Grassroots Gold Mine

“If there is any profit, the money will go toward furthering the cause of conservatism.”

Sherry Phillips, Tea Party Nation founder, on the whopping $549 it will cost a person just to get into the Teabaggin’ Clustersnuggle.  From today’s NYTimes. Note that Phillips also refused to discuss the reported $100,000.00 (yes, one hundred thousand dollars) that Palin is receiving to preach fist pump spew garbled homilies hopefully just show up speak. WTF people?

A hundred grand can do a LOT of *real* good. Hell, $549.00 can do a lot of good. You know, the kind of good that doesn’t involve shelling out one’s hard-earned dollars to be crammed in a hotel with a bunch of confused and angry white people who are being scammed by money-grubbing opportunists into thinking that the soggy chicken kiev they are eating is chock full of tasty patriotism. All while certain people are making BUCKETS and BUCKETS of money off of you.

WHY?

How ‘grassroots’ is that?

Couldn’t YOU do so much more with your money? Seriously, even if charity isn’t your thing, then for the love of whatever you consider holy, KEEP your dollars and either spend them on yourself and your loved ones, or donate it to a REAL candidate of YOUR choice.

And yes, I know that not all TEAfolk are white, angry, and confused. Likewise, I know that not all white, angry, and confused people are TEAfolk. But I think we can all agree that the TEA functions aren’t exactly a shining example of irenic diversity.

You can read more about the quickly disintegrating “organized” total TEA whatever here or you can read more of my mockery on the subject of teabaggery, Palin or other such shenanigoats by pretty much picking a post at random.

No thanks. I'm married.

Citizens United v. FEC: The Moral High Road to Corporate Dominance

“It is not judicial restraint to accept an unsound, narrow argument just so the Court can avoid another argument with broader implications. Indeed, a court would be remiss in performing its duties were it to accept an unsound principle merely to avoid the necessity of making a broader ruling. Here, the lack of a valid basis for an alternative ruling requires full consideration of the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin.”  J. Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC.

No. Judicial restraint would be refusing to hear a case on the grounds that the arguments presented were unsound and there is no clear and compelling argument presented for judicial intervention in the legislative process.

I.  INTRODUCTION

Last week SCOTUS handed down Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Long LONG story short, this case involved a challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (you may know this as the McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform Act. For the sake of brevity, I will refer to it hereinafter as BCRA), specifically to U. S. C. §441b, which prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate.

To put this in perspective, SCOTUS has previously determined that restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates were kosher, Austin v. Michigan Chamber Of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) and upheld numerous provisions of BCRA in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, No. 02-1674 (Decided December 10, 2003), including the provisions that limited spending by corporations and unions.

In January 2008 Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, released a “documentary” bashing Hillary Clinton.  Citizens United’s intent was to run the video on cable television via video-on-demand 30 days prior to the primaries. Citizens United also put out tv ads promoting the documentary on regular and cable television. Citizens United then filed a declaratory judgment action (effectively an action that asks a Court to determine the rights of a plaintiff, sometimes indistinguishable from an improper request for an advisory opinion) and requested injunctive relief proclaiming that it was not subject to the restraints of §441b. In its claims for relief, Citizens United made a number of arguments pertaining to a narrow construction of the statute in addition to the generic claims that the statute itself was broadly unconstitutional. NB:  this is a standard approach – one ALWAYS sets up a blanket assertion of fundamental unconstitutionality to balance out the more narrow – and realistic – unconstitutional as applied arguments.

SCOTUS, in a jaw-dropping example of sua sponte policy making by the conservative arbiters of judicial restraint, ignored all the narrowly drawn arguments and determined that this case could only be decided on large-picture 1st Amendment grounds, coyly found that Citizens United had not waived any such arguments, and then proceeded to overrule long-standing precedent and determine that corporations have the right to engage in unlimited and unfettered political spending in the guise of free speech.

To say this decision came as a shock is an understatement. Most people thought this was just a quirk of a case, and one that would be decided on very narrow grounds thus having scant little impact on future political speech activity. Not so much. For those of you who like to torture yourselves, you may read the opinion here in its 180+ page glory, including the very eloquent, if stunned and horrified, dissent penned by Stevens. For those of you that don’t feel like engaging in such an endeavor would be a good use of your time – or may be likely to increase your rage level beyond the range of acceptable – I will give you a quick and dirty summary of WHY the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, the so-called bastion of judicial deference, decided that it had to go all judicial activist on the collective ass of the citizenry. Bottom line? Because it is *GOOD* for us.

II.  SUMMARY.

A.  Support of Candidate A and Attacks on Candidate A’s Opponents Are Two Legally Distinct Activities.

“[B]y definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.” In other words, the majority insists that there is a meaningful and substantive difference between giving a bazillion dollars to Candidate A to get him/her elected and spending a bazillion dollars to get Candidate A’s opponent defeated. First, if we were a multi-party country, this argument might actually have some (very little) merit. However, as we are inarguably a two-party system, money spent to defeat Candidate B is inherently money spent to elect Candidate A.

Think of it this way:  Leno want the Tonight Show back from Conan.  Wal-Mart, being generally evil, wants Leno to get the Tonight Show. Under the Citizens United theory, Wal-Mart cannot give Leno more than $2,400 to assist him in his jackassery.  However, Wal-Mart can spend unlimited amounts of money to get Conan to leave.  What, praytell, is the substantive distinction here? Is SCOTUS trying to pretend that tanking Conan doesn’t necessarily promote Leno? Or, and this is my thought, is SCOTUS simply being difficult and insinuating that Congress set up this false distinction, so they will have to live with it?

Either way, I cry bullshit on this line of reasoning.

B.  There is No Principled Way to Distinguish Between “Media” Corporations and “Other” Corporations.

Basically, EVERY argument of principles/moral/philosophy/religion/politics boils down to this simple diametric:  ‘slippery slope’ v. ‘de minimus.’  In other words, unspeakable horrors will/may result v. you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

Here the majority engages in the long-favored rhetoric of those adhering to an unprincipled argument – insist, instead, that the other approach would result in greater lack of principles down the road. Bait and switch – NICE! What the majority “fears” on this issue is that the provisions of BCRA at issue, if left unmolested, would prohibit “…[i]nternet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, …[from] provid[ing] citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues” as the language of section 441b “…would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds.”  [NB: As Steven’s dissent rightly points out at fn 31, these provisions are expressly inapplicable to print media; so unless your blog is spoken word, the majority’s alarmist potentials do not apply.]

The majority further insists that under the current law, Congress could theoretically ban showings of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Because “[a]fter all, it, like Hillary, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force.”

Really? So now Congress, in addition to attempting to limit campaign contributions, is also necessarily attempting to limit obviously protected free speech?

Come on

C.  Not Allowing Corporations Free Rein To “Speak” Is an Infringement on OUR First Amendment Rights.

Warning – this may nauseate you.

The majority additionally asserts that their decision to grant the full unfettered political speech rights of a U.S. human citizen to corporations is to protect US – the U.S. citizens.

When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.  This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.

So yes, restrictions on a corporation’s ability to spend a kabillion dollars to get its favored candidate elected infringes on our 1st Amendment rights to hear them “talk.”  And why does this suck for us? Because, apparently, corporations are inherently good and all-knowing (ummm…does this mean they are God?). The majority gives the following as ‘support’ for its rape-stand of an argument:

The Government has “muffle[d] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.”  McConnell, supra, at 257–258 (opinion of SCALIA, J.).

And “the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.” CIO, 335 U. S., at 144 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result).

By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests. Factions will necessarily form in our Republic, but the remedy of “destroying the liberty” of some factions is “worse than the disease.”  The Federalist No. 10, p. 130 (B.Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

Factions should be checked by permitting them all to speak, see ibid., and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what is false. The purpose and effect of this law is to prevent corporations, including small and nonprofit corporations, from presenting both facts and opinions to the public.

D.  The Dissent’s Concerns Are De Minimus Because Corporations Can Spend to Influence Already

Just in case, or perhaps it is their usual response to liberal slippery slope arguments, the majority observes that its actions are really not that big of a deal and will likely not result in some sort of Atwoodian policorporodystopia because corporations already have the ability to buy their candidate.

“Even if §441b’s expenditure ban were constitutional, wealthy corporations could still lobby elected officials, although smaller corporations may not have the resources to do so. And wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts on independent expenditures.”

But never fear, actual living breathing human people, for SCOTUS assures us that “[t]he fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.”

III.  CONCLUSION

So, what does this opinion mean? And what the hell do we do?

Well, it means, quite simply, that SCOTUS has greatly expanded the constitutional rights of a corporate “person.”  So now, in addition to simple and logical “rights” like ability to bring or defend a judicial action, a corporation now enjoys rights that seem necessarily tied to human existence and experience.

And yes, it does open the door for rampant corruption. Or, if you prefer, takes what was a very open, regulated, and transparent “window” and just gives the whole damn building to Wal-Mart. And yes, that may well be histrionic, but it simply illustrates my point that ALL things are either a slippery slope or de minimus. And when it comes to corporate involvement in elections, yes, I tend to fall on the slippery slope side.

Because a corporation simply is NOT a U.S. Citizen in the same way that you or me or my child or Bill Gates or my odd-bird neighbor is a U.S. Citizen. A corporation does NOT in any way whatsoever have the same interests at stake in a political election – its interests are SOLELY economic. A corporation cannot get laid off, get sent to war, go to prison, get married, have a family, get an education, go on welfare, get a divorce, retire, collect social security, be born or die.

And it is utterly offensive to everything on which this country was founded to suggest that a corporation is fundamentally ‘the same’ as a human U.S. citizen.

So, if you feel the same way, start contacting ALL your elected officials NOW and insist that they get on the ball with a Constitutional Amendment. Check here or here for more information. And check out the video in my previous post on this matter for more information.

Dear Pat Robertson/Random Awesomeness

The SFL Random Awesomeness of the Week Award goes out to Lily Coyle of Minneapolis for the elegantly ghost-written letter to Pat Robertson from Satan, found here in the Star Tribune:

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I’m all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven’t you seen “Crossroads”? Or “Damn Yankees”? If I had a thing going with Haiti, there’d be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it — I’m just saying: Not how I roll. You’re doing great work, Pat, and I don’t want to clip your wings — just, come on, you’re making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That’s working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract. Best, Satan

LILY COYLE, MINNEAPOLIS

H/T to the ever awesome Lawyers, Guns and Money .

WIN of the Week

This week’s WIN in Random Awesomeness goes to our local Books-a-Million for this (hopefully intentional) display of sweet holiday love:

Literary Kismet

Holy Crap: Ted Haggard Begs For Our Forgiveness

Ted Haggard was here last week, begging for our forgiveness. No really, people. Ted Haggard was HERE as in HERE – East Tennessee. Apparently, some local church paid Ted and the Mrs. to come and speak to them. Well, they paid Ted to come and beg for forgiveness; Mrs. Ted spoke about said forgiveness, which you may also read about in the book she just recently “wrote.”

Ted’s speech was very Christmas Sweater-y. In fact, Glenn Beck is going to be really pissed when he finds out that Ted is totally stealing his redemption schtick. And as we all know, Glenn Beck will mock your miscarriage on his radio show, so imagine what he will do to poor Ted.

And yes, I DO mean “poor Ted.” I find people that insist that homosexuality is “wrong” to be sad and generally loathsome. That said, I have some sympathy for Ted (due in large part to Alexandra Pelosi’s documentary) and wish very much that he had the ability to accept himself as he is. Which OF COURSE does not absolve him of all the damage that he has done; but neither does it cost us anything to acknowledge his suffering.

Yes, he is responsible for perpetrating many ills and fanning much bigotry in the name of religion. But it would also serve us well to remember that this is a man who hates what he is.  And while he personally is responsible for his perpetuation of hate and fearmongering, we must also recognize that he is also the product of such hate and fear.

You see, I believe that people are not born bigots. I believe that bigots are created. Unlike the bigots who believe that people “choose” to be gay, I do not believe that people “choose” to become bigots – although I do believe that at some point they do choose to continue being bigots. But in some unfortunate cases, people are so insulated in their bigotry that their hate and fear is affirmed by everyone and everything in their life at every turn. Like Ted.

Ted and Mrs. Ted both suggest that true Christians should not be so judgmental, but at no point does anyone even suggest that Christians should rethink the whole rejection thing. Forgiveness and redemption – but absolutely no mention of acceptance. And Ted so firmly and absolutely believes that being gay is wrong, that it is something he can choose or reject, that “choosing” acceptance is almost entirely impossible.

Ted considers his “sin” of being gay so awful and so great that he is going around the country begging the forgiveness of any and every judgmental fuck who attends a church that has paid Ted to come and beg for forgiveness.

Pardon me, but I think there is something very sick and very sad about this.

Here are some experts from the KPT Times-News article:

In 2005, Haggard was listed by Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America. He is the founder of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., which at the time of his crisis had 14,000 members.  In 2006, Haggard resigned from all of his church leadership positions after admitting to soliciting a male prostitute for sex and methamphetamine. “I need to know, are you willing to forgive me?” Haggard asked the congregation. His question was met with applause.

He described the crisis as a “moral failure involving sex and drugs.” “There’s incredible shame and pain, and in this Internet age, nothing ever goes away,” he said. “There’s not time, nor is there distance because of the Internet.” Haggard noted that the Lord will always forgive our sins, but people here on Earth aren’t always so forgiving. He added that the forgiveness he has received, especially from people close to him, created an atmosphere in which he could be healed. It’s a lesson that everyone can learn from, he added.

Haggard said, “When the crisis happened she (his daughter) said ‘I am so relieved. I have always seen you as so perfect. Now I can relate to you.’ Before, people thought so highly of me that when they met me they’d be disappointed. Now they think so poorly of me when they meet me they’re relieved.” Gayle Haggard said that when she was told about her husband’s involvement in a drug and sex scandal, she felt as if her life — which she described as perfect to that point — was over. She’d lost her husband, the dignity of her children, and the church she loved.

She added, “We’re really missing it when we think that Christianity is about our own righteousness. I love the way Martin Luther says we’re at the same time saints and sinners. When Ted and I were pastoring we tried to be as compassionate and merciful as we knew how to be — as much as we understood. But what we did not know was what it felt like to be the person who needed mercy and compassion, until we walked through this.”

Haggard noted that Jesus died on the cross for a reason, and the reason is all around us every day. “We all equally need the Lord,” he said. “That’s not to minimize my sin. My sin is great and severe. I need all of the blood of Jesus that’s available to me, and there’s an adequate amount available. But so do all of us.”

Sad. So freaking sad. How can you love something that utterly rejects who you are? Worse still – how can you continue to promote and support such a stance, when there really are other options?

Burning Shame Award, Part II

Well, it was bound to happen. TF has been toppled from his/her throne of crazy. Check out the following back-to-back comments by the cleverly-named “Your Funny” in response to a local paper’s alarmist bullshit about Islam:

“or nuke-em all and let God sort-em out”

Your Funny | 12/8/2009 – 8:30 AM –

“time for us to deport all finatical muslims who believe we are all infidel’s and should be be-headed,close and tighten our boarders,and stop these oil-wars.Afghanistan: Hope we get out of their.!! since war and invasion is all they know.The British tried to settle Afghanistan,the Russians tried,neither could do it. don’t know if we can either..”

Your Funny | 12/8/2009 – 8:27 AM

The Lady's Not For Burning

STAY KLASSY!!!

Adventures in Local Bigotry: Burning Shame Award of the Week

At first I was going to blog this as the Fail of the Week. But then I realized it is only MONDAY. And I also realized that it just isn’t fair to the rest of the world to let East Tennessee carry all the Fail. So, in honor of East Tennessee’s commitment to keepin’ it klassy, I would like to introduce you to my new award category:

THE SFL BURNING SHAME AWARD.

Which is based on this charming photo:

The Lady's Not For Burning

And of course, our first winner comes fresh from the comments section of the online Kingsport Times-News.

Today’s topic – Muslims. Or muslin. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a human and a bolt of cloth. Tough times – thank goodness we have the Kingsport Times-News – solid bastion of impartial journalism – to let us know:

Tennessee activists warn churchgoers Muslims are trying to destroy America

A belief that Muslims are out to destroy the American way of life is gaining a foothold in some Christian and Jewish circles in Nashville. The movement spreads its message through films, books and the Internet. Its sentiment: Islam is an evil religion rooted in hatred and nurtured by violence. Some churches have gotten involved, hosting viewings of movies that alert Jews and Christians of the perceived dangers worldwide. One film, produced by a local filmmaker, warns that a second Holocaust is imminent if Americans do not stand united politically with Israel.

Now, Kingsport just ran the above text with a link to the real article Is Islam a Threat to America? The full article ran in the Tennessean and, despite the HORRIBLE title, the Tennessean showed pretty clearly that the people and groups behind this bullshit are a bunch of freaking crazy political whackjobs who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.

But leave it to the ever shitty Kingsport paper to give a short blurb that totally misses the mark and makes this lunacy seem both legit AND homespun-awesome. And basically suggests that its readership get on board. Which, let’s be honest, most of the readers of said shitty paper don’t need any further encouragement, but still… Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is nice when a newspaper tilts more towards “informative” than “persuasive.”

But at least one commenter did not need any persuadin’ on the matter. Let me introduce you to TF, the first-ever recipient of the newly minted SFL Burning Shame Award:

Yes I have spent 3 month with the Muslins and have had 7-8 in my home and had contact over the last 12 years on a weekly email, one told me ” if Michelangelo was around in my life time I would kill him for making a naked statue of my David ” and he was as serious as could be. That is the main reason they hate the US people is because of our life style and same in Europe. They birth about 5 times as many babies as all other religions and that is how they are going to take over in time to come. You need to wake up and get to know your maker!

STAY KLASSY TENNESSEE!

The Moranchurian Candidate

Holy HELL people.

Meet George Hutchins:

Moran For Congress

George likes Beef-a-Roni, racism, and brightly-colored websites with a used-car-lot/flea market vibe.

George want the good people of North Carolina’s 4th District to make him, George Hutchins, their Congressman. I bet you would like to know more about this 70s porn-‘stach rockin’ straight shooter. Well, for starters, George likes Stonehenge:

Where the DEMONS Dwell...

And what voter doesn’t want a candidate that is Stonehenge-positive? But don’t think for a second that just because George’s campaign is pro-Stonehenge that it is pro-anything-non-Christian. Because George LOVES Jesus. And, more importantly Jesus AND Moses are supporting George in his run for Congress:

Holy Shit

Other important things? Well, George has been known to enjoy a hot, Roman bath:

Seriously Dude...

But this does NOT – I repeat DOES NOT mean that George is gay.  Oh no no – George HATES gays.

More holy shit

George REALLY REALLY REALLY hates gays. Apparently, the GAYS are to blame for every bad thing that ever happened to anyone anywhere in the history of ever. Surprised? So was I, until I read George’s very illuminating and scholarly treatise, which I think might be titled “Holy !!!SHIT! the !!!GAYS!!! Are Coming!!!” I have excerpted it below for your edification:

“All major civilizations, since the beginning of recorded time, have fallen into DECLINE, and DECAY, once the majority citizens of each society, had ACCEPTED GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, to be normal standards of conduct, in open public places.”

“It is uncertain, whether GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL ACCEPTANCE was the cause of the DECLINE, or if GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL ACCEPTANCE was a symptom of the DECLINE.”

“The British Empire FELL by 1946, following the Second World War, were at this time, GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, became ACCEPTED as normal public behavior, by most British citizens.”

=>”Before 1946, the British Empire Ruled the World, dictating MOST global economic markets, and had the World’s Strongest Military, until following the end of World War Two. {1939-1945}”

“The German Weimar Republic, {1919-1933}, a Democratic Government, which existed in Germany, following World War One, [1914-1918], was very tolerant, and ACCEPTED GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT, in Germany, as normal public behavior.”

=>”Germany, during the time of Weimar Republic, {1919-1933}, became so CHAOTIC, Adolf Hitler was able to march in, SUSPENDING many German Legal Civil Liberties, just in one possible route, to restore safe public order, in Germany, by putting down the Weimar Republic, resulting in countless public freedom abuses in Germany, after the FALL of the Weimar Republic, under Adolf Hitler.”

“The Greek Empire FELL to the Romans, once public GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, became ACCEPTED, as normal public behavior, by most Greeks.”

“By 400 A.D., 400 years after the birth of Christ, GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, became, ACCEPTED as normal public behavior, among most Roman Citizens.”

=>”By 400 A.D., The Roman Empire was FALLING apart, and Ebbing in all Roman areas.”

“California, during the 1950’s, 1960’s, and early 1970’s, was the BEST place on EARTH to be.”

“By the YEAR 2000, SAN FRANCISCO  GAY MALE HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR, became, ACCEPTED as normal public behavior, among Most California Residents.”

=>”Since the YEAR 2000, California has been going down the drain, and California is NOW NOT such a GREAT place to be.”

But you know what? The WONDER!!! of George Hutchins doesn’t stop with hating the gays. George is also quite proud to be a racist. In fact, George is opposed to integration and thinks we should all have the liberty to hate and discriminate freely. Why don’t we let him explain why the Civil Rights Act is the root of much current evil:

To stop the OBAMA-NATION Socialists in Washington DC, we must first go to the root of the POISON TREE, which created all them.

This POISON TREE, is the “Social Engineering” located within the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act, to the U.S. Constitution.

The ONLY REASON, the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act passed, was due the fact, Lyndon B. JOHNSON, had many political debts owed to him, in 1964.

=> During 1964, if one did NOT repay their political debts, when they were called due, such a politician’s political career was over.

=> Lyndon B. JOHNSON called all his debts in 1964.

To DEFEAT OBAMA-NATION, we must take a close look at all of the “Social Engineering” contained in the so called 1964 Civil Rights Act, and take legal steps to remove this “Social Engineering” contained in the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Social Engineering,” includes FORCED DIVERSITY, FORCED RACIAL INTEGRATION, Affirmative Action Quotas Based on Race, and all Privileges Based on Race, which are influenced by the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act to the U.S. Constitution.

We must use all of our resources NOW, to prevent ALL future U.S. Generations from suffering under the same bondage which were forced upon all of us, due to the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But don’t fret, minorities. George still welcomes your support, so long as you understand your place. Gays, of course, are not welcome at all.

George Hutchins is Afraid of THE GAY

The War on the War on the Imaginary War on Christmas

Because there is very little that I feel cannot be enjoyed with a healthy dose of sarcasm:

Stand For More Ridiculous Histrionics From the Dominant Culture

Oh boy. Here we go again. The War On the Imaginary War On Christmas has escalated the interweb hand-wringing. Check out standforchristmas.com, a site that has been brought to you by the outstanding folks at Focus on the Family. As the site informs:

Millions upon millions in our nation deeply value the great truths of Christmas and the holiday’s inspiring place in American life and culture. We hope you will take a moment to “Stand for Christmas” by sharing feedback about your Christmas shopping experiences.

We’re asking YOU to decide which retailers are “Christmas-friendly.” They want your patronage and your gift-shopping dollars, but do they openly recognize Christmas?

Participants are asked to indicate whether a particular retailer is “Christmas-Friendly,” “Christmas-negligent,” or “Christmas-offensive.”  Readers should know that “Christmas-friendly” does not mean merely that a store does business with one who celebrates Christmas; nor does “Christmas-offensive” mean that a store has taken an action that is hostile toward one who celebrates Christmas.

No no no! For example, check out the following review of Banana Republic:

Comment Date: Nov 28 2009 10:13 AM

Rating: Christmas-Offensive

Comment: I clicked on their ad and used their search function. Typing in “Christmas gifts” I got “Holiday gifts.” Narrowing my search, I typed in “Christmas” and got “0 results for this search.” They will get the same number of purchases from me.

If one does not use the word “Christmas,” then one is offensive.  Likewise, simply acknowledging another religion’s holiday is offensive to those who observe Christmas. Most people have probably heard about the shitstorm over Best Buy. You can see the full story, as well as the HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE AND ANTI-CHRISTIAN ad here.

Wanna know what the bigots at Stand for Christmas think? Oh you know you do!

Comment Date: Dec 1 2009 6:27 AM

Rating: Christmas-Offensive

Comment: We purchased $2000.00 of computer equipment in June & were planning to purchase a Net book & wii system for Christmas. However, I found the Thanksgiving ad celebrating the Muslim holiday offensive. I am disappointed in Best Buy and intend to make my CHRISTMAS purchases & all other puchases in the future elsewhere. I only wish I had known in June-I would have spent that money elsewhere also. I think Best Buy should reconsider their policy!!

Comment Date: Nov 30 2009 9:58 AM

Rating: Christmas-Offensive

Comment: Who on earth do these people have in their marketing department? The number one rule of marketing is to promote your items to people who will buy them. I understand that Eid al-Adha was the day after Thanksgiving, but I don’t buy presents for that holiday any more than I would for Thanksgiving. Like the majority of Americans, I buy *Christmas* presents in honor of the gift God gave to us in the form of Jesus Christ. However, I will NOT be buying them from Best Buy this year. I will Christmas shop ONLY at stores that promote Christmas!!!

Comment Date: Nov 30 2009 7:33 AM

Rating: Christmas-Offensive

Comment: Christmas Negligent AND Offensive, Best Buy. Shame on you. I have purchased much from you each CHRISTMAS Season,but not this year!This is too much for us to grasp–WHY do you feel it important to give good wishes to the Muslim community, and at the same time offend so many Christians and Americans. Maybe you need to reconsider having your business in America. May God help you reconsider your stance.

And just in case this isn’t sufficient righteous indignation, please check the full-strength unfiltered crazy here and here.

So, apparently, in order to be considered “Christmas-friendly,” a retailer must overtly and explicitly recognize Christmas in advertising, personnel interaction, and store decorations and said recognition better be happening by Thanksgiving. In addition, a retailer CANNOT recognize any other religious holidays and must understand that the only event of any importance occurring after Thanksgiving is Christmas.  Furthermore, if a retailer fails to acknowledge Christmas as separate from and superior to all other religious events, then that retailer is patently offensive to christianity.

Good grief, people. What the fuck more do you want? Oh yeah – total control, I forgot. Can’t you just settle for being the dominant culture and leave the rest of us in peace? Oops – forgot that “peace” is offensive, too.

One of My Reasons for the Season

« Older entries Newer entries »