Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

« Older Entries

Obama finds hidden reference to God in the Constitution

Friday, August 21st, 2009

WASHINGTON DC — During President Obama’s conference call with dozens of faith leaders that provoked a 40-day campaign of religious activism in the form of prayer vigils, advertising, and more, the President revealed that he had uncovered undeniable proof that the nation’s founders intended to invoke the Christian god (“God”) in the U.S. Constitution.1

“It was a clerical manipulation intended to be found at the right moment,” said Obama of the Constitutional reference to God. “Just like ancient manuscripts were copied and recopied throughout the ages, creating and perpetuating early translation and other mistakes while hiding key messages from early religious leaders. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, was drafted and redrafted, and we actually put on display differing copies of what we think is the same document, and it is full of Masonic and other mysterious code.”2

Obama told the religious leaders that “I am my brother’s keeper,” referring to the biblical passage from Genesis where God asks Cain where his brother Abel was,3 and Cain replies, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?”4

Obama insisted that passing health care reform was a biblical mandate, a moral and ethical obligation established by God. Some critics have chided Obama’s decision to invoke the Christian god, but Obama was adamant that the Constitution clearly established the government as a Christian nation. When asked to clarify, Obama pulled his personal, redlined copy of the Constitution from his desk drawer and showed it to reporters attending the conference.

Upon viewing Obama’s copy, the religious experts on hand agreed that Obama had successfully spotted the name of God (Yahweh) spelled out clearly in the Constitution.

Compare for yourself:
yah-con
(Obama’s redlined copy)
const-unedited
(an unedited copy)5
Yahweh
(the Hebrew for Yahweh)

“Despite the fact that the language of the pre-God Constitution not only justifies, but also requires the U.S. government to reform health care for the welfare of America’s citizens,” Obama continued, “the biblical god, by way of the Constitution, demands it, so we must follow accordingly. Without our faith, this couldn’t be accomplished.”

A small minority of opponents still argue that prayer and religion have no place in government meetings, but Obama’s administration is well on its way to homogenizing the American religious point of view.

Up to this point, no one had been able to successfully find a pro-religious reference in the Constitution, and religious leaders worldwide have expressed their relief that the United States is finally falling into place among its fellow theocracies.

  1. Seriously, he more or less did. [<]
  2. This is absolutely true. See My Inalienably Unalienable Rights and Masonic signers. [<]
  3. Obviously a rhetorical question, since an omniscient being would already know the answer. [<]
  4. See Cain & Abel [<]
  5. I think it’s obvious from the intentionally drawn strong lines of “WE THE” compared to the rest of the Constitution that the author was trying to capture the attention of someone who would recognize how closely it and the Hebrew were matched. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Government, Morality, Religion, Satire | 7 Comments »

Biden refuses to fly in VP helicopter with atheist pilot

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

[Ed's note: You may not get the subtle nuances of this article, and that might make you get all up in arms and enraged. It's good to get enraged occasionally, but read everything first, and then make an informed decision. Everyone knows the old poem, Lady Ires the Wasp: "When distracted by the summer sky, upon the wasp she sat, ire caused the wasp to sting, the fire brought her back."]
bidenWASHINGTON DC, (Presidential Online Enquiry database) – Today, President Obama expressed his concern over the recent controversy involving Vice President Biden and an alleged atheist helicopter pilot. On Tuesday, Biden refused to allow his vice presidential helicopter pilot to take off, citing suspicions that the pilot was a non-believer.

“I saw him not praying or crossing himself before takeoff,” Biden said at a press conference today, “and it’s my firm belief that his atheism greatly increased the chances of us crashing. If God’s not on our side every step of the way, and every flight, too, then I don’t want to be on this side.”1

When questioned about the incident, President Obama suggested that he was considering suspending Biden for a short period of time. “Government employees must adhere to the First Amendment,” said Obama. “It sets a bad example of intolerance.”

We were unable to contact the helicopter pilot in question.

Biden’s wife said that White House officials knew about Biden’s convictions when he was elected.

“This has been his faith since his very first day on the job,” Jill Biden said. She said that making Biden fly in the helicopter would be telling him to be “like Janus, the two-face god, just because he wants to make a living.”

“In my opinion, it’s wrong to deny a person the ability to do his job because he has a belief,” she said.

A local DC attorney says that the White House may have violated Biden’s right to have his own religious beliefs.

Biden has a right to refuse to fly if the White House can reasonably accommodate a validly held religious belief, said Ted Pacine, a civil rights lawyer in DC. For example, the White House should have provided an alternate pilot of Biden’s religious belief, or should have let Biden work directly out of the White House without having to travel.

Pacine said that religious cases are tender and difficult, and should be handled with care, so as not to offend anyone.

Biden isn’t the only government employee who has refused to board a vessel piloted or driven by someone not overtly Christian. There have been multiple alleged cases of congressmen who have refused flights piloted by atheists, agnostics, and even Muslims.2

UPDATE: At the press conference, Biden was asked whether he would have also refused to fly if the pilot had been gay. His response has just come in: “Now, that’s not a fair question. Everyone knows that our pilots are military, and that gays are not allowed to serve in the military, at least openly. And I know I’ve never asked my pilots about that, though I do pay attention to whether they’re well-groomed or speak with a lisp.” 3

—

It’s not like I have anything against Biden… or the Pres… Or do I?4

  1. It’s unbelievable that someone would act like this. Right? [<]
  2. Honestly, after seeing all of them pile out of the Capitol to yell “Under God” while mumble-reciting the Pledge of Allegiance when that was the media issue du jour makes me wonder whether they do, indeed, screen their pilots, drivers, and others for religion. [<]
  3. This article is a tribute to people doing the right thing, despite being hounded by the RR. Brad Miller, you rock. [<]
  4. Okay, let’s be clear. This satire has absolutely nothing to do with Biden other than the fact that I can see him pulling such a stunt. What’s it got to do with? The original article of inspiration regards a Des Moines DART bus driver who was suspended because she refused to board and drive a bus that donned the “Don’t Believe in God? You are not alone” ad. The DART bus ads garnered a lot of controversy, being allowed, disallowed, and then allowed again to be displayed on buses. Despite the myriad pro-Christian ads that have donned those and other buses throughout the years without complaint, the moment a pro-atheist bus ad appears, the Christians attack. That’s not setting a good standard, and a few of the bus/metro operations have caved in to the religious pressure to remove the ads in favor of keeping customers happy and not “offended.” The Des Moines situation, on the other hand, is one of the few instances where the bus company didn’t play favorites, and for that, I’m impressed and grateful. My satire, though, focuses particularly on the “defense” of the bus driver being based on a “right” to practice religion that a Des Moines attorney claims should have trumped the bus company’s ability to display an ad that offended the driver, or at least have pandered to her religious preferences in some way. I thought it would be interesting to highlight that aspect — the “right not to be offended in the workplace” aspect — on a different scale to see what kind of reactions we’d get if one of the top executives of the government tried pulling the same whining routine. I was wondering if it’d be unrealistic — no way would the VP do that! But, yet again, I’m shown that it seems to be well within the scope of cynicism for many of us to believe that we’re that much closer to being a country that panders so much to the religious that we become more or less theocratic. Look at what Texas is doing, forcing its public school children to learn about the Old and New Testament. Remember how Obama and Biden, plus most of the Congress, have repeatedly invoked the god of one specific religion. Is it that different for Biden to have actually done the above from what Biden likely thinks to himself when he boards a helicopter? God bless the troops, and God bless America, kids. Say it to get votes, sure, but after you’re elected and you still say it… overkill. [<]

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Government, Religion, Satire | 3 Comments »

Mandatory Masturbation in Health Care Bill

Friday, August 14th, 2009

There’s a wicked rumor spreading throughout the right-wing media that Obama’s health care bill will REQUIRE every parent to teach their children that masturbation is a perfectly normal, healthy human activity.1 Yes, they’re going to push their SEXUAL agenda on everyone! I’m NOT KIDDING! They’re calling it “mandatory masturbation.”2

Okay, that’s the rumor. It’s bullshit. Now let’s talk truth for a moment.

The REAL text of the health care bill makes it plainly obvious what’s going on:

House Bill 3200, titled “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” section 2543 (b)(2) states:

ESTABLISHMENT OF CORE PARENTAL EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS- The Secretary, in consultation with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, shall establish core parental educational elements for a compliance program under paragraph (1). The elements will include written policies, procedures, and standards of conduct, a designated compliance officer and a compliance committee to ensure parental to child training and education pertaining to human underage masturbation; a confidential or anonymous mechanism, such as a hotline, to receive compliance questions; disciplinary guidelines for enforcement of standards; internal monitoring and auditing procedures, including monitoring and auditing of parents; procedures for ensuring prompt responses to detected offenses and development of corrective action initiatives, including responses to potential offenses; and procedures to return all identified violations to the programs under this title, title XIX, and title XXI.

Paragraph (1), as referenced above, states:

Parent to child training curriculum will include, at minimum, the following core lessons regarding masturbation:
1. Touching the intimate parts of one’s body except during normal washing and using the bathroom should be avoided, and during washing, should be limited as much as possible.
2. Children should never be left alone, as being alone increases susceptibility to temptation.
3. After bathing, children should not linger, especially in front of the mirror. Children should stay in the shower just long enough to clean themselves or be cleaned by a parent. As soon as the cleaning is finished, the child should dry off and get out of the bathroom as soon as possible to be in the presence of a family member.
4. Prior to sleeping, children should be dressed in full pajamas or clothes that are difficult to remove.
5. The Internet should be avoided entirely, or at least restricted and closely monitored. Oversight of television programs is recommended, as long as the programs are limited to programs displaying gratuitous violence without sexual content.
6. The topic of masturbation should be avoided. If a child brings up the topic, the parent should change the topic or remind the child that all sexual activity outside of marital relations, including masturbation, is unequivocally immoral and unhealthy, and can lead to addiction, infertility, mental illness, and, in some cases, prostate cancer in males.3

Despite the fact that the bill’s provisions are completely opposite of the rumors, Republicans and right-wing pundits keep pushing. When asked about the “mandatory masturbation” portion of the bill, “Joe the plumber” had this to say, “The politicians in Washington are spending trillions of dollars of our money to push masturbation on children. When are Americans going to stand up and say enough is enough?”4

Iowan Republican Senator Grassley has been a staunch opponent of the bill. “In the House bill, there is counseling for masturbation,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have pro-masturbation parental counseling. That’s something that should be considered only after marriage, if ever. We should not have a government run plan to decide for us whether masturbation is right or wrong. That’s a discussion only between parents and God.” Grassley obviously has not read the bill.5

Sarah Palin, estranged former governor of Alaska,6 notorious for her ironic sexual positions,7 had a lot to say about “mandatory masturbation”:

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that requires parents to teach their children that masturbation is normal and healthy…..

As I noted in my statement last week, masturbation inevitably leads to pre-marital sex and mental illness. The mandatory masturbation system proposed by President Obama, advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff, would force every parent to talk to their children about masturbation, and, worse, would make those parents advocate for masturbation.

On the left side, Keith Olbermann had this to say:

Every poll, every analysis, every vote, every region of this country supports masturbation, and one of the most profitable businesses in America, the porn industry, backs that with all of their money and lobbying pressure. Cross us all at your peril.8

The effects of the negative punditry are varied, but one interesting situation is that Glenn Beck, another anti-masturbation proponent, has recently lost advertisers due to his stance. Vivid Entertainment Group pulled its ads from Fox News Channel’s “The Glenn Beck Program.” Club Jenna, Inc. has also declared that it will not advertise during the program.9

Here’s what Michelle Bachmann10 said regarding the mandatory masturbation clause:

[It's] under the guise of quote, volunteerism, but it’s not volunteers at all,” she said on the Bob Johnson radio show in July. “It’s the government forcing parents to force masturbation on their children. This provision is like creating re-education camps for young people, where young people get trained in the philosophy the government puts forward and then they have to go thinking that masturbation is acceptable and not morally corrupt.

As a parent, I would have a very, very difficult time doing this to my children.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) told a Florida radio station today that the health care legislation being considered by the House of Representatives will authorize the creation of “masturbation counselors.”

They create a whole new category. There are masturbation counselors. There is authorization for reimbursement for those counselors. You have a whole new cottage industry.

Obviously, the pundits and congressmen need to sit down for a few minutes and actually read the damn bill. Perhaps then we can get off on this topic.11

  1. Everyone wants to do it, and it feels good, so it must be wrong. [<]
  2. Mmm, M&Ms [<]
  3. No shit, this is only loosely based on real mind-numbingly inane religious anti-masturbation proponent websites. [<]
  4. Why the fuck are people still talking about Joe the Plumber? [<]
  5. Nobody reads the bills. [<]
  6. Why the fuck are people still talking about Sarah Palin? [<]
  7. See THIS; or were you looking for something along the lines of this? [<]
  8. I’d probably pay to hear Olbermann say that, or something like that. Well, I wouldn’t pay much. No one ever donates, and I’m effin poor. [<]
  9. The day those companies advertise on Fox is the day this country is truly free. [<]
  10. How the fuck is she still in office? [<]
  11. Are you actually looking for something to indicate whether this is satire? Please. It’s obviously real news. Just like Fox News. [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Government, Law, Morality, Religion, Satire, Sexuality | 5 Comments »

Obama’s ‘God Bless’ expletive is hate speech

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Mean ObamaAt the end of nearly every Obama speech, Obama fails the prudence test regarding the rule among politicians to avoid saying anything about anybody’s religious faith. Obama isn’t the first, nor will he be the last politician to abuse the idea of church and state separation. However, I can relate to the President — I’ve uttered those words myself on occasion. But if this were just an occasion like that, Obama would have by now offered an apology for his repeated and blatant invocation of the Christian god: “God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”1

So, I must ask this question: Did Obama intend to offend millions of his countrymen who choose not to worship God (or, specifically Obama’s version of god), or did he just not care if they were offended?

Either way, if Obama had invoked the name of Allah, you can be sure that Christians would be lining up to throw their “I’m offended” stones.

Hate speech is hate speech, whether it is aimed at atheists, Christians, straight people, white people, non-white people, men, or women. Whether we should tolerate this speech as a form of free speech, or whether we should prosecute it as hate speech is a different issue. In this case, we must note that “hate speech is speech meant to demean, ridicule, and discredit all who are associated with its target.”2

So, where is the outrage against Obama’s hate speech against atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, and Hindus (among many others)? We haven’t heard from many of these groups, and we especially haven’t heard from Obama’s spokesman. Obama’s uncorrected cursing is indicative of the persistent asphyxiation by the tireless forces of religio-political convergence. One of atheism’s greatest gifts to America was to keep God out of the Constitution, and every time we let hate speech slip by without consequence, we come closer and closer to settling the new foundation of theocracy.

—

In other news, Washington Examiner commentator Mark Tapscott argues that Vice President Biden’s use of “Jesus Christ” as an “expletive” should be considered “hate speech,” and Biden should, at minimum, apologize. State of Protest attempted to reach Jesus Christ for comment, but all we received was a cryptic message: “Yes, No, Wait.” We think that Christ’s prayer-induced voicemail was on an endless loop.

Tapscott asserts that Biden, who used the phrase in an on-the-record interview with the Wall Street Journal, should have, by now, offered an apology for what Tapscott considers hate speech “meant to demean, ridicule and discredit all who are associated with its target.” Tapscott considers the victims to be American Christians, who, he is surprised to note, have not protested or made any demands of Biden.

Of course, one must ask whether Biden actually did “mean” to demean, ridicule, and discredit American Christians. I know when I say “Jesus Christ,” I’m not even thinking of Christians, let alone intending to demean, ridicule, and discredit them. Heck, if I knew merely saying something was the equivalent of all that, I would have just made one single post on this blog stating only “Jesus Christ, Muhammad, God,” and have been done with it.

Tapscott is wrong, and he shouldn’t be trying to induce an artificially created sense of a right not to be offended on behalf of anyone, let alone the most privileged of America’s religious sect.

[Poe disclaimer: I've found I need to add these disclaimers every once in a while to cure Poe Blindness on all sides. Please read the original article by Mark Tapscott and compare it to what I have written above. I hope you're able to see the parallel and how incredibly stupid it is for Tapscott and any others to accuse Biden of hate speech while simultaneously ignoring Biden and other politicians' invocations to the god of the Christians.]

  1. See http://obamaspeeches.com/ for endless examples [<]
  2. Original article [<]

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Atheism, Government, Religion | 3 Comments »

Congress Passes Art Critique Law

Tuesday, July 14th, 2009

DC – Congress, on Monday July 13, 2009, passed what’s been nicknamed the “Critique Bill.” It’s currently before President Obama, and there is no indication that he will veto the controversial bill. The bill, officially titled the “Artistic Expression Protection Act,” would make it illegal to criticize works of art… any work of art under penalty of fines up to $35,000. It also has provisions regarding libel, but the controversial aspect lies in the Critique Clause.

Here is an excerpt:

Section 16

(1) A person who publishes or utters any statement critical of art or the product of artistic expression shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding $35,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters a critical statement if (a) he or she publishes or utters a statement that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held very important by any artist, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that artistic genre, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the said statement, to cause such outrage.

Section 17

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offense under section 16, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorizing any member of the New York State Police to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offense related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the NYSP of all copies of the statement to which the offense related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the NYSP.

When Congress first started deliberating the bill over a month ago, Obama had this to say in regard:1

The United States and artists around the world should have a relationship based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and art are not exclusive and need not be in competition. To this end, the The Artistic Expression Protection Act will be a tour de force, setting an important precedent for the rest of the world to show that America cannot and will not be intolerant of its artists and of artistic freedom.

When asked about the possibility that the bill conflicts with the free speech clause of the First Amendment, President Obama declined to answer directly, only reiterating his trust in the legislative process.

Reaction from other nations varies. President Sarkozy denounced Obama’s willingness to concede to those who would stifle free speech in any form, saying, “Obama could learn from France’s tolerance for any and all forms of artistic expression. France is, of course, the foundation of modern art.” 2

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of England, on the other hand, expressed dismay that the bill was not inclusive enough to be effective. “Generations from now,” he said, “they will look back upon this day not as a positive precedent, but, instead, as an embarrassment. Imagine having to pass a new law each and every time one can imagine a particular person’s point of view could be offended. That’s incredibly inefficient and a waste of resources, and England would have no such thing.”

When asked what he meant by that, the Prime Minister shrugged and responded, “Our government will be foregoing the tedium and needling of individual, overly-specific instances of offense, and will be, instead, covering all potential offenses with a blanket law protecting everyone’s right not to be offended, not just artists.”3 His statement substantiated recent rumors that Britain was on the verge of passing yet another set of surveillance-style laws meant to protect its citizens from themselves.

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonya Sotomayor was asked during her congressional hearing yesterday whether, if a case regarding violation of the Artistic Expression Protection Act came before the Court, her past brief experience as a freelance painter would have an effect on her ruling. Judge Sotomayor indicated that she could not make a judgment at the hearing based on a hypothetical situation regarding a law that has yet to be passed, and that the role of the Supreme Court was not to pass personal judgment, but, instead, to evaluate the merits of each case in light of the law.4

Despite her neutral demeanor, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized by left-wing pundits. Keith Olbermann, for example, had this to say last night:5

Isn’t it obvious that Judge Sotomayor will be influenced by her past, especially with regard to art? I’m shocked that Congress let her off the hook on this one so easily. Hello, Congress!?! Next, they’ll be giving her a medal for telling Congress that she doesn’t see “black and white.”

From the artistic point of view, Professor Henri Rollings from the Philadelphia School of Art was enthusiastic about the bill’s inevitable passage.

Protecting artistic freedom from criticism ensures that artists will be unhindered by the rest of society and by free-thinking radicals who wish only to stifle expression with their unwarranted attacks on artists. Protecting artists from being harmed just because of their art is a return to the respect that artists had traditionally. Art is very important, and people need to realize that, even if they have to pay a fine and serve some jail time.

Opposing the bill is a small group of non-artists who have said that art cannot be protected from criticism, as that would be what non-artist activist Mike Straphorn calls a “slippery slope”:

First it’s art, but what makes you think it will stop there? Next it’ll be sports or something, and any time you want to make a comment like what a foul-up Richie Ashburn was, you’ll get fined or maybe imprisoned. That’s a crock of sh*t! Nothing should be free from criticism. Nothing is sacred. Well, except maybe religion, but that’s different. People get really offended when you screw with their beliefs. Everything else, though, is up for grabs.

Obama is expected to sign the bill today.6

–

  1. Not really. [<]
  2. Sarkozy’s got his burka in a wad. [<]
  3. He might as well have. [<]
  4. No, she didn’t. [<]
  5. No, he didn’t. [<]
  6. No one ever reads footnotes. Oh, you want the straight dope? Here ya go. [<]

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Atheism, Government, Law, Religion, Satire | 11 Comments »

« Older Entries