February 19, 2007

Difference Between Joanna Francis and a Bucket of Feces: The Bucket

A friend of Assmonkey Supreme, Mark Glenn, Joanna Francis is feces personified. Bear with me, let me explain.
Yesterday I got a hit on my blog from an old post made about me by a raving Jew hater. The Ugly Truth article was just a bunch of my replies to a retard (he didn't bother posting his ignorant crap), but one of the two comments caught my eye yesterday:

joannafrancis on November 10th, 2006

“You have kids. Hopefully they didn’t inherit your self loathing and inferiority and low IQ. If they did they did and think like you, they should have been aborted.”

Definitely a Jew. Only a Jew would write something like that. They love abortion. For us, that is. And they wonder why people don’t like them?


I decided to further investigate this Joanna Francis. Such a lovely non assuming name and all. Well, it linked to a Jooooo paranoid hate site, No Peace Without Justice.

Check out her site. 80%+ of her posts blame Jews for everything from Anna Nicoles burial place to abortion being a Jewish conspiracy to murder Christian babies worldwide. HAHAHAHAHA

Classic: Jews Murder Christian Babies At Sea

"Jews have been the driving force behind legalizing abortion in (formerly) Christian countries, such as the United States, France, England, Canada, et al. But in some Western nations, the people still have a modicum of common sense, and refuse to allow Jews to get rich performing their favorite pastime: Jewish ritual killing of Christian babies.

The Jews were obviously frustrated by their inability to practice infanticide in every country of the West. However, the people who invented the word chutzpah were not going to let quaint things like laws, morals, or respect for life get in the way of their fun. As expected, they came up with the perfect solution to satisfy their infanticidal needs: abortion ships that dock in countries where abortion is illegal. Kind of like riverboat casinos anchored permanently on the Mississippi, circumventing anti-gambling laws in the surrounding states."


And of course, this has to be pinned on the Jews because Rebecca Gomperts, the founder of Women on Waves, has a Jewish sounding name. Her proof she is a Jew is this link. Yes, there have been many Jews with the last name Gomperz (who cares about the spelling, close enough).
Such horrible Jews too:
Benjamin Gompertz the mathematician; Lewis Gompertz, founder of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals; Samuel Gompers founder and president of the American Federation of Labor and the statue in Washington commemorating his life unveiled by President Roosevelt; and many gravestones and their inscriptions from the cemetery at Emmerich.

She apparently researched this article, Killing Us Left and Right, for 3 years.

There is speculation that Joanna Francis had an abortion early in life, and now she blames the Joooooos for making abortions so readily available to her. She now is overwhelmed with guilt that she had that abortion, as she can't conceive now, and now is childless, well past menopause. Instead of blaming herself, she found a scapegoat, as many self-loathers do.

I wonder how much research she put into Benedict XVI: Zionist Double Agent: "The Christian people in the United States are just as much enslaved to the Zionists as the Palestinians are. The only difference is that the Americans are mental slaves, i.e., brainwashed by the Jewish-owned media."

And this was well researched too, I'm sure: Israeli Snipers Killing US Troops In Iraq? At least she put a question mark in there. Rense didn't care about the question mark, they used her piece anyway.

NOW FOR THE GOOD STUFF

I'm sure Catholic Friends of Israel won't mind me copying this blog post:

PRIEST GIVES ANTI-SEMITES THE BOOT


Priest Ejects Group with Anti-Jewish Links, by Alex Easton. NorthernStar.com Nov. 25, 2006:

'A LISMORE priest has distanced his parish from a local extremist group of Catholics who back claims of a Jewish conspiracy of genocide against Christians.

St Carthage’s Cathedral rector Father Dennis Carroll this week took the unusual step of censuring the anti-abortion group Apostles for Life in his parish bulletin.

Fr Carroll told parishioners the group had lost his support and had been discontinued as a parish group. He warned parishioners ‘to be wary of the anti-Jewish views expressed’ on the group’s website.

Those views included an article by anti-Semitic writer Joanna Francis, which says abortion-on-demand ‘for American Jews signified the beginning of their Messianic age, wherein they could now freely practice genocide against their ancient enemies, the Christians, with impunity’.

In other articles, Ms Francis has also claimed Pope Benedict XVI was a Zionist double agent and that Israeli snipers were killing US soldiers in Iraq.

When contacted by The Northern Star, Fr Carroll said he stripped Apostles for Life of its status as a Parish group early this year ‘because they have spun off into the crazy right wing of Catholicism’.


The group's homepage proclaims that its members gather "to promote the truth and beauty of Church teaching, especially the Gospel of Life, and the sanctity of all human life." But I would think any organization whose website promotes articles asserting:

. . . What remains unspoken by these groups, however, is that abortion was always intended to be practiced on us goyim (cattle), as a means to reduce the numbers of their enemies. What better way to cull the herd than by preventing our births altogether? (Jews quietly lament the fact that some Jewish babies have fallen into the trap set for us goyim.). . . ("Killing Us Left and Right", by Joanna Francis 4/2/2006)

without thinking twice has fallen far afield of its original purpose, losing its moorings in the truth of the Catholic faith.'

Joanna Francis isn't even an accepted Catholic anymore it seems.

24 comments:

  1. What a bitch.

    *watches her accuse me of emboldening the jews*

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess you'll find all sorts of low life if you bother to lift a rock and see what's crawling underneath it.
    I never doubted that the world is full of JF type of people, the fact that she's religious and anti-abortion sums it all up, anyone who adheres to religion is suspect, and definitely has intelligence deficiency syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Make sure that it is the same woman. Doesn't look like it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds familiar, I think I have seen links on blogs I visit to Feminenza...I'll be checking and spreading the word if I do see it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Elder, I had my doubts too. But someone on Yahoo found this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's just too easy to decide that all of the problems of the world are the fault of a specific group of people.

    What happens is that people decide on the conclusion - the conclusion being that joos did it and then they run around trying to find info that supports this conclusion.

    Using that methodology I could prove that George Bush is a transvestite and that John Howard was a pakistani refugee in a past life.

    Do I think all jews are nice people? No. But I don't think all people in any group are nice.

    All australians are nice, honest, hardworking, charming, intelligent people?

    Not on your life Nelly!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think you need a bit more evidence before you make the accusation. The "travelingthrough" site could have made the same mistake - I see nothing in common between the two Joanna Francis websites, including no links in common. In addition, when the crazy JF wrote her "To my Muslim Sisters" article on many Muslim sites, she was not identified there as a prominent author of the other's books. There are two different websites, two different email addresses, and even the "feminist" postings on the crazy site don't mention the two books the other one has written.

    One would expect at least some cross-referencing between the two, especially since she is using her real name (presumably) and therefore would not be embarrassed.

    Last but not least, the normal-sounding one has visited Israel (not "Palestine"), likes "Fiddler on the Roof" as well as Schindler's List. The raving nutcase Francis would never, ever write that.

    I would email joanna@joannafrancis.com (the normal sounding one) and ask her. This is too big an accusation to make without more proof.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Upon further thinking, prompted by Elder's comment, I've decided to edit my post accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Martin Luther's quotes on jews is right on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What the hell are you, the anti defamation police? Be sure to include info on your intermarriage and assimilation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. At first I wasn't sure why you want to spend so much time on the crazy JF (or JFs?): this woman (or both) is (are) a basket case if I've ever seen one. But a little re-research shows the following:

    The joannafrancis.wordpress site also links to To My Muslim Sisters in the category 'My Articles'. At the bottom of this page it says "content copyright 2006+ by Mark Glenn, [...]" (?????).

    The travellingthough site does indeed link to the same text as joannafrancis.wordpress site also links to To My Muslim Sisters. That would be a bizarre coincidence: same name, same text! If both JFs aren't one and the same person, the "saner" (from travellingthrough) one should realise what she is linking to and perhaps you should point this out to her?

    One point though, in your exchange with Mark Glenn, mirrored by the latter on that page, you mention: "1.4 billion Arabs are humiliated by 13 million Jews". Dude: "1.4 billion Arabs"? You mean Muslims. And half (well, thereabouts) of Jews are Diaspora, they all humiliate Muslims/Arabs too? This is very confrontational and not at all reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Very strange. I can't help but wonder how it is that people come up with weirdo beliefs like this (aside from the obvious fact that they're evil). It's a bit like the old blood libels.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rickey, you have an entire blog where the main purpose is to EXPOSE me.

    Why are you taking offense at my EXPOSING someone else? I'm not dedicating my blog to her.

    I smell hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ruth, you mean that all Catholics don't think that Jews invented abortion as a way to murder Christians:)

    Gert, I have emailed her and addressed the point.

    Yes, I meant 1.4 billion Muslims. Muslims in the West mostly seem to be humiliated (pissed off) by Israel, at least the ones who get on TV. Israel has really evolved into a Muslim versus Jew thing, especially on the internet...and maybe it always was that.

    As far as being confrontational. He wrote the original article, and yes, I'm a confrontational type of guy....no matter how "unreasonable" I get at times.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have never heard of this "theory" at all. But, this is where I have to agree with Homer Simpson. People are stupid; that's why everyone does everything.
    To be honest though, dumb ideas like that really frustrate me. They provide a hook for pro-choice people to say "Hey look. All pro-lifers are wing nuts." It's very annoying, since I think the topic of abortion deserves a more in-depth discussion than that (hence my recent posts).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Didn't we finally decide that Ricky was Tony Van Eyk from Lambeth, Ontario?

    ReplyDelete
  17. On the abortion issue, I think that men who don't want to have an aborton, shouldn't have one.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anyone with half a brain can see that these are two different people. BTW, anti-abortion isn't a fight about liberty. It is a fight to save lives. Libs have this abortion issue all wrong. Once living tissues with a different DNA makeup, that is not cancerous, comes into being and possesses a different neuro-wave (brainwave for the uninitiated), it is destine to be a different person and MUST be accorded the rights of a living person. How can anyone argue otherwise? Like it or not, the woman becomes a host and by nature is given the task of nourishing this new life. If you don't want to do this then don't conceive. There is no law that say you can't use contraceptives. But once life has started, no one has the right to take it away. Even if one is the host. To end a life is to kill and that is wrong in any book.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Free Citizen, I've seen the argument that using protection is also considered denying a potential human life, and can be considered immoral.
    I don't think anyone is responsible for another person, and the fact that the fetus couldn't survive outside the woman until the 6th month or so using modern technology, means that she is not obligated to keep the fetus in her body.
    This is strictly a morality issue, and morality is subjective, as is the definition of morality.

    I realize this is a tough topic, and that is why it causes divide amongst the populous. I understand both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Do you, really? If you truly do, then you should take issue with those who make fun about others who think differently. I am not talking about protection at the expense of the host, the mother or pregnant person if you want to be politically correct. When it comes to that though, I sometimes wonder how that could come about, of course, the pregnant person has to be given precedence where life matters. The argument that the foetus can not survive outside the womb so, can not be considered a viable life and therefore, the pregnant person is not obligated to host it until it can survive on its own doesn't hold water. What kind of sick argument is that? Look, it is called a foetus simply because it is still dependent on the womb. Even if it is past 6 months and not yet ready to leave the womb but could be induced to pre-mature birth, it is still called a foetus. Do you realise what you are saying? The foetus inside the womb is not a person but one that is outside it and is still ticking is a person? What rubbish! They are one and the same. And I disagree with you about this being a moral issue. It is not, it is instead a homicide issue. What is your definition of murder? My understanding about it is quite clear. Five conditions must exist that constitute the act of killing. They are: first, a living being; second, knowledge or awareness it is a living being; third, intention to kill; fourth, the effort of killing and last but not least, death. When a woman conceives, a new living being is in her womb and this fulfils the first condition. After a couple of months, she knows that she is hosting a new life and this satisfies the second condition. For some reason she wants to do away with this being in her. So, she looks for an abortionist (note that I don't use the term doctor because they are not even though they have the knowledge to be one) to do the job and by this, the third condition is fulfilled. When the abortionist does what is asked for, the fourth condition is fulfilled and in the end, the being is killed. So, all five conditions exist; a murder has taken place. Forget about religion. You are an atheist. Even so, you live by certain codes. In any code of conduct, there is no ground to say that one has the right to take away the life of another. The women can not say she is only removing a part of herself. She knows this isn't true. If it is, that part she is removing will have identical genetic codes as hers. As you and I well know, this is not the case and she is intelligent enough to understand that. The foetus stops living because she chose to stop it. There is no other argument. And here is a moral issue for you. You know a women or perhaps a man who is going to commit this crime and you do nothing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The fact is that in most jurisdictions it is not unlawful to have a first trimester abortion. Therefore the laws of the land don't consider it murder.
    The fact you do, means it is a moral issue.
    Again, why is the mother responsible for something growing inside her if she chooses not to be?
    Like I said, it is the woman's choice until the fetus is capable of living without her.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The fact that most jurisdiction does not consider it unlawful to have a first trimester abortion doesn't mean that it is right. That ruling was borne out of pure ignorance. If you think about it objectively, how can anyone say it is okay to have a first trimester abortion but not a second trimester one. In both cases, the foetus is still incapable of surviving without the support of the host. Long ago, it was considered unlawful to say the earth revolved around the sun. But we are not in those times. Science has revealed so much and it is plain to see. Yet pro-choicer choose to ignore it. They say it is okay because what comes out is a barely recognizable human form. What stupidity. Do they not know that is how they themselves were at one point? Self induced abortion is an unnatural thing. No animal does it except us humans. It is an act done out of pure stupidity or cruel intent. In short, irresponsible. Again I reiterate, abortion itself is not a moral issue. It is a matter of right and wrong. All logical evidence points to it being the latter. However, it becomes a moral issue when we allow it to happen.

    Please bear with me. I am not one of those religious pro-lifer nut. I do not believe that abortion must be stop just because the Pope says so or the Book says so (I am neither a Christian nor a worshipper of any God). I do believe that the prohibition of the use of contraceptives is unreasonable. I am also very concern about world over population and the stress it puts on mother earth. That is why I admire China so much. They are making real effort to control this problem by having a one child policy. But I have to disagree with your assertion that the mother is not responsible for hosting a life that is growing inside her. Once life has begun, she has no right to take it away. Whether the foetus is capable or incapable of living without her support is irrelevant. These are just the various stages in life and she has to accept the fact that not only is the first stage most inconvenient to her but is dependent on her. Just as your mother did not cast you away when you were a toddler and still dependent on her to feed you. In short, she has no choice but to accept that responsibility. Whether she is ready to do so or not and whether she wants to or not. Science is progressing at a rapid rate. It won't be too long before technology will make it possible for the foetus to be nourished artificially. If the state is willing to bear the cost of such life support then those who choose not to host the new life may apply to have it removed from their body without killing it. Until then, unfortunately for them, they are obligated to support that life.

    I haven't gone into the psychological impact for those who have had abortions. That is post abortion syndrome, a kind of post traumatic stress disorder. Although not life threatening, the condition continue to plague the mental health of the person for life. The staunchest supporters of pro-choice are those who do not yet have children. Once they do, they could never console themselves why they supported pro-choice in the past. Look at Roe v. Wade. Ms. Roe has since been a fierce supporter of the pro-live movement. She even sought to have the decision overturned. Of course, you and your pro-choice friends are entitled to your opinion. An opinion that doesn't physically hurt anyone is of little consequence. But when it comes to a matter of life and death, that is a different thing altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  23. surprisingly eye opening... Yet if u know Shes writing is not true then why such an uproar. Hmmm lady JoAnna seems to know alot of the underground stuff!

    ReplyDelete