Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Sucks to be back

My recent article on Christian porn dogs drew chuckling on-line magazine some unaccustomed attention. It seems that many good folk are praying for poor chuckling, or so they tell me in e-cards. Before being showered with so much benediction, I had spent a truly blessed week in the mountains, often being showered by a beneficent, though cold, waterfall. During this time I read no news at all. No newspaper. No computer. No email. No television.

So I am late in commenting on the good Senator David Vitter (R-La), a family values crusader who, unlike his sticky handed brethren in Christ, likes his pornography alive and kicking and role playing in kinky costumes for $200 bucks an hour.

Vitter and his wife, Wendy, a former prosecutor, have four children. On his Senate Web site, Vitter says he is committed to "advancing mainstream conservative principles" and notes that he and his wife are lectors at their hometown church.

Vitter, a married father of four, last month urged colleagues to devote more federal spending to programs urging sexual abstinence among teens. The best way to avert teen pregnancy, he wrote, is "by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness."

In a June 2006 Senate speech supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, Vitter said it was "well overdue that we in the Senate focus on nurturing, upholding, preserving and protecting such a fundamental social institution as traditional marriage."

The 1999 Times-Picayune profile called him "the boyish-looking, straight-laced freshman state representative" who was "sometimes lampooned as a Boy Scout in adult life." It said he hammered everyone "who didn't pass Vitter's ethical muster.

By now it should be obvious to anyone with eyes who can see that the louder a Christian rails against the immoral acts of others, the closer it is to certainty that he is heavily involved in whatever he condemns. If they rail against adultery they’re fucking around. If they rail against pornography, they’re making, buying, or selling it. Like the former porn king Mitt Romney. If they rail against gays, they are dreaming of penis, if not hiring male prostitutes and firing up the glass pipe. If they are constantly railing against pedophiles, far more than normal people, keep your kids as far away from them as you can.

Meanwhile, the largest Christian church has sheltered pedophiles and protected them from the law for centuries. You have to be pretty sick and immoral to let your kid near a Catholic priest.
Lawyers for more than 500 people who say they were abused by Roman Catholic clergy members said last night that they had settled their lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for $660 million

A settlement would require the archdiocese to make public its confidential files that could shed light on which church officials knew of the abuse accusations, and when they knew, Mr. Boucher said. Many of the accused priests had multiple victims because they were moved by their superiors from one parish to another when accusations arose.

I doubt if every single one of the Christian anti-sex leaders is a sex fiend of one officially disapproved sort or another. I’m sure a lot of them are only in it for the money. Hate sells. And some are no doubt just plain stupid. I don’t think any of them believe all that crap in the bible, only what specifically validates their world view. The haters don’t acknowledge the Sermon on the Mount. The King of Peace crowd doesn’t do Deuteronomy. They all like to fuck as much as normal, decent people. The only difference is that the fundamentalist fuckwads feel horribly guilty about it and want to legislate against their enablers to make themselves stop.

Anyway, I also got an email from godsgirl73, a pseudonym for one of the more effective Republican propagandists on the web. Her, if it is a her, emails circulate among the working classes in small towns across America. People from the Moose Lodge pass them along to people from the Elks Lodge and the Kiwanas clubs. People who maintain religious or humorous mailing lists propagate them widely. This network has escaped the attention of the national media, but it’s probably one of the more effective mediums for making people real stupid.

Today God Girl is upset about a “plagiarism” committed against God.
A man by the name of Ronald Bruce Meyer is a cyber criminal because he journalized false information a committed plagiarism. He has actually done it thousands of times on his web site, but in order for juristic accuracy I have narrowed my case down to the article that ticks me off the most. (And if you have a heart, it will tick you off, too.)

Many of you remember how old you where when the new started talking about the Columbine Massacre, in Littleton, CO. Two martyrs died that day, Cassie Bernal, and Rachel Scott. According to the FBI, before she died, Rachel Scott said "yes" to the question "Do you believe in God." Directly before being murdered. Ronald Bruce Meyer wrote this article saying that Rachel never said yes. This is a lie. And it is illegal. Read it for yourself at http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0420b-almanac.htm

How do we get this article off the Internet? Congratulations you are now a witness to the crime committed. So, go to http://www.ic3.gov/ and file a report. Then share this information with as many people as possible. This is war. Don't let this guy win
Umm, yea, that’s a plagiarism all right. Just like George Bush said in his famous speech in which he came out as a homosexual whose favorite activity was dressing up as the gimp and getting beaten by Dick Cheney in panties. He mentioned the kids at Columbine who said Jesus was a twinkie and pledged their allegiance to Satan before being shot by a couple of Christian conservative gun nuts. It’s plagiarism to criticize God or President Bush, so shut the fuck up.

Ah, so good to be back in the news reading world. Where the fuck is a cold waterfall when you need it? Unfortunately, I know lots of answers to that question and they ain’t round here.