Dogma Alert

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Scientist Suspects Bush has Syphilis

Commentary by Will Durst
Submitted by BuzzFlash
Sat, 07/29/2006

President Bush is a stone crazed loon suffering from a deterioration of his brain due to a tertiary case of syphilis and liable to become incapacitated at any time and accidentally start WW III according to a noted Baltimore based psychotherapist. Or he could die. Or both.

In a shocking revelation, famed Johns Hopkins scientist Dr. Robert Musckovitz has diagnosed George W Bush as suffering from stage 3 syphilis, after examining the President's increasingly erratic behavior. Dr. Musckovitz and his team of physicians, who have not seen or treated Mr. Bush, have identified telling characteristics of the dreaded sexually transmitted disease in the President by closely studying tapes of his mannerisms, speech patterns and eating habits. Candidly, the doctor cautioned "he's really starting to creep me out."

Specifically, the doctor, a graduate of the University of Michigan -- Escanaba Medical School, detailed incidents of the President's peculiar behavior such as his frozen indecision on 9/11, his inability to escape a Chinese press conference, the weird growth on his back during the first debate with John Kerry, and his trademark smirk which could be a symptomatic rictus disguising telltale muscle contractions.

Citing the STD's devious ability to hide undetected for many years, the doctor refused to speculate on where or when Dubyah, constant companion of Condoleezza Rice, may have become syphilitic. He did rule out contracting it by performing a back rub, clearing German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and avoiding a potentially nasty international incident. An intern working in Dr. Musckovitz's reception room did hazard a guess the former Yale cheerleader may have carried it for years. "I bet he picked it up at Stumpy's Bar in New Haven from a waitress. Hell, that's where I got it."

Various experts selling plasma at local free clinics in the District of Colombia maintain syphilis is a disease contracted through sexual contact, although rare instances of spontaneous contraction have been reported as ascertained in the hospital logs of numerous Catholic seminaries.

A really respected medical book with pretty gold leaf on the cover says the late stages of syphilis can damage internal organs, including the brain, nerves, eyes, heart, blood vessels, liver, bones, and joints. Signs and symptoms of the late stage of syphilis include difficulty coordinating muscle movements, paralysis, numbness, blindness, dementia and pronouncing nuclear as "nukular." This damage may be serious enough to cause death and/ or trying to speak with your mouth full.

A high level White House source, requesting anonymity for fear of physical recrimination from what he considers an increasingly unstable Commander-in-Chief, also spoke of bizarre conduct, ie: the President cupping his hand under his armpit making flatulent noises during intelligence briefings and dancing on the South Lawn in triple digit heat wearing heavy winter clothing. "He was rocking out like he was listening to an Ipod, but he had ear muffs on at the time. The day glo blaze orange kind. He even tied a string around them that went into his parka pocket but wasn't connected to anything. I'm not even going to talk about the squirrel, the spatula and the candle wax."

Asked to estimate how long the country has before its President descends permanently into the depths of dementia, Dr. Musckovitz muttered "it may already be too late." Responding to a query as to whether he thinks Mr. Bush is still capable of handling the responsibility of having his finger on the nuclear button, the doctor shook his head and said: "at this point, I wouldn't trust him with a garage door opener."

Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, peanut eating Will Durst is barred from possession of the cable remote.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Who Said This? George Bush.. Adolf Hitler..Pat Robertson..Or Ann Coulter?

ED: Thanks to the Aussie Gal at Beep! Beep! It's me for this excellent and surprising quiz.

Who Dislikes Atheists?
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".

Who Is Patriotic?
"What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator"

Who Dislikes Public Education?
"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

Who Hates Liberalism?
"The main plank in the program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

Who Is In Favour Of A Christian Nation?
"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

Who Is For Family Values?
"It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life"

Who Hates Blasphemy?
"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

Who Hates Secularism?
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

Who Believes That Might Makes Right?
"Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills."

Who Protects Free Enterprise?
"We stand for the maintenance of private property. We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."

Who Is A Fundamentalist Christian?
"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders."

Who Loves Jesus?
"I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

Who Hates Sin?
"Blood sin and desecration of the race are the original sin in this world and the end of a humanity which surrenders to it."

Who Is Concerned With Morality?
"Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea."

Who Hates The Left?
"For not only are we ourselves aware of the element of weakness lying in our democrats, pacifists, and centrists; it is recognized even more by foreign countries, which measure the value of a possible alliance with us according to the weight of this burden."

Who Hates Communists?
"We have been engaged in a heroic struggle against the Communist threat to our nation, against the subversion of our culture, the destruction of our art and the corruption of our public morality. We have put an end to atheism and blasphemy.

Who Hates Prostitution?
"Prostitution is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures, pious intentions, etc.; its limitation and final abolition presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions."

Who Supports Stay At Home Moms?

"For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? The great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. We do not consider it correct for the women to interfere in the world of the man. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct."

Who Believes Men Are More Intelligent Than Women?

"Love and devotion to a man are the highest virtues in a woman. Intelligence is not very important. My mother was certainly no genius, but she gave a great son to the people."

Click Here For The Answers ~~ Quiz Answers

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Burning the Cradle of Civilization

by B. J. Sabri

July 23, 2006
Online Journal

"I have evidence that the Americans were on a par with Nazi Germany with its actions in the Persian Gulf. I have documents in my possession, which support my assertions. . . . This is on the basis that on-going acts of aggression in Iraq and systematically applied war crimes provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany."—Royal Air Force, Dr. Malcolm Kendall-Smith (sentenced to eight months in jail for refusal to go to Iraq.) [Source]

Depending on the scope of use, mythmaking in imperialism can be a powerful instrument to rewrite history and influence issues of war and peace. Take for example the U.S. (and other imperialist states including Israel) mythmaking on the extent of Nazi violence. Immediately after the demise of the Third Reich, the ideologically motivated elevation of Nazism to a “universal” symbol of atrocities has acquired an ever-inflating mythological dimension.

But as colonialist Western countries kept building up the myth of Nazism as a cosmic embodiment of evil and violence, they downgraded to irrelevance their own embodiment of violence as highlighted by a multi-century history of mass extermination of colonized peoples and ongoing imperialist wars against Arab and Muslim states.

Pointedly, as it is an immutable historical fact that Nazi Germany and Japan committed massive atrocities before and during WWII, it is also an immutable historical fact that Germany’s adversaries: Britain, USSR, and the United States committed equal, if not more heinous atrocities, before, during, and after that same war.

During the war for instance, the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the incineration of Dresden, Berlin, and Tokyo made part of premeditated atrocity patterns that went beyond military imperatives required for prevailing. After the war ended, Dwight D. Eisenhower committed atrocities similar to that of Nazism when thousands of German prisoners of war perished when he gave his tacit consent to starve them to death by reducing daily caloric intake to a dangerous level or by allowing them to perish by other means. [1]

Yet, for over 60 years since the end of WWII, U.S. imperialism and its entertainment branch (Hollywood) kept feeding and flooding the public with fictional stories about unmatchable German perfidy and innate violence, all while equally vile atrocities against countless non-white nations and peoples went unmentioned and rarely penetrated popular conscious.

To illustrate this, consider the following: how many times have we seen films depicting a convoy of German military trucks carrying prisoners of war? The following is a typical scene: the convoy stops and prisoners are ordered to get down and walk away; suddenly a stern German soldier appears on the back of a truck standing behind a machine gun and begins to mow them down. Now, compare that depiction to the American massacre of Vietnamese villagers at My Lai; how many of us have seen this or other episodes of American violence in Vietnam depicted in films, foreign or American?

In the current analysis of the American bombardment of Iraq in 1991, I am not going to debate, refute, or uphold that Nazi violence has inherent qualities that makes it less abhorrent than the one employed by the United States in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere. What I intend to demonstrate, instead, is that American violence in Iraq has qualities that belies and contradicts American claims of civilized conduct and the possession of superior moral standards over other civilizations, and irrevocably puts the American brand of violence in a category by itself.

Once this demonstration is in place, the resulting picture would be uncompromising: by all standards of impartial comparison and considering the time we live in, the American model of supremacist violence supersedes by its magnitude, cruelty, fascism, cynicism, motives, myths, rationales, execution, details, and ideology, any other form of violence throughout history.

Moreover, just because the United States did not build crematories to burn its victims in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, it does not mean that it did not burn them by using alternative methods such as massive bombardments of defenseless cities and the burning of their inhabitants with white phosphorous, Napalm, and carpet-bombing with bunker-buster bombs.

For example, when the American Hitler of turn burned the Cradle of Civilization in 1991, he did it by dropping over 80,000 tons or 250,000 heavy weight bombs. If that did not constitute a holocaust (from the Greek: holokaustos: burned whole) what else would? Describing that bombardment, the Antiwar Committee, writes:

The war on Iraq was portrayed in the U.S. as a war without casualties. Yet, on the first day of air strikes against Iraq (Jan. 17, 1991), the U.S. dropped explosives equivalent to the explosive power of the Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Throughout the duration of the bombing, explosives equivalent to seven nuclear bombs were dropped, in addition to internationally banned biological and chemical weapons. (1)

Also, the 1991 war on Iraq marked the first time the U.S. used ammunition tipped with Depleted Uranium (DU). These bullets and anti-tank shells pierce armor with the side effect of disintegrating into thousands of tiny radioactive particles on impact. Although the Iraq Health Ministry noted an increase in cancer cases of over 60% since 1991, a World Health Organization study was derailed on November 29 due to a lobbying campaign by Washington. [Source] [Italics added]

As a mechanism leading to intervention, mythmaking has a peculiar duration: it precedes and then accompanies the intervention up to a specified time. Once the physical phase of the intervention is completed, the myth, as a progenitor for the rationale to intervene, begins to vanish as it never existed thus leaving the space free for the creation of new myths that, in turn, would create a set of additional rationales to justify the next planned moves.

There were countless myths in the history of the U.S. colonialist imperialism, each of which left thousands or hundreds of thousands of people dead. Sampling: Indian (Original Peoples) savages, black inferiority to implement slavery; Spanish treachery, civilizing the Filipinos, Japan attacked the U.S. for no reason, the atomic attack against Japan to save American life, the communist domino theory in South East Asia, Palestinian “terrorism,” Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, “democratizing” the Arabs, and so on. In its aggression against Iraq in 1991, the United States of George H. W. Bush added one more item to its long list of myths: “smart” bombing.

American military planners invented that phrase to insinuate that the American bombing of Iraq was discriminate to minimize civilian deaths. The insinuation is preposterous: minimizing civilian deaths does not alter the fact that mass murder in any magnitude is still criminal. To argue this, would an Iraqi individual who lost his or her family as a “collateral damage” accept that loss because determined criminals sitting in Washington, D.C., decided it was an acceptable damage?

Nonetheless, what is “smart” bombing, and does that mean traditional bombing is “stupid”?

Briefly, the imperialist idiom, “smart” bombing, revolves around an applied concept in military technology: 1) computer-guided missiles that recognize previously downloaded profiles of targeted buildings, as in Tomahawk missiles, and 2) laser-guided bombs as dropped from jetfighters.

But was the bombing of Iraq, “smart”? No. In fact, out of the 250,000 bombs dropped on Iraq, only 244 were “smart” and if you add to that the 88 tele-guided Tomahawked missiles, the total would be 332. This means less than one percent of all bombs were “smart.” As you can see, the bombing was not “smart” at all, and the incremental, massive destruction of Iraq in 42 days of bombing proved it.

To downplay the news of Iraqi deaths, U.S. war planners, in an infantile public relations stunt, discarded the term “smart bombing” and adopted “surgical strike,” as if a name change indicting precision would transform the essence of a bombardment whereby the United States dropped bombs that exceeded all bombs dropped in WWII. This is how an imperialist CNN dealt with the notion of “smart bombing”:

But "smart weapons" -- the military calls them precision-guided munitions (PGMs) -- weren't widely used in 1991. Only 244 laser-guided bombs and 88 cruise missiles hit Iraq, out of a total of some 250,000 bombs dropped during the war. But while the venerable B-52 dropped tons of old-fashioned explosives on troop concentrations in northern and southern Iraq, the strikes on Baghdad were relatively few and tightly targeted. The rise of smart weapons led to a new military theory -- "surgical strikes."

Two raids of 300 B-17 bombers could not achieve with 3,000 bombs what two F-117s can do with only four," Gen. Buster C. Glosson, the planner of the Gulf War air strikes, wrote in 1992. "Of the 85,000 tons of bombs used in the Gulf War, only 8,000 tons (less than 10 percent) were PGMs, yet they accounted for 75 percent of the damage." More precisely targeted weapons, the argument goes, harm fewer civilians. [Italics added] Source

Notice how CNN praised the B-52s that wreaked havoc on Iraq with the flattering adjective “venerable,” thus alluding to their exterminating use against hapless Vietnamese. Also, notice how the writers of news tried to alter the perception on the scale of damage inflicted on the Iraqi capital by inserting the phrase, “the strikes on Baghdad were relatively few and tightly targeted,” implying that “surgical” bombing was working.

As I explained, the theatrical posturing to change the name of means of killing from “smart” to “surgical” is as futile as is imperialism itself: death is still the same. In addition, purporting that targeted weapons “harm few civilians,” reveals in the most startling way that the American ideology of extermination has deep roots in the American military psyche, in that, death (in any proportion) of the attacked population, has no relevance in the calculation of the American political and military establishments.

Having thus far established the American determination to 1) attack Iraq, 2) go beyond the mere “liberation” of Kuwait to destroy it as a nation, and 3) having delineated the mythmaking that surrounded the bombing, it is now mandatory to ask some questions.

Was the destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage systems a strategic American aim to create a cataclysmic health crisis among the surviving population? Did the U.S. anticipate the outcome of its deliberate bombardment? And if so, did U.S. planners intend to use the economic sanctions as a means to amplify the effects of that mayhem? The answer to all these questions is a loud, resonating yes.

Because of the critical importance of my assertion, I am introducing Thomas J. Nagy (Associate Professor of Expert Systems, George Washington University) to support it. Citing U.S. official documents, Nagy wrote an indispensable article, The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the US Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply. In it, he reported on a file declassified by the Department of Defense, IRAQ Water Treatment Vulnerabilities. Nagy writes:

Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway. [Italics added]

The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.

Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." [Italics added]

The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."

Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.

The document addresses possible Iraqi countermeasures to obtain drinkable water despite sanctions. [Italics added]

Iraq conceivably could truck water from the mountain reservoirs to urban areas. But the capability to gain significant quantities is extremely limited," the document states. "The amount of pipe on hand and the lack of pumping stations would limit laying pipelines to these reservoirs. Moreover, without chlorine purification, the water still would contain biological pollutants. Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from Northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs." [Italics added]

As an alternative, "Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons," the document says. "It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements." [Italics added]

Recently, I have come across other DIA documents that confirm the Pentagon's monitoring of the degradation of Iraq's water supply. These documents have not been publicized until now.

The first one in this batch is called "Disease Information," and is also dated January 22, 1991. At the top, it says, "Subject: Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad." The analysis is blunt: "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

The second DIA document, "Disease Outbreaks in Iraq," is dated February 21, 1990, but the year is clearly a typo and should be 1991. It states: "Conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing." It adds: "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks." [Italics added]

This document lists the "most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

The third document in this series, "Medical Problems in Iraq," is dated March 15, 1991. It says: "Communicable diseases in Baghdad are more widespread than usually observed during this time of the year and are linked to the poor sanitary conditions (contaminated water supplies and improper sewage disposal) resulting from the war. According to a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organization report, the quantity of potable water is less than 5 percent of the original supply, there are no operational water and sewage treatment plants, and the reported incidence of diarrhea is four times above normal levels. Additionally, respiratory infections are on the rise. Children particularly have been affected by these diseases."

Perhaps to put a gloss on things, the document states, "There are indications that the situation is improving and that the population is coping with the degraded conditions." But it adds: "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."

The fourth document, "Status of Disease at Refugee Camps," is dated May 1991. The summary says, "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation."

The reason for this outbreak is clearly stated again. "The main causes of infectious diseases, particularly diarrhea, dysentery, and upper respiratory problems, are poor sanitation and unclean water. These diseases primarily afflict the old and young children."

The fifth document, "Health Conditions in Iraq, June 1991," is still heavily censored. All I can make out is that the DIA sent a source "to assess health conditions and determine the most critical medical needs of Iraq. Source observed that Iraqi medical system was in considerable disarray, medical facilities had been extensively looted, and almost all medicines were in critically short supply."

The protein deficiency disease kwashiorkor was observed in Iraq "for the first time," the document adds. "Gastroenteritis was killing children. . . . In the south, 80 percent of the deaths were children (with the exception of Al Amarah, where 60 percent of deaths were children)."

The final document is "Iraq: Assessment of Current Health Threats and Capabilities," and it is dated November 15, 1991. This one has a distinct damage-control feel to it. Here is how it begins: "Restoration of Iraq's public health services and shortages of major medical materiel remain dominant international concerns. Both issues apparently are being exploited by Saddam Hussein in an effort to keep public opinion firmly against the U.S. and its Coalition allies and to direct blame away from the Iraqi government." [Italics added]

Having explored how the United States premeditatedly destroyed Iraq’s vital infrastructures (civilian, industrial, agricultural, and military) and killed hundred of thousands of its people, the question remains: Was the United States following any blueprint?

Can a Christian be a good American?

Ed: I found this little gem on the Signs Forum yestrerday. HILARIOUS!!!


1. Can a Christian be a good American?
2. Point-by-point explanation
3. The original text

Can a Christian be a good American?

Theologically, no, because his allegiance is to Yahweh, the ancient Hebrew god.

Scripturally, no, because his allegiance is to Christianity and the bible.

Geographically, no, because his allegiance is to Israel, the home of "god's chosen people".

Socially, no, because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Jews.

Politically, no, because he must submit to his spiritual leaders, who teach annihilation of all who do not share their faith.

Domestically, no, because he is encouraged to take slaves and beat them if they are disobedient.

Religiously, no, because no other religion is accepted by his Yahweh except Christianity - intolerance.

Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the separation of church and state - a founding principle of the USA.

Philosophically, no, because Christianity, Yahweh, and the bible do not allow freedom of religion and expression.

Democratically, no, because Christianity and democracy cannot coexist.

Spiritually, no, because the Christian god is neither loving nor kind.

Point by point explanation

Theologically, no, because his allegiance is to Yahweh, the ancient Hebrew god.

Explanation: the first commandment (commanding worship of Yahweh and forbidding worship of false idols) instructs Christians to hold Yahweh in the highest regard. In the event of conflict between Yahweh's commandments and local (human) law, the Christian would have no choice but to disregard local law in favour of Yahweh's orders. This means that a Christian's loyalty is to his god first, and his country second. See Exodus 20:2-6.

Scripturally, no, because his allegiance is to Christianity and the bible.

Explanation: again, the first commandment instructs Christians to hold their loyalty to Yahweh in higher regard than anything here on Earth.

Geographically, no, because his allegiance is to Israel, the home of "god's chosen people".

Explanation: a common interpretation of the book of Revelations is that world war III will take place in Israel and will herald the second coming of Christ. See Revelations. Israel is held in particularly high regard by Christianity not just because of its historical significance, but also because it is the home of the descendants of Jacob, to whom Yahweh allegedly gave the holy land. See Leviticus 20:24. Also see Numbers 24:8-9. The United States of America has no biblical significance and is never once referenced by the bible, meaning there is no particular reason for any Christian to hold the United States in higher regard than Israel.

Socially, no, because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Jews.

Explanation: Christianity holds people of other religions in extremely low regard, and the bible goes so far as to advocate violence and death towards non-Christians. See Deuteronomy 13:6-18, also see 2 Chronicles 15:13, also see Mark 16:16

Politically, no, because he must submit to his spiritual leaders, who teach annihilation of all who do not share their faith.

Explanation: see previous point.

Domestically, no, because he is encouraged to take slaves and beat them if they are disobedient.

Explanation: Slavery is an example of conflict between Yahweh's laws and local (human) laws. Slavery was abolished in the USA long ago, yet the bible clearly states on numerous occasions that slavery is perfectly acceptable, and even provides guidelines for master/slave interaction. See Leviticus 25:44, also see 1 Peter 2:18. The bible also clearly states that it is acceptable for a master to beat the slave (provided the slave doesn't die as the result of the beating), even though under US law such a beating would be forbidden. See Exodus 21:20-21.

Religiously, no, because no other religion is accepted by his Yahweh except Christianity - intolerance.

Explanation: See the first commandment (Exodus 20:2-6).

Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the separation of church and state - a founding principle of the USA.

Explanation: A commonly held misconception among Christians is that the USA was founded as a Christian nation and somehow became secular over time. These Christians wish to remove the separation between church and state, and convert the US into a theocracy. The public school system in particular is a hotly contested battleground, with Christians arguing that religion (their religion only, of course) should be taught as fact. After all, the bible warns against learning things outside of the church (see Colossians 2:8).

Philosophically, no, because Christianity, Yahweh, and the bible do not allow freedom of religion and expression.

Explanation: Actually, Christianity does allow free expression, just as long as everything you say is in perfect agreement with their teachings. If you choose to speak out against Christianity, say, by encouraging people to investigate other religions, then you have crossed the line and should be put to death (Exodus 22:20). Freedom of religion is also allowed, just as long as you choose the Christian religion. Choosing any other religion is forbidden (See the first commandment). True freedom of expression and true freedom of religion both run counter to the fundamental guiding principles of Christianity.

Democratically, no, because Christianity and democracy cannot coexist.

Explanation: Democracy only works if ALL citizens are held in equal regard. The US Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal", yet this is in direct contradiction to the bible, which states that non-believers are inferior (see Exodus 22:20 or 2 Chronicles 15:13). Therefore, why should the Christian accept non-Christians as his equal? And in a Christian-run democracy, how long would it be before a law is passed forbidding non-Christians from participating in the democratic process? That isn't democracy - it's theocracy.

Spiritually, no, because the Christian god is neither loving nor kind.

Explanation: See Numbers 11:1, Exodus 15:7, Deuteronomy 5:9, Exodus 4:11, Ezekial 4:15, Leviticus 26:27-35, and many other passages too numerous to list here.