“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” — Ayn Rand
“Mr. Johnson? Please sit down. I’d like to discuss your job application and particulars.
“Let me first say that you have an impressive resume. We think you’d be a a real asset. I have just a few questions I need to ask you.
“First — I’m sure you also noticed that list of the works of literature that we will no longer offer our students here.
“Well, I thought you’d be curious about some of the choices in that list. Yes, no more Salinger. Such awful language. And Vonnegut is completely unacceptable. I’m afraid that Chaucer will have to be removed as well. A pity — Canterbury Tales is one of my personal favorites, but then we cannot have our charges exposed to such trash.
“We will be eliminating Shakespeare from our curricula, and removing Shakespeare compendiums from the library — rape, dismemberment, cannibalism, sex outside of marriage. All most definitely unsuitable and now quite illegal.
“Yes, we will have to expunge our dictionaries from the campuses. Most of them contain obscene words.
“Oh, and we have a few requirements of our instructors, and for you as well if you take the proffered position. You will not be allowed to have sex ever — that would be conduct unbecoming. And you will not be allowed to urinate at any time, either. I’m afraid both of those activities are not allowed by the rules of the FCC, and as such are now against the law.
“I hope those won’t not be large inconveniences for you. We’re just keeping everyone in line with the new state law.
“So…will you be joining us for the next fall term here at the University of Arizona?”
United Christian States-The Lord’s News — February 12, 2024
Police confirmed to US-TLN that Joseph Green was sent back to the United Christian States on Sunday despite protests from human rights groups.
Green’s controversial tweet last week sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats.
Insulting G*d is considered blasphemous in Dominionism and is punishable by death in America.
Green, 23, fled New York state last week and was detained upon his arrival in the Canadian capital Ottawa on Thursday.
He had tweeted his doubts about G*d at The Savior’s Birthday last week. American clergy rightly condemned his remarks as blasphemous.
Green apologized and deleted the tweet, but when he continued to receive threats, he left for Canada.
The two countries do not have a formal extradition treaty. but Canada has good relations with the United States as an associated Dominionism country, says the US-TLN’s Robert Michaelson, in Ottawa.
Green’s lawyer obtained an injunction on Sunday to allow him to stay in Canada until his case was heard, but it was too late, our correspondent says.
“The nature of the charges against the individual in this case are a matter for the American authorities,” America’s domestic ministry said in a statement.
Amnesty International has warned that Green could be executed in the U.C.S. if he is found guilty of apostasy.
“If the Canadian authorities hand over Joseph Green to the U.C.S., they could end up complicit in any violations he suffers,” said William Brownstone of Amnesty’s North American division.
~~~
This was derived from this BBC story about a Saudi being deported from Malaya because he posted tweets casting doubts about Muhammed’s divinity. The accused will likely be dead by next week.
Sharia law is horrific (apostasy is punishable by death, FFS), but there’s not reason to think that following Levitican and Dominionist law would be any less immoral.
Couldn’t happen in America? How sure are you about that?
The intercom on His desk buzzed. He put down the latest copy of Playboy and thumbed the switch. “Yeah?”
“Peter would like a word with You, Sir.”
“Send him on in.”
St. Peter stuck his head in the door. “Got a second, Big G?”
“Sure.” God’s eyes wandered over his desk, and his eyes locked onto Miss January’s splendors, which were open for all to see.
“Sir, I’ve got a problem at the Gate.”
“Yeah?” God’s eyes didn’t move.
“Yes, Sir. I’ve got Joe Paterno wanting in.”
God was obviously more concerned about where he wanted to put his Godhood than he was with Peter’s issue. “Yeah?”
“There’s a problem, Sir. The man knowingly let his subordinate…Sir, are you listening to me?”
“Yeah. I’m omniscent, remember?”
Peter waited. He knew better than to intrude when He was in one of His Moods.
Finally God noticed the silence and looked up. “Sooooo, what about it?”
“Well, Sir, I’m not quite sure what to do. Paterno was a game-winner that made a lot of money for his school, and he showed a lot of young men what it was like to be winners. He was dutiful to the rules that were set before him by his superiors at Penn State, but he let those awful things go on for years without taking any action.”
Peter waited. God finally said, “Pete, what does that plaque over My Door say today?”
Peter turned and read it. God was fond of changing what was on the plaque, and Peter hadn’t glanced at it when he came in.
“Sir, it says ‘There is no higher Law than doing Good.’ “
“There’s your answer, son. Paterno knew what was going on, and that asshole’s moral compass worked about as well as Frothy’s. Following the letter of the law without doing what is Good gets him a big ‘Fuck Off!’ in my book. It should in yours as well. Call Lucie and tell him to reserve a big pot of boiling pitch and an ass funnel. Joe’s in for a bad time.”
“Yes, Sir.” Peter watched as God picked up his Playboy. Lindsey Lohan was on the cover, and Peter had no doubt at all as to what to do to HER when the time came.
Harriett got tired of standing by passively and watching the U.S. government give away peoples’ rights in pursuit of the illusion of safety. She watched the Patriot Act become law. She watched as habeas corpus was suspended indefinitely. She watched as the NDAA was passed, allowing possible incarceration of American citizens without benefit of counsel and to be held incommunicado for as long as the government wishes.
As a result, she helped some friends break into government computer networks in an attempt to find damning evidence that could be made public.
Soon afterward a SWAT team breaks into her apartment at 0300, takes her into custody, hoodwinks her, and transports her to an undisclosed location. There she is informed that, under the provisions of the NDAA, she is being held as “an enemy combatant”, and she will not be able to call upon the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen. That is because, by Justice Department dictate, she is no longer a U.S. citizen.
Click to enbiggen, and see Representative Charles Dent's comments below
Couldn’t happen, you say? Not possible? Harriett performed no act heinous enough to invoke USC §1481, the provision that allows the government to strip her of her citizenship. Right?
Think again.
The Enemy Expatriation Act (H.R. 3166 and S. 1698) is a bill currently before Congress that makes one small change in USC §1481. 1481 defines what offenses could cause U.S. citizens to have their citizenship revoked. Those conditions include conviction for treason, joining the armed forces of a foreign country, or becoming a naturalized citizen of another country.
The change invoked by H.R. 3166 and S. 1698 involves one small addition to USC §1481 to those existing conditions. The addition, per the proposed bills, is simply:
(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States
There is also an addition that defines”hostilities” as:
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war
The “official” reason for this modification of existing U.S. legal code is cover the military’s ass in the case where an American citizen openly foments war against the United States; in such cases, U.S. citizenship can be revoked and the military can treat the subjects of that revocation as if they were enemy combatants — i.e., they can killed without the legal ramifications of ensuring the human rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution.
However, there is a darker side to this. Define “engaging in, or purposely and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States”. Is it firing a Stinger missile at a Army chopper? Is it exhorting militants to engage in jihad against the U.S.? Is it shutting down the Department of Justice computers, as was (allegedly) done recently by members of Anonymous?
Before you exclaim that Occupy activities could never be construed as “hostilities” against the United States, take a good look at the history of the Espionage Act of 1917 and ask the ghosts of E. E. Cummings, Eugene Debs, and the other 200 detainees about it.
See what Anonymous, a probable target of the EEA, has to say.
Here are the comments of Representative Charles Dent, H.R. 3166′s sponsor:
Chunks of the ABC interview with Newton Gingrich’s second wife Marianne are starting to ooze out into the public eye, including:
Marianne Gingrich, a self-described conservative Republican, said she is coming forward now so voters can know what she knows about Gingrich. In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife. She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich…. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”
She [Marianne] said Newt moved for the divorce just months after she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, with her then-husband present. “He also was advised by the doctor when I was sitting there that I was not to be under stress. He knew.”
Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer. His relationship with Marianne began while he was still married to Jackie but in divorce proceedings, Marianne said.”
(Gingrich divorced his first wife while she was battling cancer.)
Technically you’re not asking your wife for an open marriage if you’ve already been fucking another woman for six years. You’re presenting your wife with an ultimatum. That doesn’t make you a proponent of open marriage, Newt, it makes you a CPOS.
Early in May, she went out to Ohio for her mother’s birthday. A day and a half went by and Newt didn’t return her calls, which was strange. They always talked every day, often ten times a day, so she was frantic by the time he called to say he needed to talk to her.
“About what?”
He wanted to talk in person, he said.
“I said, ‘No, we need to talk now.’ ” He went quiet. “There’s somebody else, isn’t there?”
She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?
She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. ” ‘I can’t handle a Jaguar right now.’ He said that many times. ‘All I want is a Chevrolet.’ “
He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.
He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.
How could anyone support a man who espouses one set of values and then shits on them in his private life? How could anyone support a man who is so erratic and secretive, and (ultimately) personally and politically unstable?
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul fashions himself as the libertarian standard bearer who will carry on his father’s political legacies after Ron Paul goes to that great Objectivist Utopia in the sky.
However, it seems that the libertarian rules of “less government, more personal freedom” have gone out the window. He’s now flip-flopping for government intervention at the womb level:
Senator Paul is now pushing for popular support for legislation that calls for a definition of “personhood” that goes all the way back to the moment of conception. This would satisfy both the anti-choice religious airheads who demand that the womb belongs to God and the anti-choice political airheads who demand that womb belongs to the State. It would mean hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies, and hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions.
The law would thus prevent any sort of contraception that doesn’t prevent sperm from penetrating ova. That would outlaw everything except condoms and diaphragms/cervical caps — two contraceptive methods that are known for their relatively high levels of failure.
Of course Prince Paul the Younger has let the cat of the political bag early. He showing his true colors here; he no more wants less government and more personal freedom than his old man. They’re just another couple of right-wing Rethuglican morons who use the youth vote to grasp power.
As an obvious dig at Michele Obama’s urging for children to eat healthier meals, Mr. Michele Bachmann has this to say:
“I’ve decided my cause is not going to be happy meals. We are going to be the message-givers…we are going to get this message across. Marriage is between one man and one woman. We are going to promote families.”
Now listen to this and tell me that we don’t have a major closet case acting out as a homophobe:
grassroots (noun): (2) having to do with something that originates from the common people
astroturf (noun): (1) creating the impression of public support by paying people in the public to pretend to be supportive
Grassroots movements almost always start on a local basis and slowly (or quickly) grow to the extend that public interest exists. A recent example would be the Occupy movement, which started as a group of New Yorkers who wanted to protest the legal abuses within the U.S. financial industry. It quickly spread across the world.
Astroturf (fake “grass”roots) movements, on the other hand, consists of groups that usually spring up from nothing to a national (or international) “following” within a very short period of time. One can identify astroturf organizations by comparing the size of their publicity campaigns with the size of physical meetings and rallies.
A good example of an astroturf organization is the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Claiming to be supported by “50,000 pious Christian households”, their 2010 “Summer of Marriage” bus tour (the family went to the St. Paul appearance) would attract more counter-protesters than the NOM “faithful”. The St. Paul appearance attracted perhaps 50 true believers, with twice that number protesting.
And now that NOM has had its 2011 financial disclosures made public, we can see that two donors gave NOM $6 million — 85% of a $7 million total — while an additional 20 donors brought the percentage up to 92%. (Rumors abound that the two big hitters on NOM’s donor list are affiliated with the Catholic Church.)
Hardly “50,000 pious Christian supports”. Hardly a grassroots effort.
Here's the family at the St. Paul protest
(On a semi-related note, spec-fic author Orson Scott Card is a member of NOM’s board. I have never bought or read a Card story, and never will now.)
“First — I’m sure you also noticed that list of the works of literature that we will no longer offer our students here.
