Doggycide in Sallisaw, Oklahoma

Dead Sobe & Spade

And the police’s crusade against pitbulls continues to produce casualties, as this now-former owner relates:

    The dogs had pushed a small corner of their cage back and how they fit their selves through will remain a mystery to me but they did. While finishing the dishes I heard four of the most gutwrenching sounds of my life. I heard a set of two shotgun blasts, a brief pause and then a second set. Boom Boom…Boom Boom! and in that moment my heart literlly fell to the floor. I raced to my back door and screamed their names hoping to see their heads pop out of their dog house but no, I wouldnt see their faces however just beyond the sight of their cage I saw the Animal Control vehicle 200 yards from where I stood and it was then that I knew they shot them.I flew to my neighbors home where the news was delivered that “Yes Mam I was forced to shoot your dogs”

    All I asked was to have their bodies. It took me an hours worth of arguing as well as200 dollars to have them brought to my home. I was met by officers with arrogant attitudes, as if saying to me, you should be thanking me. I stopped your dogs before they killed someone or something.

    Even still arguing with me as to where to lay their bodies, I wanted them laid on my front porch, which meant the officer would have to walk them across my yard getting his uniform bloody. He had managed to shoot them without so much as a single spec of blood getting on him and he wasnt about to get blood on his hands at the end of it. After standing there for ten minutes trying to convince me because I have a small child it would be in my best interest to allow them to dispose of the dogs because it would be distressing to her, I told the officers I believe there is no way around distressing my child.

    As I watched the man first bring Spade to me then Sobe laying them side by side I noticed, these animals are shot in their sides not their face, not their chest! I asked the officer again,”So you shot these dogs in the side for violently charging you officer?” He replied, “Yes Mam I had no other choice.” I told the officers, “These were good dogs and had never bit anyone or anything, this officer was excessive for dogs that did not bite anyone or anything.” His supervisor looked me dead in the eyes and said and I quote, “These dogs were shot primarily for the potential harm they posed my officer.”

At which point the owner was fined, because a good injury always craves an added insult.

(via Tokitoide^[NSFW])

Fail Quote: MA Police chief says drug use is “domestic terrorism”

Today’s nugget of Drug War insanity comes from Wilmington, Massachusetts Police Chief Michael Begonis:

“Illicit drug use is a form of domestic terrorism to some extent. It is preying on folks who are more susceptible and who need a better life. And it’s something that we need to deal with head on.”

Following this pronouncement, the Chief presumably returned to his office and later ordered a SWAT team to break into a family home with a battering ram and flashbangs at 3 AM to arrest granny for using marijuana to help soothe her aching arthritis. Household pets may or may not be shot on sight and later declared to have been “threatening” to the submachine-gun-toting paramilitary officers.

Mike Riggs at Reason.com has more.

(via @radleybalko)

Tags: Michael Begonis • domestic terrorism • Wilmington Police Department • drug use • drug users

Congress still clueless about wiretapping law they reauthorized

If there’s one thing all sides of the U.S. political spectrum can agree on, it’s that the current Congress is quite terrible at its job. But the least they could do would be not to broadcast their blatant cluelessness about the contentious surveillance bills they pass. Watch as they line up to proclaim how Average American Joe has nothing whatsoever to fear from the recently reauthorized FISA Amendments Act warrantless wiretapping law:

"This bill has nothing to do with Americans on American soil," said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on the floor. The bill only grants authority for "targeting foreigners located outside of the United States, and not on Americans in the United States, or anywhere else in the world," said House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who repeated this twice for emphasis. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) even emphasized that "the government cannot reverse target individuals overseas in order to monitor those in the United States. That means the government cannot target a US person simply by monitoring a non-US person that the US person is talking to."

And now, a word from advocates for reality:

That's not true. The bill "allows the bulk suspicionless collection of communications coming into and out of the United States," explains Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. "While the proponents always point out we're targeting the overseas end and those people don't have Fourth Amendment rights, the Americans and other people in the US on the other end of that call, or email or Skype, do have Fourth Amendment rights."

See, the law allows the government to collect communications between individuals abroad who are interacting with people in the United States. In other words, the government can get around Americans' Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure by "targeting" the communications of a foreigner who just happens to be communicating with someone in the United States. They're not supposed to deliberately exploit the loophole to get around the Fourth Amendment, but once they use it to get information, they can keep it, even if they find out that they were spying on an American citizen after the fact.

In short: Another unconstitutional, overbroad and all-too-easily abused law to spy on the private lives of a largely ignorant and complacent populace and passed – yet again – by demagogic lawmakers who don’t even know the first thing about it.

Then again:

On the other hand, maybe they do know that the bill allows warrantless surveillance of American citizens, and they simply don't care.

No-one has shown themselves more eager to snoop around other people’s private affairs without their knowledge or permission – all under the transparent pretense of security – than American politicians.

(via The Agitator)

Tags: FISA Amendments Act • U.S. Congress • warrantless wiretapping

Why the U.S. is not a Christian Nation (redux)

Sorry for the silence today. Here’s a nice little silence breaker, in the form of an educational and supremely well-sourced video by The Thinking Atheist that should be shown to everyone (particularly politicians) who still thinks the United States is a “Christian nation”:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

The United States of America is a Christian nation?

If you believe the rhetoric of many Republican political candidates, you’d certainly believe so. Former presidential candidate John McCain once said, “I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” His choice for vice-president in 2008, Sarah Palin, has called the United States a “Christian nation” and suggested that it’s “mind-boggling” to think otherwise. At George W. Bush’s inauguration, his very first act was to have the son of Christian evangelist Billy Graham officially dedicate the presidential inauguration to Jesus Christ, invoking “the Father”, “the Son”, “the Lord Jesus Christ” and “the Holy Spirit”.

Many U.S. presidents have sworn their oath on the Christian Bible. “God Bless America” has become a familiar slogan: in good times, bad, reflected on banners, T-shirts, church marquees and songs like Lee Greenwood’s ‘God Bless the USA”. The Internet is populated with websites like KeepGodInAmerica.com, which promotes the Christian Bible and declares that “Without God, there is no America”. You can sign online petitions like this one [http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/keepgodinamerica/], which declares that “God ordains our leaders for his own glory and the public good”.

Certainly, the United States protects the freedom of its citizens to call down blessings from their deities, Christian or otherwise. Free citizens have the right to pray, worship and practice their religions however they wish, within the boundaries of the law. But did our Founding Fathers create a Christian nation?

Well, if they did, it’s odd that ‘God’ is not mentioned once in the U.S Constitution. The mention of religion in Article 6 of the First Amendment served to separate religion from government altogether. The Founding Fathers actually guaranteed the right of the non-religious to hold public office. And the language doesn’t even use the word ‘Christian’; it says ‘religious’, covering all faiths.

‘God’, ‘Creator’ and ‘Providence’ are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence; however, after Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, the Declaration of Independence was not the document the founders used to govern. Instead, they reconvened and drew up a different document to define U.S. laws: first, the Articles of Confederation, then the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers didn’t put “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins; that was done during the time of the Civil War. They didn’t put “In God We Trust” on U.S. paper currency; that was done in 1957. The words ‘under God’ weren’t part of the original Pledge of Allegiance; those words were added by Congress in 1954 as the West was making a statement against the “godlessness” of Communism by also instituting a national Day of Prayer and replacing “E Pluribus Unum” with “In God We Trust” as our national motto.

Contrary to the assertions of the religious, many of our Founding Fathers were either Deist or ambivalent about the Christian God, including Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine, and even George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, rejected concepts like the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, Original Sin, and other core Christian beliefs.

Further separating our founders from a Christian nation is Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, sighed by John Adams in 1797, which stated clearly that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.

So, if our Founding Fathers weren’t necessarily Christian, they excluded God from our Constitution, had nothing to do with any mentions of ‘God’ in our Pledge of Allegiance, they omitted ‘God’ from our money, they removed any religious requirements to hold public office, and declared publicly that the United States is not founded on Christianity, are the politicians and pundits on the religious-Right being completely honest with themselves and with the public about their attitudes and intentions? Are they attempting to integrate their own religious agendas into a government designed to operate religion-free? Are they using God in an emotional appeal to win support and votes from a largely ignorant electorate? Has Christianity, or any other religion, contaminated the secular framework for government established over 200 years ago?

The next time a politician says that the United States is a Christian nation, it might be time to give them, and the millions of Americans watching, a history lesson.

I’m sure we’ll have no more of that particular falsehood, now, will we?

Right?

(via @rdfrs)

Tags: United States of America • USA • Christian Nationalism • The Thinking Atheist • Christianity • Christians • Republicans • Founding Fathers • U.S. Constitution • Declaration of Independence • Treaty of Tripoli

Attempted doggycide in Onawa, Iowa [updated]

NOTE: Updated with important details, below.

When talking about adding insult to injury, how about getting fined because police shot your dog?

Lyle Simpson is being cited for violating two municipal codes: allowing a dog to run at large and harboring a vicious animal.

Simpson’s pit bull was shot in the jaw by police Officer Joe Farrens, who was checking on a vandalism report at a house.

Police said the pit bull and another dog owned by Simpson ran into the street in an aggressive manner, forcing Farrens to fire his weapon.

No further information is known, so it’s impossible to get any second opinions, or even confirmation that the incident actually happened as the officer described. While there’s currently no obvious reason to cast doubt upon his account, there have been more than enough cases in the past where cops lied about everything from the dog’s level aggression to even its breed (they sure seem to love calling anything short and stocky a “pitbull”) to warrant taking Officer Farrens’s tale with a reasonable grain of salt.

At any rate, it’s telling that the only justification given for shooting the animal in the face was that it “ran into the street” in a manner the officer declared was “aggressive”. If anything, it’s just another argument in favor of equipping all patrols with uniform-mounted cameras.

(via Dogs Shot by Police | Facebook)

---

Mary Jane the injured pitbull [source]

UPDATE: 09/16/12 9:02 PM ET —

Another report has surfaced with some additional details, including the dog’s name, Mary Jane, and – predictably – accounts from both the owners and eyewitnesses that severely contradict Officer Farrens’s description of the event:

Officer Joe Farrens says he shot the dog when it ran into the street. But Simpson says his son was just feet away from the shooting and says it happened much differently.

So does one woman who witnessed everything from across the street.

Nicole Dicks, an eyewitness, says, "It was almost like he was charging the dog like he was trying to get the dog to respond, because the dog was totally fine, I mean, like I said, he was at the corner of the yard. He shot the dog in the yard."

Maddow takes on “Obama is secretly gay” wingnut claims

You know your latest conspiracy theory is particularly crazy when even most of the conservative loonisphere prefers to stay mum on the issue. But of course, that’s not stopping that all-star repository of wingnut fervor, the WorldNetDaily, from advancing the newest anti-Obama fad: that he’s secretly gay! Rachel Maddow takes a particularly amused look at their claims:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

RACHAEL MADDOW: This is one of my favorite places on the Internet: the WorldNetDaily, sometimes referred to as “WorldNutDaily”. It’s the ultra-conservative, super-Right-wing conspiracy theory website that has made a cottage industry out of investigating whether President Obama is maybe secretly foreign!

WorldNetDaily is Birther Central. The website store has made seemingly considerable money pushing at deep discounts the book Where’s the Birth Certificate?. The author of Where’s the Birth Certificate? is named Jerome Corsi, and he’s essentially the in-house Birther on the WorldNetDaily’s writing staff.

Last spring, when President Obama released a copy of his long-form birth certificate, it essentially gutted the thin credibility of WorldNetDaily’s central mission. And that meant that Jerome Corsi needed a new reason to get out of bed every morning. And Jerome Corsi has now found one. Oh, yes. Of course he did. Did you think they would give up on this?

In recent weeks, Jerome Corsi has written a handful of articles alleging that Barack Obama, the secretly Kenyan, secretly Muslim, only-maybe-the-President guy, is also secretly gay! Yes, of course.

Look at this; this is amazing:

A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

And of course, he won the White House only because he had one of fis former gay lovers killed and another one paid off to buy his silence!

Birtherism: It’s not just for geography anymore.

Here's what Jerome Corsi and WorldNetDaily now say is their evidence that President Obama secretly has the gay. They say long before he married Michelle Obama, he used to wear a ring on the fourth finger of his left hand. Since that finger can only wear a wedding ring, that means he was secretly married! And that means he was secretly married, then, well, if he was secretly married, it must mean he was secretly gay married? Yeah, okay.

One source telling the WorldNetDaily that when he met Barack Obama at Occidental College in 1980, his “gaydar” went off. He believed Mr. Obama and his college roommate were lovers. Gay!

PHOTO: College-age Barack Obama and Pakistani roommate sitting casually, cross-legged, on a sofa.

MADDOW: Just look at this photo of Obama and his roommate that’s been posted on the website of another one of WorldNetDaily’s main sources. Straight males don't sit on sofas together like this! Gay!

PHOTO: Florida pizzeria owner bear-hugging President Obama.

MADDOW: Straight men also don't let Florida pizza shop owners pick them up like this! Gay!

Straight men do play golf – in foursomes – but when Barack Obama does it with young male staffers? Gay!

Every President of the United States in the modern era has mad a male personal assistant, a so-called “body man”, but when President Obama has a “body man”, that’s code for “boyfriend”. Gay!

Kal Penn, the actor who used to work at the White House? They say he was another one of President Obama’s secret gay boyfriends. Why else would anybody leave Hollywood, particularly West Hollywood, to go work at the White House? Gay! Gay, gay, gay, gay! WorldNetDaily says so.

Now, the President’s gonna have to unveil his straight certificate. The long-form one. (Love these people.)

The President is a living, walking Rorschach test for the far-Right’s delusions.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: Rachel Maddow • WorldNetDaily • Jerome Corsi • Barack Obama • homosexuality • Birthers

Daily Blend: Friday, September 14, 2012

What does the sexist hatred that’s been tearing at the atheist movement look like? Something like this. ^[pictured]
(via @pzmyers)

Minnesota school district needed a crushing courtroom defeat to remind them that students are also U.S. citizens with rights to privacy and free speech.

Kansas Republicans wish to remind you that they’re still a bunch of embarrassing idiots.
(via @BadAstronomer)

And finally, The Onion on religious riots: So true. So sadly true. (And so very, very NSFW.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Rebecca Watson • misogyny • Skepchick • atheists • atheist movement • Minnewaska Area School District • Kansas • Republicans • Barack Obama • Kansas Objections Board • Kris Kobach • Judaism • Christianity • Hinduism • Buddhism • blasphemy • Moses • Jesus Christ • Ganesha • Buddha • The Onion

Attempted doggycide in New Orleans, Louisiana

Sable at the vet’s

It’ll be interesting to see the anti-pitbull brigade try to spin this report of a New Orleans cop casually firing on a peaceful dog into an account of a terribly aggressive beast that was bravely put down:

Early Tuesday morning [Ariel] Buckmaster called police twice after issues unfolded on her block. The second time cops came out Sable paid for it.

Sable was shot by a utility pole feet from Buckmaster's house. The gate is usually locked and it was locked this morning, but Sable slipped out.

Buckmaster says, “She went to him. She was not growling. She was not barking. Her hair was not up on her back in attack mode. She went a little quicker than usual, but she did not look dangerous. None of the other officers looked afraid, but one, he didn’t even think twice, he just stepped back and took out his gun and shot her twice and then stood in the streets and laughed about it.”

Can’t you just tell by the cop’s laughter how threatened he felt? Entirely the dog’s fault. Y’know, for being there.

Thankfully, Sable is recovering, and both police and the SPCA are investigating, though Buckmaster is now stuck with the vet bill. She says she’s lost her respect for the police as a result … which, on second thought, isn’t actually a bad thing.

(via Dogs Shot by Police | Facebook)

Women should dress modestly for the poor, lusty men

Still too much skin

So, there’s this gathering of Christian-Right wingnuts in Washington, DC at the moment called the Values Voter Summit, devoted to praising Yahweh in their heroic martyrdom against the liberal elites and the Big Gay^TM and all other manners of tired old schtick. And there’s a group at this meeting called Modesty Matters, who wants all you womenfolk to know how your scandalous necklines and visible fleshy limbs and whatnot are giving all the poor men some serious vapors [my emphasis]:

Women must “embrace MODESTY in dress and behavior,” one of the handouts read. Women dressed immodestly in church are “an insult to a holy God,” another said.

Other excerpts:

- From the “Modesty: It’s nothing to be ashamed of” pamphlet:“Since men are particularly visual, immodesty in church can trigger lustful thoughts.”

“My men’s bible study group talks frequently about controlling our lust, thoughts, and eyes. Yes the problem and responsibility are ours, but is it really reasonable for the women of the church to make it THIS difficult for us?”

- From the “True Woman Manifesto”: “All women, whether married of single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.”

The Family Research Council provided Modesty Matters with a table at the conference to distribute these pamphlets.

The whole thing is an embarrassment to anyone living in the 21^th century, but that emboldened line is just the rotten cherry on top. Look, dear pearl-clutchers: Unless you’re either incredibly sheltered, afflicted with satyriasis, or a time-traveling Puritan who needs a fainting couch at the sight of an uncovered ankle, then nothing short of seeing said immodest church-going lady masturbating naked with a Bible in her pew is a reasonable excuse for being turned into a lust-addled horndog. And even then, it’s still not her damn responsibility to determine what she may or may not do based on your level of hormones.

So, yes, it is “reasonable” for women to act and dress as they bloody well please, just as men have enjoyed doing since the dawn of patriarchal civilization. Talk to them about manners and common decency all you want; it’s a free society. But that also means that in the end, no-one else has any shred of obligation to conform to whatever behavior you think is appropriate, no matter how many uncomfortable thoughts their oh-so-provocative attire may spawn in your susceptible minds.

Tags: Values Voter Summit • modesty • women • Modesty Matters • men

Fail Quote: Supporting NYC’s Nanny Statism by appealing to endowment?

From the totes legit sex expert, Ruth Westheimer, who seems to think a sophomoric appeal to a pervasive myth is a valid argument for New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s brand of health-crazed Nanny Statism:

Should big sodas be banned? All I can say to guys is: big bellies = smaller penis so ur choice, Big Gulp or big equipment?

— Dr. Ruth Westheimer (@AskDrRuth) September 13, 2012

To the uninitiated, that is what one might call “bullshit”. On a purely pedantic note, I’d like her (and anyone else who espouses this moronic idea) to explain by what biological mechanism the fat in one’s abdomen is supposedly extracted from their genitalia. More generally, I’d also like to hear how this argument is supposed to sway anyone who doesn’t already suffer from some crippling insecurity.

(At any rate, at the risk of going all TMI, I personally know at least one living refutation.)

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: Ruth Westheimer • obesity • penis • endowment • New York City • Big Gulp

Daily Blend: Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Scott Van Duzer bear-hugging President Obama

Glenn Greenwald on Democrats’ Gitmo hypocrisy: “In the hierarchy of evil, consigning someone who has been convicted of nothing to a cage year after year after year, until they die, is high up on the list.”

Speaking of government evil, a new Human Rights Watch report reveals that Bush-era torture techniques were even more widespread than was thought, including in helping Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi (you know, who U.S. government all heroically helped topple only a few years later for all of its human rights abuses that the U.S. totally didn’t have any part in whatsoever).

Missouri lawmakers override Governor Nixon’s (D) veto of a bill that would allow employers to eliminate birth control coverage.

Florida Republican pizzeria owner who gave the Secret Service a collective heart attack by bear-hugging President Obama ^[pictured] is now being boycotted – an effort that’s falling hilariously flat.
(via Right Wing Watch & @KyellGold)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Glenn Greenwald • Democratic Party • Democrats • Guantánamo Bay • Gitmo • Barack Obama • Human Rights Watch • George Bush • Bush administration • enhanced interrogation techniques • Libya • Muammar Qaddafi • CIA • birth control • Missouri • Missouri General Assembly • Jan Nixon • Scott Van Duzer • Big Apple Pizza • Yelp • boycotts

It’s another movie about phony Christian persecution!

It’s a day that ends with ‘day’, so that means it’s time for a new scrap of brainless propaganda movie about how the evil atheists are forcing the U.S. government to strip Christians of their inalienable rights to religious freedom and happiness and bringing their Bibles to school. Just watch this trailer and try to keep track of the well-known canards as they’re rattled off like so many feverishly clutched pearls:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

Militaristic drumbeat. A woman drops a crucifix into a young soldier’s hand. A man, BOB REVERE, hugs him.

We then see some soldiers in a battlefield with bullets landing everywhere; generic combat pandemonium. At the end, a woman sobs, ‘No!’.

TITLE: Battles have been Fought

BOB REVERE: [lecturing from rooftop to small audience below] 400 years ago, our forefathers left the religious oppression of another land to build this one. And the first thing was to put a cross on the shores of the Atlantic.

TITLE: But the War has just Begun

CHRIS (V.O.): What did my dad die for, Bob?

REVERE: That’s what happens in war.

CHRIS: No, I mean why’d he die?

TITLE: When the Bible is Outlawed

SCHOOL PRINCIPAL slides item over his desk to the assembled family.

PRINCIPAL: We found this in Chris’s locker.

REVERE: Is there an actual rule that says you can’t bring a Bible to school?

CUT TO:

REVERE: [on rooftop] My fight is about freedom and taking back what has been stolen from us.

TITLE: When the Cross is an Offense

REVERE: [in bed, to wife] Did you really think that you’d see the day when people were offended by a cross in public?

WIFE: No.

TITLE: When Christmas is a crime

MAN #1: We are talking about the separation of church and state.

CUT TO:

SISTER: It’s a lie if we don’t tell the real Christmas story.

REVERE: [on rooftop] Our rights are being destroyed, perhaps forever. But don’t you see? We’re letting it happen.

TITLE: Each Person Can make a Difference

(Miscellaneous Americana: Flags, motorcycles, etc.)

TITLE: When Rights are being Destroyed

REVERE: [at group meeting] Our freedoms are being taken away from us one by one.

TITLE: Faith provides the Courage to Take Stand

CUT TO: In a pharmacy?

MAN #2: [whispering] You’re all over the Internet!

REVERE: Well, I’m very tired of not standing up for what I believe in.

CUT TO:

Kids sitting in an attic.

GIRL #1: Won’t we get in trouble for this?

SISTER: Yes. We will.

TITLE: Freedom has a Price

Revere appears to be arrested by meany-faced lawyer and is seen behind bars.

TITLES: Are You | Willing } To Pay it?

REVERE: [on rooftop] Wake up and look around ya! Look what’s coming over the horizon!

TITLE: Pray

Revere hoists up “JESUS [something]” cross on side of building.

TITLE: And Stand Up

REVERE: [on rooftop] We can’t let the enemy take one more inch! Not one more inch!

Bunch of people unite their hands.

REVERE: [on rooftop] We fight for freedom!

TITLE: Before it's too Late

REVERE: [on rooftop] We fight for freedom!

MAIN TITLE: Last Ounce of Courage

You can just smell the lies right through your screen. I especially liked the one about the Bible being banned in public schools. As if students couldn’t bring whatever reading material they like to class, including religious texts. And as if there hadn’t been enough bloody court cases establishing this over the years. These people are simply and truly unable to adhere to the truth – presumably because they know that doing so will annihilate their argument right from the start.

You also have to love the very first line: “Four hundred years ago, our forefathers left the religious oppression of another land to build this one.” Which is immediately followed by: “And the first thing they did was to put a cross on the shores of the Atlantic.” There’s shooting yourself in the foot, and then there’s just blasting the limb right off with a shotgun.

Why is it that the same people who spend all this time, energy and money on decrying the supposedly crumbling state of religious liberty are always the same who do their damnedest to undermine everyone else’s religious liberty in the first place? And why are they always so obvious about it to everyone but themselves?

At any rate, we could always use a new official “War on Christmas” movie, now that Christmas with a Capital C apparently turned out to be not quite as bad as its marketing led us to believe.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Tags: Last Ounce of Courage • Christians • Christian Persecution Complex • Christmas with a Capital C