Thursday, June 28, 2007
Limited edition prints of *Bush 2001, The Auntie Christ.* available now!
You can buy signed prints of this anti Bush piece of art by emailing me at sweetandsourjayne@yahoo.com . You can view more art by Jayne County at http://www.jaynecounty.com/ . Also download Wayne Jayne County and The Electric Chairs on ITunes. Or go to the Cherry Red Records UK web site. See you there!!!!!!!!! xXxXxX Jayne County
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
More Steps To Change AmeriKKKa into Nazi Germany.
THIS IS A REPOST FROM THE NY TIMES. Editorial
Three Bad Rulings
Published: June 26, 2007
The Supreme Court hit the trifecta yesterday: Three cases involving the First Amendment. Three dismaying decisions by Chief Justice John Roberts’s new conservative majority.
Chief Justice Roberts and the four others in his ascendant bloc used the next-to-last decision day of this term to reopen the political system to a new flood of special-interest money, to weaken protection of student expression and to make it harder for citizens to challenge government violations of the separation of church and state. In the process, the reconfigured court extended its noxious habit of casting aside precedents without acknowledging it — insincere judicial modesty scored by Justice Antonin Scalia in a concurring opinion.
First, campaign finance. Four years ago, a differently constituted court upheld sensible provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act designed to prevent corporations and labor unions from circumventing the ban on their spending in federal campaigns by bankrolling phony “issue ads.” These ads purport to just educate voters about a policy issue, but are really aimed at a particular candidate.
The 2003 ruling correctly found that the bogus issue ads were the functional equivalent of campaign ads and upheld the Congressional restrictions on corporate and union money. Yet the Roberts court shifted course in response to sham issue ads run on radio and TV by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life with major funding from corporations opposed to Senator Russell Feingold, the Democrat who co-authored the act.
It opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections. The exact extent of the damage is unclear. But the four dissenters were correct in warning that the court’s hazy new standard for assessing these ads is bound to invite evasion and fresh public cynicism about big money and politics.
The decision contained a lot of pious language about protecting free speech. But magnifying the voice of wealthy corporations and unions over the voice of candidates and private citizens is hardly a free speech victory. Moreover, the professed devotion to the First Amendment did not extend to allowing taxpayers to challenge White House aid to faith-based organizations as a violation of church-state separation. The controlling opinion by Justice Samuel Alito offers a cockeyed reading of precedent and flimsy distinctions between executive branch initiatives and Congressionally authorized spending to deny private citizens standing to sue. That permits the White House to escape accountability when it improperly spends tax money for religious purposes.
Nor did the court’s concern for free speech extend to actually allowing free speech in the oddball case of an Alaska student who was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed. The ruling by Chief Justice Roberts said public officials did not violate the student’s rights by punishing him for words that promote a drug message at an off-campus event. This oblique reference to drugs hardly justifies such mangling of sound precedent and the First Amendment.
Next Article in Opinion (1 of 14) »
Three Bad Rulings
Published: June 26, 2007
The Supreme Court hit the trifecta yesterday: Three cases involving the First Amendment. Three dismaying decisions by Chief Justice John Roberts’s new conservative majority.
Chief Justice Roberts and the four others in his ascendant bloc used the next-to-last decision day of this term to reopen the political system to a new flood of special-interest money, to weaken protection of student expression and to make it harder for citizens to challenge government violations of the separation of church and state. In the process, the reconfigured court extended its noxious habit of casting aside precedents without acknowledging it — insincere judicial modesty scored by Justice Antonin Scalia in a concurring opinion.
First, campaign finance. Four years ago, a differently constituted court upheld sensible provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act designed to prevent corporations and labor unions from circumventing the ban on their spending in federal campaigns by bankrolling phony “issue ads.” These ads purport to just educate voters about a policy issue, but are really aimed at a particular candidate.
The 2003 ruling correctly found that the bogus issue ads were the functional equivalent of campaign ads and upheld the Congressional restrictions on corporate and union money. Yet the Roberts court shifted course in response to sham issue ads run on radio and TV by a group called Wisconsin Right to Life with major funding from corporations opposed to Senator Russell Feingold, the Democrat who co-authored the act.
It opened a big new loophole in time to do mischief in the 2008 elections. The exact extent of the damage is unclear. But the four dissenters were correct in warning that the court’s hazy new standard for assessing these ads is bound to invite evasion and fresh public cynicism about big money and politics.
The decision contained a lot of pious language about protecting free speech. But magnifying the voice of wealthy corporations and unions over the voice of candidates and private citizens is hardly a free speech victory. Moreover, the professed devotion to the First Amendment did not extend to allowing taxpayers to challenge White House aid to faith-based organizations as a violation of church-state separation. The controlling opinion by Justice Samuel Alito offers a cockeyed reading of precedent and flimsy distinctions between executive branch initiatives and Congressionally authorized spending to deny private citizens standing to sue. That permits the White House to escape accountability when it improperly spends tax money for religious purposes.
Nor did the court’s concern for free speech extend to actually allowing free speech in the oddball case of an Alaska student who was suspended from high school in 2002 after he unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” while the Olympic torch passed. The ruling by Chief Justice Roberts said public officials did not violate the student’s rights by punishing him for words that promote a drug message at an off-campus event. This oblique reference to drugs hardly justifies such mangling of sound precedent and the First Amendment.
Next Article in Opinion (1 of 14) »
Monday, June 25, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Amerikan Christian Warmongers by Laurence M. Vance
Home About Columnists Blog Subscribe Donate
The Hypocrisy of Christian Militarists
by Laurence M. Vanceby Laurence M. Vance
window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;}
if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;
DIGG THIS
Although I have written previously about the hypocrisy of both American Christian soldiers and Christian warmongers, there is another group of Christians that are hypocrites as well: Christian militarists.
As I have pointed out again and again, there is an unholy alliance between conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians and the military. Although some of these Christian militarists may oppose the Iraq War, the stationing of U.S. troops around the globe, and U.S. foreign policy in general, they wholeheartedly support the U.S. military as the defender of our freedoms. They see no problem with Christians joining the military and then going off to fight some foreign war that has nothing to do with defending the United States because soldiers should "obey the powers that be" and submit to their commander in chief. In this respect they are hypocrites.
One very recent event reminds us of another respect in which Christian militarists are hypocrites: the death of Kurt Waldheim on June 14.
Born in Vienna in 1918, Waldheim became an Austrian diplomat after World War II. He served as Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1972 to 1981 and as president of Austria from 1986 to 1992. The problem with Waldheim is that, not only was he a member of the German Wehrmacht during World War II, but that he was allegedly complicit in Nazi war crimes. Although it was never officially established that Waldheim had actually committed any atrocities during the war, he was the only head of a "friendly" country to be barred from the United States. In an interview before being elected president of Austria, Waldheim said about his wartime service: "What I did during the war was nothing more than what hundreds of thousands of other Austrians did, namely fulfilled my duty as a soldier."
Kurt Waldheim ought to be a role model for Christian militarists. He served his commander in chief. He obeyed the orders of his superiors.
Like President Bush, the Christian militarist believes that (outside of the ministry, I suppose) there is no higher calling than military service. But what about soldiers in other countries? Doesn’t the dictum apply to them as well?
What the Christian militarist really believes is that there is nothing greater than being in the United States military. How dare "enemies" of the United States join their country’s military and fight against the United States! And if they are drafted into the military to fight an obviously unjust war (since it is against the United States), they should desert or surrender rather than wage war against the United States. How dare they try to kill American soldiers!
If members of the U.S. Armed Forces should obey orders then why not the soldiers in other countries? Aren’t they justified in bombing, maiming, and killing for their country if their government orders them to do it? And why should we get upset if they kill civilians? It is inevitable that there will be collateral damage in any conflict. And after all, an order is an order. There would be chaos in the ranks if soldiers stopped to question their orders.
If Christian militarists were honest they would admit that they don’t think that foreign soldiers should "obey the powers that be." They should not obey orders if it means killing Americans. They should refuse to obey their superiors and suffer the consequences. American soldiers should obey orders because the U.S. military defends our freedoms and protects the free nations of the world from communists and Muslims. And after all, we were attacked on September 11th and our president is a Christian.
The bottom line is this: If foreigners should question serving in their military and obeying orders then why not Americans? Especially since the U.S. military is the greatest force for evil in the world today. Since that is something I have written about many times over the past few years, I won’t revisit that subject here. But I will say this: Christians should end their illicit love affair with the U.S. military, and they should do it now, before the government enlists their support for next foreign military intervention.
All Christian warmongers are Christian militarists, but not all Christian militarists are Christian warmongers. Thank God that some Christian militarists recognize the Iraq War for what it is: an immoral, unjust, unnecessary, unscriptural war of aggression. But when it comes to the subject of the military as the coercive arm of the warfare state, they fail to think consistently. Indeed, many of them turn into full-fledged apologists for the state if you dare criticize the military in any way.
Some Christian militarists are veterans who refuse to admit that they fought for a lie, some are nationalists who adhere to the notion of "my country, right or wrong," some are super-patriots who blindly follow the U.S. government, some are idealists who refuse to see the U.S. military for what it really is, and some sincerely believe that the troops defend our freedoms, but all of them are hypocrites when it comes to people joining the military and obeying orders.
June 16, 2007
Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. He is also the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest book is King James, His Bible, and Its Translators. Visit his website.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com
The Hypocrisy of Christian Militarists
by Laurence M. Vanceby Laurence M. Vance
window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;}
if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;
DIGG THIS
Although I have written previously about the hypocrisy of both American Christian soldiers and Christian warmongers, there is another group of Christians that are hypocrites as well: Christian militarists.
As I have pointed out again and again, there is an unholy alliance between conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians and the military. Although some of these Christian militarists may oppose the Iraq War, the stationing of U.S. troops around the globe, and U.S. foreign policy in general, they wholeheartedly support the U.S. military as the defender of our freedoms. They see no problem with Christians joining the military and then going off to fight some foreign war that has nothing to do with defending the United States because soldiers should "obey the powers that be" and submit to their commander in chief. In this respect they are hypocrites.
One very recent event reminds us of another respect in which Christian militarists are hypocrites: the death of Kurt Waldheim on June 14.
Born in Vienna in 1918, Waldheim became an Austrian diplomat after World War II. He served as Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1972 to 1981 and as president of Austria from 1986 to 1992. The problem with Waldheim is that, not only was he a member of the German Wehrmacht during World War II, but that he was allegedly complicit in Nazi war crimes. Although it was never officially established that Waldheim had actually committed any atrocities during the war, he was the only head of a "friendly" country to be barred from the United States. In an interview before being elected president of Austria, Waldheim said about his wartime service: "What I did during the war was nothing more than what hundreds of thousands of other Austrians did, namely fulfilled my duty as a soldier."
Kurt Waldheim ought to be a role model for Christian militarists. He served his commander in chief. He obeyed the orders of his superiors.
Like President Bush, the Christian militarist believes that (outside of the ministry, I suppose) there is no higher calling than military service. But what about soldiers in other countries? Doesn’t the dictum apply to them as well?
What the Christian militarist really believes is that there is nothing greater than being in the United States military. How dare "enemies" of the United States join their country’s military and fight against the United States! And if they are drafted into the military to fight an obviously unjust war (since it is against the United States), they should desert or surrender rather than wage war against the United States. How dare they try to kill American soldiers!
If members of the U.S. Armed Forces should obey orders then why not the soldiers in other countries? Aren’t they justified in bombing, maiming, and killing for their country if their government orders them to do it? And why should we get upset if they kill civilians? It is inevitable that there will be collateral damage in any conflict. And after all, an order is an order. There would be chaos in the ranks if soldiers stopped to question their orders.
If Christian militarists were honest they would admit that they don’t think that foreign soldiers should "obey the powers that be." They should not obey orders if it means killing Americans. They should refuse to obey their superiors and suffer the consequences. American soldiers should obey orders because the U.S. military defends our freedoms and protects the free nations of the world from communists and Muslims. And after all, we were attacked on September 11th and our president is a Christian.
The bottom line is this: If foreigners should question serving in their military and obeying orders then why not Americans? Especially since the U.S. military is the greatest force for evil in the world today. Since that is something I have written about many times over the past few years, I won’t revisit that subject here. But I will say this: Christians should end their illicit love affair with the U.S. military, and they should do it now, before the government enlists their support for next foreign military intervention.
All Christian warmongers are Christian militarists, but not all Christian militarists are Christian warmongers. Thank God that some Christian militarists recognize the Iraq War for what it is: an immoral, unjust, unnecessary, unscriptural war of aggression. But when it comes to the subject of the military as the coercive arm of the warfare state, they fail to think consistently. Indeed, many of them turn into full-fledged apologists for the state if you dare criticize the military in any way.
Some Christian militarists are veterans who refuse to admit that they fought for a lie, some are nationalists who adhere to the notion of "my country, right or wrong," some are super-patriots who blindly follow the U.S. government, some are idealists who refuse to see the U.S. military for what it really is, and some sincerely believe that the troops defend our freedoms, but all of them are hypocrites when it comes to people joining the military and obeying orders.
June 16, 2007
Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. He is also the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest book is King James, His Bible, and Its Translators. Visit his website.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com
I Agree With Stephen S. Pearcy
If Bush is a War Criminal, Then What About the Troops?Submitted by blackandred on Sat, 2007-02-24 06:13. Iraq United States War Analysis
"Just Following Orders" is No ExcuseIf Bush is a War Criminal, Then What About the Troops
By STEPHEN S. PEARCY; February 23, 2007 - Counterpunchhttp://www.counterpunch.org/pearcy02232007.html
In addition to holding George Bush and U.S. Congress accountable for the illegal occupation of Iraq, American troops must also be prepared to accept responsibility, because we're all presumed to know the law. If we accept that fundamental legal presumption, then those of us who claim that the war is illegal must also acknowledge that the troops are unexcused aiders and abettors. [Note: Not just the troops; for example, it was widely understood during WW II that US and British bombing of German cities would result in massive civilian casualties. Nonetheless, this was viewed as a desirable outcome in order to demoralize the German people and undermine their will to fight. Furthermore, there was also a sense of natural justice as, by not acting to stop it (in fact, supporting and celebrating it), the German people could be held collectively responsible for the death and destruction unleashed by Nazi Germany, thus richly deserving of the death rained down upon them. Readers can draw their own conclusions regarding any parallels with US behaviour in the world - b&r.]
Lt. Ehren Watada's case is a good example. Watada's position is that he has a duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq, because those orders effectively command him to pursue an illegal war. Watada correctly understands that obeying those orders could subject him to war crimes charges under a more just administration (which should try George Bush first).
Publicly available information about the Iraq invasion has become plentiful over the last several years. Reasonable people contemplating service in the U.S. military should know that people throughout the world regard participation in the occupation as tantamount to aiding and abetting in mass murder, fraud, human rights violations, and international war crimes. By now, all of the troops should recognize this, and ignorance is no excuse.
The frequency of U.S.-sponsored war crimes in Iraq is such that it has become the norm rather than the exception. U.S. troops have intentionally and recklessly caused the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians, and continue to do so, that we can now properly regard acts in furtherance of the occupation effort generally to be acts substantially likely to facilitate crimes such as those which have already occurred.
From a legal standpoint, obeying Bush's orders is just like when Nazi soldiers obeyed Hitler's orders. And we know from the Nuremberg trials that the "just-following-orders" excuse is invalid. Watada's case suggests that we should question all troops' willingness to follow their illegal orders.
Suggesting troop-responsibility for the illegal war is unpopular, but it would also have been unpopular during WWII for a German citizen to suggest that Nazi troops be held accountable for obeying their illegal orders. At the end of the day, it's really no different.
Stephen S. Pearcy is an attorney and peace activist in Berkeley, CA. You can email him at stephen.pearcy@sbcglobal.net.
» login or register to post comments email this page 247 reads
"Just Following Orders" is No ExcuseIf Bush is a War Criminal, Then What About the Troops
By STEPHEN S. PEARCY; February 23, 2007 - Counterpunchhttp://www.counterpunch.org/pearcy02232007.html
In addition to holding George Bush and U.S. Congress accountable for the illegal occupation of Iraq, American troops must also be prepared to accept responsibility, because we're all presumed to know the law. If we accept that fundamental legal presumption, then those of us who claim that the war is illegal must also acknowledge that the troops are unexcused aiders and abettors. [Note: Not just the troops; for example, it was widely understood during WW II that US and British bombing of German cities would result in massive civilian casualties. Nonetheless, this was viewed as a desirable outcome in order to demoralize the German people and undermine their will to fight. Furthermore, there was also a sense of natural justice as, by not acting to stop it (in fact, supporting and celebrating it), the German people could be held collectively responsible for the death and destruction unleashed by Nazi Germany, thus richly deserving of the death rained down upon them. Readers can draw their own conclusions regarding any parallels with US behaviour in the world - b&r.]
Lt. Ehren Watada's case is a good example. Watada's position is that he has a duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq, because those orders effectively command him to pursue an illegal war. Watada correctly understands that obeying those orders could subject him to war crimes charges under a more just administration (which should try George Bush first).
Publicly available information about the Iraq invasion has become plentiful over the last several years. Reasonable people contemplating service in the U.S. military should know that people throughout the world regard participation in the occupation as tantamount to aiding and abetting in mass murder, fraud, human rights violations, and international war crimes. By now, all of the troops should recognize this, and ignorance is no excuse.
The frequency of U.S.-sponsored war crimes in Iraq is such that it has become the norm rather than the exception. U.S. troops have intentionally and recklessly caused the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians, and continue to do so, that we can now properly regard acts in furtherance of the occupation effort generally to be acts substantially likely to facilitate crimes such as those which have already occurred.
From a legal standpoint, obeying Bush's orders is just like when Nazi soldiers obeyed Hitler's orders. And we know from the Nuremberg trials that the "just-following-orders" excuse is invalid. Watada's case suggests that we should question all troops' willingness to follow their illegal orders.
Suggesting troop-responsibility for the illegal war is unpopular, but it would also have been unpopular during WWII for a German citizen to suggest that Nazi troops be held accountable for obeying their illegal orders. At the end of the day, it's really no different.
Stephen S. Pearcy is an attorney and peace activist in Berkeley, CA. You can email him at stephen.pearcy@sbcglobal.net.
» login or register to post comments email this page 247 reads
Thursday, June 14, 2007
We Are The Country our forefathers warned us about!!!
WRITTEN BY JAYNE COUNTY : American governments of the PAST have warned us about what is going on in AmeriKa TODAY! Past governments have criticized, warned and invaded, other countries that were doing exactly the same things that the current government in AmeriKa is now doing. It seems to be wrong when others do it but ok when AmeriKa does it! Such is the hypocrisy of the AmeriKan government. We can have bombs but you can*t! We can torture people but you can*t! We can lie and cheat our people but you can*t! We can spy on our citizens but you can*t! We can rig the voting booths but you can*t! AmeriKa has bombarded countries like Cuba and the past Soviet Union with criticism and threats, for oppressing their people, by harassing them at demonstrations and doing happy little things like opening their mail and listening in on their telephone conversations! Sound familiar? Well it should cause we are now one of those countries! If post 9/11 AmeriKa has to be a Fascist State then I would prefer a state of CHAOS!!! I would rather be FREE in a dangerous world than unfree in a SAFE one! Sincerely, Jayne County 
Monday, June 11, 2007
Monday, June 4, 2007
REPOST!!! HARRY POTTER WINS COURT BATTLE!
The Gwinnett County woman's modern-day Crusade to have the Harry Potter series stripped from the bookshelves at her children's school once again has fallen flat on its face.
By now if you don't know who Harry Potter is, then it's quite certain you may have been living under a rock for the last decade. The wildly popular series of books has swept the globe and instilled again a want to read in many children.
Laura Malloy of Loganville has unsuccessfully argued since 2005 that the books promote witchcraft and the occult, yet, according to reports, she has never even read one book.
Malloy first took her case to her children's school administrators, then the school's appeal committee, to the county board of education and the state board of education. Her most recent battle took her to Superior Court, where a judge on Tuesday rejected her plea.
The mother of three school-age children has embarked on a fool's errand to say the least - one of which is reminiscent of Tipper Gore's crusade to ban vulgarities in music. Although Gore won her battle to have warnings placed on music that contains lyrics that may offend some people, it is not likely Malloy will have the same luck.
If she would have bothered to pick up any one of the six books that have been published - the seventh, and final, book is due out in July - Malloy would know the book deals with much deeper issues than just the fantastical wizarding world.
Love. Honor. Courage. Good vs. evil. Prejudice. These themes are interwoven throughout the series as life lessons the characters must learn, accept and deal with, all while facing the pangs of adolescence and teen angst.
I have read all six books twice and own every movie that has been released to date. I'm a big fan of the series. And although I've always loved to read, for children who don't or who have trouble reading, the books encourage not only literacy, but also creativity and imagination.
Many authors have also tried to mimic the fantasy world that Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling created, including the Lemony Snicket series.
Kudos to the school officials and the judge for having the sense to rule on the side of literacy. To rule for taking the books out of the school's libraries not only would deprive students of a truly magnificent experience but also would show them that censorship is OK.
As Professor Albus Dumbledore says in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," "It is our choices that show us what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
By now if you don't know who Harry Potter is, then it's quite certain you may have been living under a rock for the last decade. The wildly popular series of books has swept the globe and instilled again a want to read in many children.
Laura Malloy of Loganville has unsuccessfully argued since 2005 that the books promote witchcraft and the occult, yet, according to reports, she has never even read one book.
Malloy first took her case to her children's school administrators, then the school's appeal committee, to the county board of education and the state board of education. Her most recent battle took her to Superior Court, where a judge on Tuesday rejected her plea.
The mother of three school-age children has embarked on a fool's errand to say the least - one of which is reminiscent of Tipper Gore's crusade to ban vulgarities in music. Although Gore won her battle to have warnings placed on music that contains lyrics that may offend some people, it is not likely Malloy will have the same luck.
If she would have bothered to pick up any one of the six books that have been published - the seventh, and final, book is due out in July - Malloy would know the book deals with much deeper issues than just the fantastical wizarding world.
Love. Honor. Courage. Good vs. evil. Prejudice. These themes are interwoven throughout the series as life lessons the characters must learn, accept and deal with, all while facing the pangs of adolescence and teen angst.
I have read all six books twice and own every movie that has been released to date. I'm a big fan of the series. And although I've always loved to read, for children who don't or who have trouble reading, the books encourage not only literacy, but also creativity and imagination.
Many authors have also tried to mimic the fantasy world that Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling created, including the Lemony Snicket series.
Kudos to the school officials and the judge for having the sense to rule on the side of literacy. To rule for taking the books out of the school's libraries not only would deprive students of a truly magnificent experience but also would show them that censorship is OK.
As Professor Albus Dumbledore says in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," "It is our choices that show us what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
*Christian Bitch Tries To Ban Harry Potter!!!*
WRITTEN BY JAYNE COUNTY: How disgusting, that some self reightious so called Christian Neanderthal in Gwinnit County, Ga. is trying to get Harry Potter taken off the shelves in all the libraries in Gwinnit County, Georgia, Both in the schools AND the public library. This sick, deranged baboon apparently has heard the voice of God him/herself, tell her to go out from this land and slay all the inhibitants thereof!!! Don*t you wish this miserable bitch would just get some horrible desease and DIE SLOWLY so we can all go up to her hospital bed and hold sigsn that say *GOD HATES SELF REIGHTIOUS BIGOTS AND BOOK BURNERS!!!* Like the Nazis in Nazi Germany, Christians seek to ban books and substitute superstition for science to keep their bratty little sproggs as IGNUNT as poss! This just makes me want to vomit all over the Bible and force her to wipe her ass with it!!! And I ain*t necessarily TOTALLY anti religion as long as these bigots and mentally disturbed piss ants , don*t try to beat my brains out or MURDER ME IN THE NAME OF GOD with their IGNUNT, UNSOPHISTOCATED, HILLBILLY, REDNECK ASSHOLISM!!! In the almighty words of legendary Trans star, Devine, *You are hereby charged and found guiltly of ASSHOLISM!!! Ain*t it true??? Ain*t it TRUL!!! TRUL means that it is SUPER TRUE. It is TRUL!!!!!!!!! Google the story and write to the proper people and tell them what a pig you think this sick psycho is!!!!!!!! Sincerely, in the name of the GODDESS! Jayne County
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
