It's 2011 -- Why Is God Still Involved In American Politics? Speaking For God

I should have had this post out earlier in the week, but I have been in recovery. Not from too much grog, or even bad drugs, no something far more brain damaging than either of those. Mormonism! I've been reading about Mormonism, the tenets of Mormonism to be exact.

No linky for you just yet, because there is, once I've made myself a tin-foil hat, hopefully a post in the making. And if I can do justice to the thing, it should be of such incredulity, that you yourselves might have to retire to the bed chamber, quite possibly, with more than just a touch of the vapours. Of that though, another day.

Just a couple of paragraphs to get the feel, and then on to the article proper.

Things that used to be considered beyond the pale in politics, such as religious intolerance or ministers blatantly claiming they know who God supports in an election, have become normalized to the point where someone like Mitt Romney, who is odious in most respects but has never really made much of a fuss over his faith, is seeing religious tests becoming a major issue in his campaign.

Yes, just like the revival tent, going beyond the pale is just but a memory. But not so for those that speak for God; modern day Elmer Gantries! we got 'em coming out the woodwork. Ain't we Glenn? ain't we Pat?

Glenn Beck, Unhinged in Texas A read in its own right.

But it's this bit that's the cracker. Believe in the most outlandish batshit crazy stuff that you could possibly dream up and you are qualified to run for office. Believe in reality, and you haven't a snowball in hell's chance of being elected. Or if by some miracle (In the name of Noodles, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful) that you do manage to slip through the net, then beware, for "The Christians immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him." (Not)

I think ministering angels are a bit thin on the ground in North Carolina, not unlike Christians I shouldn't wonder.

Atheists already face discrimination when it comes to running for public office. A number of states ban atheists from holding public office, even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office. Of course, it’s difficult for an atheist to win enough votes to get office, so this conflict hasn’t been tested much, although one atheist city council member found himself under fire by religious bigots who wanted to use North Carolina’s ban on atheists holding office to push him out for not swearing his oath of office on the Bible.

I have embedded the short Rachel Maddow clip leading from the A number of states ban link. Perhaps it might be as well watching it first; whatever?

It's 2011 -- Why Is the Christian God Still Involved In American Politics?

The Mormon-bashing directed at Mitt Romney should concern everyone for what it reveals about the undue influence of religion in American elections.
By Amanda Marcotte
October 12, 2011

As an atheist and a liberal, it’s been tempting for me to simply laugh at Republicans fighting each other over the issue of whether or not Mitt Romney, a Mormon, gets to consider himself a Christian. From the non-believer point of view, it’s like watching a bunch of grown adults work themselves into a frenzy over the differences between leprechauns and fairies. But watching the debate unfold, I’ve become concerned about what it means to make someone’s religious beliefs such a big campaign issue, because it’s indicative of a larger eroding of the separation of church and state, which concerns not just atheists but all people who understand the importance of maintaining a secular government.

Robert Jeffress, an influential pastor who is the senior pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, went on "Focal Point" with Bryan Fischer and declared that one shouldn’t support Mitt Romney for president because Romney, a Mormon, isn’t a real Christian. This created a media dustup that was silly even by the usual standards of ever-sillier mainstream media campaign coverage. John King of CNN interviewed Jeffress, focusing strictly on the question of who Jeffress believes deserves to be called a Christian, and how firmly he believes that only people he calls Christians should hold public office. Candy Crowley of CNN dogged both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann on the question of whether or not they believe Romney is a Christian, and then she got irate with the candidates when they refused to answer the question, claiming that it’s irrelevant.

These interviews are remarkable for what the CNN anchors didn’t discuss, which was the most important question of all: the separation of church and state. Even though our nation has a tradition of pastors staying out of partisan politics -- in fact, it is illegal for ministers to endorse candidates from the pulpit -- it seemingly never occurred to King to challenge Jeffress for overstepping his bounds by telling people that God wants an evangelical Christian who is a Republican for president. By making the story about whether or not Mormons are Christians, CNN left the viewer with the impression that only Christians deserve to hold public office, and that the only thing left to debate is whether or not someone “counts” as a Christian, making him or her eligible for office.

We’re a long way from the days when John Kennedy assured the public that he respected the separation of church and state and would keep his faith separate from his policy-making decisions. Now, even mainstream reporters take it as a given that politicians will let religion govern their actions, and the only thing left to debate on theology is how many angels any single politician believes dance on the head of a pin. Things that used to be considered beyond the pale in politics, such as religious intolerance or ministers blatantly claiming they know who God supports in an election, have become normalized to the point where someone like Mitt Romney, who is odious in most respects but has never really made much of a fuss over his faith, is seeing religious tests becoming a major issue in his campaign.

The ramifications for this shift affect more than conservative Mormons trying to win as Republicans. By not challenging the assertion that only Christians should hold office, mainstream journalists encourage bigotry against all religious minorities, including atheists. Atheists already face discrimination when it comes to running for public office. A number of states ban atheists from holding public office, even though the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office. Of course, it’s difficult for an atheist to win enough votes to get office, so this conflict hasn’t been tested much, although one atheist city council member found himself under fire by religious bigots who wanted to use North Carolina’s ban on atheists holding office to push him out for not swearing his oath of office on the Bible.

There’s a reason the Founding Fathers wrote a national constitution that forbade religious tests for office and required the separation of church and state. It’s not just protection against the escalating religious bigotry we're seeing lately, but also because religion should have no place in politics in the first place. Neither atheists nor believers benefit when leaders are guided more by religious dogma than by rationality. Angels and demons might be a fine thing to worry about when you’re in church on Sunday, but when you’re trying to govern real people in the real world, it’s far better to rely on evidence and empirical facts, interpreted through reason and not through the guesswork of faith. This is why Kennedy defended himself against questions about his faith by saying, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.”

People like Robert Jeffress, when they propose religious tests for office--even ones held privately by voters--should face more challenges than reporters simply asking if they consider Mormons “real” Christians. They should be confronted with Kennedy’s words and asked directly why they disagree with our former president about the separation of church and state. They should be asked why they believe only a certain breed of Christians should hold office, and asked why they think it’s appropriate to demand that politicians put religious dogma before evidence-based and rational approaches to policy. Anything less than that is aiding the religious right in its mission to remake our secular democracy into a theocracy. It shouldn’t be tolerated. AlterNet

Read More

Women's Reproductive Rights: America The Next Nicaragua

Generally speaking, men shouldn't be within a hundred feet of issues surrounding women's reproductive rights. Politicians shouldn't be within a thousand yards, and US politicians shouldn't be within a thousand miles of them. Because there is a no more disingenuous festering bowl of pus on this earth than the American politician.

One only has to remember the case of Terri Schiavo to have that confirmed. For those not familiar with that appalling spectacle; Terri Schiavo was a cabbage, a carcass kept functioning by purely artificial means. A carcass that is until she became cause celebre and political tool for every cheap huckster in congress. Congress in actual fact being recalled to make cheap politics over the affair. George Bush cut short his holiday to fly back to Washington to get involved, that should tell you enough, fuck me! he didn't manage to do that when Louisiana was drowning.

And the bottom line to all this, when they finally autopsied the woman? She had an atrophied brain the size of a walnut, she had been clinically dead for years. Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

Watch these three short clips and then tell me that men should debate women's issues. Nor for that matter, batshit crazy evangelical, concerned vaginas for America




Frist Diagnosing Terry Schiavo on Senate Floor

George W. Bush Discusses Terri Schiavo: Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. Laura and I extend our condolences to Terri Schiavo's families. I appreciate the example of grace and dignity they have displayed at a difficult time. I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life. The most solemn duty of the American President is to protect the American people.

George W Bush on the value of life!

Michele Bachmann refers to Terri Schiavo as a "healthy" woman. The audience clearly disagrees.

Do I need to highlight the involvement of Satan's spawn in all this, the Holy Order of misogynist arse bandits, boy buggerers extraordinaire? No, one only has to read the Nicaragua post to lay the blame at the right door.

Congress Contemplates Brutal Anti-Abortion Law
By Rick Ungar
Oct. 12, 2011

In what would be a major and potentially deadly change in American healthcare policy, The House of Representatives will take up H.R. 358 —The Protect Life Act—this week. The bill would permit federally funded hospitals to refuse abortion services even to women who would likely die without the procedure.

As the law currently stands, hospitals are required by EMTALA to provide emergency care to anyone who walks through their doors. If a hospital is unable or unwilling to perform a necessary procedure, it is obligated to stabilize the patient and then transfer the individual to a facility that can perform the procedure and agrees to do so. As a result of the EMTALA requirements, the 600 plus Catholic hospitals in the nation who are unwilling to perform abortions on religious grounds, even in life-threatening circumstances to the mother, are obligated to transfer that patient in need of such a procedure to a hospital that agrees to perform the required operation.

If The Protect Life Act were to pass, this would no longer be the case. Hospitals that do not care to perform abortions, for whatever reason and even when the procedure is required to save the life of the mother, would be legally permitted to simply do nothing.

While one might anticipate that hospitals refusing to perform abortions would transfer a patient in life-threatening circumstances to a facility willing to perform the abortion, I wouldn't be so sure.

In 2009, a Phoenix-based Catholic bishop excommunicated Sister Margaret McBride, an administrator at St. Joseph's Hospital, for authorizing an abortion in the case of a woman who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension and was likely to die without the procedure. In stating his reasons for this extreme act, the Archdiocese issued a statement saying, in part:

An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.

The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic.

Given this line of thought, should The Protect Life Act become the law, it seems unlikely that such a Catholic institution would voluntarily send a patient over to another facility knowing that an abortion was going to take place.

And the bill doesn't stop at allowing hospitals to let mothers face death. It would also deny federal funding to a health care plan that offers to pay for abortion services even in life-threatening circumstances.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice-president for communications at Planned Parenthood, summed it up quite nicely:

This is just a demolition derby for women's health care. To first say, 'We won't even treat you if you show up needing a life-saving abortion,' and then to eliminate health insurance that might have saved your family from bankruptcy is a real one-two gut punch to women in these tough economic times.

So, how is it that the sponsors and backers of this bill happen to be the same people who constantly rail against government intruding in our lives yet would now empower medical facilities to allow a woman to die if their respective religious beliefs do not match up?

Demolition derby, indeed. motherjones

Related: Of Abortion, and Women as the Ultimate Source of Evil by Arthur Silber

- - -

A re-up from October 2007

"Here there is a lot of religiosity but only a little Christianity." : Nicaragua

Why I hate Religion, chapter Six Hundred and Sixty Six.


Last November it became a crime for a woman to have an abortion in Nicaragua, even if her life was in mortal danger. So far it has resulted in the death of at least 82 women. Rory Carroll reports on the fight to have the law changed

González was not stupid and did not want to die. She knew her chance of surviving the butchery was small. But being a practical woman, she recognised it was her only chance, and took it. The story of why it was her only chance is an unfolding drama of religion, politics and power that has made Nicaragua a crucible in the global battle over abortion rights. This central American country has become the third country in the world, after Chile and El Salvador, to criminalise all abortions. It is a blanket ban. There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or life- or health-threatening pregnancies.



Pope Benedict XVI welcomed the ban but added that women should not suffer or die as a result. "In this regard, it is essential to increase the assistance of the state and of society itself to women who have serious problems during pregnancy."more

And with those words washed his hands of all moral obligation to women.

it is essential to increase the assistance of the state and of society itself to women who have serious problems during pregnancy."

It's Nicaragua you disingenuous fuckdog, the second poorest country in Latin America.

Read More

Jesoids Ban Richard Dawkins Event in Michigan Country Club

There is a link to the O'Reilly video in question at the bottom of the page. Personally I couldn't get past the one minute mark. The overwhelming desire to kick someone in the bollocks, having the tendency to interfere with one's viewing pleasure ever so slightly.

Billo is such an ignorant loud mouthed gobshite, or as some disillusion soul described him a while back: 'A great American.' And I'm not making that up, as hard as it might be to get your head around.

Bill O'Reilly, corporate shill and a great American.

Previous: Billo You're So Predictable

Richard Dawkins Event Banned by Michigan Country Club
October 10, 2011

The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

Prejudice against atheists (video here & here) manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by the Center for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

Richard DawkinsThe Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.




In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

After learning of the owner’s last-minute refusal to allow Dawkins to speak, CFI–Michigan asked the owner to reconsider his position, but this attempt to resolve the issue amicably was met with silence. The event, scheduled for Wednesday, October 12, will now be held at a different venue.

“It’s important to understand that discrimination based on a person’s religion—or lack thereof—is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race,” said Jeff Seaver, executive director of CFI–Michigan. “This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time. It’s exactly why organizations like CFI and the Richard Dawkins Foundation are needed: to help end the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever.” CFI-Michigan: via RDF - Video link

Read More

FBI: Here's a Rock, Go throw It Through That Window - FBI: Youre nicked Old Son For Having a Rock In Your Hand

And that kiddywinks is just about the top and bottom of ninety five percent of the FBI's anti-terrorist successes.

A more detailed update of what has passed before. (as law enforcement)

It's not all bad though, it did inspire a little creativity.

How the FBI's Network of Informants Actually Created Most of the Terrorist Plots "Foiled" in the US Since 9/11
The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?
October 9, 2011

UPDATE: On September 28, Rezwan Ferdaus, a 26-year-old graduate of Northeastern University, was arrested and charged with providing resources to a foreign terrorist organization and attempting to destroy national defense premises. Ferdaus, according to the FBI, planned to blow up both the Pentagon and Capitol Building with a "large remote controlled aircraft filled with C-4 plastic explosives."



The case was part of a nearly ten-month investigation led by the FBI. Not surprisingly, Ferdaus' case fits a pattern detailed by Trevor Aaronson in his article below: the FBI provided Ferdaus with the explosives and materials needed to pull off the plot. In this case, two undercover FBI employees, who Ferdaus believed were al Qaeda members, gave Ferdaus $7,500 to purchase an F-86 Sabre model airplane that Ferdaus hoped to fill with explosives. Right before his arrest, the FBI employees gave Ferdaus, who lived at home with his parents, the explosives he requested to pull off his attack. And just how did the FBI come to meet Ferdaus? An informant with a criminal record introduced Ferdaus to the supposed al Qaeda members.

To learn more about how the FBI uses informants to bust, and sometimes lead, terrorist plots, read Aaronson's article below.



James Cromitie was a man of bluster and bigotry. He made up wild stories about his supposed exploits, like the one about firing gas bombs into police precincts using a flare gun, and he ranted about Jews. "The worst brother in the whole Islamic world is better than 10 billion Yahudi," he once said.

A 45-year-old Walmart stocker who'd adopted the name Abdul Rahman after converting to Islam during a prison stint for selling cocaine, Cromitie had lots of worries—convincing his wife he wasn't sleeping around, keeping up with the rent, finding a decent job despite his felony record. But he dreamed of making his mark. He confided as much in a middle-aged Pakistani he knew as Maqsood. more

The Beano Wikipedia

Read More

Who's Next On The US Kill List?

Bill Hicks before or after the story?

Secret panel can put Americans on ‘kill list’ without any oversight
October 6, 2011


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama’s toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki’s killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush’s expansive use of executive power in his “war on terrorism,” is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law,” Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC “principals,” meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki’s name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals’ decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to “protect” the president.

Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan’s death was “collateral,” meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

‘FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL’

Officials said Awlaki, More Raw Story

Read More

Sarah Palin Not Running For President: Neither is My Dog

Mrs Palin said in a statement that the decision came after much thought, and that she and her husband, Todd, "devote ourselves to God, family and country". BBC

For fuck's sake, pass the bucket. Don't you think the time might be better spent in adult education?

Sarah Palin, the only person I know that makes George Bush look like an Oxford Don.




Previous: Popcorn With Palin & It's Over For Palin! Don't Kid Yourself Stills missing! copyright? strange.

Update: A Blogger/Picasa balls up by all accounts. Leaving this link here in case I need it one day.
http://www.jensdesk.com/2011/08/how-to-get-rid-of-black-error-triangles.html

Read More

Missionaries of Hate: American Evangelicals Spread Gay Hate in Uganda: Extension

This should have been an update to: Missionaries of Hate: American Evangelicals Spread Gay Hate in Uganda: Updated but the thing just grew and grew, so now it's a post. But it ain't all bitterness and hate, it gets progressively lighter as you move on down the page.

Further gay hate reading at the link, includes the first video below.

Arizona "Pro-Family" Group Linked to Campaigning for Gay Discrimination within the UN; Uganda "Kill the Gays" Pastor

h/t Maren.



From the clip:

''If you want to join in the fight against extremism, call, People for the American Way.''

Americans, what are they like? Americans don't do irony, but I do.

''It is no slogan that America remains the most resolutely religious country on God's great earth, and it is no slogan that America will always occupy a special place in God's heart.'' George HW Bush.

Yes of course, he his after all very much like yourselves, a petty, vengeful, jealous, genocidal maniac.

God wilfully directs or commands the wholesale slaughter of thousands of men, women, children and animals, for no other reason than that "his" people should have their land. The Village Atheist

And who better to carry out God's work than you lot? You are after all ''His'' people.

Here's a video below, showing America carrying out God's work. He really must have had a special place in his heart for America on that day. And one or two others. What was the butchers bill for that little genocidal jolly, three, or was it four million?

God bless America.




Featured at: Least We Forget: Fuck America Nothing further to see.




Featured at: USAF: A Most Ungodly Organisation A Perfect foil for the clip above. I think I've got that arse about, what harm.




Comment and plenty more clips of hired killers getting their freak on for Jesus at: US Army: Bible Bashing For Jesus




Featured at: "I was ashamed to be an American today" One clip on the Fred & Wilma Museum, and one on a schoolboard's persecution of a sixteen year old atheist schoolgirl.




Featured at: These People Are Insane More clips.




Featured at: These People Are Insane More clips.




Pat Robertson's true colours come shining through, and it ain't purple. But just as importantly see how he is being coached (supposedly off air) and the talk of better screening for the telephone calls he is to receive. And all this on that nice Mister Larry King's Show. Shurely Shome Mishtake?




Gay Marriage: End of the world for some Christians. Catch the second fellow, he has a vote!






He does come in for some stick, does poor old Mr Winky.




Bill Maher on the homophobic Jerry Falwell.







Maher on Mormons.




Might I remind you that there is a man, two in fact, that aspire to become the next President of the United States of America, who believe this shit.

Featured at: Utah Tops The Wanking League More, ''everything you wanted to know about batshit crazy religions'' including the best ''Scientology explained'' clip that I have come across. Strap in, five point harness and airbag essential, check your brain at the door.




Spitting Image, Bush 41




Well he would be wouldn't he, he is after all an American.




Religion ala Eddie Izzard.




Rowan Atkinson Amazing Jesus


Further comment and clips.

"..after the slaying of Tiller the Killer" Loads o' crazies.

It's a Funny Old World SC "Foetus for Jesus" monument. Strap in.

United States Air Force AKA The Ministry Of Truth Interesting story on USAF censorship. We trust you to bomb shit out of people with multi-million dollar war planes, but we don't trust you enough to let you read blogs. Nasty old bloggers!

Admiral Mike Mullen Talks Shite Includes a Bill Hicks clip.

Who Would Jesus Kill? Ex Marine Colonel Totally Mad Strap in!

"we should not condone immoral (Gay) acts" Said top General, taking time out from genocide in Iraq.

Warmongering vs. the Sanctity of Life Hypocrisy at its best.

A Horror Story: Depleted Uranium Text only, you really wouldn't want to see a video of that.

Although there are stills showing the effects of DU (and bucket loads of hypocrisy) featured in the two posts below.

The United States of America The Greatest Nation of Hypocrites on Earth (Graphic)

Onward Christian Soldiers (Graphic)

Read More

Feeding The Hungry and Protesting Wall Street In The Land of The Free

This picture gallery is to accompany the post above. (God, hate and hypocrisy)

SAN FRANCISCO MAN BECOMES FIRST AMERICAN TO GRASP SIGNIFICANCE OF IRONY–

Jay Fullmer, 38, yesterday became the first American to get to grips with the concept of irony. "It was weird," Fullmer said. "I was in London and, like, talking to this guy and it was raining and he pulled a face and said, "Great weather, eh?" and I thought "Wait a minute, no way is it great weather." Fullmer then realised that the other man’s "mistake" was in fact deliberate. Fullmer, who is 39 next month and married with two children, aged 8 and 3, plans to use irony himself in future. "I’m, like, using it all the time," he said. "Last weekend I was grilling steaks and I burned them to shit and I said "Hey, great weather!".

Read More

And In Contrast To Justice Clarence Thomas....

We have this.

Somehow they manage to call it justice.

Five Years for Pot? Multiple Sclerosis and Medical Marijuana Patient Faces Bail Hearing Tomorrow

John Ray Wilson has multiple sclerosis, a disease, like many others, for which medical marijuana is proven to be incredibly beneficial: It helps to control symptoms like pain and spasticity and slows the disease's disabling progression.

The medical benefits of marijuana have prompted many states to allow MS patients access to the plant. For John Ray Wilson, however, the legislation came too late. Tomorrow, Somerset County, New Jersey Judge Marino will determine whether Wilson will be released from prison or wait, incarcerated, until the Supreme Court reviews his case.

In August of 2008, Wilson was arrested in New Jersey for growing 17 marijuana plants. Two years later, in January of 2010, New Jersey legalized marijuana for multiple sclerosis patients. Shockingly, around the same time as the new legislation, a judge convicted Wilson of marijuana "manufacturing." Even more disturbing is that Wilson was barred from disclosing his MS diagnosis in court. The judge gave him the minimum sentence for growing marijuana - five years behind bars.

After five weeks in jail, Wilson was released on bond, pending the results of his appeal to an astounding five-year prison sentence. But in late July of this year, an Appellate Court upheld Wilson's conviction, despite the recent medical marijuana laws (have not yet taken effect) that would qualify Wilson to legally use marijuana. He was incarcerated on August 24, 2011.

According to a press release,

Attorney William Buckman has filed a petition to the State Supreme Court. The bail hearing tomorrow will determine if Wilson can remain with his family as the Supreme Court appeal is considered. Mr. Buckman’s office reports that the State intends to vigorously oppose the release of Wilson.

“New Jersey already has some of the most draconian laws in the nation with respect to marijuana, costing taxpayers outrageous sums to incarcerate nonviolent, otherwise responsible individuals-- as well as in this case -- the sick and infirm,” said Buckman. “As it stands, the case now allows a person who grows marijuana to be exposed to up to 20 years in jail, even if that marijuana is strictly for his or her own medical use. No fair reading of the law would ever sanction this result.”

Wilson told NBC he used marijuana because alternative medications were too expensive. He is currently incarcerated at the Central Reception and Assignment Facility for the New Jersey State Prison system in Trenton, New Jersey. According to the press release, Wilson's father, Ray, says Wilson is scheduled for transfer to maximum security Northern State Prison in Newark, NJ, where he may serve the remainder of his ludicrous five-year sentence.
Alternet

Clarence Thomas

Read More

Clarence Thomas Should Be Sat in a Cell Not on a Supreme Court Bench

When I think about all the poor schmucks that are locked up for years on end, for trivialities. And then there is this bent motherfucker, swanning around with impunity, grabbing every kickback he can, it makes my fucking blood boil. Cocksucker!

I mean, he's no Wall Street slag, although you wouldn't know it, he's a Supreme Court Justice for Christsake. A bent one!

GEORGE! George Carlin, where are you? below.

Clarence Thomas has his own tag here.

Clarence Thomas Should Be Investigated For Nondisclosure, Democratic Lawmakers Say

WASHINGTON -- Democratic lawmakers on Thursday called for a federal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' failure to report hundreds of thousands of dollars on annual financial disclosure forms.



Led by House Rules Committee ranking member Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), 20 House Democrats sent a letter to the Judicial Conference of the United States -- the entity that frames guidelines for the administration of federal courts -- requesting that the conference refer the matter of Thomas' non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice.



The letter outlines how, throughout his 20-year tenure on the Supreme Court, Thomas routinely checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income. But in reality, the letter states, she earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007 alone.
Slaughter called it "absurd" to suggest that Thomas may not have known how to fill out the forms.

"It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income," Slaughter said in a statement. "To not be able to do so is suspicious, and according to law, requires further investigation. To accept Justice Thomas’s explanation without doing the required due diligence would be irresponsible."
The letter also cites a June report in The New York Times indicating Thomas may have regularly benefited from the use of a private yacht and airplane owned by real estate magnate Harlan Crowe and failed to disclose the travel as a gift or travel reimbursement.
Current law requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General any judge the conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported."



Slaughter's press statement also notes that the Heritage Foundation was a prominent opponent of the Affordable Care Act, an issue the Supreme Court is expected to rule on by next summer.

"The Attorney General would be the appropriate person to investigate the issue of non-disclosure, and that is why my colleagues and I are making this request today," Slaughter said. "I cannot determine guilt or innocence, but I can request that the government do our due diligence in investigating a situation that strikes me, and many other members of Congress, as suspicious." HuffPo

Read More

Another Schmuck Falls Victim to FBI Entrapment

Christ in a sidecar, where do they dream them up? This shit wouldn't pass muster in the Boy's Own Annual, it's about as subtle as a turd in a swimming pool.

My emphasis.

Previous: FBI Manufacturing Domestic Terror Plots

U.S. Man Arrested for Plan to Fly Remote Controlled, Bomb-Filled Planes Into Pentagon, Capitol

A US follower of al-Qaeda was arrested Wednesday on charges of planning to fly explosive-packed, remote controlled airplanes into the Pentagon and the US Capitol, authorities said.

Rezwan Ferdaus, 26, was arrested and charged with the aerial bombing plot to attack Washington and attempts to deliver bomb-making materials for use against US troops in Iraq, US Attorney Carmen Ortiz said in Boston.

"The conduct alleged today shows that Mr. Ferdaus had long planned to commit violent acts against our country, including attacks on the Pentagon and our nations Capitol," Ortiz said.




During the alleged plot, undercover FBI agents posed as al-Qaeda-linked accomplices who supplied Ferdaus with one remote-controlled plane, C4 explosives, and small arms that he allegedly envisioned using in a simultaneous ground assault in Washington.

The plan, according to the criminal complaint, was to strike the Pentagon and the Capitol's famous white dome and "decapitate the entire empire. (It will be the) final nail in the coffin."

However, "the public was never in danger from the explosive devices, which were controlled by undercover FBI employees," the FBI said.

Ferdaus was arrested in Framingham, near Boston, immediately after putting the newly delivered weapons into a storage container, the FBI said.

Authorities described Ferdaus as a physics graduate from Northeastern University who was an enthusiastic fan of al-Qaeda and had been committed to "violent jihad" since early last year.

He also apparently possessed a knack for technical work.

Ferdaus is accused of modifying mobile phones for use as electrical switches in bombs to be used against US troops in Iraq.

"That was exactly what I wanted," he is alleged to have said when told -- falsely -- that one of his phones had been part of a bomb that killed three soldiers.

Aided by the FBI undercover team, Ferdaus was also developing far more grandiose plans, according to the authorities.

"Ferdaus stated that he planned to attack the Pentagon using aircraft similar to 'small drone airplanes' filled with explosives and guided by GPS equipment. According to the affidavit, in April 2011, Ferdaus expanded his plan to include an attack on the US Capitol," the FBI said.

The planes were large enough to carry "a variety of payloads (including a lethal payload of explosives), can use a wide range of take-off and landing environments, and fly different flight patterns than commercial airlines, thus reducing detection," according to the criminal complaint filed in court.

In May and June 2011 Ferdaus delivered thumb drives to the undercover team with step-by-step plans for his alleged plot.

This included using three remote-controlled planes and six people who would be armed with Kalashnikovs and grenades.

The plan, according to the FBI, was to use the "aerial assault" to "eliminate key locations."

The Capitol's dome would be blown "to smithereens," Ferdaus was quoted in the complaint as saying.

At that point the attackers would herd survivors into a tight corner and "open up on them" and "keep firing."

"It ought to result in the downfall of this entire disgusting place," Ferdaus is alleged to have said.

Republican lawmaker Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the arrest was a reminder that 10 years after the 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda and its sympathizers "remain committed to attacking the US homeland."

The New York congressman said it "also underscores the need to continue efforts to combat domestic radicalization and the evolving threat of 'lone wolf' extremists."

Ferdaus made a first court appearance before a federal judge in Worcester, Massachusetts, on Wednesday and was scheduled for a detention hearing on Monday.

If convicted, Ferdaus faces up to 15 years in prison for supporting a foreign terrorist organization, up to 20 years for attempting to destroy national defense sites, and the same again for attempting to use explosives against buildings owned by the United States.

Little personal information was given out about the accused man, other than that he is unmarried and has no children. AlterNet

Read More

America Is Moving Away From Religion: You Reckon?

Hope springs eternal in the human breast.


5 Signs That America Is Moving Away from Religion

If you look closely there are promising signs that American attitudes are changing in a way that may blunt the impact of religion on politics and culture.
By Tana Ganeva
September 28, 2011

In between bragging about the number of people they've killed and vilifying gay soldiers, the GOP presidential candidates have spent the primaries demonstrating how little they respect the separation of church and state. Michele Bachmann seems to think God is personally invested in her political career. Both she and Rick Perry have ties to Christian Dominionism, a theocratic philosophy that publicly calls for Christian takeover of America's political and civil institutions. (Even Ron Paul, glorified by civil libertarians for his only two good policy stances -- opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and drug prohibition -- sputtered about churches when asked during a debate where he'd send a gravely ill man without health insurance.)

GOP pandering to the Religious Right is just one of those facts of American political life, like climate change denial and Creationism in schools, that leave secular Americans lamenting the decline of the country, and of reason and logic. Organized religion's grasp on the politics and culture of much of Europe has been waning for decades -- why can't we do that here?

But there are signs that American attitudes are changing in ways that may tame religion's power over political life in the future.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, tells AlterNet that she thinks what happened in Europe is (slowly) happening here. While questioning religion remains controversial -- Gaylor says the group's work on church and state issues often elicits hate-mail strongly suggesting they move to, you know, Europe -- atheism, skepticism, and agnosticism are becoming more widely accepted.

"The statistics show there are more of us ... If you're in a room of people you can count on more to agree with non-belief or to be accepting of non-belief," says Gaylor.

Here are five trends that give hope one day religion will reside in the realm of personal choice and private worship, far away from politics -- something like what the Founders intended hundreds of years ago.




1. American religious belief is becoming more fractured

The intrusion of religion into places where it doesn't belong, like government or public education, naturally requires high levels of organization and control -- it's not something that just happens. So it's a good sign that even many Americans who maintain a personal religious faith are distancing themselves from heierarchical, top-down religion. Polls have repeatedly shown that even among the devout, emphatic proclamations of faith do not translate into actual churchgoing. In fact, church attendance rates hovered at around 40 percent until pollsters realized there's a major gap between what Americans tell them about their religious habits and their actual religious habits. Tom Flynn summarizes the over-inflation of US churchgoing and offers more accurate stats:

Americans may believe in a god who sees everything, but they lie about how often they go to church. Since 1939, the Gallup organization has reported that 40% of adults attend church weekly. (The most recent figure is 42%.) Gallup's figure has long attracted skepticism. Were it true, some 73 million people would throng the nation's houses of worship each week. Even the conservative Washington Times found that "hard to imagine." New research suggests that there may be only half to two-thirds that many people in the pews.

Americans are also actively shaping their religious beliefs to fit their own values. Profiled in USA Today, religion expert George Barna shares recent findings that show religion is becoming increasingly personal. Believers might drift from faith to faith until they find one that works for them, or cobble together a belief system drawn from many religious traditions. The US is becoming a place of "310 million people with 310 million religions" Barna is quoted as saying. Go to page two, or be like me, don't.

Read More