by the institution of a mainly-Mormon Christocracy. How the Constitution could possibly be “saved” by the institution of a decidedly-unconstitutional theocracy, is beyond my comprehension. It sure sounds like a contradiction in terms to me — but then, what could I, cynical, insolent, godless agnostic heathen that I am, possibly know about such important sacred things? It’s also strange that Beckie-boy woudl portray an evangelical Protestant as the guy who will, someday, establish a Mormon theocracy. That also makes no sense.

For me, the much more important consideration is that Beckie-boy has aligned himself with a guy whose sect of Christianity is rather plainly hostile to his own (cached). Yeah, I get that both Glennie and Teddie are Christofacists, but ultimately their goals are divergent. If either gets the kind of government he wants, sectarian conflict will erupt which could destroy the other. It’s as bad as Catholic bishops making nice with the evangelical Protestants within the Religious Right movement; they, too, might one day rue that alliance.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 3 Comments »

Donald TrumpSince entering the presidential primary, Donald “it’s my own orange hair” Trump has railed against a lot of people. These range from John McCain to Mexico (and Mexicans and generally) to Megyn Kelly to NBC Universal to Fox News to Jorge Ramos to Jeb Bush to Megyn Kelly (again) to Ted Cruz to Fox News (again) … and on and on and on and on. Hardly a night goes by when Trumpie isn’t on Twitter ranting furiously about something or someone. At any given moment he’s engaged in some kind of tiff with at least 4 people.

Well, today he found a new enemy to trade harsh words with … a person one wouldn’t have expected to mix with anyone, let alone the angry, perpetually-lying real estate magnate. It was, as CNN reports, none other than the Jesuit Pope Francis (Webcite cached article)

The Pope, who was traveling back to Rome from Mexico, where he urged the United States to address the “humanitarian crisis” on its southern border, did not tell American Catholics not to vote for Trump.

But Francis left little doubt where he stood on the polarizing issue of immigration reform.

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel,” the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump’s proposals to halt illegal immigration.

The infantile little boy Trumpie, of course, would have none of it:

Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis’ comments “disgraceful.”

“No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith,” he said in statement.…

“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president,” Trump said.

Wow, gotta love Trumpie’s “appeal to ISIS/ISIL/IS” as some sort of “proof” of his own righteousness and veracity. That’s just laughable. Note, too, an additional little plaintive whine:

Trump added that the government in Mexico, where Francis spent the past five days, has “made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope.”

Oh, the poor little thing! Why, people actually complained about him to each other! What a fucking little crybaby. I mean, come on, little Trumpie. Act your age, fercryinoutloud!

Now, the Pope’s declaration that Trumpie is un-Christian wasn’t unprovoked, as CNN explains:

The tussle between Trump and Francis — two outsized personalities who seldom shy from speaking their minds — seems to have been building for some time. Before the Pope traveled to Mexico, Trump cast the pontiff as a political naif who “doesn’t understand the dangers” at the U.S.-Mexican border.

By calling the childish little Trumpie un-Christian, then, the Pope was giving as good as he’d gotten. It’s also interesting to see him playing a role in the US presidential election. It’s not as though he could make it worse than it already is, and at least he seems to have thought out what he said, unlike others — in the race — who just spout off angrily all the time like juvenile little twits, spewing a steady stream of outrageous lies in the process (cached).

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Pope Francis and Donald Trump in a Verbal Skirmish