Gay Patriot Header Image

Now at BigJournalism.com:
If Muslims Gay-Bash in San Francisco, Do They Make A Sound?

My second post is up at Big Journalism!  I’ll give you a preview, but you have to go there to read the whole thing.

Imagine, if you will, that the BB gun attackers [in San Fran] had been white. Or from Utah. Or from Texas.  Or Laramie, Wyoming. What kind of wild adjectives would have been applied? We can only surmise. Editorializing against mainstream Americans who are now out-of-favor by the media (whites, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons, conservatives) happens everyday on America’s front pages and network news programs. But when it comes to Arab/Muslim attackers — all silence is golden for the American media.

<…>

It is also important to note that the fundamental philosophies of a majority of the American gay activist community have been rooted with elements of anti-capitalism, anti-democracy, anti-war, and anti-Israeli sentiment for the past three decades. You could not have attended an anti-Iraq war rally in 2003-2007 without seeing many rainbow flags (the unofficial symbol of gays and lesbians) mixed in with pro-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-Bush and anti-American signs, symbols and chants.

In order to be gay and part of “the community” in America, you must first renounce “the mainstream,” your individualism, liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the basic right to vote and your patriotism. All those checked? Join the club!

Read the whole thing.  And please let me know your thoughts.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

38 Comments

  1. Congrats on the hot-button and complicated topic.

    Important follow-up questions include the gunmen’s Muslim formation, affiliations, loyalties, agendas – esp. in or near Hayward.

    Liberal-left sources are not entirely useless, e.g., this NYT article on gay Muslims, http://tinyurl.com/ybmgkr2, although hard questions go begging. The complete irony of the SF-based imam, from whom it quotes a retrograde Koranic explanation of AIDS, is missed. The article fails to mention that his mosque is located squarely in the Polk (one of SF’s historically gay neighborhoods). Occasionally on the street there you’ll walk past the guys with the long beards, the one-piece tunics, the sandals, and grim removed facial expressions. A recipe for inevitable violent social conflict which the Times overlooked.

    Your most important thought imho: the fundamental philosophies of a majority of the American gay activist community have been rooted with elements of anti-capitalism, anti-democracy, anti-war, and anti-Israeli sentiment for the past three decades.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — March 10, 2010 @ 11:35 am - March 10, 2010

  2. “Progressives” brought gays to the party, now they are enforcing their rules.

    You did a great job of showing the duplicity of the “progressives” and the suck up willingness of “progressive” gays to join the politically correct directed hatred of the “enemies” of political correctness.

    Talk about dogs chasing their own tails ……….

    Comment by heliotrope — March 10, 2010 @ 11:46 am - March 10, 2010

  3. J (#1) – Thanks. I also thought that was an important point for those not in the gay community to understand and try to comprehend.

    Comment by GayPatriot — March 10, 2010 @ 11:56 am - March 10, 2010

  4. OK I read the whole article and have difficulty seeing the issue.
    The attackers happened to be Muslim it does not matter their still attackers they will face the same justice system as any other person who did the same.

    The Media’s keeping their religion out of it should not be a issue. Consider the nut job looking for a reason the attack a Muslim school or Mosck and just needs any one to justify it. This will be the same person who attends the little white church down the road.

    What happens in Islamic States happens there because the citizens have little or no say in government. WE continue to plead with our Public Officials and the United Nations to make it stop to no avail. It will not stop until the citizens of the offending country take more control.
    What happens here its governed by laws that are blind to an individuals religion. The media should keep it that way as well.

    Comment by Joe — March 10, 2010 @ 12:01 pm - March 10, 2010

  5. Iran’s Hidden Homosexual History

    http://www.iranian.com/main/news/2010/03/03/irans-hidden-homosexual-history

    Now, a forthcoming book by a leading Iranian scholar in exile, which details both the long history of homosexuality in that nation and the origins of the campaign to erase its traces, not only provides a superlative reply to Ahmadinejad, but demonstrates forcefully that political homophobia was a Western import to a culture in which same-sex relations were widely tolerated and frequently celebrated for well over a thousand years.

    Comment by rusty — March 10, 2010 @ 12:10 pm - March 10, 2010

  6. It always irked me to see rainbow flags at those anti-war rallies. True, they had the word “PACE” (Italian for “peace”) on them. But the mere presence of those reinforced the stereotype that ALL of the gay community was anti-war.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — March 10, 2010 @ 12:12 pm - March 10, 2010

  7. I love the part in the vid where the Professor says, “It’s my understanding, there is no country where Islamic law is practiced 100%”. He’s clearly lamenting that fact.

    Good Job Bruce.

    PS. I was having problems posting a comment over there. Say I was commenting too fast. If they only knew me, they would know I NEVER do anything fast!!! :-)

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 10, 2010 @ 12:21 pm - March 10, 2010

  8. My thoughts, as requested:

    1. Though I’m not a big fan of hate crime laws in general, this is a perfect example of a crime designed to strike fear in a population. I hope those laws can be used against these guys. Hey, the law is there, might as well make something good of it!

    2. As far as I can tell, these guys are assumed to be Muslim based on their names alone. Maybe that’s fair; regardless, I would like to know more about their background.

    3. The hyperbolic statements like “Clearly, of course, this had to be a Christian right-wing, tea party, anti-government, bigoted homophobe from the South. Right?” weaken the overall article. Ditto “In order to be gay and part of “the community” in America, you must first renounce “the mainstream,” your individualism, liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the basic right to vote and your patriotism.” For all the good word you did at CPAC open minds, statements like this will further close them.

    4. I think dealing with gay issues “in my backyard” is simply an issue of practicality. I can change minds and cast votes in my community.

    Internationally we have much less influence on many Muslim countries. Places like Uganda get more attention simply because the Western world has more influence there. I directly have no influence at all. However, I do think as a nation we can change minds by the way we lead on issues.

    5. In our backyard right now, Virginia has by ‘executive order’ dropped LGBT people from anti-discrimination coverage. And the AG there is claiming universities can no longer keep their own anti-discrimination clauses. I’m surprised that has gotten no coverage here while the gay-bashing story has.

    Comment by DRH — March 10, 2010 @ 2:10 pm - March 10, 2010

  9. In our backyard right now, Virginia has by ‘executive order’ dropped LGBT people from anti-discrimination coverage.

    No, it has not. Said order applies only to state employees, not to private companies, who are allowed to do as they will.

    And the AG there is claiming universities can no longer keep their own anti-discrimination clauses.

    And again, this applies only to public universities.

    The people of Virginia made it clear that anything they support with their taxes does not have the right to extend special protections to gays. Make your employment decisions accordingly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - March 10, 2010

  10. I am straight. I do believe that what takes place in the bedroom should remain there. I do not believe in government intervention. I believe that homosexual men and women should be able to work anywhere without discrimination. I believe that the bashing and murder of homosexual men and women is wrong – it goes against good Christian values. Tolerance does not mean that we have to accept to the nth degree a person’s sexuality but it does mean acknowledging the person and leaving them in peace.

    Anyway, I feel that in some respects gays have brought violence upon themselves at times. Please do not be offended by this remark. What I mean is that those men and women who dress up and make fun of other people turn Christians and others off. If you go around dressed as the Sisters of Perpetual Succor and you are a man dressed like that, and you are behaving outrageously, then you should not be surprised that people have troubling feelings. It is the in yer face attitude that loses people.

    However, what helps straight people the most is when gays respect them, and they in return respect gays. Two sites on the Internet are truly helping gay and straight people to come together in a way that is unimaginable. This site with its conservative politics has helped me to overcome any of my own qualms (although I have worked with gays in the past too)and the other site is Hillbuzz. In fact Hillbuzz has brought together moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents. They have been truly informative, and I might add that the glimpse into their personal lives at times helps a lot to at least understand a little bit more about their lives.

    Bruce, one person here objected to the phrases that you used and called them over the top. I disagree. The reason that I disagree is that I have seen how the LSM constantly smear certain groups of people. I happen to belong to at least one of the groups. I am Catholic. I am white. I am conservative in my values. I agree that the LSM constantly refuses to acknowledge when the perpetrators of crime are Middle Eastern but they are very willing to smear others when it comes to crime e.g. making value judgments about Catholic priests but ignoring the number of teachers who have been found guilty of either molesting children in their charge or having sex with them.

    The Muslim community is anti-gay and indulges in anti-gay bashing. You have a right to push back against the failure of the LSM to mention that particular subject.

    Comment by StraightAussie — March 10, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - March 10, 2010

  11. So, Joe — March 10, 2010 @ 12:01 pm – March 10, 2010, it’s the Christians’ fault that Muslims attacked gays. Okay. I’ll have to tuck that away in the WTF file.

    Comment by linnilu — March 10, 2010 @ 3:04 pm - March 10, 2010

  12. Bruce: Add that asinine group “Queers for Palestine”. I’d like to see those folks march in the West Bank or Gaza and see how long they’d last.

    10: Just out of curiosity, do you also feel that the politicization of Evangelical Christianity means such Christians have brought some of the grief they complain about on themselves?

    Comment by John — March 10, 2010 @ 3:22 pm - March 10, 2010

  13. Jon Stewart and the Virgina-Edition of gaywatch

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/gaywatch—virginia-edition

    Comment by rusty — March 10, 2010 @ 4:10 pm - March 10, 2010

  14. OK, I read the whole thing.
    I recall the editor of the now defunct Washington Blade getting beaten up by a roving band of ad hoc Muslim Morality Police (muttawa) while he walked around in Rotterdam a few years ago.
    This is the parallel to that.
    We need to be educated to how Islam imposes Sharia informally when it cannot impose it legally.
    Will the men of SF self-censor their actions in public as the men in Rotterdam have been warned by their own government to do?
    It was wonderful that the men were arrested.
    They should not get off easy, but I fear they will\.
    IF they do it will embolden more Muslim males to go out and act the muttawa.
    Good coverage.
    We need to continue to educate people.

    Comment by Nan G — March 10, 2010 @ 5:23 pm - March 10, 2010

  15. BREAKING NEWS….
    March 9th
    PATRICK KENNEDY goes nutts on the floor of the House today.
    Leaves shortly before a straight jacket is ordered.
    Searching for video……

    you gotta love these liberals.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 10, 2010 @ 5:56 pm - March 10, 2010

  16. I don’t think you can simultaneously condemn the “gay establishment” for not speaking out on these crimes at the same time you’re criticizing the media for not reporting it? Which is it? Is the media not reporting the identities to be politically correct? If that assertion is correct at the beginning of your article, how can you really hold the “gay establishment” responsible for not speaking out when the information is being censored by the press in the first place.

    While I understand you are upset with gay people targetting Christians, that’s who we’re actually amongst right now, our own neighbors. While the media blackout can be justifiably taken to task, targetting gays for not speaking up is disingenuous at best, and sloppy at worst. Many people, gays and straights, have been working to making changes in the Middle Eastern world. You completely gloss over this fact. The “gay establishment” goes largely by what it can do, and what will be the best use of the funds it receives from donors and their wishes. If big ticket gays in California want their donations to go to fight Prop 8, which affects them directly, that doesn’t make HRC or the “gay establishment” blind to the plights of gays worldwide.

    Gay groups have condemned things from the graphic hangings you picture to systematic torture and treatment of gays in Iraq to current calls against the Uguandan bills criminalizing homosexuality. Just because the media omits the race of a couple of thugs in San Francisco doesn’t make the jump to the “gay establishment” drinking the Kool-aid and being blind to the hardships of gays world-wide.

    5 minutes of research destroys your whole argument, Bruce.

    Comment by Tim — March 10, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - March 10, 2010

  17. HRC Condemnation of Use of Sharia law for Gays:
    http://www.hrc.org/issues/5007.htm

    Gill Foundation website doesn’t list any international work. I think it’s difficult to criticize an organization for doing something it never and hasn’t ever said it was going to do. I don’t go to McDonalds and bitch at the speaker for their lack of Whoppers… They have a stated purpose, and their failure to fulfill work outside of their purpose is not an indication of any gay establishment conspiracies or drinking lefty Kool-aid

    Gay and Lesbian Task Force also doesn’t operate for this purpose. Their mission statement is pretty USA specific.

    There are organizations like Al-Fatiha that are gay and lesbian Muslim based and do work on these sort of international issues.

    Again, calling to task the “gay establishment” for not taking Iran to task is unfair. It’s outside of the scope of the work of they and their donors. Most would like to see places they donate to work in their local communities and states. And if not they have other organizations that do this kind of work specifically to donate to if that’s the cause they want to fight for.

    Stop railing against gay charities for not doing work no one ever asked them to do. Continue fighting the media for omitting facts which don’t fall in line with their worldview.

    Comment by Tim — March 10, 2010 @ 6:17 pm - March 10, 2010

  18. Great article Bruce! It’s great to see someone with MY viewpoint getting some press. Methinks the era of the liberal stranglehold on gay politics is coming to and end!

    Comment by AeroClayton — March 10, 2010 @ 8:31 pm - March 10, 2010

  19. Did anyone read the comments in the SF chronicle? the day this news story broke a huge number instantly said things claiming these guys must be 1) republicans 2) white Christians and 3)”tea baggers”.

    Granted the Chron does not mention race (unless they are white) but they did name the individuals and yet the left screamed “it is white christian republicans!”

    the hypocrisy in SF is amazing

    Comment by Stone K — March 10, 2010 @ 10:16 pm - March 10, 2010

  20. Bruce,
    you sure are getting a lot of flak from people defending the lack of outrage and coverage that a christian doing the same would get. The point being that if this had a white person, christian etc. the coverage would have been very very different. Let the detractors quibble over minor points if they want. I don’t think even they believe their rationalizations. I am surprised they think anyone else would.

    Comment by Nathan — March 10, 2010 @ 10:27 pm - March 10, 2010

  21. Joe…Justice will not be the same. if it had a been a white christian there would be protesters at the police station and they probably would not have gotten bail “for their own safety” and do you really think a christian religious nut job is going to attack muslims for shooting at gay people? Really? Religion should be kept out of it but how plausible is that when religion is the motive?

    Comment by Nathan — March 10, 2010 @ 10:28 pm - March 10, 2010

  22. John,

    tho politicization of evangelical christians is a misnomer. Are there not evangelical christians in both parties that do not support gay rights? Before you make a false generalization that there are more on the right, let me point out there are enough on the left to have gotten us nothing when the dems had the white house, congress and a super majority in the senate. Christian are not on one side of the political scale. I’m sure it makes some people happy to believe that but reality is just not that important to people like that. Let them believe it.

    Comment by Nathan — March 10, 2010 @ 10:31 pm - March 10, 2010

  23. Tim,
    “I don’t think you can simultaneously condemn the “gay establishment” for not speaking out on these crimes at the same time you’re criticizing the media for not reporting it? Which is it? Is the media not reporting the identities to be politically correct? If that assertion is correct at the beginning of your article, how can you really hold the “gay establishment” responsible for not speaking out when the information is being censored by the press in the first place.”
    No one here is naive enough to think that if these had been white guys wielding crosses that reports AND gay advocacy groups would not have been asking questions, demanding answers and set up protests and news conferences asking those questions to the public challenging the powers that be to answer. Bruce makes a correct point.

    Comment by Nathan — March 10, 2010 @ 10:32 pm - March 10, 2010

  24. NDT,

    Are gays not part of the public? Why does one part of the public get to decide such things for other parts of the public? That’s where I find fault with your view on this. I doubt we can do other than assert out disagreement on how to answer that question.

    You also said:

    The people of Virginia made it clear that anything they support with their taxes does not have the right to extend special protections to gays. Make your employment decisions accordingly.

    No, Gov. McDonnell did this by executive order. This was not voted on.

    Comment by DRH — March 10, 2010 @ 11:37 pm - March 10, 2010

  25. Well he was voted in…

    And DRH, aren’t smokers part of the public? Why do they get to have things decided for them by non-smokers?

    Aren’t 12 year olds part of the public? Why does one part of the public get to decide they can’t drive?

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 11, 2010 @ 7:54 am - March 11, 2010

  26. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement:

    “In order to be gay and part of “the community” in America, you must first renounce “the mainstream,” your individualism, liberty, capitalism, the Constitution, the basic right to vote and your patriotism. All those checked? Join the club!”

    I am Christian, Republican and marched with the ‘ladies in white’, our local pro-war demonstrations during the initial Iraq invation, and paid for it dearly in the gay community. I tend to be either outright shunned or begrudgingly ‘tolerated’ by those in the community who know me and where I stand on things.

    And I have encountered it in every gay community I have had experience with in America. They consider gays like us to be ‘sleeping with the enemy’ or some such nonsense.

    The internet has been a blessing in this. It makes a huge difference to be able to connect online with like-minded gays. It helps to strengthen my resolve and gives me more confidence to speak up when such issues are discusses and offer my opinion.

    Thank God for this site and others like it. You guys are a blessing.

    Comment by lordshepard — March 11, 2010 @ 8:24 am - March 11, 2010

  27. Simply an excellent article, Bruce, and right on the money. The only thing missing was that the MSM is also, most likely, scared to publish any ant-Muslim articles for fear of lawsuit by CAIR and death threats from those “peace loving” Muslim.

    When it comes to treatment of gays by Muslims, the MSM and liberals disappear the same way they do with the way women are treated by Muslims.

    Comment by William Teach — March 11, 2010 @ 9:05 am - March 11, 2010

  28. 22: You’ll note that I didn’t put a party label to my comments, you just assumed which is interesting in and of itself. Since you did, however, I note that the Left doesn’t have groups like TVC, AFA, FoF, NOM, etc. that like to put gays up as the ultimate boogey-man. No, the Left eschews religion, except when its useful of course, that have a negative impact on everyone like ACORN, SEIU, MoveOn, etc. It really makes no difference whether it comes from the Left or the Right, my question in reply to the earlier commentor stands and ignoring responding in favor of saying the other guy is just as bad or worse is not an answer. It’s a fair question especially in light of StraightAussie’s comments.

    Comment by John — March 11, 2010 @ 9:20 am - March 11, 2010

  29. In 1988 Salman Rushdie mixed it up with the Ayatollah Khomeini with the publication of The Satanic Verses. In February, 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini (head spiritual leader of the Iran Revolution) decreed The Satanic Verses blasphemy and issued a bounty for Rushdie’s murder. This is when most of us learned about a Fatwa and a tiny bit about Sharia law.

    What followed was a string of bookstore bombings and Salman Rushdie going deep into hiding.

    That is really the side story. What we go along to get along people learned is that there are serious nut jobs among the muslims who can order people to death by religious decree (a Fatwa under Sharia law) and there are far too many youthful zealots who will take up the Fatwa and proudly and intentionally die carrying it out.

    Gays have a Fatwa against them. Right now, the Islamic fundamentalist zealots do not have gays at the top of the list of things they are willing to die over. Since they only get to die once, they would rather blow up a whole bunch of people at once. On the other hand, seeing how NYC prepares for the Israel Day Parade in June, I would imagine that they get equally antsy when there is a big Gay Day Parade as well.

    The problem is, most liberal gays think Christians are trying to slaughter them and that Islamic fundamentalist zealots are just bent out of joint because they believe they have been mistreated by Jews.

    I support sending a delegation of progressive gays to Iran to meet in Qom with the assembled Ayatollahs for the purpose of getting homosexuality incorporated as a fundamental value in Sharia law. After all, maybe nobody has ever tried to sit down with these people to work out their differences. Then again, maybe progressive gays are not as intense about their beliefs as your run of the mill Islamic fundamentalist zealot is about his beliefs.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 11, 2010 @ 9:54 am - March 11, 2010

  30. Brilliant article, glad to see you speaking out further on the subject. Also thought the “don’t ask, don’t tell” analogy was spot on. The GLBTQ community is allowing itself to be sold out by the extremist ideologues in it’s leadership, there needs to be an awakening, a realization that it’s being used to advance that ideology and will be cast aside when it’s served it’s purpose, just as every other citizen is being exploited and cast aside by corrupt ideological leaders.

    Comment by Jenny — March 11, 2010 @ 11:45 am - March 11, 2010

  31. And DRH, aren’t smokers part of the public? Why do they get to have things decided for them by non-smokers?

    Aren’t 12 year olds part of the public? Why does one part of the public get to decide they can’t drive?

    Valid questions, Livewire. What do you think on both of those, as well as on the original question regarding gays?

    Next thing you know, people will want to ban other people from having salt! Oh, wait, someone does:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_assault_on_salt_an_insult_chefs.html

    Comment by DRH — March 11, 2010 @ 1:06 pm - March 11, 2010

  32. Here are my thoughts.
    The Gay Rights movement, like the feminist movement, environmental movement ect was instigated by Marxists. The Marxist use these causes as a trojan horse. The left is very good at identifing a problem or injustice but they then seduce good people with their Marxist cure. At the time of Stonewall in 1969, protests against the US were in vogue and the gay community followed suit with the Marxist tactics. The goal of Marxism of course is not to liberate gays or anyone else. The aim is to weaken and destroy capitalism and the USA is the most powerful example. Today, the left must make common cause with Islamic fascism in order to destroy the USA; enemy of my enemy is my friend. Therefore the gay groups focus on Christian bigots but ignore Islamic butchers of gay people. When the “punk jihad” act like the thugs they are, the left ignore it or excuse it because it does not fit in with their leftist narrative which is Islam is a victim; Christian is evil.
    I hope that helps.

    Comment by Rob — March 11, 2010 @ 2:45 pm - March 11, 2010

  33. 28…Separating the politicizing of something while separating it from political factions is like talking about cooking separate from the idea that people eat. I wouldn’t insult the intelligence of any of this blogs readers by suggesting they would fall for…I’ll call it an attempted distinction for lack of a better label. You advocate an interesting distinction, however devoid of reality. As for your list of orgs, I addressed the mutual outcomes of both sides. Your comments are not usually as myopic as those on this thread. Still, any attempted rationalization between the double standards we’ve seen in this article would be difficult under any circumstance. I’m sure you did your best.

    Comment by Nathan — March 11, 2010 @ 7:15 pm - March 11, 2010

  34. Chris Budden had a piece at the RightPride website about how gay Republicans like Dorr Legg came before Stonewall.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 12, 2010 @ 6:54 am - March 12, 2010

  35. ISLAMIC EXTREMIST ideology at its finest. I read the story about the two Gay Middle Eastern teens a few years ago, and now this?

    I currently live (and grew up) in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. There is a predominant Muslim-Middle Eastern community in my city where I am. Let me tell you guys something: During my high school years, over 50% of the time most of my anti-gay bullies were Muslim teenage men, the other percentage is Latino teenage men. Some examples: As for the Latino guys (illegals?) they would ridicule me because of my effeminate gender-expression. As for the Muslim guys (religious extremists?) one of them called me a “f@g” while smiling snidely and another guy that tried to harass me. Another thing, I had a best friend who is a deeply-religious Muslim. We were good friends for several years until one day (after a personal argument I had with him, I won’t state details) he sent me two long emails (won’t state details) about his very negative beliefs about my sexual orientation, heh! I ENDED MY FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM because of that. He tried to continue my friendship with him but I resisted. Never spoke to him ever since.

    And the FACT that most (about 65%) of the people in my community are Liberal-leaning, Democratic voters (For Christ sakes, my City Council is almost-unanimously Democrat) they might call me “racist” and “Islamophobic” if I told them that I merely disagreed with some Muslim beliefs. REALLY!? Yeah, anyways. It seems LGBT people are more discriminated here where I live, how ironic! I don’t hate Muslims, I just disagree with some of their ideology.

    Its my first time posting on here. I appreciate Bruce and Daniel so much for this blog post. Yeah, I am technically not political or anything, but I’d rather vote Independent/Republican in the future.

    Comment by Totakikay — March 13, 2010 @ 2:20 am - March 13, 2010

  36. Just learned of this on Atlas Shrugged and wonder where o where is the liberal media? After posting to my FB page, comments about the Christians who kill abortion doctors, or historical crimes committed by other religions, are offered as moral equivalency. I disagree. These people are taught that it is an HONOR to kill those they describe as the “infidels”. Where is the the kind of appropriate outrage in this case as in others? I am outraged, and as a Jew it makes me sick to know that when anyone is targeted we are ALL complicit when we don’t speak out against it. I will spread the word myself in the absence of media coverage. Keep up the great work you’re doing here, and may G-d bless you and keep you.

    Comment by Jill Flyer — March 13, 2010 @ 12:26 pm - March 13, 2010

  37. What’s more sad Jill, is that it sounds like they don’t condemn it, more are upset that you’re bringing it up. If that’s the case it’s really sad, and more than a little worrisome.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 13, 2010 @ 5:33 pm - March 13, 2010

  38. Atlas shrugs adds this:

    Video of San Francisco Muslims Shooting Gay Man Shows 11 Other Attacks in a Single Night Laughing as they fired the gun

    Victor Hwang, the prosecutor in the case, said “We know about this one case. We want to know about if there are any other cases.”

    Why did he lie? He had the videotape. The DA had the video of eleven other attacks in a single night. Who was this DA protecting?

    Also more here about the 11 other attacks.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/12/BALL1CEUUK.DTL#ixzz0i3s3OqKy

    Comment by Nan G — March 13, 2010 @ 7:37 pm - March 13, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.