Maybe he's satirizing himself, and he's just waiting for us all to get it.

BEHIND ENEMY LINES* Steelers Fans Fill the Stands Divisional Playoff.
 

TODAY
Sat., Jan. 15, 4:30 PM ET CBS
Pittsburgh and Baltimore Divisional Playoffs


Sat., Jan. 15, 8:00 PM ET FOX
Green Bay
Atlanta

Behind enemy lines: Local Steelers fandom thrives
By ERIN COX, Staff Writer
Published 01/15/11

Awash in a sea of purple, B.J. Nibeck remains steadfastly dedicated to the black-and-gold.

Before the Ravens even existed, Nibeck wed herself to the Pittsburgh Steelers, and like many fans, it's a marriage that transcends distance and local animosity.

"We know we are in Ravenstown, but as far as we're concerned, Steeler Nation is everywhere," said Nibeck, head of the Naptown Steelers Fan Club. "We don't even see it as Ravens country, because most of us have lived here longer than Baltimore has even had a team."

As the Steelers faithful tell it, isolation from their Pittsburgh roots breeds community here in Maryland. And the proximity to the Ravens stokes rivalry. Still, even though they live just outside the Ravens' nest, throngs of local Steelers fans have persuaded several area businesses to cast aside their own allegiances and cater to them

http://i498.photobucket.com/albums/r...lerslogo-1.gif

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8...82gvo1_500.jpg

http://www.sapu.net/wp-content/uploa...-vs-ravens.jpg

Pakistan's Lesbians Live In Silence, Love In Secret

NPR (audio available by noon eastern)

January 17, 2011 The names in this story have been changed to protect the women's identities out of concern for their safety.

Five years ago, Fatima was 23 and studying law in Lahore, Pakistan. She wore blue jeans and a loose shirt and sported short boyish hair. That was the first sign she wasn't a typical Pakistani woman.

She leaned in to share a secret she had revealed to only a few other people before: "I'm lesbian," she said hesitantly.

"I think I knew since a very early age," she said. "It felt quite isolating, I feel. Like, I didn't see people or kids around me feel the same way."

In an Islamic country like Pakistan, lesbians can be imprisoned for life. However, Fatima says, it is not the law that gays and lesbians fear — it's family and neighbors, whom she suspects murder many gays and lesbians in honor killings.

A Secret Teen Romance

Fatima grew up in a house with sisters who were always obsessing over boys, a reality that Fatima says she could never relate to.

"From the time that I've known this about myself, every day that I've felt that I'd wish I was just like everybody else," she says.

But her attraction to women became undeniable when she found herself in love with her best friend in high school. She was 18. And she finally worked up the nerve to tell her.

"What was really surprising, I really didn't expect her to like me back. I really didn't," Fatima says. "It was one of the best surprises in my life. I just thought, 'I am going to tell her and she's just going to be like, 'Are you crazy? What's wrong with you?' And the fact that she didn't say that just blew my mind."

My insides are at war with each other. There are days I wake up and think I should just embrace myself. And there are days I think I should just kill myself.

- Fatima, a fake name to protect the woman who was interviewed
The two dated for years, but always in secret.

They would hold hands walking down the street as many women do in Pakistan — it's simply regarded as "sisterly love."

And that idea of "sisterly love" allows female lovers to stay under the radar, even more easily than in the West — until they reach the age of marriage. That's when a lesbian relationship comes into conflict with the very fabric of Pakistani society.

After years of a secret romance, Fatima's girlfriend suddenly left her, saying there was no future for them in Pakistan. She married a man.

Fatima says she can understand why her girlfriend made that decision.

"I mean, I think from the time that you're born you're socialized into believing that homosexuality is unnatural," she says. "It is a disease, and it is completely prohibited."

That sense of abnormality, Fatima says, haunts her.

"My insides are at war with each other," she says. "There are days I wake up and think I should just embrace myself. And there are days I think I should just kill myself."

Leaving the country, Fatima says, is not an option. She says she thinks it's her calling to be a human rights lawyer in Pakistan, to change the country, which is in severe crisis.

'I Hated That Girl'

Fatima recounts the day when she decided to tell her grandmother that she had been in love with her best friend.

According to Fatima, her grandmother said, "That's why I always hated that girl. I just hated that girl."

"But miraculously, when she came back from work, [my grandmother] was completely fine — as if that discussion never had taken place," Fatima says. "The way I looked at it, she was in complete denial of the whole thing."

Shortly after, Fatima married a man, in an attempt to conform to Pakistani values. She told him before the wedding that she was attracted to women, but like no many others in her life he had assumed it was a phase that she'd get over. But two months into her marriage, Fatima met another woman, Kiran, and the two fell in love.

After months of begging, Fatima's family finally agreed to let her get a divorce. "I said, 'I am a lesbian. I am in love with a woman. I need to get out of this marriage, please,'" she says. "All hell broke loose, essentially."

But Fatima won her battle for a divorce. She says meeting Kiran gave her the strength to fight — gave her something to fight for.

They're now living together, and Fatima is a human rights lawyer.

But now there were other problems for the couple, Kiran says.

"There were security concerns in that her husband, who was in a bad place, was freely talking about this situation to other people," she says.

Kiran says that made them scared for a while, with so many people knowing their secret.

But, Kiran says, "it would take some doing" for people to really imagine they are lesbians.

"Yeah, it's not within the realm of possibility," Fatima says, holding her girlfriend's hand as the two giggle. "People don't usually contemplate two women living together, that they are into each other. Good for us."

Kiran agrees.

"Because in our society, women don't have sexual needs, desires, drives, whatever. And those that do, run brothels," Kiran says. "Either you are a nice girl, or you are a fast girl. So if we are fast girls, it means that men come and visit us. If we are nice girls, it means that girls come and visit us, which works out."

The "f" word gets censored. No - not THAT "f" word!
 

Same Sex Partner Health Care and DOMA Prohibitions
 

Judge rules for gay-rights backers in health suit

The Associated Press
Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2011


SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has issued a favorable ruling for gay-rights advocates involving state employees and long-term health care.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled that state employees in California can sue for discrimination over the federal government's exclusion of their same-sex spouses from a long-term health care program.

The San Francisco Chronicle says in issuing the ruling Tuesday, the judge turned down an Obama administration request to dismiss the suit.

The Chronicle reports the suit was filed over the California Public Employees' Retirement System's refusal to enroll the spouses in a federally approved long-term care plan.

The agency says it does not sign up same-sex spouses because the Defense of Marriage Act denies federal tax benefits to any state that covers them.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/19/333...-backers.html#

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa...ex.html?hpt=T1

"Kampala, Uganda (CNN) -- A Ugandan gay rights activist whose name was published on a list of the nation's "top homosexuals" was bludgeoned to death in his home near the capital, his lawyer said Thursday."


May David Kato rest in peace. May his murder inspire a renewed movement for LGBT freedom in Uganda, and across the world. Let us never forget his courageous love.

Judge rules health law unconstitutional
By: Jennifer Haberkorn
January 31, 2011

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the entire health care overhaul is unconstitutional, but he stopped short of ordering the federal government to stop implementing it.

Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Congress overstepped its legal bounds when it included the provision requiring nearly all Americans to buy insurance. Because the provision is key to the rest of the law, he declared the whole thing unconstitutional.

Last year, a Virginia judge knocked down the key piece of the law, but he didn’t declare the whole law unconstitutional.

Vinson said the Congress has no right to require Americans to purchase a product.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.,” he wrote in his ruling.

The issue is widely expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit was filed by the state of Florida shortly after the reform law was signed in March. But since then, 25 additional states and the National Federation of Independent Business joined the case, making it the most high-profile and politically charged lawsuit against health reform.

But it’s just one of about two dozen legal challenges to the health care reform law, most of which center around the requirement to buy insurance. Proponents of health reform argue that the so-called individual mandate is pivotal to delivering key insurance industry reforms in the law, such as a ban on denying patients over pre-existing conditions. It’s due to go into effect in 2014.

The states and NFIB also argued that the law’s mandatory expansion of the Medicaid program commandeered the states into federal service. But Vinson ruled with the federal government on the point, arguing that the states can leave Medicaid at any time.

The ruling is unlikely to have any immediate impact on the health care reform legislation. But opponents of health reform are likely to hail the ruling as another sign of the law’s imperfections.

Only four judges have ruled on whether the requirement to buy insurance is constitutional. Two federal judges have upheld the individual mandate. One other judge, Henry Hudson in Virginia, also knocked down the individual mandate in a Virginia lawsuit. A dozen other cases have been thrown out on procedural grounds.


One of the key legal questions in the numerous lawsuits has come down to whether the Constitution’s Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the decision to buy insurance.

The states and NFIB argued during oral arguments in December that the Congress has no constitutional right to force Americans buy insurance coverage. They said that while Congress is authorized to regulate activity, they can’t regulate inactivity— or not buying insurance.

The federal government argued that Congress has a right to regulate the insurance market because it is unique— it’s fair to assume that every single person will need health care at one point in his or her life. If they’re not insured, their costs will have to get picked up by other consumers, driving up rates for everyone and putting them in the insurance market whether they plan to or not.

During oral arguments in December, Vinson suggested that it would be a “giant leap” for the Supreme Court to say a decision to buy or not buy insurance is the same as activity. He questioned whether Congress could require people to buy other products if they have a positive impact.

Could they "mandate everybody has to buy a certain amount of broccoli?” Vinson questioned, comparing the positive impact both could have on health.

The federal government argued that health insurance and health care are unique markets and that Congress has the power to regulate them.

“It’s not shoes. It’s not broccoli,” said Ian Gershengorn, arguing for the federal government. “Health insurance is a product that is a financing mechanism."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48517.html

Is being (I think) the only industrialised nation without affordable healthcare for all what people are talking about when they say "american exceptionalism"?

*shrug*

While I agree with everyone's irritation and perhaps even disgust with the attempted disposal of the new Health Care Reform, I have SLE and happen to personally shell out over 500 bucks a month on my insurance since I am considered high risk in the eyes of the insurance companies, and to some even considered not eligible for insurance.

However, with that being said I have a few points in the aritcle Greyson posted that are good points and honestly something everyone really needs to think about on a deeper level and I will explain why in my points.

Point One
“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.,” he wrote in his ruling.

The Judge obviously does not have an issue with the Act due to his later statement regarding his decision but from a LEGAL standpoint the Judge I feel made the appropriate and necessary ruling. The individual mandate within the Act is absolutely unconstitutional without a doubt. You can not require anyone to buy anything and to do so is not constitutional especially when this is still considered a consumer affair.


Point Two
"The states and NFIB argued during oral arguments in December that the Congress has no constitutional right to force Americans buy insurance coverage. They said that while Congress is authorized to regulate activity, they can’t regulate inactivity— or not buying insurance."

Here is the worry with allowing this provision within the Act to pass, it establishes precedence within the legal world for EVERY other single lawsuit and we will lose our protection for the government to not be able to mandate us into purchasing anything they so see fit. If this was to have passed without being shot down or addressed we would never be able to argue another point such as this without losing. Once precedence is set within a court of law it is used as a reference for ruling and to establish if something even needs to be allowed into a courtroom.

I just don't see any good coming out of this mandate being allowed. It is going to open a can of worms that will follow us and cause issues as well as government intrusion for years to come.

Actually neither is mute and here is why

We are not REQUIRED to purchase auto insurance....you are only required if you are operating a motor vehicle...therefore that has no stance where this law is concerned because you STILL have a CHOICE.

As for medicare and being required to purchase additional coverage once again you have a CHOICE you are not required to be on Medicare therefore you are not required to purchase the supplement.

Neither one establishes precedence in the court of law due to CHOICE

Actually once again.....not correct but you are right we are not going to agree on the dynamics within the issue. I never said I do not want affordable healthcare nor did I specify that I do not want it to be affordable or even that the ACT itself is flawed or a bad idea. What I did say and will continue to say is the MANDATE within the ACT is unconstitutional and if auto insurance or medicare supplement was in FACT a set precedent we would not even be having this discussion because this issue would not be sitting within a federal court. It would have not gotten that far based on precedent.

So once again I will clarify.....I do believe EVERYONE should have Healthcare and actually would love to have this Act passed for personal and non personal reasons but I will not support or agree to a mandate within the Act that is unconstitutional but like you said Corkey there is a need and everyone should have access to health care without a question.

Actually that is why no judge is going to ALLOW them to claim precedence....it is not the same thing nor will it go anywhere. It is a shot in the dark claim by an idiot lawyer that is hoping for a shot in the dark. Had this been a real precedence this issue would have been presented well before it has gone this far.....in reality this would have been brought to the table FIRST not after multiple rulings. Read the rules for precedence...

Federal Courts disagree on the legality of mandating the purchase of health insurance. That is why it is going to end up in SCOTUS....

I'm not so sure it is Constitutional to mandate the purchase of health insurance. I need more information.....I haven't read the decisions handed down by the different federal courts......some say yes it is and some say no it's not.

IF you have single-payer system the Constitutional question is moot

I'm sure that it would have been Constitutional back when Republicans came up with the idea and drew up legislation for it. You know, back when Clinton was President. Back then, they insisted that it was all about "personal responsibility". Damn hypocrites.

of course they are hypocrites...........laughin.....that is not the question........

Can you require a person to purchase basic health insurance?

Well I am sure if they wanted to and got a judge who agreed then perhaps they could try but......the question still remains. What is the point anyways. You are still going to have a large population of people who can not afford even the basic so then what happens....oh of course the same thing that happens now. Really what is the purpose of doing it.

Not to mention I view it as unconstitutional......personal responsibility how....Whats next we mandate everyone to see a Dr every 3 months...oh maybe because that is after all making one accept personal responsibility right. What about those who do not support or follow modern medicine for personal or even religious reasons?

LGBT Discrimination In Oaklaholma
 

I don't know why UCLA chose to take a look at the State of Oklahoma. The report is 8 pages long. I know Oklahoma is snowed in today. Here is offered more reading while trying to stay warm.
______________________________________________

UCLA’s Williams Institute Releases New Study Examining Employment Discrimination Against LGBT People in Oklahoma and Analyzing the Impact of Adding Sexual Orientation to Existing Non-Discrimination in the State

January 31, 2011


LOS ANGELES - Today, the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law released a new research study providing evidence of employment discrimination against LGBT people in Oklahoma. The new study also shows that adding sexual orientation and gender identity to Oklahoma’s existing non-discrimination laws would be beneficial for employees and employers, while not overburdening the administrative system.
The study estimates that there are between 43,000 and 57,000 LGB people working in Oklahoma, along with as many as 6,800 transgender people. Several sources of data demonstrate that LGBT Oklahomans face harassment and discrimination in the workplace because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. For instance, a survey of LBGT people in Tulsa revealed that 22 percent had experienced employment discrimination because of their sexual orientation. National surveys also find that large percentages of LGBT people report discrimination in the workplace.
Discrimination has many negative effects that may affect income. According to Census Bureau data, men in same-sex couples in Oklahoma face an earnings gap, earning 26% less than married men. Employment discrimination also hurts businesses. When LGBT employees fear discrimination in the workplace, they hide their identity, have less job-satisfaction, and are less productive.
“Laws that provide protection from discrimination not only benefit employees, but also help businesses recruit and retain highly-skilled employees,” explains study co-author Lee Badgett, Research Director of the Williams Institute and director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
A number of Oklahoma-based corporations, including Devon Energy Corp., OKEOK Inc., Williams Companies Inc., and OGE Energy Corp., have already adopted such policies.
The estimated impact on the state administrative agencies resulting from expanding the existing non-discrimination law is negligible. “Considering the experience of states that have already adopted non-discrimination laws protecting LGBT employees, we do not expect that such a law in Oklahoma would overwhelm state agencies or the courts,” said Christy Mallory, study co-author and Williams Institute Legal Research Fellow. The study finds that expanding Oklahoma’s non-discrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity will result in an estimated increase in filings of 21-29 complaints per year.


The full report may be found at: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/home.html

To Which political party do you think those 62 Reps belong?
 

Release: Iowa House Passes Amendment Seeking to Add Discrimination to Constitution

DES MOINES – The Iowa House today, by a vote of 62-37, passed an amendment (House Joint Resolution 6) that would deny any form of legal recognition for gay couples. The amendment seeks to prohibit not only the freedom to marry for gay couples, but also civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal has vowed to fight attempts to pass the amendment. If passed through both legislative bodies in two consecutive General Assemblies, the issue could be on the ballot as soon as 2013.

“The proposed amendment devalues families and divides Iowans,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “The Constitution is meant to protect the freedoms and liberties of all Iowans. It is inappropriate to use the political process to single out and deny a group of Iowans of their constitutional protections.”

“This goes beyond politics,” said Iowa City resident Katie Imborek. “This is about our family and the ability for Paula and me to care for one another and our two children. At a time when so many Iowans are struggling just to make ends meet, I don’t understand why legislators would choose to take up this issue.”

“From a business perspective, we do have a history of civility, tolerance and respect for the individual. I believe these same values mark the path to economic recovery,” said Suku Radia, CEO and President of Bankers Trust.


---------------

it is official...i will no longer be watching or participating in football anything!!! i think i will take Ms to see Black Swan!!!

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/413605...me_and_courts/ article

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/ video

:mohawk:

BUMP!!!
 

:mohawk: :candle:

Huffington Post and AOL
 

Youngstown State University
 

Yesterday, two gunman walked into a frat party and opened fire, killing one, shooting twelve.

Youngstown is known for its crime rate. This crime actually had its root at a bar downtown, where they began their shooting, over a woman, left and went to the frat party...where the young man who was killed made them leave. They returned and opened fire.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110207/...ouse_shootings

I posted this under the candle thread too. Pray in whatever form you wish, for our community and families are all in shock...

From joemygod
 

PUERTO RICO: Murderer Of Transwoman Ashley Santiago Sentenced To 111 Years

Some hefty justice has been doled out to the murderer of transwoman Ashely Santiago, whose brutally stabbed body was found in her Puerto Rico home last April. Michael Lavers reports at Edge News:
A Puerto Rican man who confessed to murdering a transgender woman in her Corozal home received a 111-year prison sentence on Monday, Feb. 7. Primera Hora reported Judge Jesús Peluyera imposed the sentence upon Emanuel Adorno Ayala, who confessed to stabbing Ashley Santiago more than a dozen times in April 2010. Primera Hora further reported Santiago’s mother, Carmen Ocasio, tearfully said "this pain will last for the rest of my life" after Peluyera sentenced Ayala

Popularity increases aggression in kids: study


LOS ANGELES, Feb. 8 (Xinhua) -- Previous studies showed that aggression makes kids more popular, but a new study suggests that becoming more popular makes kids more aggressive.

To determine the link between popularity and aggression, researchers at the University of California, Davis examined surveys involving about 3,700 students. The surveys asked the students about their friendships as well as whom they picked on and who picked on them. The surveys' questions concerned both physical aggression and relationship aggression such as name- calling and ostracism.

After controlling for variables known to influence aggression, including dating activity, sports participation, grade-point average, socioeconomic status and physical development, the researchers found that students who were more central in their social networks were also more aggressive.

Network centrality is a bit more complex than popularity: It means that a kid has not only a lot of friends, but a lot of friends who are also socially prominent. These school-age movers and shakers have a lot of social power among their peers, lead researcher Bob Faris said in remarks published by LiveScience.com on Tuesday.

"For the most part, we find that status increases aggression," Faris told LiveScience.

"For some people, that will be a surprise. For other people who have grown up quoting 'Mean Girls,' it might be an 'Oh, duh' kind of revelation," he added, referring to the 2004 comedy about a clique of vicious but popular high school girls.

In the study, Faris and his colleagues not only examined individual traits, but also social networks where bullying takes place, using data from a long-term study of public school children in three counties in North Carolina, according to LiveScience.com.

Their approach is different from many previous studies on kid aggression which only focused on the traits of bullies and their victims. These studies suggested that bullies often have troubled family lives and may be at higher risk for depression and other mental health disorders. Their victims are often unpopular.

The gradual increase of aggression with popularity continues until one reaches the top two percent of popular students, Faris said. At that point, aggression suddenly drops off. The top two percent are even less aggressive than the kids at the very bottom of the heap, Faris said.

"We can't preclude the possibility that kids at the very top are just somehow really different, that they're incredibly nice and everybody loves them," Faris said. But other evidence suggests that these extremely popular kids are just secure enough in their positions that they don't need to be aggressive anymore, he said.

Keith Olbermann launching primetime news show on "current" network this spring

Mwah Keith!

Good news!
 

Wasn't sure if this got posted or not.

Atlanta Eagle Awarded $1M for Police Raid



http://www.edgeonthenet.com/?113815

not only that but projectq reported a coupla days ago that the guy that headed up the raid was arrested for dwi and a coupla other shameless hypocrisies the other night!... if that woulda happened b4 they settled it they may have gotten more than about 30k apiece!

I don't remember seeing a thread on the goings on in Egypt so I'm just tossing this up here. Heard part of this interview on the way home today. The woman they spoke to is from Seattle but has been teaching in Egypt for 20 years.

Article and Link to Interview

I haven't been following this as much as I should but I get bits and pieces of updates online. I've fascinated by these first hand accounts that aren't coming from reporters but from people looking out their windows and watching it happen.

all out war on women...
 

thisll be coming up for a vote in the senate soon... and

If you think we have a solid pro-choice majority in the Senate, think again.

It's up to the Senate to stop the attacks on women now that the House has passed legislation to defund family planning services -- shamefully wiping out federal funding for Planned Parenthood's non-abortion health care for women, and pushing a bill that would allow hospitals to let pregnant women die rather than perform life-saving abortions.

But we cannot take for granted our ability to stop these bills in the Senate. Anti-choice forces in the Senate now out number pro-choice senators 46-40, and we need 41 votes to sustain a filibuster of the anti-woman, anti-choice bills coming out of the House.

go do something... whatever it is that is put to our govt about this will only help!

dear fred... its over!
 

an open letter to westboro from anonymous... fred is done!
We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS - the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People - have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism. We have always regarded you and your ilk as an assembly of graceless sociopaths and maniacal chauvinists & religious zealots, however benign, who act out for the sake of attention & in the name of religion.
Being such aggressive proponents for the Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Information as we are, we have hitherto allowed you to continue preaching your benighted gospel of hatred and your theatrical exhibitions of, not only your fascist views, but your utter lack of Christ-like attributes. You have condemned the men and women who serve, fight, and perish in the armed forces of your nation; you have prayed for and celebrated the deaths of young children, who are without fault; you have stood outside the United States National Holocaust Museum, condemning the men, women, and children who, despite their innocence, were annihilated by a tyrannical embodiment of fascism and unsubstantiated repugnance. Rather than allowing the deceased some degree of peace and respect, you instead choose to torment, harass, and assault those who grieve.
Your demonstrations and your unrelenting cascade of disparaging slurs, unfounded judgments, and prejudicial innuendos, which apparently apply to every individual numbered amongst the race of Man - except for yourselves - has frequently crossed the line which separates Freedom of Speech from deliberately utilizing the same tactics and methods of intimidation and mental & emotional abuse that have been previously exploited and employed by tyrants and dictators, fascists and terrorist organizations throughout history.

ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas, & close your public Web sites.
Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines.

The warning has been given. What happens from here shall be determined by you.



WE ARE ANONYMOUS.
WE ARE LEGION.
WE DO NOT FORGIVE.
WE DO NOT FORGET.
EXPECT US.

Note to rlin: my post is absolutely not directed towards you personally....it is not about you personally.....it's about the letter and it's meaning.


I understand what has motivated the above letter, however it very well could have been written by Sarah Palin or Rush or Sean or Glenn, et al. Just put 'homosexual' or 'pagan' or 'move on.org' in place of fred phelps.....

It's hateful and mean and violence is implied. I don't see any reason for any of us to be crawling around in the gutter with any of them.

I am kind of invigorated by the letter, but, unfortunately, I view Anonymous as a hate group, also. They target other groups and incite violence to further their own agenda. It's kind of ironic that they attack WBC when there are some similarities between them.