Rapists for Romney-Ryan

Rapists: just think, if the GOP wins the White House and Congress, then the women who carry your babies will just have to have them, hah, hah! You can go around the country forcing women to have your sons and daughters. Won't that be fun? Oh, you might have to go to prison, but that's a small price to pay. And just think, if the nasty woman you’ve impregnated tries to "get rid of it," she'll end up in prison, too!

And think of it this way: you're carrying out God's plan to be fruitful and multiply. Maybe the GOP will pass a law that your rap-ee will have to marry you, sort of like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Hey, as far as Afghanistan goes, the only thing wrong with their social policies, from a Republican point of view, is that they're justified by the Quran, not the Bible; it's like going back to the Fourth Century, when the Catholic Church even humiliated Emperor Theodosius the Great!

Some Republicans, like Michelle Bachmann, are worried that the US will be governed under Sharia law, if Obama is re-elected, but really, if the Republicans are elected, maybe they'll re-institute stoning: it's in the Bible, after all.

Anyone who thinks it would have been much nicer in the Dark Ages, should vote for Republicans. Just think: if the GOP swept away all the regulations they enjoy complaining about, we could be re-visited by the Black Death, since basic sanitation would have to be left up to the "Free Market," meaning no one would do anything about accumulating garbage, unless someone paid them to: What! The Government? No, no! They'll have "drowned it in the bathtub."

Now, if you’re a billionaire, you should also vote Republican because you'll get at least $250,000 more to piss away any way you want to, instead of being subjected to the indignity of having to give it to the Government. You can spend it on ermine pillow covers instead of Govmint spending it on all sorts of ridiculous things, like job training, early childhood education, or even Food Stamps so some un-enterprising slobs don't go hungry at night! Or maybe they'd spend it on those awful women, who seem to think they should get birth control for free, probably, even if they're raped.

If women don't want to be raped, they should pack an automatic, or just don't go out anywhere, unless they have an escort, preferably male and over 6 feet tall--or, or hold an aspirin between their knees.

That's why women should really stay home, you see. Again, the Taliban have had the vision to create the glorious future that Republicans are only now beginning to realize--if it's Christian, of course.

Democracy Needs Wikileaks

It's not just disturbing, that the US, UK and Sweden are ganging up on Julian Assange, and Ecuador.

You can be sure that none of the first three nations are concerned about the rough sex accusations made against Assange (the charges are not for rape, but for a kind of sexual aggression only prosecuted in Sweden; but he's not even formally charged: the extradition is only for questioning).

So, the UK threatens Ecuador's Embassy, and despite the threatened action being a breach of international law, the US and Sweden both make encouraging noises.

Why, because under Assange's leadership Wikileaks published thousands of US diplomatic and military documents, classified from NOFORN to Secret. Newspapers all over the world published articles about them, and even Americans now know a lot more about what our nation is doing to the rest of the world. Wikileaks enabled one of the US's most crucial freedoms--freedom of information--to be dramatically, if temporarily, expanded.

Wikileaks sympathizers claim that the US is pressuring both the UK and Sweden to extradite Assange to the US. They say the US intends to try him for espionage, which is punishable by death. Of course, the three principal nations deny everything. But note what the US is not saying: it's not saying that Britain should honor Ecuador's grant of asylum to Assange; it's not saying that Britain shouldn't threaten Ecuador and it's not saying that it won't prosecute Assange for espionage.

Meanwhile the UK denies him safe passage.

All three nations boast about their freedom of the press. Ecuador has only recently had such freedoms: its media was privately owned, in bed with dictators and staunchly opposed to Rafael Correa's government, which has not repressed it.

But the Obama administration appears as zealous as the former USSR to crush dissident Assange; and Romney, if anything, would try to outdo Obama. US media say Ecuador's President has attacked his own press, but that appears to be a distortion.

Correa's government faced a hostile, partisan private oligopoly dominating Ecuadoran media; his supposed "assault" is his government's attempt to nurture a fairer press. Ecuador has promoted public and cooperative outlets, so they could compete with private media.

It would be as if Obama promoted NPR and MSNBC. Oh, he has?

So, why are Assange and Ecuador the new bad-guys to three supposedly democratic governments?

Both bad-guys have defied the American Empire. If they prevail, The Empire looks weak. So, it doesn't matter that the New York Times and WaPo, co-publishers with Assange, are just as culpable as Assange himself. They're connected to power; Julian isn't.

"Hang the bastard!" parallels Rome's response in its declining years. The Fifth Century Empire tortured and "slow-burned" its opponents, but still it lost control, long before CE 476.