Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA)

Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.
'Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,' said California Senator Barbara Boxer. 'We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing.'

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability.

Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%). Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'

'As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Michigan, due to her inability to remember rightey tightey, lefty loosey. 'This new law should be real good for people like me,' Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.

No. 3: (11/12/08): Was the US founded as a Christian Country?

I have been hearing constantly lately about the back and forth between the left and the right whether the United States of America, was or was not founded as a Christian nation. I believe that much of the argument and where you come down on it is based on semantics and your understanding of the establishment clause in the context of the day. If you assume by Christian nation, you’re referring to modern day Evangelicalism, then no, it was absolutely not founded as a Christian nation. If you assume by “Christian nation” as the founders would have that it was founded upon the accepted doctrine of the Church of England and meant to be run as a theocracy then again no, it was not.

Many of the Founding Fathers were by no means “orthodox” Christians by the standards of the day, in fact many were openly Deists. But even the Deists among them recognized God as being the God of the Christian bible. I have not read any original material, correspondences etc. that denied their belief in God but rather sought to defend against state endorsed/mandated religion (directed towards the Church of England) warning of oppression at their hands when endorsed and supported by the state.

I part ways with the Evangelicals where they insist that the country was founded as an Evangelical Christian country. It clearly was not founded to be a theocratic country, but I don’t believe that it was purely secular either. If they truly did not believe in God, then there would be no reference to a Creator, nor would there be inalienable rights. Rights that are given to man by a “Creator” cannot be taken away from men; only rights given by men can be taken away or restricted by man or the state. Sessions of congress and the constitutional conventions were opened and closed with prayer, including on occasion by Franklin (one of the most ardent Deists) hardly an act that would have been practiced by Agnostics or Atheists.
The next question would then be what is the nature of the Creator that they reference?
It is clear that no specific name was given to the Creator (to their credit) i.e. Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu etc. Given though, that they were by a large majority if not all, Christians, Deists or Quakers, their consensus of understanding would have been that the Creator they refer to would have the nature of the “Christian” God.

I do however agree with the secularists that a very, very bright line must be drawn lest we allow Christianity to become the American Sharia. Advocating that our government should be run as though the Bible was the source of our laws, morals and principles would be partially correct but only in respect to how the Bible has influenced western society.

The majority of Colonial law at the time was based on the Common Law of England which was clearly theocratic in its practice of the day. The Magna Carta had enormous impact on the English Bill of Rights, Mayflower Compact as well as the Articles of Confederation, and of course the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Judeo-Christian beliefs and the natural law philosophies formed the cornerstone of the English monarchy and its law, and so by extension, the United States.

A common complaint in regards to religions is that “you have no right to expect that I’m going to let my government operate as if it has chosen a religion and wants everyone else to do the same” or that based on the prohibition.

We are in a republic which means that to a certain extent as a minority must accept as both a practical reality and a Constitutional reality that some beliefs will be “thrown in your face”.
In my reading there is no Constitutional prohibition against one that “includes the right to not have it thrown in our faces everywhere we go by the government.” Government is the organizational expression of the people and as long as a sentiment or right is the will of the majority it must be expressed so long as it does not infringe on a minority’s right to change the will of the majority either through free press, free speech or petition. I must respectfully disagree with you that the government’s current expression of religion constitutes an establishment of an official religion the likes of the Church of England that can be used as a legal club against you by the government.

None of the Founding Fathers spoke out against religion as having a right to free speech or participating or influencing government or the electorate at large. What they all agreed on that could not happen is political rule from the pulpit. It was perfectly acceptable at the founding for churches to use speech and collective power to influence members who were then free to go and act accordingly in a political sense. What was not acceptable would be for church inspired speech to be deemed more weighty then that of a non-believer. Equally unacceptable would be for the government to create, fund and support a specific church (i.e. Church of England) to go forth and proselytize/demonize in the name of the State.

In terms of references to In God We Trust on money and God in the Pledge of Allegiance, these are actually neutral as is any Congressional or Presidential proclamations. Take for instance, Veteran’s Day. If you are a pacifist and do not condone the taking of arms or recognize the use of arms as moral under any circumstances, are your civil rights violated because Congress made it a federal holiday?

You are equally able to express your beliefs on this day as any other day of the year. You are not imprisoned, you are not taxed at a different rate, your votes do not only count as 3/4 of a vote, etc. The majority of Americans however feel it is appropriate to officially commemorate the service of Veteran’s to their country. If you are Atheist and do not believe that God should be officially recognized in any sense, are you prohibited from using minted currency or any of the above examples? If I despise my mother, are my rights violated because of a Congressional proclamation for Mother’s Day? The foundation of America as democratic form of a republic, was to ensure the will of the majority must be the primary outward expression of the government, and in its genius, the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, ensures and charges the government to just as vigorously defend the rights of the minority.

To those who advocate a complete seperation and removal of God or influence of religion from the public place, remember that the rule of unintended consequences. Under a rule of absolutism it would mean that Evangelicals insisting that student led prayer or a moment of silence in school would be as verboten as Dr. Martin Luther King, using his pulpit and religious networks to preach civil rights not only as a matter of a political right but also a spiritual mandate of the Christian faith. I see no attempts by the ACLU to remove copies of “I Have a Dream” speech which makes numerous religious references from schools or Martin Luther King Day as a Federal holiday which honors not just a civil rights leader but a religious leader as well.