Obama comes out fighting on health care

Obama comes out fighting on health care (via AFP)

US President Barack Obama on Tuesday tried to turn the focus away from the glitch-riven debut of his landmark health care law to its benefits, hoping to reverse a rough political run. "If I have got to fight another three years to make sure this law…

---

Rush Limbaugh: Obama is ‘having an orgasm’ because the pope is ‘ripping America’

Rush Limbaugh: Obama is ‘having an orgasm’ because the pope is ‘ripping America’ (via Raw Story )

Rush Limbaugh suggested on Wednesday that President Barack Obama was “having an orgasm” after Pope Francis called unfettered capitalism the “new tyranny,” which the radio host said was the same as “ripping America.” After the president mentioned…

---

Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us

By Adam Shaw

Published December 04, 2013

FoxNews.com

• 
  Nov. 30, 2013: Pope Francis arrives in St. Peter's Basilica to lead a Vesper prayer at the Vatican. (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)

Pope Francis is undergoing a popularity surge comparable to the way Barack Obama was greeted by the world in 2008. And just as President Obama has been a disappointment for America, Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church.
My fellow Catholics should be suspicious when bastions of anti-Catholicism in the left-wing media are in love with him.
Much is being made of his ‘compassion’ and ‘humility,’ but kissing babies and hugging the sick is nothing new. Every pope in recent memory has done the same, yet only now are the media paying attention. Benedict XVI and John Paul II refused to kowtow to the liberal agenda, and so such displays of tenderness were under-covered.

Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church, and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no wonder the New York Times is in love.

But Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church, and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no wonder the New York Times is in love.
Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America, Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s sensibilities.
In his interviews with those in the left-wing media he seeks to impress, Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage, and instead of seeking to convert people, “we need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”
This softly-softly approach of not making a fuss has been tried before, and failed. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s aimed to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world by doing just this.
The result was the Catholic version of New Coke. Across the West where the effects were felt, seminaries and convents emptied, church attendance plummeted, and adherence to Church doctrine diminished.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI worked hard to turn this trend around, but now Pope Francis wants the bad old days to resume.
Proof of this is Francis’ aforementioned statement of the Church being obsessed with controversial issues and the need to rebalance by talking about it less.
That Francis didn’t see that this would be translated into headlines of “Pope tells Catholics to shut up about things that offend Sandra Fluke” by every left-wing media outlet shows a terrifying naivety.
Nor do his comments reflect reality.
For years, the majority of priests didn't dare cover controversial topics in their homilies in fear of getting angry letters from pick-and-choose Catholics outraged that their pastor dared to say something out of line with the Democratic Party.
Most parishioners therefore haven’t heard the Church’s argument on controversial topics. Consequently, usage of contraception is only slightly lower in Catholics than in the general population, and support of gay marriage is actually higher in Catholics than the general population. Perhaps talking about it even less isn’t the answer?

In trying to please the media and the modern world, Francis mistakes their glee for respect. Just like Obama thought he’d won over Putin by promising a reset, Francis thinks by talking vacuously about the poor, he will be respected. And it is vacuous -- the pontiff recently asked why it’s news that the stock market drops but not when an old person dies. When your leader is asking, “Why isn’t the newspaper a laundry list of obituaries?” you know you elected the wrong guy.
What effect is this having? For all we’re being told about how ‘disenfranchised’ Catholics are being brought back by Francis ‘reaching out,’ a recent Pew Research study showed that in America, the number of people who identify as Catholic has actually decreased.  Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more Catholics, it just makes the Church less respected.
Francis not only panders to enemies and professional grievance mongers, but also attacks his allies. Just as Obama snubs Britain and Israel, Pope Francis swipes at practicing Catholics.
So not only has he insulted, and severely damaged the work of, pro-life and pro-marriage groups with his comments, he has also gone on the attack, dismissing Catholics who attend the older rites in Latin as ‘ideologizing’ and being guilty of ‘exploitation.’ Apparently “Who am I to judge?” doesn’t apply here.
On world matters, Francis’ statements are embarrassing. About communism, a destructive ideology that slaughtered millions of Catholics, he said:
“Learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized…an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church."
Not such kind words for the free market, however. In his recent apostolic exhortation he slammed unfettered capitalism, calling it ‘a new tyranny.’
Apart from the fact that there is no major nation practicing unfettered capitalism (like Obama, Francis loves attacking straw men) there is more real tyranny in socialist cesspools like Francis’ home of Argentina than in places where capitalism is predominant.
In the document he rejects the free market and calls for governments to overhaul financial systems so they attack inequality. In doing so he shows himself painfully misguided on economics, failing to see that free markets have consistently lifted the poor out of poverty, while socialism merely entrenches them in it, or kills them outright.
Like Obama, Francis is unable to see the problems that are really endangering his people. Like Obama he mistakes the faithful for the enemy, the enemy for his friend, condescension for respect, socialism for justice and capitalism for tyranny.
As a Catholic, I do hope Francis’ papacy is a successful one, but from his first months he seems hell-bent on a path to undo the great work of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and to repeat critical mistakes of the past.
Adam Shaw is a News Editor for FoxNews.com and has written on Anglo-American issues as well as topics related to the Roman Catholic Church. He lives in New Jersey and can be reached here.

Republicans’ self-hatred swells: The GOP vs. its own base

Rick Santorum is unhappy that older people, who tend to vote Republican, are getting insurance via the ACA

Joan Walsh
Monday, Dec 2, 2013 03:00 PM -0700

 

Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney  

(Credit: AP/Jae C. Hong/Reuters/Yuri Gripas/AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

 

Does any modern political party besides the GOP hold a huge segment of its base in contempt? I’ve written a lot about how Republicans have failed to make inroads with Latinos, young voters or women since their 2012 defeat, but what’s really interesting is the way they continue to deride many of their older, white, working-class voters, too.
When Mitt Romney insulted “the 47 percent” of Americans who pay no federal income taxes, he failed to notice that the vast majority of them are white, most of them white seniors, the most reliably Republican voters in the country. A large portion of the people Paul Ryan describes as “takers” – vs. productive “makers” – are likewise older whites. And although Ryan and his party want to turn Medicare into a voucher program – run by exchanges, much like the Affordable Care Act – they tried to hide that fact during the 2012 race because it was hugely unpopular with their base.
The latest insult came from former senator and 2012 presidential runner-up Rick Santorum. On CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday Santorum complained that the Affordable Care Act has meant that “sicker, older” people are getting health insurance (h/t Crooks and Liars.) Santorum told Candy Crowley and former Gov. Howard Dean:

Well, let me just add that one of the solutions that President Obama tried to accomplish was to let people keep their own insurance. It turns out that a lot of insurance companies are actually allowing that to happen, and that could cause even more problems for Obamacare, because that means fewer and fewer people getting into the exchanges. And the ones who, at least to date, it’s just facts Gov. Dean, the ones in the system are much older.
I talked to one insurance company today, a third of their enrollees are over sixty years of age. That is not how an insurance system would work, but those are the people signing up and the folks who can keep their plans because they’re more customized and lower cost, will now. And the folks who are going to get into these exchanges are going to be probably sicker, older, and as a result, premiums are even going to go higher.

First of all, it’s not clear Santorum is right about this. Some states are seeing unexpectedly high proportions of younger people sign up for coverage. In Kentucky, 41 percent have been under 35; in California, it’s 22 percent, which is proportionate to their share of the population. Still, the enrollment rate in California is highest for people over 55. That’s not surprising, or permanent: Based on the experience of Massachusetts, older people tend to sign up for coverage first; younger enrollees do it closer to the deadline.
But assuming that Santorum isn’t wrong (admittedly a leap), what is he saying? That people over 60 who don’t have coverage shouldn’t be able to get it? We know these people are white, and presumably – since they’re not eligible for Medicaid, which covers many of the poor and unemployed — they’re working people. But Santorum says “that’s not how an insurance system should work.”
Luckily Howard Dean was there to disagree. “I think it’s great that we’re insuring people who can’t get insurance that are over 55 and 60,” he told Santorum and Crowley. “That’s what this is supposed to do.”
Of course, if insurers are unhappy with their older customers, Rep. Alan Grayson has an answer: his “Medicare for All” bill, which would allow anyone who wanted to to sign up for Medicare instead of a private insurance plan. Back during the ACA debate many liberals wanted to see that option, but it was vetoed by insurance interests. Opening up Medicare to people 55 and older would help stabilize the program – although they’re the older edge of the ACA pool, they’d be younger and healthier subscribers in the Medicare pool – and provide an alternative for those priced out of or underserved by the private market.
Still, the big news this weekend was that the federal website that lets most people access insurance exchanges, Healthcare.gov, is mostly fixed. That’s why Santorum was reduced to railing against those takers in the GOP base. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace attacked the ACA as “income redistribution.”
And, of course, Santorum insisted that the ACA’s troubles raised questions about “the president’s competence.” Dean wasn’t having that either.
“That’s right-wing talking points against this president,” Dean replied. “From day one, they’ve tried to undermine him as a human being … I lose my patience with this nonsense. I do believe that the fact are going to be determined by what happens on the ground. Three months from now, a lot more people are going to have health insurance, and a lot more people are going to be happy with all this.”

Joan Walsh is Salon's editor at large and the author of "What's the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America." More Joan Walsh.

The Secret Agenda Behind House Republican ACA Hearings is Obama Impeachment

The Secret Agenda Behind House Republican ACA Hearings is Obama Impeachment

By: Sarah Jones

Tuesday, December, 3rd, 2013, 10:14 am

Fox News is making the Republicans’ House hearing case for them by helping the GOP make the case for impeachment.

The House is holding a hearing today (one of four ObamaCare hearings on your tax dollars) on “Presidential power”, alleging that President Obama disregarded the constitution when he tweaked the timing of the implementation of the individual mandate. This precedes impeachment, and that’s why they’re holding this hearing.
Megyn Kelly did what Fox does best; she “raised the question” of whether or not Obama has violated his duty. Has the President substituted his judgment over the Congress’ judgment?
Watch the December 2 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File here via Media Matters:

First “Judge” Andrew Napolitano claimed Obama had let a large group of people off and refused to prosecute them for some kind of quid pro quo, but Megyn Kelly quickly steered him back to the Talking Point of the Day – Healthcare.gov, aka, ObamaScare. Stay on point, Andrew!
Kelly reminded Napolitano that they are both lawyers so they know how things work. I beg to differ. I know plenty of ignorant lawyers. Knowing enough about the law to pass the bar says almost nil about understanding government, unless you are a constitutional lawyer (like the President). Or you’ve worked on government (like the President).

Working on Fox “News” is a good indicator that you may have difficulty understanding logic and processing facts, or you have sold out so completely that your take on the “law” is pretty worthless. But I digress. Back to impeachments.
So Andrew, who also thought the President should be impeached over the sequester pending cuts imposed by Republicans, championed by Republicans and crowed about by Republicans on Andrew’s very own network, announced that the President violated the constitution when he decided to give “exceptions/exemptions” from the obligation of the law to some groups and not to others.
Kelly played fair cop with Napolitano. “That’s an administrative decision,” she barked. I might remind everyone here that Republicans in Congress make many such decisions – like how oil companies get subsidies but groups of poor people should not, or even other energy groups do not. Fox wants to indict on ideology, apparently. Kelly pretend-pushed him that the executive has the power to make these decisions, so that he could be set up to explain Why It’s Different This Time (aka, ‘cuz Obama did it).
This is the Outrage When the Black Man Uses His Authority segment of the program, when the two very white people smirk disdainfully over the “power grab” (assertion of proper authority) of the black person. It’s all very Southern Strategy on Fox.
So now we find out what Kelly is going for (aka, what the GOP leadership sent her re their hearing today). Delaying the individual mandate! Sure, “timing” used to fall under the purview of the executive branch, but not anymore, they tell us. The President may not change the date of implementation of a part of a law according to Napolitano.
In reality, the President controls policy implementation. That’s his role in the process. By delaying the individual mandate, Obama is simply changing an implementation date, not rewriting the law.
And now we come to the landing that sets up the Republican Congressional hearing today.
“What’s the remedy, you say impeachment, but can you go into court and challenge him? Can you try to impeach him, how would that happen?” Kelly wonders.
Sadly, Napolitano doesn’t think Obama will be impeached because of the experience “we had the last time when Bill Clinton’s eye was off the ball.” Yes. Never mind Iraq, WMD, Katrina, etc. Never mind Nixon. A breach of executive power is best exemplified in Foxland by the delaying of an implementation of a law these people don’t agree with.
But Kelly is very sad because impeaching Clinton backfired against the poor Republicans and then Napolitano reminded everyone that if Clinton hadn’t been impeached he wouldn’t have ignored Osama bin Laden, even though he admits that bin Laden attacked “in the early days of the Bush administration”.
These are the same people who will whine if you blame Bush correctly for the economic mess the country is in. In their minds, Clinton caused 911 because he should have left office when he was impeached. Try not to get lost in the crazy.
Here’s the point of the hearings today, and this is important because it clues us into where they are going. Judge Napolitano tells us that the Republicans may enact a resolution, “Will it lead to impeachment? I don’t know, but it will further diminish and destroy the trust he (Obama) once had with the American people.”
That resolution is what could lead to impeachment. Fox is trying to help the Republicans whip up a public fury to call for impeachment. This call for impeachment will be as good as an impeachment for them, because it will allow Republicans to use the soundbites and run against Obama in 2014 instead of having to come up with an actual platform.
How does Napolitano know ahead of time, since this was taped yesterday, that Obama will be found guilty in these GOP-led House hearings? Oh, I kid. No one thinks that Republicans are looking for facts.

The Secret Agenda Behind House Republican ACA Hearings is Obama Impeachment was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Tue, Dec 3rd, 2013 — All Rights Reserved

10 Outrages and Crazy Statements by Right-Wingers This Week: Pope Provokes Free-Market Freakout

10 Outrages and Crazy Statements by Right-Wingers This Week: Pope Provokes Free-Market Freakout

  Tea Party and the Right  

AlterNet / By Janet Allon

 

The right freaks out about a compassionate pope and transgendered people, and spews some really bizarre conspiracy theories.

Photo Credit: neneo/Shutterstock.com

November 30, 2013  |  

 

Before the Thanksgiving floats, there was the usual parade of right-wing nuts this week, many of whom became apoplectic after Pope Francis’ much-publicized Joy of the Gospel document, which critiqued unfettered capitalism and insinuated that thoroughly discredited trickle-down economics is naïve and just plain wrong.
1. Stuart Varney lectures Pope Francis about capitalism.
Not even the pope is safe from the wrath of Fox. How dare the pope attack “deified markets” and the idolatry of money? Who does he think he is? God?
Fox Business host Stuart Varney was just stewing about the pontiff’s remarks. “Capitalism, in my opinion, is a liberator,” he lectured Pope Francis from his television pulpit. “The free choice of millions of people is the essence of freedom. In my opinion, society benefits most when people are free to pursue their own self-interest. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it is not.”
It isn’t. It just isn’t.
Oh, yeah, and another thing. The pope has no business mixing politics with religion. Especially when his political views diverge with those of Fox. Varney again:

“I go to church to save my soul. It’s got nothing to do with my vote. Pope Francis has linked the two. He has offered direct criticism of a specific political system. He has characterized negatively that system. I think he wants to influence my politics.”

Pope John Paul II was much more to Varney’s liking because he was very against communism, and very into private property. He never made rich people feel bad for having too much, while millions of others went without.
2. Cliff Kinkaid: Marxists have infiltrated the Catholic Church.
The problem goes a lot deeper than Stu Varney (and Rush Limbaugh) had feared. The Catholic Church itself is infiltrated with Marxists. This conspiracy theory is brought to you by the right-wing, misnamed Accuracy in Media director, Cliff Kincaid.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I’m not here to beat up on the pope,” Kinkaid insisted in a video recently uploaded to YouTube. “That’s not my job. But I can read. I can read this document. I can see what he is saying, and I can tell you right now that this is a very, very disappointing document, and it makes me wonder about the future of the Roman Catholic Church in this world and what they’re heading towards.”
Kinkaid says he has proof that there is an evil commie plot in the Roman Catholic Church, that it supports one world government and that Pope Francis is using “flowery language” to camouflage this sinister plot, or  “what we might euphemistically call a new world order, a new world economic order.”
But he is not attacking the Manchurian Pope.
3. Pam Geller: How dare the Pope actually read the Koran!
It’s not the communism that Islamophobic blogger/activist Pam Geller is worried about with Pope Francis. It’s how nice he is to Muslims. It’s downright unChristian of him to imply that there might be Muslims who don’t want to kill the rest of us. He obviously condones the killing of Christians.
Talk about a leap of faith.
“At a time when Christianity worldwide is under siege by Islamic jihadists, the leader of the Catholic Church claims that the Quran teaches non-violence. As Christians across the Muslim world live in abject terror and fear kidnapping, rape and slaughter to the bloodcurdling cries of ‘Allahu akbar,’ the pope gives papal sanction to the savage,” Geller wrote on her blog.

What the pope actually did in his apostolic exhortation, which has sent shockwaves throughout the right-wing wackosphere, was to contrast “violent fundamentalism” with “authentic Islam.” The latter, he wrote, was “opposed to every form of violence.”

“How does he know that? When did he become an imam?” Geller writes.
Because you have to be an imam to read the Quran. Geller has read a few passages as well, especially the ones about slaughtering Christians in the name of jihad. Wait, so does that make her an imam?
4. Jeb Bush: Obama is taking revenge on Catholics by moving Vatican embassy.
So, even though the pope is a socialist and a Muslim, for some reason our socialist Muslim president is out to get the Catholic Church.
Jeb Bush took it upon himself to perpetuate the Republican lie that President Obama is attacking Catholics by relocating the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican. He’s very vindictive, you know, the president. And he wants to punish Catholics for the Church’s opposition to Obamacare. When Obama did all those mea culpas about the problems with Obamacare, that was just code for blaming the Catholic Church.
Here’s what former Florida governor Bush tweeted out last Wednesday:

"Why would our President close our Embassy to the Vatican? Hopefully, it is not retribution for Catholic organizations opposing Obamacare."

Jeb is not the first Bush to be willfully ignorant of history and geography. A modicum of research reveals that the process of moving the embassy from its current location to the compound at the U.S. Embassy to Italy actually began under Jeb’s brother, President George W., whose administration purchased the buildings. The new location is actually a tenth of a mile closer to the Vatican. And, just for knowing, many Catholic organizations supported the Affordable Care Act.
But, hey, since when did actual facts get in the way of an ad hominem political attack on the country’s first black president?
5. Birther preacher Manning: Obama had mother of his lovechild killed.
Despite the pope’s apparent sanity, there was still plenty of lunacy in the right-wing pulpit this week. Take birther preacher (yes, that’s a category) Rev. James David Manning, pastor of Atlah World Missionary Church, who leveled this bizarre accusation: Remember the apparently mentally ill woman who was shot and killed after she tried to ram her car into a barrier outside the White House in October? Her name was Miriam Carey, and that was no random, tragic incident. According to Manning, that woman was the mother of Barack Obama’s illegitimate child.
The proof, says the good reverend—who also believes Michelle Obama was born a man and that the president was born in Kenya—will come when Miriam Carey’s young child is given a paternity test. Just to make extra sure.
While the incident is being investigated, neither the family nor their attorney has suggested this conspiracy. Their denial of the conspiracy, says Manning, is just more proof that Obama had his secret baby mama killed.
That’s the wonderful thing about conspiracy theories. Everything proves them right.
6. Dinesh D’Souza: Obama is a grown-up Trayvon. I take it back. No, I stand by it. No, I take it back.
Conservative provocateur Dinesh D’Souza called President Barack Obama a "Grown-Up Trayvon” on his Twitter page, earlier this week. “I am thankful this week when I remember that America is big enough and great enough to survive Grown-Up Trayvon in the White House!” was the tweet, according to Politico.
Then he deleted it. Then he defended it, saying the President himself had said he was like Trayvon, showing a deep understanding of the President’s compassionate speech. Then he deleted that.
Make up your racist mind, D’Souza.
7. Colorado school board member recommends castration for trans people.
Intolerance and hate comes in so many packages—this time, it's a little old white lady in Colorado who holds a small amount of local power. It came to light this week in Gawker, that Katherine Svenson, a school board member for the Delta County school district, recently suggested that transgender students not be allowed to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender identity unless they have been “castrated.”
Lovely.
“Massachusetts and California have passed laws relating to calling a student, irrespective of his biological gender, letting him perform as the gender he thinks he is, or she is,” Svenson said at the meeting. “I just want to emphasize: not in this district. Not until the plumbing’s changed. There would have to be castration in order to pass something like that around here.”
Given the chance to walk back those inflammatory remarks when questioned by a local news station, Svenson declined.
“I don’t have a problem if some boys think they are girls,” she said. “I’m just saying as long as they can impregnate a woman, they’re not going to go in the girls’ locker-room.”
(h/t Gawker)
8. Klingenschmitt: The devil sent transgendered boys to rape your daughters.
Discharged former Navy chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt has similar qualms about transgendered people. They are out to rape your daughters; the “demon of rape” sent them, Klingenschmitt ranted on his Internet broadcast recently. Even when the transgendered person is really young, like 6-year-old Colorado girl Coy Mathis, who was born a boy.
“He has been dressed as a girl by his parents because his parents have a political agenda to push these coed bathroom bills into Colorado state law,” Klingenschmitt declared, without any apparent evidence or need for evidence.
The parents, who have had the wisdom to accept their kid for what she is, and fight for her right to be who she is, are “abusive,” according to Klingenschmitt, and they are part of a broader movement, “to violate your daughters.”
Changing your gender identity to carry out rape. That’s a lot of trouble to go through.
(h/t: Right-Wing Watch)
9. Florida Tea Partier: GOP ‘gay thugs’ are forcing employers to hire effeminate males and masculine women.
The author of this little piece of absurdity is one Danita Kilcullen, co-founder of the Fort Lauderdale Tea Party, who is very upset that 10 Republicans joined Democrats to approve the Employment Non-Discrimation Act (ENDA) in the Senate. She blames that “thug organization,” the Log Cabin Republicans, for this turn of events, and promises that the act will force employers to “hire someone with orange hair, body/neck/face covered with tattoos, multiple piercings, or a man in a dress … or for that matter, a demonstrative effeminate male or purposeful butch-looking female,” according to an email obtained by the Broward County/Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel.
That would be terrible, especially if that orange-haired, tattooed, pierced person could actually do the job.
10. Alec Baldwin: Gay Fundamentalists?
Alec Baldwin, liberal actor with an anger problem and a streak of homophobia, flailed around this week after his temper got him into trouble once again, and cost him his flagging TV show. First, he compared his lashing out at a no-doubt extremely annoying paparazzo allegedly with a homophobic slur to Martin Bashir's suggestion that Sarah Palin be subjected to the slave punishment of defecation in her mouth. (Bashir later apologized. We forgive him.)
When that didn’t work, Baldwin blamed “gay fundamentalists” for his demise.
We just have one question, Alec: What are gay fundamentalists?

Conversations With A Tea Party Patriot: Is Obama Bisexual Or Homosexual?

Conversations With A Tea Party Patriot: Is Obama Bisexual Or Homosexual? (VIDEO)

 
June 16, 2013 | Filed under: Right wing hatred,Videos | Posted by: Kimberley Johnson

Are you a liberal? Well, according to this
scholarTea Party person, you are brainwashed. That “Jewish guy,” what’s his name, is funding liberalism and we are all sheep.
But the burning question, the real debate, is whether or not President Obama is homosexual or bisexual. Yes. They are seriously discussing this. Aside from calling him a Muslim, a Kenyan, a pot smoking Socialist, a Communist and a terrorist, he wants to take away your guns and he beats seven-month old fetus babies over the head.
 Her news sources? Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and “informative” Tea Party meetings.
Seriously, these people are scary and they vote. These are the folks complaining that Sarah Palin isn’t president.
Watch and weep.

---

Kimberley A. Johnson (BIO) – A.K.A. The Anti Coulter is the author of The Virgin Diaries and an activist for women’s rights. Like her on Facebook, Twitter or friend her on FB HERE.

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign

By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson

Monday, November, 25th, 2013, 7:46 am

Traitors Paul E. Vallely and Charles Jones

World Net Daily yesterday celebrated the idea that the time has come for the U.S. military to step in and force Obama to resign, a poll showing that 79 percent (822 votes) feel that the military should “Court martial our commander in chief for treason against our nation and its defense.” And WND managed to do it without ever once mentioning that the whole idea of a military coup – which is what they’re talking about – is unconstitutional. Or that there is something inherently creepy and banana republic-like about ex-generals keeping an eye on a twice legally elected president:

After one of them called for the “forced resignations” of President Obama and congressional leaders in response to multiple grievances, including the alleged political purge of hundreds of senior military officers, two retired U.S. generals are creating a citizens’ commission to scrutinize Obama administration actions on national security and economic issues.
“America’s Provisional Leadership Council” will look at major concerns, as outlined by Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely and Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones, in an eight-point paper titled “The Americans Project.”
…
In calling for the forced resignations of Obama and the leadership of Congress, Vallely outlined suggestions for nationwide rallies and said a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”

You might be interested to know that Vallely, an Islamophobe, is senior military analyst for Fox News and that Jones, an apparently VERY angry old white man, wrote an open letter in support of birther Orly Taitz, claiming that the president was “possibly [a] citizen of Kenya.”
We are told that “In their paper, Vallely and Jones call for adherence to the Constitution with strict congressional oversight of all executive actions.”
What a great idea for saving our Constitution! Except…
NOTHING in the United States Constitution provides for using force to terminate a presidency. NOTHING. Yet the claim made here is that this would be done in order to protect the Constitution. Yes, protect the Constitution by violating it.
Interesting concept. Something that would make sense only to a tea party mind.
It’s kinda funny too, in a way, in that these generals are angry at Obama for “forcing resignations.” Did they forget their oath? Did they forget that the U.S. president is the “commander-in-chief”?

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1

Did they forget that the president was legally elected according to the Constitution and that neither a military coup nor leading a civilian uprising would not be in accord with the Constitution they swore to uphold?

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

This is Vallely back in 2010 telling a bunch of Republicans in Virginia City, Montana, about his plans:


Perhaps he doesn’t remember the significance of the oaths he is talking about here? Is it possible he does not see that violating the Constitution does not protect the Constitution?

The current crop of leaders, he said, must face a “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grassroots protests and social networking which he envisions can be undertaken through his organization. And example of a “forced resignation,” he said, was that of President Richard Nixon.
“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” Vallely said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”
…
Vallely and Jones in their paper say “The Americans” leadership has developed workable solutions to “help solve and fix what has without question stunted our nation’s ability to clearly, legally and peacefully function as a constitutional republic.”

Never mind that Nixon – who, unlike Obama, actually did something wrong – was not forced to resign – he chose to resign rather than face impeachment.
Vallely, if he really cares about this country, should be pointing the finger at the tea party anarchists in the House of Representatives, at the Citizens United ruling, and at a host of other problems that can be laid at the door of Republican ideology and governance from 2001-2008.
Republicans really can’t get over the fact that Americans have rejected them – twice, and that their brief tea party resurgence in 2010 did not imply that President Obama relinquish his role as president to a small band of lunatics in the House of Representatives. It did not alter Democratic control of the Senate. The Constitution did not change in 2010 from what it was in 2008. Barack Obama is still the president of the United States. He was re-elected president of the United States by 5 million votes in 2012.
Recent elections and polls show support for the Republican and tea parties to be at an all-time low. Deadly diseases are more popular than the Republicans in Congress.
What part of this do you treasonous clowns not get?
You can stomp your little feet if you want, sure. You can rant and rave, which is something you have shown us all you love to do. But you don’t get to shut down the government because you don’t like how America voted. How is that patriotic – or constitutional? And you certainly don’t get to impeach the president simply because you don’t like him, and what in the world gives you the idea that the military can remove a legally elected president because you don’t like the results of an election?
Don’t even pretend that you are doing this for us. What you want has nothing to do with what polls and elections show the American people want. Don’t even pretend you are doing this to protect the Constitution. Neither is true.
You are conservative reactionaries. You are doing this for yourselves, because you don’t like the fact that we as a culture have moved on, that the American people are no longer interested in what you have to offer. You ran our country into the ground and we aren’t going to let you do it again.
Not on our watches. Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people. It is no more government of, by, and for the military than it is of, by and for the corporations or of, by, and for God.
If you don’t like the results of the last election, win the next election if you can, a possibility that is daily – thanks to your own insane behavior and ideas and actions – becoming more remote.

Ex-Generals Say President Obama Must be Forced to Resign was written by Hrafnkell Haraldsson for PoliticusUSA.

© PoliticusUSA, Mon, Nov 25th, 2013 — All Rights Reserved
 

Republicans Outraged Over President Obama and Gettysburg Really Won’t Like Reading This

Republicans Outraged Over President Obama and Gettysburg Really Won’t Like Reading This

November 20, 2013 By Allen Clifton 

I love how the right-wing media blatantly treats conservative voters like idiots, knowing that they’ll eat it right up.  See, while liberals like myself often call Republicans ignorant, the right-wing media seems to feel the same way.  How else could they deliberately create “outrage” over events they know to be completely inaccurate?
Because they know conservative voters are just dumb enough to fall for it.  The right-wing media knows that they can simply make up almost anything they want, “report” it to the masses of conservatives just itching to find something new to hate President Obama for, and Republican voters will believe practically anything they say.
A few months ago it was “Umbrellagate” that caused conservatives to spit their venom toward the president.  Then more recently it was Michelle Obama encouraging children to drink more water that seemed to offend conservatives to their very core.  Now it’s President Obama not going to the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, and during his reading of that very same Gettysburg Address he didn’t utter the words “under God.”
First, let’s address his lack of attendance on the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg.  Here’s a fun fact for conservatives: No president since William Howard Taft, who went in 1909, has attended Gettysburg on its anniversary.  Not even their hero Ronald Reagan.  Who, by the way, never visited Gettysburg while he was president.
Aww, too bad.  So much for that pointless conspiracy the right-wing media blatantly made up and millions of ignorant conservatives took off and ran with.

Then on to an issue many conservatives have throw an even bigger fit about — President Obama reading the Gettysburg Address without saying the words “under God.”
It’s true, in Lincoln’s speech he did say the words, “under God.”  But they weren’t actually written in the original speech — which is what was given to President Obama by Civil War scholar Ken Burns.  Burns gave him a version of the speech called a “Nicolay Copy.”  A “Nicolay Copy” is in reference to John Nicolay, the White House staffer who preserved the speech.
Darn, strike two for made up right-wing conspiracies.
But they are a perfect 2-0 in this for proving that they are absolutely terrible at knowing United States history.
Oh, and just for good measure, our Pledge of Allegiance originally never contained the words “one nation under God” either.  In fact, our pledge was written by a Christian socialist and the words “under God” weren’t added until 1954.
This “outrage” has just been another perfect example of conservatives manufacturing fake stories to use in a pathetic attempt to attack President Obama.  Just more of the same from the people whose careers depend on the abject stupidity of the average conservative.

About Allen Clifton
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address Cancel

Post was not sent - check your email addresses!

Email check failed, please try again

Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.

Right-Wing Noise Machine Fabricates Gettysburg Address Omission To Attack Obama

Obama Was Asked To Recite Lincoln's Original Draft, Which Did Not Contain Phrase "Under God"

Blog ››› November 19, 2013 12:46 PM EST ››› TYLER HANSEN

 

President Obama's recitation of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is sparking hysteria from the right-wing media who slammed the president for omitting the phrase "under God." But ironically, in their hurry to attack the president, they omitted the fact that Obama was reading the first draft of the speech -- a draft that did not include "under God" -- at the request of filmmaker Ken Burns.
To commemorate the 150^th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, filmmaker Ken Burns compiled footage of important national figures -- including Obama and all the living former presidents -- reciting portions of the speech.
On November 19, right-wing radio host Chris Plante accused Obama of omitting the phrase "under God" from his recitation of the Gettysburg Address. Other conservative media outlets like the Drudge Report, The Daily Caller, and National Review Online's The Corner promptly ran with the story. WMAL, which hosts The Chris Plante Show, remarked about the news:

One nation under God?  Under President Obama, maybe not so much.
 As first reported on WMAL's Chris Plante Show Tuesday, the Commander-in-Chief joined a cast of 61 other noted lawmakers, politicians, news anchors and celebrities, including every living President, in reciting the Gettysburg Address, which President Abraham Lincoln delivered on November 19, 1863.
The dignitaries all delivered the address as Lincoln had written it, including the phrase, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." (Click to listen).  Curiously, however, in his version of the address, President Obama omitted the words "under God."

Obama's recitation was not 'curious,' it was accurate -- Burns requested that President Obama read the 'Nicolay Version' of the Address, which was Lincoln's first draft of the Address and does not contain the phrase "under God." The relevant text of the Nicolay version, which Obama recites, reads (emphasis added):

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The right-wing media's rush to hysteria and ignorance of the facts in this case is ironic: Burns' project is called Learn the Address.
UPDATE: After this post's publication, the Daily Caller acknowledged the error in an update to its original post:

The "Learn the Address" website notes that "We asked President Obama to read ... the 'Nicolay Version'" of the Gettsyburg Address, which omits the words "under God." That disclosure does not appear alongside Obama's video on the site.

UPDATE 2: National Review Online's The Corner also published an update to its original post:

During today's White House press briefing, press secretary Jay Carney claimed that President Obama had read from the version of the Gettysburg Address given to him by documentarian Ken Burns. This appears to be the case. As Mediaite notes, the website for Burns' upcoming project, Learn the Address, says that there are five manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address and that Obama read from the "Nicolay Version." This version of the manuscript is believed to be the earliest of the copies of the Address, and it does omit the phrase "under God." Three of the five manuscripts do include the phrase.

Conservatives flip out after Obama reads original Gettysburg Address without ‘under God’ (via Raw Story )

Conservative websites on Tuesday expressed outraged after President Barack Obama read an original version of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which did not include the words “under God.” In celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg…

---

Conservatives flip out after Obama reads original Gettysburg Address without ‘under God’

By David Edwards

Conservative websites on Tuesday expressed outraged after President Barack Obama read an original version of President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which did not include the words “under God.”

In celebration of the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, filmmaker Ken Burns asked dozens of public figures to read the speech.

According to Media Matters, Burns specifically asked the president to read from the “Nicolay Version,” which was written before the phrase “under God” was added:

“It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The phrase, however, was changed slightly by the time the speech was delivered by Lincoln: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

By Tuesday morning, the news had become one of the top stories on conservative websites like the Drudge Report, The Daily Caller, the National Review Online and WMAL. The Daily Caller did eventually correct their report to note that Burns had requested the “Nicolay Version” of the speech.

For weeks, conservatives have both been attacking the president for not attending a commemoration ceremony at Gettysburg and saying that he shouldn’t attend at all.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger told Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on Tuesday that Lincoln had set out to unify the country and Obama should not attend the commemoration because he was dividing the country.

“The thing that Lincoln said at the Gettysburg Address is that they were gathered there for what he called unfinished business, and the unfinished business was the Civil War, the liberation of the slaves,” Henninger explained. “And I remarked that the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 was in many ways completing the circle of Lincoln’s unfinished business. But at the same time that Gettysburg Address was about unifying the country, the Civil War he had fought to bring the country together.”

“It seemed to me if Obama came under those circumstances and spoke about unifying the country, it would not sit well with half the country, who so disagrees with him,” he added.

But Henninger also seemed unsatisfied with Obama’s decision not to speak because he said it was “unconceivable that the president would not have taken the opportunity to talk about a president he so admired on this special day.”

Watch this video from Fox News, broadcast Nov. 19, 2013.

Right flubs Gettysburg story - twice

11/19/13 03:24 PM

By Steve Benen

It’s not exactly a secret that President Obama looks to Abraham Lincoln as a political hero. When Obama was inaugurated, he used Lincoln’s Bible, and when it came time to place items of significance in the Oval Office, Obama chose a Lincoln bust and the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

With this in mind, on the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, the right has chosen an odd story to complain about.

Fox News is manufacturing outrage over Obama’s decision not to attend the commemoration ceremony for the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address and baselessly speculating that Obama’s resentment over the nation’s unfinished business “in bringing the country and its races together” may be the cause. […]

 

Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade discussed with Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger whether it is “inappropriate for our president to bypass” the commemoration ceremony of the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address during the November 19 edition of Fox & Friends. At one point Kilmeade asked whether Henninger thought Obama was refusing to attend because “after that address and after the Civil War we still weren’t a perfect union? We still had to wait for the Civil Rights Act and so many – the integration of schools, Brown vs. the Board of Education?” Henninger replied, “I think probably that President Obama does think the unfinished business remains unfinished in bringing the country and its races together.”

It’s worth noting that Fox isn’t the only one raising a fuss – conservative outlets have been complaining about Obama “snubbing” Gettysburg for months.

 

There are, however, some angles to this the right has overlooked. First, there have been 28 presidents since Lincoln, and 27 of them did not commemorate the anniversaries of the Gettysburg Address – and this includes Reagan, who did nothing on the 125th anniversary, and never visited Gettysburg as president. (The exception was William Howard Taft.) Obama, in other words, is doing largely what nearly all of his predecessors have done without controversy.

 

Second, I’m trying to imagine the uproar from some of these same conservative critics if Obama did go to Gettysburg to mark the occasion today. We can all probably imagine the predictable rhetoric: Obama thinks he’s Lincoln! The arrogance! Why is he trying to politicize a cemetery? This must have something to do with distracting us from the health care website! And maybe Benghazi!

 

Making matters slight worse is, well, this.

President Obama’s recitation of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is sparking hysteria from the right-wing media who slammed the president for omitting the phrase “under God.”

The right’s apoplexy on this was extremely broad – National Review, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Drudge, and others ran furious pieces expressing outrage that Obama had the nerve to omit the phrase “under God” from his recent recitation of the Gettysburg Address. Rush Limbaugh speculated that the president did this on purpose to “get a rise out of conservatives.”

 

The truth is less provocative. Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns had a variety of prominent figures – including all five living presidents – to read portions of the Address for a video. Burns relied on the text of the first draft of the speech – which did not include the words “under God.”

 

In other words, the right became apoplectic about Obama not using a phrase Lincoln didn’t write.

 

Conservative media has struggled badly of late, with a list of ignominious failures too long to list. Today does little to improve its reputation.

Gettysburg Address 'outrage' provides handy checklist of stupidest people in America

Gettysburg Address 'outrage' provides handy checklist of stupidest people in America

by HunterFollow

 

attribution: FoxNews.com (screenshot)

You're kidding, right?

The anniversary of the Gettysburg Address does not seem at first glance to be a subject steeped in controversy, but that is because you are not a dull-minded hack whose quest for new controversies must never fall below the speed of 50 miles per hour, lest the whole movement die.

Obama Snubs 150th Anniversary of Gettysburg Address

I'm going to spare you the actual article under that headline. I first saw the premise being propped up yesterday as a prospective "scandal" when it slithered past in a Twitter stream via the apparently-still-around Breitbart conspiracy site. I did not think much of it, because I am not a shit-for-brains, but apparently I misunderestimated just how obsessively Actual Conservative Pundits troll the conspiracy sites for fodder. Fox & Friends took it up this morning, and if that isn't ironclad proof that the story passes nicely under the you-must-be-this-stupid-to-enter bar than nothing is.

Fox News's Brian Kilmeade discussed with Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger whether it is "inappropriate for our president to bypass" the commemoration ceremony of the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address during the November 19 edition of Fox & Friends. At one point Kilmeade asked whether Henninger thought Obama was refusing to attend because "after that address and after the Civil War we still weren't a perfect union? We still had to wait for the Civil Rights Act and so many -- the integration of schools, Brown vs. the Board of Education?" Henninger replied, "I think probably that President Obama does think the unfinished business remains unfinished in bringing the country and its races together."

Christ, people. Just ... Christ. More on the "outrage" below the fold.

In "response" to tweeted questions by the two outlets peddling the story, resident White House moron wrangler Dan Pfeiffer cheekily suggested that the White House had other priorities. He once again neglected to recognize that morons do not understand sarcasm:

In response to a journalist's Twitter query about what could be more important, Pfeiffer wrote: "Oh, I don't know, there's this whole website thing that someone suggested might destroy the [Democratic] Party."

... which naturally led to actual goddamn stories suggesting that Obama did not go to Gettysburg because of Obamacarez. I suppose the main question here is which of these various shameless dunderhacks was the one who first came up with this as a plausible attack line—I am loathe to pin that on the Breitbart crowd when it could have been tossed over their transom by an even more eager shit-for-brains, or perhaps there is a collection of fabled shit-for-brains pundits that gets together each evening to determine who among them has the most foam-laden idea for an attack piece and they all clap their little hands together and run with it. That would mean all the others saw it floating around and said I believe I shall run with this, which makes them even more goddamn stupid and hackish than the original stupid hacks.
Now here is the key point, dear reader, and the reason why shit for brains ought not to be considered a crass insult at this point but merely a reasonable medical diagnosis. In all of American post-Lincoln history, only one sitting president has ever gone to Gettysburg on the anniversary of the address. Reagan did not go. The Bushii did not go. JFK did not go. Roosevelt never went, nor Nixon, nor President Biff the Unholy, Destroyer of Worlds. That honor apparently goes to Taft, and it has been a long damn time since anyone in the national press furrowed their brows and pondered what William Howard Taft would do in a given situation.
So no, we do not have to take any of this seriously. Nor do we have to take the purveyors of such obviously stupid faux-scandals seriously. Nor do we have to treat them with respect, or pretend for a bare minute that they have anything worthwhile to say about our political discourse that could not be better said by contemplating the contents of a litter box. The problem here is that there is no shame to be had in peddling conspiratorial trash in public. In better days people would cross to the other side of the street so that they would not have to listen to the nice man on the large box preaching about how President Obama is probably not attending the event only one other president in history (well, two, counting Lincoln himself) attended, and how that probably means the current president resents the tardiness of Brown v. Board of Education, and when a newspaper man walks up to that fellow with a notebook in hand, nodding and scribbling things down, that does not make it suddenly respectable. It only means there are two nuts standing on a street corner instead of one.
Cross to the other side, America. For the sake of pride and patriotism, will you just shun these damn people already?

Originally posted to Hunter on Tue Nov 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

10 worst right-wing statements of the week — abortion typhoon edition

One Christian historian has decided women's rights around the world helped power deadly Typhoon Haiyan

Janet Allon, AlterNet

This image provided by NASA shows Typhoon Haiyan (Credit: AP/NASA)

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Rand Paul may have assumed the mantle of Wacko-in-Chief this week, but lots of lesser known right-wing nutjobs had banner weeks as well.
1. Christian historian: Abortions caused Typhoon Haiyan.
This might come as news to the grieving survivors of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines: the cause of the powerful storm was abortion. Not necessarily their abortions, but just the fact that anyone has abortions, especially legally, even though abortion is illegal in the Philippines. God is very, very pissed about that, and that’s why he sent a typhoon that killed all those Filipinos on its way to Vietnam. He’s vindictive like that. That is why he is causing all these very destructive and scary storms.
What is not causing any of this climatological havoc is global warming—not that it even exists. Burning fossil fuels is something God actually wants us to do more of. So goes the theory of Christian denialist, oops, we mean “historian” David Barton. The blanket explanation for all this “climate stuff that we can’t explain,” he said this week in a conversation with televangelist Kenneth Copeland, as well as murder and pedophilia, is legalized abortion. America voted for politicians who support abortion rights, and in doing so “opened the door to the curse.”
Here is the historical background. In the good old days, when America was first starting out, Barton explained that if there was really bad weather, leaders would “call for a national day of repentance, humiliation, fasting and prayer … and today we’re saying, ‘Oh no, it’s global warming.’”
That’s how we lost God’s protection. We chose to lose it. What did we expect?
2. Radio host Damon Bruce: Sports are set to the dial of men.
Sports are for men, and Richie Incognito is a man, acting manly in a man’s world. And if you don’t like it, ladies, you can lump it. That is the short version of a nine-minute tirade against women in sports this week by KNBR sports radio host Damon Bruce.
Bruce is mad at women because women are to blame for the suspension of Miami Dolphins guard Richie Incognito after his alleged (and apparently legendary) harassment, bullying and threats against teammate Jonathan Martin drove Martin from the team.

Here’s how the tirade starts:

“A lot of sports has lost its way and I’m gonna tell you, part of the reason is because we’ve got women giving us directions. For some of you, this is going to come across as very misogynistic. I don’t care, because I’m very right. I’m willing to share my sandbox, as long as you remember you’re in my box. I didn’t slip into your box….”

Allowing women to “slip into the box” of professional sports has pretty much ruined sports, Bruce thinks. It has feminized men and made it hard for men to bond the way they like to bond—by being assholes. That’s what Jonathan Martin didn’t understand. Incognito was trying to bond with him when he called him racial slurs and threatened to rape his sister.
Here’s Bruce’s sage advice to women sports journalists who can’t hack it: “If sports get too gruesome for you, go write a restaurant column. Go write a housekeeping column.”
Sweet of him to be concerned.
3. Rand Paul overtakes Ted Cruz as chief Republican wacko bird.
This is a tightly contested race—neck and neck. Lately, Texas Tea Partier Cruz has been relatively subdued since his widely ridiculed Obamacare filibuster which led to the widely reviled government shutdown.

So, Kentucky libertarian Paul was good enough to step into the breach to fulfill the role of what Senator John McCain coined as “chief of the wacko birds.” Paul has distinguished himself in the last week or so with his passionate defense, or is it ignorance, of plagiarism, challenging Rachel Maddow to a duel for repeatedly pointing out that he lifts passages from Wikipedia wholesale for speeches, articles, books, whatever. She’s impugning his honor by doing so, “spreading hate” on him. Besides libertarians don’t attribute stuff; that’s for big government suckers.

A plagiarism scandal, or multiple plagiarism scandals, need not be devastating. Hey, mistakes happen. Admit them and move on, we say. But no, Paul started talking “duel” during an interview with ABC’s “This Week.”
“If, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”
Note to Paul: Toto, you’re not in 19th-century Kentucky anymore.
4. Antonin Scalia brings up the devil in case about prayer.
It’s almost as if there’s a little red guy with horns and a tail sitting on the shoulder of the Supreme Court’s most verbose right-winger, making him say really off-the-wall things. Justice Antonin Scalia just keeps seeing the devil and his worshippers everywhere, bringing them up during oral arguments in a case about the constitutionality of legislative prayer. This, just weeks after a somewhat embarrassing interview in New York magazine in which he gleefully affirmed his belief in the Antichrist. And what’s wrong with that?
During this week’s case, fellow conservative jurist Samuel Alito was asking questions about whether any kind of prayer would be permissible before a legislative session, one that would not offend Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus.
“What about devil worshippers?” Scalia interjected. Laughter ensued. He’s such a card.
His larger point was that not letting people pray before legislative meetings deprives them of their religious freedom, and that it is impossible to design a prayer that satisfies all faiths—not to mention lack thereof.
“What is the equivalent of prayer for someone who is not religious?” Scalia asked. “There are many people who do not believe in God. … If you had an atheist [town] board, you would not have any prayer. I guarantee you.”
After all, who do you think makes people atheists? Guy with the horns, we’re talking to you.
5. Louie Gohmert: Shutdown was necessary to save people from Obamacare.
Two quick refreshers: 1) Obamacare is the “worst law known to man,” worse than slavery, Nuremberg laws, Indian removal act—you get the idea; and 2) Tea Partiers received a drubbing in this week’s election, but seem not to realize it.
Texas Tea Partier Louie Gohmert was out stumping this week, bizarrely bragging that the devastating shutdown was necessary because people would “suffer and potentially die” because of the Affordable Care Act. Yup, nothing kills people faster than health insurance. It is deadly stuff.
He made the statement at a nursing home in East Texas, where he hoped to scare the bejeezus out of seniors so they won’t sign up for the dreaded healthcare coverage. “Anybody that thinks the Affordable Care Act helps seniors doesn’t really understand what’s unaffordable to seniors,” Gohmert helpfully and misleadingly explained. “It makes most of the Medicare Advantage plans go up, but you’ve got to remember, Obamacare actually cut $716 billion from Medicare and seniors rely on Medicare.”
That, of course, is either a lie or make-believe, or both, but since when has that stopped the opponents of Obamacare?
6. Rep. Steve King knows personally—don’t ask him how—that Saddam Hussein purchased uranium from Niger.
Who can forget the fiction that fueled the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was building the bomb, and was ready to use all of it against us or Israel. He got his uranium from Niger, high-level intelligence said. President George Bush even said so in a speech.
Cut to a couple months after “Shock and Awe” and not even Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney or President Bush was standing by that statement. They were misled by some bum intelligence. Sorry. Our bad.
But crazy Iowa Rep. Steve King still believes it because, as he said on Jan Mickelson’s radio show this week: “I have had hands-on evidence that what George Bush said in that State of the Union address was the truth.”
What Bush said was: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
When the claim unraveled, the Bush administration had to eat crow and admit the so-called intelligence was “bogus,” documents “forged.” Spokesman Ari Fleischer admitted the statement should never have found its way into the president’s speech. But nobody took the war back.
But King has “hands-on” knowledge. He just does.
7. Illinois Rep.: Marriage equality has nothing to do with rights; it’s about the Bible.
As the Illinois legislature began to debate whether to join the growing number of enlightened states that have legalized same-sex marriage, State Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Glen Carbon, pointed out that everyone has it bass-ackwards. Our nation was built on “the scriptures, then came the Constitution. Is that not right?”
It was, of course, a rhetorical question. “I think it is,” Kay continued. A brief course in American history could clear this up for the confused legislator, but never mind.
Kay is at a loss to understand why everyone keeps talking about human rights, and civil rights, and equal rights all the time when they talk about marriage equality. What do human rights have to do with a nation built on scripture? Who you gonna believe, that Constitution with its Bill of Rights written by men, or the word of God?
8. Larry Pratt: Trayvon Martin’s broken family is what killed him.
It’s never too late to pile more pain onto the grieving parents and loved ones of slain teenager Trayvon Martin. His killer is free, Trayvon has been blamed for his own death, and now, taking it one step further, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America has suggested that Martin’s dysfunctional family is responsible for the boy’s death.
That’s what he said in an interview with NewsMax’s Steve Malzberg this week: Trayvon Martin was killed because he had a “broken family.”
Who else can you blame? Triggerman, neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman was just lawfully “standing his ground” when he shot unarmed Martin. “Stand Your Ground” laws can’t be to blame because, as Sen. Ted Cruz explained to Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton in a Senate hearing on the controversial law, she’s just “mourning the loss of her son.” Stand-your-ground laws in fact “protect those in African-American communities,” he said.
Facts be damned, gun nuts and Tea Partiers agree. According to Right-Wing Watch, a recent “Tampa Bay Times analysis of stand-your-ground cases in Florida found substantial racial disparities in the application of the law, including that ‘people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time. A national study found a similar disparity.”
But, it’s Trayvon Martin’s family’s fault he’s dead. Probably his mother’s.
9. White, anti-LGBT Texan wins office by pretending to be black.
Dave Wilson, a Houston electrician, has become pretty adept at creating literature for the causes he believes in. While not rewiring people’s homes, he long pursued his sideline of mailing homophobic fliers to thousands of Houston voters attacking the city’s lesbian mayor Annise Parker. His argument is pretty simple. Open homosexuality is bad. It leads to extinction. (Closeted homosexuality, not so much.)
Recently, Wilson expanded his literary efforts into fiction, when he got himself elected to the Houston Community College Board of Trustees by out-and-out pretending to be someone else. He pretended to be a black man, defeating longtime incumbent Bruce Austin, who actually is black, in an overwhelmingly African-American district.
According to Right-Wing Watch, “Wilson’s campaign fliers were filled with black faces that he admits to simply pulling off of websites, along with captions such as ‘Please vote for our friend and neighbor Dave Wilson.’ Another flier announces that he was ‘Endorsed by Ron Wilson,’ which is the name of an African-American former state representative. Only by reading the fine print will voters discover that the ‘Ron Wilson’ who actually endorsed Dave is his cousin. The cousin lives in Iowa.”
Wilson is fine with this whole deception thing. After all, lying is what politicians do, he points out.
10. Nutjob former classmate of Obama reminisces about his cocaine-snorting, gay-hustling high school days.
Scott Lively’s “Defend The Family” website got a real scoop this week with an interview that nutjob preacher James David Manning conducted with Mia Marie Pope, who says—and why would we not believe her?—that she knew President Obama back in high school in Hawaii in the 1970s, when he was a foreigner (this is a birther website, after all) and a gay druggie.
“He very much was within sort of the gay community,” Pope claimed. “And we knew Barry as just common knowledge that girls were never anything that he ever was interested in … He would get with these older white gay men, and this is how we just pretty much had the impression that that’s how he was procuring his cocaine. In other words, he was having sex with these older white guys and that’s how he was getting this cocaine to be able to freebase.”
That clears a lot up.