OutFOXedNEWS: Lemmingtarian

Showing posts with label Lemmingtarian. Show all posts

Monday, December 9, 2013

Sarah Palin Disgraces History With Claim Adams and Jefferson Support Her War on Christmas

By: Rmuse

Sunday, December, 8th, 2013, 6:40 pm

If there is one distinguishing feature unique to conservatives, it is their predilection for war. They will declare war on anything, seemingly for sport, but primarily to advance their sick agendas whether it is war against Muslims, women, the poor, gays, or equality; they just love war. It is interesting then, that conservatives of the Christian persuasion claim there is a war on their religious liberty when they are prohibited from forcing compliance to their religious dogmata on the entire population, and then there is their annual outrage that they are victims of the “war on Christmas.” Of course, the aggressors, according to conservative Christians, in the war on Christmas are the dreaded atheists who, interestingly, enjoy the winter “holiday” season as much as the next American, but resent the fact that any sector of government uses their tax dollars to promote the religious aspect of the uniquely commercial holiday.
America’s “resident dunce,” half-term governor, and failed vice presidential candidate has taken advantage of the non-existent “war on Christmas” to speak to like-minded conservative Christians to sell her latest screed against President Obama and all-things secular proving once again why she has the “well-established-reputation as a world-class idiot.” One hesitates commenting on the absurdity that is Sarah Palin, but her latest contention that Founding Fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would join her in the war against the imagined war on Christmas is too much of an affront to American history, facts, and reason to bear; especially for a secular humanist.
On Thursday, Palin pimped her “war on Christmas” book at Jerry Falwell’s Christian Liberty University, a place of “higher education” that Palin likely understands teaches David Barton revisionist history of America’s founding as a Christian nation based on the Christian bible. Palin told the audience that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams wrote the U.S. Constitution (Adams did not) for moral and religious people. She said, “If you lose that foundation, John Adams was implicitly warning us, there will be no reason to follow our constitution because it is a moral and religious people who understand we are to be held accountable by our creator so that is what our constitution is based on. So those revisionists, those in the lamestream media who would want to ignore what our founders actually wrote about in our charters of liberty” must not comprehend the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers. Principles, by the way, that apparently include celebrating Christmas the “religious way” by honoring the virgin birth she claimed atheists were hard at work fighting in an attempt to “abort Christ from Christmas” (note the “abortion” reference).

She said, “Why is it they get to claim some offense taken when they see a plastic Jewish family on somebody’s lawn – a nativity scene, that’s basically what it is right? Oh, they take such offense, mentally distresses them so they sue, right?” No atheist considers plastic Jewish facsimiles of “virgin birth Jesus” on someone’s lawn offensive or worth a lawsuit. They do, however, take offense when Christians erect plastic virgin-birth Jesus displays, crucifixion crosses, or resurrection representations on land paid for with their tax dollars.
She continued that “heaven forbid we claim any type of offense when we say, ‘Wait, you’re stripping Jesus from the reason, as the reason for the season,’ but heaven forbid we claim any type of offense.” Then Palin went rogue and spoke for Thomas Jefferson she claimed “would recognize those who would want to try to ignore that Jesus is the reason for the season are angry atheists armed with an attorney. They are not the majority of Americans. So I think Thomas Jefferson would certainly recognize it and stand up and he wouldn’t let anybody tell him to sit down and shut up.”
Thomas Jefferson, a deist, eschewed everything divine about biblical Jesus; particularly what he called the “contrary to the laws of nature” virgin birth and resurrection story. What Jefferson did appreciate about biblical Jesus was the humanitarian ethics of goodwill toward human beings, charity for the poor, and his inherent humanism that Jefferson himself espoused. To make his point, Jefferson gathered 4 translations of the gospel accounts, edited out each and every “contrary to natural law” part, and compiled humanistic Jesus into his version of the gospels minus Christ’s miracles, Christ as divine, and especially the virgin birth and resurrection. In fact, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson wrote to another Founding Father, John Adams, in 1823 that “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” So much for America’s resident dunce counting on Thomas Jefferson joining her in fighting against “atheists trying to abort Christ in Christmas” or the “reason for the season” that is as absurd as a star guiding wise men to Bethlehem around December 25.

Astronomers, real “wise men,” who use science, mathematics, and empirical data of the observable Universe have concluded that according to the Christian bible account of Christ’s birth, Christmas should be June 17 and not, as Christians contend, December 25. That particular date coincides with a pagan holiday celebrated around December 25th as a time for feasting, goodwill, generosity to the poor, the exchange of gifts, and the decoration of trees sometime after Roman Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity that began imperial patronage of the Christian church. The festival of Saturnalia was a popular Pagan Roman holiday around the winter solstice, and if there really is a war on the Christ in Christmas, it is Christians celebrating a pagan holiday (Saturnalia) that, according to the god of the bible, is a major sin punishable by death; but that is another story.
The real story is that Palin is a charlatan, an imbecile, and an opportunist with no more knowledge of the “Christ” in Christmas than the Founding Fathers she attempted to channel to sell her pathetic book. Her assault and false account of the Founding Fathers’ intent in writing the Constitution is as offensive as her assault on atheists’ desire to abort Christ from Christmas or wage a war on Christmas. Sarah Palin is a parasite on America and this secular humanist has had just about as much of her bloodsucking pandering to pad her bank account as one person can take. Obviously, the Liberty University audience has not had enough of Palin because there were no reports of even one “higher education” student standing up and telling Palin that her lack of knowledge of the Christ in Christmas, or the Founding Fathers, informed that the only war this holiday season is her assault on intelligence of which she has none.

Sarah Palin Disgraces History With Claim Adams and Jefferson Support Her War on Christmas was written by Rmuse for PoliticusUSA.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Cato Institute suggests an ‘overthrow’ of U.S. Government is needed

December 5, 2013

Expert testifies before Congress saying Obama's lawlessness could lead to a revolution

Testifying before a Congressional hearing Tuesday on the President’s Constitutional powers, Michael Cannon the Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, suggests that as a last “resort” the U.S. Government should be “overthrown” because President Barack Obama overstepped his executive powers implementing the Affordable Car Act. And Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who was questioning Mr. Cannon, agreed.

“There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon goes on to say that it's “very dangerous” for the President to “ignore the laws” by imposing an “obligation upon the people”

“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to wantonly ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

There have been several calls for a revolution to overthrow the U.S. Government because of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act by right wing activists, and they have received some support from Republicans in Congress.
Last month right wing activists held a rally in Washington D.C., promoted by Larry Klayman a far right wing activist, along with Larry Pratt, Bob Barr, Pamela Geller, Alan Keyes, Bradlee Dean, Joseph Farah and Zeeda Andrews. All of these people are right wing activists who say that President Obama is either a Muslim terrorist or worse.
Klayman had suggested that there may be a violent revolution if his Nov. 19 rally failed, he even went as far as issuing a new Declaration of Independence to promote his rally, which did turn out to be a massive failure. During the promotion of the rally, Klayman said that he expected upwards of 1 million people, but only about 100 people showed up.
You can view the C-SPAN2 video clip of Michael Cannon testifying at the Congressional hearing attached to this article above.
Don't miss any of the Las Vegas Democrat Examiner articles: Click the Subscribe button and enter your E-mail address. You’ll be alerted to the latest column when it's published. You can also follow on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

Unarmed Man Charged With Wounding the Bystanders That Were Shot By Police

by Heavy Mettle

Back in September an emotionally disturbed man walked out into Times Square traffic causing a disturbance by throwing himself in front of cars. The police responded by trying to shoot him (because of course that is what you do when someone is displaying unbalanced behavior) and instead shot the bystanders on the scene.

Police officers arrived and tried to corral Mr. Broadnax, a 250-pound man. When he reached into his pants pocket, two officers, who, the police said, thought he was pulling a gun, opened fire, missing Mr. Broadnax, but hitting two nearby women. Finally, a police sergeant knocked Mr. Broadnax down with a Taser.

(Because of course any movement by anyone is the pulling of a gun). Now he is being charge with charging the man with felony assault for the cops' shooting and injuring innocent bystanders.

This is where police decided to open fire on unarmed man

Initially Mr. Broadnax was arrested on misdemeanor charges of menacing, drug possession and resisting arrest. But the Manhattan district attorney’s office persuaded a grand jury to charge Mr. Broadnax with assault, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years. Specifically, the nine-count indictment unsealed on Wednesday said Mr. Broadnax “recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death.” “The defendant is the one that created the situation that injured innocent bystanders,” said an assistant district attorney, Shannon Lucey.

One of the victims of Mr. Broadnax's "assault" has spoken out against the charges.

Mariann Wang, a lawyer representing Sahar Khoshakhlagh, one of the women who was wounded, said the district attorney should be pursuing charges against the two officers who fired their weapons in a crowd, not against Mr. Broadnax. “It’s an incredibly unfortunate use of prosecutorial discretion to be prosecuting a man who didn’t even injure my client,” she said. “It’s the police who injured my client.”

The incident recalled a previous one near the Empire State Building where bystanders were injured:

The incident calls to mind a 2012 case where nine bystanders were injured during a police shooting by police bullets, ricochets and fragments when two officers fired at a man suspected of gunning down a former co-worker outside the Empire State Building, calling in question the police's ability to handle such situations, endangering the lives of bystanders who were in little to no danger before the police showed up. In that incident, officers fired a total of 16 shots outside one of the world's most popular tourist attractions as a large crowd watched. While an investigation later determined the suspect, who was killed in the incident, had 10 bullet holes in him, many nearby were still wounded. The NYPD and Mayor Michael Bloomberg fiercely defended the officers' actions at the time.

As Salon notes, more than half the people shot at by police have mental health problems. The NYPD seems to have no training in dealing with and handling these types of incidents reasonably.

As reported here, an investigation last year by the Portland Press Herald and the Maine Sunday Telegram found that over half of people shot by police in the U.S. suffer from mental illness. The Times Square incident is no exception. As the Times reported, “after his arrest, Mr. Broadnax was taken to Bellevue Hospital Center, where he told a detective that ‘he was talking to dead relatives in his head and that he tried throwing himself in front of cars to kill himself.’” Luckily, then, New York’s finest were there to open fire.

We know the police in New York already have free rein to shoot people they think might be criminals or might be pulling guns. Now they have free rein not only on so-called suspected criminals, but unfortunate people who happen to make the mistake of being anywhere near their line of fire. This is a new low in justifying their behavior by the judiciary. Especially considering the daily crime taking place about 50 blocks south of Times Square, on a daily basis.

Originally posted to Heavy Mettle on Fri Dec 06, 2013 at 08:21 AM PST.

Also republished by Police Accountability Group.

Rumored closeted celebrity: Bill O'Reilly

December 2, 2012

This column will count down the top five celebrities rumored to be in the closet. We will start out with Fox News Anchor and Tea Party favorite, Bill O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly has compared gay people to Al Qaida and has spoken out against gay rights several times on his show. But there are people who think Bill, himself, has danced with Dorothy. For one thing, Mr. O'Reilly wasn't married until his late forties. His marriage, however, is anything but typical.In 2004, Bill O'Reilly settled with a co-worker after tapes allegedly revealed that he uses a dildo and vibrator on himself. Not that we are judging, but do straight men really use vibrators and dildos on themselves? Besides, Bill O'Reilly fits the perfect stereotype of a closeted gay man—he is angry, conservative, and hates homosexuals. We can easily picture Bill O'Reilly hanging out at a gay club looking for a trick

Here's ALEC's Plan To Bring Right Wing Policies To States Near You

By karoli

December 06, 2013 06:00 AM

Back in 2011, I put my tin foil hat on and suggested that perhaps ALEC was promoting coordinated attacks on unions, schools, and health care across the nation. At the time, there was certainly a sense that they were, but no hard evidence.
Hard evidence has now arrived in the form of a revealing and rage-inducing set of documents published in The Guardian on Thursday.

Conservative groups across the US are planning a coordinated assault against public sector rights and services in the key areas of education, healthcare, income tax, workers' compensation and the environment,documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.
The strategy for the state-level organisations, which describe themselves as "free-market think tanks", includes proposals from six different states for cuts in public sector pensions, campaigns to reduce the wages of government workers and eliminate income taxes, school voucher schemes to counter public education, opposition to Medicaid, and a campaign against regional efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
The policy goals are contained in a set of funding proposals obtained by the Guardian. The proposals were co-ordinated by the State Policy Network, an alliance of groups that act as incubators of conservative strategy at state level.
The documents contain 40 funding proposals from 34 states, providing a blueprint for the conservative agenda in 2014. In partnership with the Texas Observer and the Portland Press Herald in Maine, the Guardian is publishing SPN's summary of all the proposals to give readers and news outlets full and fair access to state-by-state conservative plans that could have significant impact throughout the US, and to allow the public to reach its own conclusions about whether these activities comply with the spirit of non-profit tax-exempt charities.

The documents not only show these organizations' plans for how to serve their oligarchs at the expense of ordinary people, they also reveal a player most people don't hear much about: Searle Freedom Trust. Searle Freedom Trust is closely tied to Donor's Trust, the donor-advised slush fund for conservative causes.
The grant requests made by the state policy think tanks targeted public pensions, unions, teachers, and health care policy. All are framed as long-held right wing policy goals. Furthermore, that Searle Freedom Trust link leads straight back to the Wall Street Journal, via Stephen Moore, who somehow always fails to disclose his relationship to Searle when he writes op-eds in furtherance of the same goals.

The trust, founded in 1998, draws on the family fortune of the late Dan Searle of the GD Searle & Company empire – now part of Pfizer – which created NutraSweet. The trust is a major donor to such mainstays of the American right and the Tea Parties as Americans for Prosperity, the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), the Heartland Institute and the State Policy Network itself.
SPN's link to Searle, the Guardian documents show, was Stephen Moore, an editorial writer with the Wall Street Journal. Moore, who advises Searle on its grant-giving activities, was asked by SPN to rank the proposals in two halves – a "top 20" and "bottom 20". It is not known how many of the 40 proposals were approved for funding, nor which may have been successful.
Moore told the Guardian that he is an unpaid adviser to the Searle Foundation, having been a lifetime family friend to Dan Searle. He said the grant decisions were made by Searle's sons and grandsons based upon the late businessman's "commitment to the advancement of free enterprise and individual rights".

That whole claim that he's unpaid is supposed to tell us he has no bias as a result of his activities. Never mind that his op-eds bolster, echo, or justify the case these policy shops churn out.
If the metaphor is a Kochtopus, think of the State Policy Network as one tentacle. It hands off its "policy research" to lawmakers and bill mills like ALEC, who are also tentacles. The dark money organizations are yet another tentacle, as are the "grassroots" organizations like Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity.
PRWatch has a great table of the relationships between these "stink tanks", ALEC, and state legislation introduced or passed as a result of their activity. I highly recommend it.
I don't think we've seen all of the tentacles yet. But we are definitely getting a better picture.

Tags: ALEC, Searle Freedom Trust, SPN, Stink Tanks

About karoli

Card-carrying member of we, the people.

Subscribe to karoli's feed

ALEC Boots Mother Jones From Its Annual Conference

—By Andy Kroll

| Fri Dec. 6, 2013 3:00 AM GMT

Starting Wednesday, hundreds of state lawmakers descended on downtown Washington, DC, for a big three-day confab hosted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative advocacy group that that brings together lawmakers and representatives of major corporations to draft model legislation on issues such as taxes, energy, workers' rights, education, and agriculture. These bills are then introduced in state legislatures around the country—in some cases, lawmakers pass ALEC-inspired bills without changing a word.
There were dozens of press credentials laid out on ALEC conference's check-in table when I arrived Thursday morning. Mother Jones' was not among them. ALEC's board of directors had refused my request for credentials, according to spokesman Bill Meierling.

More MoJo reporting on the American Legislative Exchange Council.

ALEC's Campaign Against Renewable Energy

Study: ALEC Is Bad for the Economy

Forced to Work Sick? That's Fine With ALEC

ALEC in 1985: S&M Accidents Cause 10 Percent of San Francisco's Homicides

When asked why I'd been turned away, Meierling pointed to our previous coverage of ALEC and said it's clear that Mother Jones "fundamentally hates" ALEC. We've covered ALEC for more than a decade—a 2002 exposé titled "Ghostwriting the Law," coverage of the group's proposals regarding voting rights and workers' rights, and more recently the departures of big-name corporate members.
At the same time he was explaining why I couldn't attend, Meierling stressed to me that ALEC is "moving toward transparency." To his credit, he acknowledged the irony.
If ALEC had given me a press credential, the only events I would've been allowed to cover were keynote speeches by Republican luminaries Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, and Grover Norquist. But the real action at ALEC conferences, the meat-and-potatoes work, happens at the meetings of the group's many task forces—the environment and energy task force led by American Electric Power, the tax and fiscal policy task force led by tobacco giant Altria, and the international relations task force run by yet another tobacco conglomerate, Philip Morris. Meierling says that even credentialed reporters can't cover those meetings. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank learned this firsthand on Wednesday, when DC police and ALEC staff stopped him from attending the group's private task force meetings.
It's been a tough week for ALEC. On Tuesday, the Guardian reported that the group faced a "funding crisis" after 40 of its corporate members and hundreds of state lawmakers ditched ALEC in the wake of Trayvon Martin's killing last year. Those members fled after it was revealed that ALEC's model legislation included the same Stand Your Ground law invoked by George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed Martin. ALEC has since eliminated its gun-related advocacy and, with a narrower fiscal focus, is trying to woo its erstwhile members to back into the fold.
Given the organization's recent struggles, I can understand why ALEC would be feeling defensive. Meierling, the ALEC spokesman, was polite throughout our conversation. We traded business cards before I left and promised to get a drink to talk more about Mother Jones. Fingers crossed for next year.

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Newly Uncovered Documents Expose ALEC's Anti-Gay Past

Submitted by Calvin Sloan on Wednesday, 12/4/2013 10:45 am

Throughout the 1980s, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- now infamous for its work on behalf of “stand your ground” laws and restrictions on voting rights -- was instrumental in pushing anti-gay policies throughout the country, according to documents recently uncovered by People For the American Way and the Center For Media and Democracy.

A 1985 policy memo entitled “Homosexuals: Just Another Minority Group” [PDF] sums up ALEC’s anti-gay policy positions and the false claims and outrageous stereotypes on which they were based. ALEC disseminated the memo to its public sector members, arguing that the “homosexual movement has had an impact too great and far reaching for Americans to ignore.”

Through the policy memo and its monthly newsletters, ALEC tracked local, state and federal legislation and provided its members with “research” to help them prevent advances in gay rights. However ALEC of course did not view these rights as rights; instead, ALEC asserted that the gay community was organizing “to achieve the privileges it thinks it deserves.”

So what “privileges” exactly were gay people demanding that infuriated ALEC so much? To name a few, the “privilege” to not be physically assaulted for being gay; the “privilege” of not being incarcerated for being gay; the “privilege” of not being barred from employment opportunities, housing and public accommodations for being gay; the “privilege” to dress as they liked; or the “privilege” of not being compiled into state directories to be blacklisted and discriminated against.

In order to counter the gay rights movement, ALEC argued in “Homosexuals: Just Another Minority Group,” one had to understand first that gay people were corrupted beings, since “the homosexual makes the conscious choice to pursue members of his or her own sex.” The answer therefore did not lie with treating gay people fairly, but instead with providing them psychotherapy or by having them join the Christian faith. “The evidence is too great to deny it,” the memo stated.

ALEC classified all gay people into six categories: “the blatant, the secret lifer, the desperate, the adjusted, the bisexual and the situational.” The “blatant” gay person was "obvious and ‘limp-wristed’”; the “adjusted” would “try to conduct a ‘conventional’ gay marriage”; and so on. Yet no matter what category a gay person fell into, ALEC argued, the most dominant practice within “the homosexual world is pedophilia, the fetish for young children.” This tendency, the group claimed, was the product of the fact that “the homosexual cannot reproduce themselves biologically, so they must recruit the young.”

ALEC lamented that the federal government funded AIDS research and allocated tax money to counter the AIDS epidemic. The group discouraged states from passing anti-discrimination laws because, according to one ALEC newsletter from April 1984, such legislation “might jeopardize public health in restaurants, dental offices, and other areas because of the communicable disease AIDS.” ALEC claimed that under the Carter administration, in addition to funding AIDS research, “the federal government had been active in directly funding the homosexual movement” by approving federal grants to organizations that served gay communities.

When lawmakers led efforts against gay rights legislation, ALEC celebrated their acts in newsletters. For vetoing a gay rights bill, California Governor George Deukmejian was deemed “a political leader with courage.” Likewise, the group lauded ALEC State Senator H.L. Richardson for claiming the bill “would take away the liberty of an employer to refuse to hire homosexuals, even if the employer strongly believes that homosexuality is an abomination.”

Today, decades later, ALEC has stopped referring to homosexuality as “an abomination” in its literature, yet the organization continues to push legislation and policy ideas founded on the notion of exclusion – policies that protect the “liberties” of corporations rather than those of individual Americans.

The organization is currently in Washington, DC for its 2013 States & Nation Policy Summit. A protest against ALEC will be held tomorrow, Thursday December 5th, at Franklin Square (13th and I St NW) at 11:30 AM.

GOP Attacks Dems For Medicare Cuts In Paul Ryan's Budget -- Again

AP Photo

Sahil Kapur – December 4, 2013, 11:00 AM EST1372

For the third election cycle in a row, Republicans are attacking Democrats for Medicare cuts that are in the GOP's own budget proposal.
On Wednesday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee kicked off a campaign to attack 12 Democrats for the $716 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts that were ordered by Obamacare. The cuts don't target benefits -- they reduce reimbursements to private insurers under Medicare Advantage and hospitals, among other providers. The Congressional Budget Office said they extended the life of Medicare by eight years, although insurance companies argue that the cuts will reduce access to care.
"By voting for ObamaCare, Democrats like Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich cut $717 billion from Medicare -- including $154 billion from Medicare Advantage -- which will hurt seniors," said NRSC spokesman Brad Dayspring.
The same cuts were included in House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) blueprint to partially privatize Medicare and remake the federal budget, which Republicans in both chambers voted overwhelmingly for back in March. The same Medicare cuts were also included in Ryan's budgets in 2012 and 2011, which similarly passed the Republican-led House and received overwhelming GOP support in the Democratic-led Senate.

Embracing the Medicare cuts during budget season hasn't stopped Republicans from running against the cuts during election season. In 2010, the GOP pummeled Democrats for cutting Medicare. During the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney and Ryan himself toured the country attacking the Medicare cuts and vowing to repeal them. Now the Senate GOP's electoral arm, hopeful about retaking the majority in 2014, is attacking Democrats for the cuts.
The Democrats whom the NRSC will target for the Medicare cuts, according to CNN, are Sens. Mark Pryor (AR), Mark Begich (AK), Kay Hagan (NC), Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Udall (CO), Tom Udall (NM), Dick Durbin (IL), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Al Franken (MN), along with Senate candidates and current Reps. Gary Peters (MI) and Bruce Braley (IA).
Ryan defends his decision to sustain the cuts by arguing that they're baked into the budget baseline. He says he wouldn't have done them in the first place, and points out that unlike Democrats, he doesn't use the savings to fund Obamacare. His budget, while repealing the rest of the Affordable Care Act, effectively embraces its Medicare cuts by assuming the same level of savings in the program over the long run.
"Let me make it really clear. What we do in this budget is we stop the raid of Medicare," Ryan told reporters back in March. "You have to remember, President Obama took money from Medicare to spend on creating Obamacare. We end that raid and we make sure all of those dollars go back to Medicare to extend the solvency of the trust fund."
Ryan added that keeping the Medicare cuts "makes it easier" to balance the budget.

Sahil Kapur

Sahil Kapur is TPM's senior congressional reporter and Supreme Court correspondent. His articles have been published in the Huffington Post, The Guardian and The New Republic. Email him at sahil@talkingpointsmemo.com and follow him on Twitter at @sahilkapur.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Tea Party Nation Believes Obamacare Is Like Rape, Because Of Course It Does

Bob Cesca on December 02, 2013

362 Views

Fact: the only thing that’s like rape is rape. But this self-evident fact seems to repeatedly escape certain doofuses who seem to believe just about everything is like rape.
Rush Limbaugh thinks the Senate rule change to eliminate the use of the filibuster against judicial nominees is like rape. And now Tea Party Nation writer Darwin Rockantansky (real name) believes Obamacare is like rape.
Rockantansky’s article was emailed to Tea Party Nation members by TPN president Judson Phillips:

The Obama Regime is encouraging people to become the evangelists for Obamacare in their own family and social groups over Thanks Giving dinner. Their message is truly quite simple: Lie back and quit fighting and eventually you will enjoy the experience.
I won’t belabor you with the horrendously offensive aspects of this Socialist doctrine. Nor can I predict the level of socially unacceptable behavior that might erupt should some fool attempt to do that in my home much less over Thanks Giving dinner (ALL of which I personally prepare from scratch ).
But I will encourage you to think about your own families and extended families and decide for yourself if there is a point at which this rape experience could possibly become enjoyable; rape of our free will, rape of our religious convictions, rape of free markets, rape of our Constitution, a brutal rape of the American Dream and personal freedoms.

Obamacare is evidently raping nearly everything in America. Raping it all. No word on whether Rockantansky’s from-scratch “Thanks Giving” (??) dinner was raped by Obamacare, but I expect there might be an update any day now.
To be fair, Rockantansky didn’t invent to “Obamacare is like rape” meme. You might recall this:

And this from Alex Jones:

And this from Fox News Channel:

Seriously, stop it. Not just the rape metaphors, but all political metaphors. Politics isn’t like baseball or football. Obamacare and the filibuster rules aren’t like rape (again, nothing is, except for rape). And Healthcare.gov isn’t like Hurricane Katrina. Just stop.

The Right-Wing Guide on How to Argue with Liberals on Twitter: 2013 Edition

via: The Naked Axiom

Author's note: This guide has been updated for the faster, shinier albeit slightly more apathetic Right-Wing movement of 2013.

Many patriots wonder how they can best serve their country. I have two words for you. Attack liberals. How do you find liberals to attack?

The easiest way is to piggy-back someone else's conversation. If you see another Right-Wing Patriot in a debate with a liberal, put yourself in their shoes; they're obviously struggling. Jump in, attack their opponent with a short, unrelated insult and, then quickly - jump away! You'll be helping a fellow conservative plus, you'll look cool!
Now, if you get involved in a debate, it *can* be hard to remember all of the important elements involved in arguing with a liberal, but here is a handy checklist to make sure you've included all of the pieces essential to maintaining the purity of the Right-Wing brand.

Whatever FOX says, you say. When in doubt, toss out a Drudge headline or quote any conservative talking head you watch or hear in any form of media. It doesn't matter who they are; they will all be saying the same thing.
Incorporate the #fox, #tcot, #tlot or #ocra hashtag in every tweet, because by calling forth other Patriots to also attack your opponent, you'll never have to give a real answer for anything.
If a liberal asks you to prove any claim you have made is a fact by providing a source for the info, always respond: "Do your own research!!" or "I'm not going to do your research for you." That way, you don't have to do any research.
If you feel you must send them a source link, make sure you only offer links from Drudge, The Blaze or other right-wing blogs or op-ed pieces. It doesn't matter if you've read them.
It is also helpful to have a ready list of links on-hand that are completely unrelated to the topic of discussion to flood your opponent's @replies with. Again, it doesn't matter if you've read them.
If you're unsure about how to start a tweet, try "Why do liberals hate gay/black/poor people?" That should get your creative juices flowing.
Whenever you mention Obama, make sure you cleverly alter his name into something insulting, such as the easy-to-remember 'Obummer'. Or if you really want to get the debate moving, just refer to him as 'the most radical President in American history'. The liberals will go crazy sending you all kinds of links with numbers and facts. Don't worry; no one expects you to read them.
All of your tweets (whether you are in a debate or not) should contain at least one insulting name for liberals. Libtard is a favorite, but it is getting a bit less effective from constant overuse. I suggest the more modern twist, Libturd.
Stay away from facts. Facts are only opinions reinforced by truth.
If a Liberal has insulted you (especially using large, hard to understand words), don't panic. Simply tweet back their own words as though they were your own. That way, you don't actually have to come up with anything clever to say.
Never answer a question. The best way to counter the left's expectation for meaningful dialogue is to ask them an unrelated question in return, such as "Why do you like to kill unborn babies?"
Make sure each of your tweets is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. After all, you wouldn't want anyone to be able to accuse you of being one of the "intellectual elite".
Each of your tweets should include one of the RWNJ signature terms - commie, Marxist, socialist, or Nazi. You may use them interchangeably to keep things fresh. To keep up on the latest trend, trying using "Caliphate" or "sharia law".
If you're a conservative male arguing with a liberal female, make sure you call her several misogynistic names to make sure she understand that you're a REAL man and then, tell her she's pretty or mention how great her ass looks. The ladies all enjoy compliments.
Whenever a libturd (see how I slipped that in there?) presents you with facts, you will most likely be tempted to turn tail and retreat, but don't panic. Simply toss out any one of the many variations of this phrase: "That must be some good Kool-aid you're drinking." Be creative with it. Maybe ask them what flavor of Kool-aid it is. Advanced technique: Suggest a possible flavor for them but, make sure it's a liberal sounding one like Black Cherry or Piña-Pineapple. The important thing is to include the word "Kool-aid". I'm pretty sure Hannity said they pay the tea party every time we use it.
If they happen to bring up GW Bush, tell them they need to stop living in the past. Then, tell them President Lincoln freed the slaves and make sure they know he was a Republican.
Mention the most trendy new "scandal" word like Benghazi or PRISM. But, if you get flustered and forget what's hot right now you can always fall back on the old reliables: Obamacare, Soros or Alinsky.
Be subtle with your racism. Insist you don't like the President because of his policies and then, RT a picture of him as a monkey. Then, when the liberals call you a racist, turn it around on them. Tell them at *they* are, in fact, the racists because they keep black people down by helping them. They will be left speechless.
Sprinkle the terms "Patriot," "Constitution," "liberty" and "freedom" here and there to constantly remind others that you're a real American, even when you're not acting like one.

What's most important to remember is that as a right-winger, you have an image to uphold and a duty to build yourself up by putting others down. For freedom.

Pages