Sunday, October 30, 2005

ACLU: Defenders of Religious Freedom Since 1920

Far right wing organizations such as Stop the ACLU have long contended that the ACLU is a bunch of Christ hating, Christian baby eating, group of communists who would rather defend NAMBLA than a Christian. Anyone with a brain knows that they are simply wrong. The ACLU simply defends the intentions of our forefathers, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who wanted to guarantee certain inalienable rights to the people whilst keeping them protected from the fads, beliefs and fears of the majority and or the Federal Government.

Unlike these radical fringe groups such as Stop the ACLU, Focus on the Family, and most Christian organizations in general, the ACLU doesn't set out to just protect the civil liberties of the people they agree with, but to protect everyone's freedoms.

From the ACLU website:
"In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide..."

Here is the proof to all these numbnuts that they have nothing to bitch about and are just a bunch of paranoid delusionals:

April 2002: Falwell vs Lynchburg,VA in religious property dispute.

August 2004: Church of the Awesome God vs Lincoln, NE for religious harassment by the city

May 2005: Religious freedom for an asylum seeker regarding head wear

December 2004: Jurors can't be discriminated against for being demonstrative about their religion

July 2004, Catholic sent to jail for not being Pentecostal and refusing to attend their faith based treatment sessions

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets

June 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit

May 27, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages

October 28, 2002: ACLU defends Baptist Church in zoning discrimination

July 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school

January 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to advertise on public transit

April 29, 2005: ACLU defends two Christian girls who wore anti-abortion shirts to school

Why haven't you ever heard from a Christian group defending rap lyrics, porn publishers or Marilyn Manson? Because they are biased groups who care nothing about our form of government, our way of life, our constitution or the intentions of our founding fathers. The only thing they care about is their rights and their agendas. If laws were passed that forced everyone to convert to their form of Christianity and to live like they do, the majority of them would support it. Why is it so hard for these groups to go both ways and see both sides? Why is the ACLU the only one defending our freedoms and the principals that made this country what it is today? Focus on the Family does not care about your freedoms and your rights unless you are a pro-life, conservative Christian who believes everything the Republicans tell them.

Other things these ACLU Communists would have objected to only to be called anti-American:

Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 which allowed the US to deport anyone of the same nationality as our "enemies", or other "dangerous" people and prohibited anyone from publishing "scandalous" statements about our government.

Lincoln's closures of dissenting news publications and suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1861.

Executive Order 9066 in 1942 sending 110,000 people of Japanese ancestry to isolated internment camps, over half of which were American born.

Anyone that would disagree with any of the above are clearly America hating communists!

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Harriet Sweet Harriet

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination as the next Supreme Court Justice. Unless Bush has more friends we don't know about, he will be hard pressed to find a qualified replacement. Wait, I heard Jenna is out of college now; maybe if she can brush off her hangover she could be the next justice of the Supreme Court.

Image hosted by
Jenna Bush at a party upon learning that she is on the Presidents short list for the supreme court vacancy.

The good thing is that with the Brownie and Miers nominations Bush has come to realize that just because he likes somebody that it doesn't mean they are capable or qualified for any and every available job in Washington.

On a side note, I am sure the neocons are now wetting themselves over the possibility of getting their activist judge that will change the laws and rewrite the constitution to its original form including the sections about how the US was supposed to be a Christian State that discriminates against gay people and gives welfare to rich corporations whilst cutting their taxes. That is what a Supreme Court Justice should be about.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Worst Organization Ever

The Alliance for the Separation of School and State is one of the dumbest organizations I have ever seen. They don't want schools to be funded by the government and taxpayers, but rather every kid should be home schooled or all schools should be privately run.

These people are a bunch of home schoolers who actually say (with a straight face) that children need an "honest" education that cannot be obtained within the public school system.

"Honest" things they think should be taught in school:

Why am I here? Is there any purpose to my life? Ok this could be in a Humanities class but maybe Socrates and Descartes are a little deep for 2nd graders.

Why is there so much evil in the world? How can I know what is good and what is evil? In which class would this subject be discussed? Math, Science? Again this would fall under Humanities and Philosophy and again I think the Divine Comedy is a bit much for most grade schoolers. Also consider that "evil" is very subjective; I think you would have to define "evil" before you can recognize it and be able to distinguish it from "good". It's hard to measure, test and predict "evil". Math, English, Science, etc. are not subjective and they can prepare you for life, a job and the real world, which is what school is supposed to do. Really, this may be a bit much for even a Humanities class; maybe it's best suited for a Church or your parents, not school.

Is there a Supreme Being? Does he care about us? In case you were wondering, no, and even if there was, he's got a lot more on his mind than what's happening in Fresno. Good thing we got that one settled. Now we can move on.

What is truth? Are there any permanent truths? Ever hear of algebra or economics? What kind of school do they want? There are already schools for these folks. They are called madrasas and you can find them in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Have fun.

How will this new system of schooling work?

"The top two-thirds of the families will be able to afford tuitions after the $300-billion tax cut, but the poorest third will need financial help. We'll need to raise an additional $20-billion each year for groups like the Children's Scholarship Fund."

You mean all we have to do is cut taxes by 300 billion and raise 20 billion privately for poor children to go to school? Why didn't you just say it was that easy? Yeah, rich people love giving their money to the poor; that's why they continually bitch about paying too much in taxes and supporting welfare moms. Let's not forget that someone would still actually have to teach your kid, so for all you single moms out there, you are just going to have to quit your job and stay home and teach your kids. No, it doesn't matter that you are a high school drop out; only you know how to best teach your kids. How are you going to support your family? Don’t worry, you'll have that tax cut. Oh wait, tax cuts only help people who pay taxes. Sorry, maybe you can get some of that 20 billion dollars rich people are going to decide to give you after they eliminate the estate tax.

Here is what they say about their opposition:

"Who Opposes Separation of School & States the Gateway to Honest Education? Bad People."

Obviously, this is a Christian fundamentalist group that doesn't want science to be taught in schools. They want to replace secular schools with home based fundamentalist madrasas where parents with no teaching degrees, and very often no college degree at all, will teach their own children and grade them fairly. Armed with a Bible and no teaching experience, they think they can better prepare their children for life than a government funded school could.

Another funny thing about their site, and probably one of the reasons they seek "honest" education, is that they have a section documenting all the anti-Christian bias in public school textbooks. The only problem with this section is that there are only two articles. One talking about how a textbook failed to mention that the Pilgrims prayed on Thanksgiving and another one is just a review of a book published in 1986 by some Christian "publishing company" titled Censorship: Evidence of bias in our children's textbooks. It's not even a very good review.

This book exposes the secular liberal media's attempt to exclude religion, "family values", and conservative views from school textbooks. Their review says the author "cites texts that do not feature women as homemakers, lack patriotic spirit, do not promote free enterprise, and ignore movements such as tax revolt." So does this mean our algebra textbooks need to have an American flag on every page, that our history books need to omit evidence that implies America ever did anything wrong, and that they should include an entire chapter on the impact of the female homemakers in the early 20th century? As far as the "tax revolt movement" goes, I would like someone to show me one history book that doesn't talk about the Boston Tea Party and taxation without representation. School isn't supposed to be a propaganda or marketing outlet for capitalism and politics so what is his problem? And would he have the same problem with textbooks that didn't discuss labor unions, the Haymarket Riot, and the inquisition of Communists in the 50s? Why is one part of history ok to leave out and another part not? Is it just because he wants his version of revisionist history taught to young children who were not living during these events and therefore couldn't possibly dispute them?

Why do you think China is upset with Japan for omitting "unpatriotic" events such as the rape of Nanking from their textbooks?

Ok, I admit it, I got off on a tangent and this should have been two separate posts. Sue me!

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Another Pitbull Post

After reading a recent article where the author talks about how evil and blood thirsty pitbulls are and how they needed to be banned because they killed a whole 4 people this year, I decided to email her this letter:

42,000 people per year are killed by cars; they are dangerous let’s ban them!

Over 30,000 people in this country are killed by guns every year. Guns are dangerous. Let’s ban them!

9% of the worlds population will die due to tobacco related diseases. That is over 5 million people. Tobacco is dangerous; let’s ban it.

In the US, over 300,000 deaths can be attributed to obesity every year. Food is dangerous; lets ban it!

Every year over 100 people choke to death on ball point pens. Why would we ban a dog that kills 4 people per year and not ban ball point pens that choke and kill 100 people per year?

I must also mention that horses account for over 200 human fatalities per year yet very few people actually own a horse compared to the number who own dogs.

Do bans work?:

Almost 17,000 people per year are killed in alcohol related car crashes. If drunk driving is banned and illegal, why are there still all these deaths?

In Chicago, hand guns are banned yet 79% of all murders are from fire arms.

There are over 20,000 drug overdose deaths every year in our country where drugs are illegal and banned.

I think there are more pressing issues we need to worry about that the 12 deaths per year from dog bites, half of which are actually from rottweilers.

In Chicago, there are roughly 60,000 pitbulls yet how many people die from pitbulls in Chicago every year? Maybe one? Yet in 2003, 599 people were murdered in this city and how many more died due to drug and alcohol? Yet, pitbulls are what people consider dangerous.

Most of those 60,000 pitbulls are bred by gang bangers involved in dog fighting, drug trafficking and murder. Those dogs get tortured and abused and are made to be aggressive by these irresponsible owners. The only other breed that rivals pitbulls in sheer numbers would be Labs, yet Labs are owned by responsible yuppies that care for their dogs and don't purposely starve and beat them to turn them violent. Currently pitbulls just happen to be the dogs these people choose and therefore it's the pitbulls who are turned into violent, vicious, starved monsters. If you ban pitbulls the dog fighters will just choose another breed which will probably end up being bigger, more territorial and less people friendly. If you treat a Golden Retriever in the same manner these pitbulls are treated it will become vicious and start attacking people as well. In fact, the American Temperament Society tests show that a pitbull has the exact same temperament of a Golden Retriever. In another study of dog bites Pitbulls rank 4th from the bottom of all breeds who are likely to bite a person; Cocker spaniels, Akitas, Chows, Pomeranians, Weimaraners, Poodles, German Sheppard’s, Collies and Schnauzers are all more likely to bite someone than a pitbull. Since 1975, over 30 different breeds have been responsible for human fatalities.

Pitbulls were originally bred to be obedient and docile towards humans. Abused, abandoned, starved, wild and pack dogs are the faults of people for treating dogs this way. Any pack animal will be more protective of its territory if it is in an actual pack. Any animal that has been abused and forced to fight by humans all its life will be more violent towards humans; it’s not the dogs fault, it's only natural. It should also be noted that 61% of all dog attacks happen within a home so think twice about beating and abusing your dog; especially if you have children.

Dog fighting is the real crime; dog fighting is the cause of this problem. Until cities can make stricter dog fighting laws with appropriate enforcement and punishment this will continue to happen. Of all the dog fighting and the 60,000 pitbulls in Chicago there are 2 officers (as far as I know) assigned to these cases. Dog fighters are typically gang bangers and drug dealers but in most cities evidence of dog fighting is not enough for a conviction; they must physically be caught in the act; this needs to change.

Kids, as with guns, need to be taught what to do and how to act when they encounter a stray dog. Most people don't know what to do in an encounter with a wild or vicious dog, nor do their children. Most people don't realize that just chaining a dog up in your back yard creates an aggressive, territorial, unsocialized dog. A chained dog is almost 3 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog. Unneutered male dogs are responsible for 70% of all biting incidents. If you want to avoid your dog being involved in an attack don't beat it, fight it or train it to be aggressive, get it spayed or neutered and don't leave it chained up in the back yard. Dogs, especially pitbulls, are social animals that have been living with humans for thousands of years. If you can't take a dog in as a member of your family and treat it as such then don't get a dog.

For every story you can find about a "pitbull" killing a person I can find 10 stories where pitbulls were killed by humans. Humans are dangerous; they should be banned.

Why would you want to ban dogs who do this:

I told you pomeranians were vicious, lets ban them too:

Rottwielers, lets ban 'em!

Ferrets are dangerous lets ban them:

Husky mixes are vicious lets ban them:

Gotta ban Dobermans too:

Image hosted by
Breed Specific Legislation blows!

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Back Home Again in Shitiana

Apparently Indiana is, as most other states, trying to cope with an escalating crisis of lesbian hoards that spawn gay love children, who when later abandoned, turn into a class of Godless homosexual Democrats. In response, Indiana Republican State Senator Patricia Miller is proposing new legislation which will dictate who will and will not be permitted to have children through means of assisted reproduction. In short, this new code they want to pass into law will only allow “qualified” married couples to reproduce through other means when they are unable to conceive naturally.

The bottom line here is that they want to prevent lesbians, widows, non-Christians, fat ugly single women who can't get laid, ex-felons and Jodie Foster from having children. I know you think I am jumping to extreme conclusions but the litmus test is all spelled out in the legislation.

The procedures this new legislation would cover are as follows:

"Assisted reproduction", for purposes of IC 31-20, means a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes:
(1) intrauterine insemination;
(2) donation of an egg;
(3) donation of an embryo;
(4) in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo; and(5) intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

"Sexual intercourse", for purposes of IC 31-20, means an act that includes any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ"

Who qualifies for these procedures?

(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spousesmust be parties to the action to establish parentage.
(c) An unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

What is the litmus test?

(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:

Personal information about each intended parent, including the following: (I picked the most controversial and subjective, I can understand them not wanting a convicted “child seller” or molester to have kids):
-A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.
-The intended parents' child rearing expectations and values.

What are values? Do they mean Republican values? Who are the value police that decide which values they want to be passed down? And if the state is asking the question about people's values and the participation in church or "faith-based" activities that must mean that they are looking for particular answers; otherwise, why ask? If that is the case doesn't that violate a separation of church and state, not to mention a thousand other privacy issues? As with the value police, who decides which church and faith based activities are and are not acceptable? Would that be Patricia Miller, a conservative Methodist Republican?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for making people take tests in order to be qualified to have children, but all people, no matter how the child would physically be created. Well off, educated, committed lesbians who desperately seek a child are not the people we need to be screening and singling out. The people who need to be subject to this test are the 17 year old, High School drop out, trailer trash meth-heads who got knocked up by their home made tattoo, pencil moustache sporting, jobless, whigger boy friend who is in prison and crack head welfare moms who already have 5 fatherless kids that the government supports. Remember, 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, 20% of all US children live in poverty, and approximately 1500 children die in this country every year due to child abuse in the home. Are those the "values" they prefer children to grow up with? Why don't you look up the number of all the "unwanted" children in same-sex households who get abused and indoctrinated with the gay agenda and see how bad their lives are compared to the kids I just mentioned. What this bill says to me is that they don't care about all the random assholes with a dick that are qualified to procreate as long as they have some skank to stick it in and they can conceive naturally. God forbid someone who actually wants and can support a child of their own try to pursue what is a right of the general dumb ass public.

One final question for the geniuses who drafted this piece of shit: what happens if the approved couple gets a divorce because the mother decided to become a lesbian? Do you make them give the child back? It would make all of this a big waste of time wouldn’t it?

The America hater I am referring to:
Image hosted by
Sponsor: Sen. Patricia Miller (R) (317)232-9489

Go tell her what you think when they discuss this issue on October 20th, 10am in the House Chamber of the State House at 200 W. Washington Street in Indianapolis.

Here is a copy of the legislation:

Update 10/7:

Amongst a storm of criticism and outrage they have withdrawn this ridiculous proposal, for now. Miller did say that she will consider introducing it again in January. So, you probably don't need to attend that meeting on October 20th.

Thanks to Indy Girl for pointing out this follow up article: