WE'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!

My mother received an email today criticizing Barack Obama for saying that America is no longer a "Christian nation" but rather "a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists..." etc.

Um...where's the problem?

The email even continued to contend that our founding fathers fought and died for our rights to have a Christian nation?  Did I fall asleep during the part in my American History class where they explained how King George (ironic name really) and the British were Zoroastrian?

READ A GODDAMN HISTORY BOOK!  Our Revolutionary War was not about religion, it was about (amongst many other things) taxation (specifically tax cuts were given to certain British companies, which would harm American manufacturers, hence the Boston Tea Party).   ::cough::HALLIBURTON::cough::  Furthermore, a good chunk of our founding fathers weren't even Christian, they were Deist (look it up!).

People like Thomas Jefferson were great believers in separation of Church and State, even before it was a popular idea.

And to all those who say "our laws are based off of Christian laws" are FREAKING RETARDED!  Name me one federal law that exclusively Christian.  Only two of the Ten Commandments have made it into federal law (Thou Shalt Not Steal and Thou Shalt Not Kill).

Oh, and our laws are based not off of the Bible but off of the FUCKIN' MAGNA CARTA!  The original Magna Carta (signing in 1215) made a separation of Church and State VERY CLEAR (the first clause says that the Church of England would be free from interference from the Crown).  Yes, that clause was promptly removed by the Pope...but it was a hotly debated issue, and by no means was the Magna Carta a document establishing a Christian Nation, even the clause banning the lending of money to Jews was put in to prevent usury.

Furthermore, even if everyone in the U.S. was Christian that still does not give our legislators the right to make law based on Christian ideals.  If 100% of people identify as Christians, but only 43% of them agree with the biblical law that 10% of all earnings need to be tithed, then only 57% of elected representatives should oppose a law stating that.  Meaning, in essence, that whether or not we're a Christian nation doesn't matter from a legislative perspective, because we don't create laws based off of the Bible, we create laws based off of the will of the people a representative represents.

In short, every one who ever insisted that we are a "Christian Nation" and that being a Christian Nation means that everything Pat Robertson ever said needs to be law (despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not agree with him), needs to take a GODDAMN HISTORY LESSON!

Hypocrites of the Supreme Court UNITE

          So let me get this straight, Scalia: guaranteeing the right to habeas corpus is bad because it makes us unsafe, but guaranteeing everyone's rights to own handguns (which serve no purpose other than to shoot people) isn't unsafe?  Hypocrite!

          Does anyone here know why we have the right to bear arms?  It wasn't so we could shoot the King of England, I'll tell you that much.  It was part of a compromise between the Constitutional framers.  People on the left, so-to-speak, the Anti-Federalists, didn't like the idea of the United States having a standing army, thinking the government controlling one could lead to something resembling (what we modern peoples would call) Mussolini's black shirts; incidentally: look at Blackwater.  The "founding fathers" compromised and guaranteed an individual's right to own a gun, for a citizen controlled militia.

         Now, I'm iffy on this ruling, I think the second amendment is important for reasons involving Blackwater, but I wonder, would a handgun stand up against the powerful artillery controlled by that group of contractors?  I think not!  If we have the right to bear arms, we should have the right to bear arms capable of overtaking any government controlled standing army to protect ourselves from fascism (so, Justice Scalia, give me a goddamn AK-47, a stealth helicopter, and some proper armor (you know armor, like the contractors have, not the military)).

          Obviously the average person should not be able to own an AK-47.  This puts America in an odd position.  We should either A) destroy any military that can't be counteracted by a people's militia, or give every sucker, felon, drug dealer, suburban mom, or stock investor a goddamn round of bullet piercing armor and a bazooka!

         We nee to preserve the right to bear arms, but what good will it do?  People who claim that it'll keep them safe need to read a FUCKIN' STATISTIC.  They're much more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.  I swear, at least a nationwide gun ban would make us safer as a whole (i.e. England), we need to get guns off the streets.  No one needs a gun unless they're A) protecting themselves from Blackwater, B) hunting deer during deer season or C) killing people (which is ILLEGAL!).  

          In regards to Scalia's dissenting response to the recent ruling regarding the detainees at Guantánamo Bay.   You frickin' used the word "homeland!"  When have we used that word before September 11th, huh?  NEVER!  As far as I'm concerned I equate that word with Heimatland (look it up, for those of you not up on your Nazi Germany history).  You ignite more fear into the average american heart than any other group (be that group composed of Islamic fundamentalists, Evangelical abortion-clinic-bombers, or those radical environmentalists who kill forest rangers).  By the way, I support all three of those aforementioned groups right to their opinions, and in the case of the radical environmentalists, I even support them ideologically; but their terrorist actions need to be QUELLED.

          Stop trying to scare us into supporting Bush's opinions, you asswipe!

          That's it, I can't rant anymore. (Despite how much more I can say, and I probably will if I go back and edit this later).

          Comment so I can debate with you (or possibly agree...I'm a rage-aholic, and I love arguing with people I disagree with...it calms my nerves).

Kucinich Drops Out - NO!

Well, this fuckin' sucks!  My favorite candidate has dropped out of the presidential election.  I understand his reasons, though; he wants to focus on his goals as a congressman, because he has no chance of being elected presidentially, so he'll be diverting his attention to his congressional campaign.  Sigh.  I was looking forward to voting for him in the primaries, and listening to him get his points across (if they'd let him in any of the debates), so that he could at least have some affect on the issues.  Well, all is not lost, I suppose I still have Edwards to look forward to.

Despite him not being from my district (much less state), I will continue to support Dennis Kucinich, and his policies against N.A.F.T.A., for gay rights, for the environment, for civil liberties, against the Patriot Act, against big business, and against Dick Cheney.  Oh, and I hope he keeps his promise and pursues George Bush and company in criminal court for war crimes after the 2008 election.

Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate who can't be bought - 'cause he's not for sale.

The Remaining Candidates

Before I begin, let me emphasize that this is the longest election we've ever had (and I primarily blame the corporate media).  A good chunk of the candidates suck.  Most of them are liars.  The media has really been controlling this election - we've been told for how long now that Hillary Clinton will be our next president despite the fact that a huge chunk of America hates her?  Anyway - let me give you the rundown on who sucks the most and who sucks the least...

Democrats:

 1 - Hillary Clinton.  She had my respect once but quickly lost it when she voted for the resolution to declare the Iranian military a terrorist organization.  She claims that it was to put pressure on Iran to stop supporting the insurgency.  Whatever her reasons, her vote served to do nothing more than validate Bush's "Iran-is-the-new-Iraq-is-the-new-Afghanistan"-policy, oh and if the Iranian army is a terrorist group instead of a military than attacking them would be a police action instead of an act of war which mean - OH, it's FUCKING LEGAL for Bush to attack Iran.  Which goes to show you, one cannot play to both sides!

 2 - Barack Obama.  I like some of what he has to say.  I refuse to hold his "lack of experience" against him; it doesn't seem too fair.   I think he's a great speaker, and if he does include people like the Clintons, Biden, Edwards, Kucinich, Hagel, and so forth in his cabinet, I'd be in full support of him.  However, my primary concern is reducing the influences that big businesses have on the economy, and how the middle-class is being destroyed, and Obama has yet to convince me he'll do anything about that.  But, some of his tax policies make me think he might be the new F.D.R. and give us the New New Deal...one can only hope.

 3 - John Edwards.  Well here's someone who's a populist for sure, and I really hope he'll be the new Trustbuster in the way that Roosevelt was.  He's said that he'd take federal financing for his campaign, which means that he does more than talk the talk.  He seems iffy on issues like gay rights...but that might change if his wife has any influence.  Most importantly - I think he'll stop the war in Iraq.

 4 - Mike Gravel.  I have to say, he has little chance of going anywhere.  But I cannot think of a single issue to criticize him on.

 5 - Dennis Kucinich.  My favorite candidate.  The only one who got it right at every step - voted against the "war" (it's really an occupation), against the Patriot Act, against H.R. 1955, and he brought up a resolution to consider impeachment hearings against Dick Cheney...twice.  He will end the war.  He will bring equality.  He will be a trustbuster.  Most importantly, though, he'd pursue Bush & Cheney as war criminals in court.  He has my full support.  Oh, and shut up about how he saw a "U.F.O.!"

Republicans:

 1 - Rudy Gulianni.  Oh here's someone who knows how to responsibly handle money (!)  In the words of Senator Joe Biden, every sentence of his contains three things "a noun, a verb, and 9/11."  But in all seriousness, he SUCKS THE CORPORATE COCK!  He tries to run his campaign off of fear, and quite frankly, I think he's trying to scare people into voting for him, which were the same tactics Bush used to get the war passed - it's called shock and awe.  Plus he's a liberal running on a conservative ticket.  He's a hypocrite.

 2 - Mitt Romney.  I love how he said he'd never let a Muslim in his cabinet because their religion is not well represented in the population enough to deserve that high a position, yet he's a Mormon running for fucking president!  It's great to see that hypocrisy is still alive and well.  All of that aside, he's a closet liberal too; just take a look at his records from Massachusetts.  There's so much to criticize him on, I don't know where to start.

 3 - Mike Huckabee.  I have to say, I do like the fact that he's a populist, the Republican Party needs a non-corporate voice.  That aside I think he might want a theocracy.  He claims that he spoke incorrectly when he said he wanted the Constitution to reflect the Bible, and that he only meant that Abortion and Gay Marriage should be outlawed...I guess the history of alcohol prohibition taught him nothing.  Even if we were a Christian nation (which we're not, our laws are NOT based off of the Bible, they're based off of the Magna Carta, which was based off of British common law, which predates Christianity in Britain), if our founders wanted our Constitution to be more like the Bible they wouldn't have written the Constitution, they would've rewritten the book of Leviticus!

 4 - John McCain.  I used to have respect for this guy...then he started to support the Occupation in Iraq and turned into a Bush-pussy.  I respect his military career and many of his ideas; for instance: decreasing government spending and that water boarding is torture.  But I don't want our military to be in Iraq for the next 100 years.  This "war" has already lasted longer than WWII.

 5 - Ron Paul.  Technically he's a Libertarian.  In any case, though, I have to say I support many of his social policies.  His economic policies are FUCKING RETARDED!  Historically, Laissez-Faire societies fail, generally speaking.  We need a government unless we want to end up like Italy - we don't need mob rule.  Although, not giving corporate tax-cuts is smart...we still need taxes, especially if we're going to repay our debt.

 6 - Alan Keyes.  He's so unimportant right now...but (for the most part) reread the IDEAS expressed in my rant about Huckabee.

 7 - Hugh Cort.  I have never heard of him, I blame the corporate media.  Maybe he's a great candidate - maybe he sucks...we may never know.

 8 - Dan Gilbert.  Reread what I wrote about Hugh Cort.

Other:

 1 - Michael Bloomberg.  I hope he doesn't run, because 3rd party candidates are usually spoilers, but because unlike anyone from the Green or Constitution parties, he actually has a chance, I'm writing this.  I support some of his positions, but I think he give too much to corporations...but on the plus side, he's so fucking rich that he wouldn't have to payback any of his campaign contributors with policy changes - because he'd be the only contributor.  And Chuck Hagel (his supposed V.P.) ROCKS!  I love how he totally owned General Petreus during the hearings.  If only more Republicans were like him.

So there's my rant.  In short - I support a ticket that will never occur: Kucinich-Edwards '08!