Another Celebrity Endorsement!

Hail, citizen. Atia of the Julii, here.

When I'm not plotting, scheming, backstabbing and screwing my way through the nobility of Rome, I enjoy reading Irritatum Dailius.

It is the finest amusement in all the Empire!

The AFA sends me things

I get e-mails from the American Family Association from time to time. They generally range from the unintentionally humorous to the outrageously offensive. So this latest was not at all unexpected:

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Cindy Roberts

August 4, 2010

AFA condemns marriage ruling tyrannical, abusive and unconstitutional

I would like to at this time condemn your tyrannical abuse of English Syntax, but that's not really germane to the matter at hand. Seriously, though - is that supposed to be a sentence? You would think that the person whose job it is to write press releases would have a working knowledge of sentence structure. Maybe at least a high-school level of competency in English composition. But anyway. . .

Statement from Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, in response to Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling overturning California’s marriage amendment, also known as Prop 8:

“This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’

Honest to God, Timmy, you people just have no idea how our system works. We have here in America what is known as a Constitutional Republic. It's not set up to be a direct democracy. We have rules set up in a little document that you people pretend to love called the "Constitution." And one of those rules is that if a law gets made and someone thinks it may be in violation of the Constitution, there are courts and judges whose job it is to examine that law and decide whether or not it is allowed by the Constitution. That's how the Founding Fathers set things up. It's called "Judicial Review," and you should have learned about it in school.

And if the courts decide that your little hate law is in violation to the Constitution, but you still really, really want to have your little hate law, there is a mechanism in place to ammend the Constitution so that your law will comply with it. You could change it to say "equal protection under the law except for people that I think are gross."

“It’s also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity."

Yes, only a heterosexual judge would be un-biased in deciding whether heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.

The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society.

How is that the fundamental issue? I mean, seriously, the fact that you and your fellow nutjobs imagine that there are imaginary "physical and psychological risks" inherent in homosexual conduct should not have any bearing on anything. I happen to think that there are serious psychological risks in living your life as a repressed, hate-fueled, bigoted, self-righteous prig, but I certainly recognize your right to choose that lifestyle.

And why are you people always so afraid that gayness is going to be "promoted and endorsed" by some entity or other. Do you really think that if the gay people come up with a clever enough marketing campaign young hetero people will find themselves talked into switching teams? Society has been promoting and endorsing hetero relations forever, but somehow the gay people remain unconverted. Shouldn't that tell you that it is impossible to convince someone to change their sexual orientation?

That’s why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.

“His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

Or, it's no different than a judge who is, say, a Christian being asked to rule on a separation of church and state case. A Christian judge would have to recuse himself, he couldn't possibly be impartial.

Or the next time there's a group of, say, firefighters bringing a reverse-discrimination case, obviously all the white judges would have to be disqualified! I'm just using your logic.

“The Constitution says judges hold office ‘during good Behavior.’ Well, this ruling is bad behavior - in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior

I might go so far as to say that this ruling was very very VERY bad behavior! Although the term "bad behavior" is obviously subjective, obviously a matter of opinion, so I wouldn't be so stupid as to use the phrase "in fact" in my assessment, since no behavior can ever be good or bad as a matter of "fact," only in the judgment of the observer, but don't let that get in the way of a pompous rant.

- in fact, it’s very, very bad behavior - and we call on all members of the House of Representatives who respect the Constitution to launch impeachment proceedings against this judge.”

Yes, if you respect the Constitution, you must impeach any judge who performs his duties as laid out in the Constitution. Obviously, following the rules of the Constitution is unconstitutional!

This Just In. . .

Twice-divorced Serial-Philanderer Opposed to the Gay Marriage

Newt Gingrich: Gay Marriage Ruling 'Outrageous'

"Judge Walker's ruling overturning Prop 8 is an outrageous disrespect for our Constitution and for the majority of people of the United States who believe marriage is the union of husband and wife."

Yes, a sacred union between a husband and a wife, designed by God Himself to last for several years, you know, until the wife starts to get a little on the "older" side, or gets all cancery on you.
Then, as has been the tradition since the dawn of civilization, the husband runs off and marries the mistress. And if the sacred bond between a wife, a husband, and the husband's lover is not respected by judges, well I just don't know what will happen to the institution of hetero temporary unfaithful marriage.

Crazy Candidate of the Day: Our first back-to-back winner!

Nevada's Sharron Angle just continues to top herself!
You kinda have to admire the dedication and commitment to utter insanity it takes to produce a track record like hers. Here's the latest:
(from the Las Vegas Sun)

Angle: “What’s happening (in America)..is a violation of the 1st Commandment,” entitlements “make government our God.”

You know, when I fired at the headline, I thought she said "First Amendment." Which seemed pretty nutty, but not up to her usual standards. But no, she says America is violating the First Commandment. And I'm pretty sure she's serious.

That's what Sharron Angle, the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate, said in an April 21 interview with TruNews Christian Radio's Rick Wiles. I have obtained audio of the interview, previously unnoticed, which contains some startling rhetoric from the candidate who has said running for office was a calling from God.

Apparently, God has a sense of humor. "Hey, Saint Peter. Check it out, I'm going to tell that crazy lady to run for the Senate! pffft! Oh, man, she's really gonna do it! This is going to to be classic!"

But in this interview, she goes much further:

"And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that’s really what’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."

Right. She makes a good point. Back when this nation still had good values, we didn't need a police department. We just relied on God to protect us from criminals. And an army? Ha! That would have been a waste, what with God keeping the Russians from invading.

We should totally go back to that, but why stop there? Let's just ask God to build us roads and bridges. And if your house catches on fire, just pray for rain! Oh, we're going to save so much money! Matter of fact, why should I rely on my employer to provide me with a paycheck? That sounds pretty idolatrous! I'm going to quit my job and just wait for manna to fall from the sky to provide me with my daily bread.

"And I knew that all along when I started praying over a year ago over it. And this just seemed to be the battle that I needed to go to war with. And I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith. And we need people to really stand for faith and trust, not hope and change."

Yeah, fuck you, hope!

Also, one does not go to battlewith a war. That's like going against a baseball game with an inning. It just makes no sense. But hey, it's so great that you see our Nation as a battleground for your religious crusade. Especially when you talk about "Second Amendment remedies" And "taking out Harry Reid." That sort of violent rhetoric can only lead to positive results!

We all have plans, but at the end of the day we need to be content with that thought that God has ordered this day and that he will work it to get it for our good according to Romans 8:28. And also those things in the Old Testament where he says the world means it for bad, but God means it for good.

So then what's your fucking problem? If you believe that God will turn these "bad" things (like healthcare reform) into "good"( like, I guess, no healthcare for anyone?) then why bother to run for Reid's seat at all? Why not let him put his nefarious schemes into practice and trust that God will make them turn out for the good? Maybe these "bad" things are part of God's plan and He might take umbrage at your interfering with them.

Hey, if God "called you" to run for office, did it ever occur to you that Mormon God might have called Harry Reid to do the same? Maybe Harry Reid being the majority leader was Mormon God's plan. I'm pretty sure you don't want to tick off Mormon God!

Angle: We’re at war in this country – for our freedom, our culture, for our liberty, our Constitution, and we need a true, battle-tested, proven, Constitutional conservative to take out Harry Reid. It isn’t just about anybody but Harry.

Really? It's not about the betterment of our nation? It's just about sticking it to Harry? Really?

When he says that he’s voted seven times against partial-birth abortion, we need someone who can say, “And I have a better pro-life record than you, Harry Reid, and we don’t like the way you confirm our Supreme Court judges, who are all pro-choice.

All of them? Really? Who has Harry confirmed? Let's see, there's John Roberts (Catholic, pro-life) Samuel Alito (Catholic, pro-life) and Sonia Sotomayor who can't necessarily be counted on either side of the divide--as Black Christian News.com says of her: "she has reached outcomes in some cases that were favorable to abortion opponents. Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. . ."

So who are all these pro-choice justices he's been secretly confirming?

The same thing stands for those who love our Second Amendment. Harry Reid now has the NRA saying, “Thank Harry Reid for all his pro-gun votes.” Well, I have the GOA endorsement and we know that once again those Supreme Court judges would take away our right to keep and bear arms.

Okay, I don't know anything about the GOA (Gun Owners of America) but how could they possibly be any more pro-gun-nut than the NRA. And which judges have ever shown any evidence that they would take away your right to keep and bear arms? That's only taking place in your imagination! Would the NRA seriously throw their support behind Reid if any of this were true? Do you really think you know more about the battle over the 2nd Amendment than the N.R. Freakin-A?

Angle: We’re right to that point in the graph where it says, “government dependency.” And we know that once we have a majority that are dependent upon the government, we will lose our freedom; it says we go into bondage.

It says? What says we go into bondage? This graph you refer to? Some crazy book you read? What says we go into bondage?

No! Never mind. False alarm!

Our Founders warned against this. They said don’t… that your liberty is only as secure as the people are. Because once they, um, get the ability to vote themselves entitlements from the largesse of the government, liberty is done; freedom is over with.

Okay, it wasn't "The Founders" who said that. It was a fairly obscure Scottish professor named Alexander Tyler. And here is what he actually said:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

And there's no reason to think he was right about this. How many democracies had existed at the time he wrote this (1787)? What models did he have to base this on? The Roman Republic, and the Golden Age of Athens? I don't know how much relevance those examples had in 1787, let alone in the 21st Century.

I’ve also been endorsed by a PAC out of Washington D.C. and the name of that PAC is Government is not God. And I thought that that was so appropriate because that is really what’s happening in our society and we need to take our country back.

Vote for me! I've been endorsed by a PAC of lunatics!

As If Working At Colonial Williamsburg Didn't Suck Enough

Now the place is being invaded by teabaggers!

"Tea party" activists drawn to Williamsburg and its portrayal of Founding Fathers

By Amy Gardner

Washington Post Staff Writer

Amid the history buffs and parents with young children wandering along the crushed shell paths of Virginia's restored colonial city, some noticeably angrier and more politically minded tourists can often be found.

They stand in the crowd listening closely as the costumed actors relive dramatic moments in the founding of our country. They clap loudly when an actor portraying Patrick Henry delivers his "Give me liberty or give me death" speech. They cheer and hoot when Gen. George Washington surveys the troops behind the original 18th-century courthouse.

Okay, so they love historical re-enactments, or maybe they don't even realize that it is a re-enactment, they might think they're really seeing Patrick Henry and George Washington, but I guess all in all they seem pretty harmless.

And they shout out about the tyranny of our current government during scenes depicting the nation's struggle for freedom from Britain.

Oooh. shoulda seen that coming.
Yeah, that's a totally apt comparison, an overseas monarchy levying taxes without any input from its subjects is pretty darn similar to a group of democratically elected representatives lowering taxes for most Americans. Boy, history repeats, as they say.

"General, when is it appropriate to resort to arms to fight for our liberty?" asked a tourist on a recent weekday during "A Conversation with George Washington," a hugely popular dialogue between actor and audience in the shaded backyard of Charlton's Coffeehouse.

Seriously? You're going to ask some actor for advice about when armed insurrection against the United States government is "appropriate?" Really? You know he's not really Washington, right? And if he were Washington, he would kick your sorry ass back to whatever hickville you came from for suggesting such a thing. You do know that when a bunch of whiskey distillers tried to pull this kind of shit he federalized several state militias to crush their tax-hating little asses, right? You all seem to know so much about the founding fathers, try reading up on the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790's

Standing on a simple wooden stage before a crowd of about 100, the man portraying Washington replied: "Only when all peaceful remedies have been exhausted. Or if we are forced to do so in our own self-defense."

The tourist, a self-described conservative activist named Ismael Nieves from Elmer, N.J., nodded thoughtfully.

Oh, he nodded thoughtfully. That's great. Did he stroke his beard pensively, or cluck his tongue earnestly, or do any other thing that dumb people do when they think that they're smart?

"We live in a very dangerous time," Nieves said. "People are looking for leadership, looking for what to do. They're looking to Washington, Jefferson, Madison."

Oh, hey, yeah! Let's ask some dead guys to lead us! Or better yet, some actors pretending to be those dead guys! Oh, also, the times are only dangerous because of nutbags like you. You teabaggers are the ones talking about violent revolution and watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and whatnot.

"I want to get to know our Founding Fathers," he added. "I think we've forgotten them. It's like we've almost erased them from history."

Um, only in Texas. Everywhere else, the history books are full of the Founding Fathers. Oh, I'm sorry "history book." It's a bunch of pieces of paper with words on them that tell about things that actually happened in the past. It's like a Glenn Beck book if it were written by someone not insane and dishonest.

"They all should come here and listen," said Bob Rohrbacher, a retired plumber from Floral Park, N.Y., who opposes President Obama and was inspired to visit Williamsburg while watching Glenn Beck on Fox News. "They've forgotten about America."

No, no. We remember America. "Horse With no No Name," right?

Sometimes, the activists appear surprised when the Founding Fathers don't always provide the "give 'em hell" response they seem to be looking for.

When a tourist asked George Washington a question about what should be done to those colonists who remain loyal to the tyrannical British king, Washington interjected: "I hope that we're all loyal, sir" -- a reminder that Washington, far from being an early agitator against the throne, was among those who sought to avoid revolution until the very end.

Ooh, that's not going to go over well. Everyone knows that George Washington would have hated everything in Washington and would have totally shot someone.

When another audience member asked the general to reflect on the role of prayer and religion in politics, he said: "Prayers, sir, are a man's private concern. They are not a matter of public interest. And nor should they be. There is nothing so personal as a man's relationship with his creator."

But, but. . . Mr. Washington, you founded this country as a fundamentalist theocracy, remember?

And when another asked whether the Boston Tea Party had helped rally the patriots, Washington disagreed with force: The tea party "should never have occurred," he said. "It's hurt our cause, sir."

This just in. . . George Washington, the dirty Commu-Nazi, is no longer considered one of the founding fathers. Clearly, he is a secret Muslim who wants nothing more than to destroy America. And he hates God!