Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Todd Starnes Wonders Why Obama Wouldn't Offer Condolences To Non-Dead Officer

Fox News' Todd Starnes has been doing a bang up job over the past few months posting remarkably idiotic comments on the Twitters, and he continues that tradition with his most recent tweet:

Yes, Fox News' Todd Starnes does not seem to understand why our racist-in-chief would not offer condolences to the guy who is not currently dead. If Obama did do what Todd wanted, how would that go? "Sorry that Black kid got in the way of your bullets, officer"?

And now that Obama's went ahead and once again offered sympathy to a family of a slain African American teenager, prepare to see the floodgates open for more of this sort of vile, disgusting sewage spewed by every right-wing gasbag in the Party of Lincoln.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Judge Rules Ten Commandments Monument Must Go


BLOOMFIELD, N.M. (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday ruled that a New Mexico city must remove a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from the lawn in front of Bloomfield City Hall.

Senior U.S. District Judge James A. Parker said in his ruling in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that the monument amounts to government speech and has the "principal effect of endorsing religion."

Because of the context and history surrounding the granite monument, Parker said Bloomfield clearly violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. He gave a Sept. 10 deadline for its removal.

The suit was filed in 2012 on behalf of two Bloomfield residents who practice the Wiccan religion.
Peter Simonson, ACLU of New Mexico executive director, called the decision a victory for protection against government-supported religion.

"We firmly support the right of individuals, religious groups, and community associations to publicly display religious monuments, but the government should not be in the business of picking which sets of religious beliefs belong at City Hall," Simonson said Friday.

According to previous court testimony, plaintiff Jane Felix said the display "says that anybody who doesn't agree with this monument on city grounds is an outsider."

"It has no place on City Hall property," Felix said in March.

City attorneys say private individuals erected and paid for the monument under a 2007 city resolution. That resolution allows people to erect historical monuments of their choosing.

 About damn time, I say. It was absurd that the monument managed to stay up as long as it did. The guys who paid for it claimed it was for "historical" purposes, though they seem to be getting history confused with theology.

Definitely good news for supports of separation of Church and State.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Conservative Radio Host Has Had ENOUGH And Actually Goes Galt

Let this be a warning to all you tax and spend Democrats:

Twin Cities talk-show host Jason Lewis made a sudden exit from radio Thursday night, quitting in the middle of his syndicated show, heard locally on Clear Channel’s KTLK (1130 AM).

Reached Friday morning, the conservative commentator said he decided to end “The Jason Lewis Show” to devote his full attention to his fledgling libertarian website,, but also to put his money where his mouth is on taxation and highly regulated businesses.

“There’s a tipping point for everyone and for the economy as well,” he said. “I’m going to try to make certain [Minnesota Gov.] Mark Dayton gets as little of my money as possible going forward. My ending may have been a bit dramatic, but it’s a suitable one, because it’s happening all over. If people who take capital risks keep getting demonized, they will stop playing the game.”
 Oh no! Please don't leave! How will the world go on without another smug, right-wing asshat whining on the radio about how it's so hard to be a rich, White guy these days?

The story doesn't specify whether Lewis will remain in Minnesota or relocate to a more freedom-y state. But assuming he does stay in Minnesota, I don't really see how he would be making sure that Gov. Mark Dayton "gets as little" of his money as possible. The only way I can see that is if Lewis winds up taking in a smaller paycheck from his newest venture than what he would be getting on his radio show. In which case, I would say, good job socking it to the man! That'll teach him!

Lewis made a 15-minute video that the site calls a “parody of what it is like working in a highly regulated industry and some of the events that led to his decision” to end his show., named for John Galt, the protagonist of libertarian hero Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel “Atlas Shrugged,” will be a “marketplace for causes,” said Lewis, who plans to contribute commentary as well. “We want to reward activism, but have fun as well, offering rewards for points.”
The site’s members are part of a virtual economy that uses “Galtcoins,” earned through dividends, voting and updates, to invest in such causes as supporting the Keystone XL pipeline or contributing to a political candidate’s campaign.
The site was launched after an independent crowdfunding campaign last November that raised nearly $800,000, largely on the strength of on-air promotions by Lewis, whose show was carried by more than 50 stations nationwide. According to the site’s co-founder and president, tech start-up consultant Alex Huff, most contributions were in the $25 range, with fewer than 10 topping $1,000.
The 7,000-member site had been invitation-only, Lewis said, but the goal is to expand membership and increase capital.

I watched the entire 15 minutes of that "parody" video so you don't have to (the things I do for my viewer base), and here are the lowlights:

- Libertarians/Conservatives to this day still do not understand what a "parody" is supposed to be.
- Seriously, this is just 15 minutes of this smug douchebag walking around, regurgitating right-wing economic talking points.
- Lewis has this female assistant in the beginning who he mocks for not paying any taxes (yes, he's mocking his own employee). But wait, why isn't she paying taxes? Is she an unpaid intern? Cause that would be why, asshole!
- Taxation is theft, as usual.
- He cut off an entire portion of the Ed Show explaining why professional golfer, Phil Mickelson wasn't being accurate about his tax bill, and also why it's in his interest to pay them. Wouldn't want his audience to see that now, would we?
- If you keep taxing all the rich people, there won't be any rich people left to tax.
- The video ends with Lewis abruptly quitting his job at the beginning of his show, completely ignoring his assistant's reaction of being shocked and upset at what will happen to her now that she's unemployed. Just to remind everyone, it's Lewis who we're supposed to be feel sympathetic for in this scene, apparently.

Now if only we can have every right-wing mouth piece on radio and T.V. follow suit, that would really teach that commie Obama a lesson.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Republicans Refuse To Pass Bill That Honors Pope Francis Because He Sounds Like Obama

From the party of Bible thumping, folks:

A popular piece of legislation that seeks to honor Pope Francis is stuck in Congress.

With time running out on the Capitol Hill calendar, the lawmakers who crafted the bipartisan measure are getting impatient with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The resolution, written by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.), congratulates Francis on his March 2013 election and recognizes “his inspirational statements and actions.”
The seemingly innocuous resolution was referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which hasn’t acted on it. The panel didn’t comment for this article.

The inaction and the lack of a white smoke signal from Boehner have sparked speculation that politics is at play.

Only 19 of the 221 co-sponsors are Republicans. The dearth of GOP members on the measure could be attributable to assertions that the pope is “too liberal,” according to a Republican backer of the legislation.

The source noted that Francis last year denounced “trickle-down economics.”

Some Republicans believe the pope is “sounding like [President] Obama. [The pope] talks about equality — he actually used the term ‘trickle-down economics,’ which is politically charged,” the GOP official said.

I never tire of seeing Republicans turn their backs on religious figures whenever they advocate something that goes against the "correct" Republican teachings of Christianity.

If Republicans are annoyed at Pope Francis for attacking our beloved job creators, imagine how they'll react once they learn about that Jesus Christ fellow.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Dick Morris Says Power Hungry Tyrant Obama Will Probably Resign

Remember Dick Morris? He's the toe-sucking little troll who predicted Mitt Romney would win the last election with 325 electoral votes, and a whole slew of other, equally idiotic predictions. The guy was so inept, incompetent, and completely wrong about everything that even Fox News (!) decided to give him the boot.

Fortunately for Dick, he still appears to be respectable enough to warrant interviews from certain other outlets in wingnut media, such as the folks at Newsmax:

President Barack Obama has been criticized for continuing to headline political fundraisers while the country is facing so many crises, but veteran political commentator Dick Morris says the president doesn't seem to care if it hurts his image. 
"I think Obama has almost 'cashed-it-in' at far as that goes," Morris told Ed Berliner on "MidPoint" on Newsmax TV Thursday.

"I think he's removed, distracted, aloof," he said.

"If I open the newspaper tomorrow and I learn that Obama resigned, I wouldn't be surprised," Morris added.
 Yes, which is exactly why he's constantly going to those fundraisers that Republicans keep bitching about. Morris continues, with what I assume is supposed to be evidence for why Obama will resign:

Morris also appeared on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV Thursday, telling hosts J.D. Hayworth and John Bachman that the president's ultimate goal is "to convert the United States into a one-party nation . . . where there is only one functioning party and a bunch of splintered opposition parties."

To reach his goal, Obama "is mobilizing all the powers of the federal government to achieve that."
Morris contends that he is doing that through his effort to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants so he can "bring as many Democratic voters into the country as he possibly can," by increasing the number of Americans who are on welfare, by increasing the union rolls "so that they can control their votes and their campaign contributions," by blocking the "filibuster for judicial confirmations . . . so that his executive actions can be approved," by eliminating the Electoral College, and by combating voter ID laws.

Such despotic machinations are totally what you would expect from someone who plans on calling it quits some time next week. The line between Obama and Der Fuhrer blurs with every passing day. 

Watch the video below:

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Newest, Oddest Conspiracy Theory From Republicans On Obamacare: Obama Secretly Agrees With Halbig Decision On Subsidies

Have any of you heard of Gruber-gate? It's the hip, new "scandal" that all the conservative kids are talking about nowadays! See, last week, the U.S. court of appears for the District of Columbia ruled in a 2-1 decision that health insurance subsidies would not be eligible to people who were in states that didn't have a state insurance exchange. This was definitely not good news for President Obama and his allies. Many on the pro-Obamacare side have argued that the rationale for panel's ruling makes no sense whatsoever:

The 4th Circuit has the most plausible, commonsense reading of a badly drafted part of a 2,400-page statute. The alternative is that Congress included in Obamacare the seeds of its own destruction, giving naysaying governors the power to kill it—without ever saying so. The history of passing this law was full of devious twists and turns, but that form of willful self-destruction is not among them.

The anti-Obamacare crowd however, obviously disagreed, and last week some conservative columnists unearthed the smoking gun. Ryan Radia, from the libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, discovered a video of one of Obamacare's leading architects, Jonathan Gruber, seemingly agreeing with the conservative interpretation. The same day, John Sexton at Breitbart released an audio clip of Gruber making the same argument at a different venue. Needless to say, the entire world of conservatism was utterly ecstatic about this brilliant display of ownage. As conservative writer, Moe Lane says:

Possibly the most damning thing about this video is that Jonathan Gruber stated, quite forthrightly, that the decision to deny subsidies to federal exchange policies was deliberate, and designed to push states into starting their own exchanges. That is… extremely unhelpful to the current Democratic narrative.

Now, this might make Gruber and the pro-Obamacare crowd look bad, but this supposed smoking gun managed to do something else as well. It changed the argument that the plaintiffs were using in Halbig, from arguing on technical grounds, to arguing on the original intent of the law's framers.

Therefore, this brings up a question that I haven't really seen anyone ask. If the original intent of the Obama administration was to only allow subsidies to be available to states with their own exchanges, then....shouldn't Obama have been cheering the D.C. court ruling? Think about it. If that was the original plan, then the D.C. court ruling made sure that everything would be going, well,  according to plan, right? Why is the Obama administration disputing the decision if that's what they wanted all along?

I've seen some conservatives argue that Obama didn't think that the Republican governments in many states would go through with their threats of not setting up their exchanges, but now that it's apparently clear many still won't, Obama has to pretend he never supported the original idea to begin with.

But that makes no sense. Remember, according to the story revealed in Gruberghazi, the law was supposedly set up so that if Republicans refused to build their own exchanges, the Democrats could then use the fact that the states would be losing millions and billions of dollars in subsidies to attack Republicans.

But guess what? The Democrats can still do that! They can hammer Republicans relentlessly on their decision to screw over the people in their states, and hopefully have them eventually give in. In fact, you would think this was excellent timing because this is something that the Dems can use to attack Republicans in the midterms. The point here is that nothing has changed!

Furthermore, if Republicans truly believe that Obama is lying about the original intent of Obamacare, then they should attempt to call his bluff. Present a bill that would simply change the text of the law to make it clear that subsidies would be available to people on either exchange. If the Republican theory is true, then Obama would refuse to sign it, and then they would have all the proof that they need that Obama, and not them, is the one who really wanted to make getting insurance much harder for poor people.

Of course, they won't do that cause they themselves don't believe the crap they're spewing, and they don't want there to be any fixes to what they see as the worst piece of legislation since the dawn of civilization.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Adam Carolla Thinks School Lunch Programs Will Make Kids Hate Their Parents

Former The Man Show host, Adam Corolla, explained on his radio show yesterday why he's become more outspoken about politics over the past few years :

Well, you know, I've not changed my tune to any great extent. I think I've become more conservative as I've gotten older, as I've had a family. As people do when they get older and they get older and have a family and pay taxes. You start looking for school systems for their kids that are usable and things like that. There's a move toward a more conservative life in general as you get older. It goes -- many of the principles sort of bode with frankly getting older, having a family, focusing on your children and your family and things like that.
He was doing pretty good so far, but then he makes the mistake of continuing to speak:

But as far as my talking points go, you know, stop shitting out kids you can't afford. You pay for their school breakfast, not because I want you to pay for their school breakfast but because the kid should know that mom and/or dad are paying for breakfast, making the effort. It's a psychological thing, it's not a matter of I don't want to pay 39 cents a day for your kid. I don't give a fuck about that. The fucking government takes half of money and does whatever the fuck it wants with it anyway. I mean, your kid's breakfast is the least of my worries. I worry about your kid and the message that is being sent to your kid by momma not making a breakfast. That's what I a worry about.

Well, now. Isn't that compassionate of him? He cares so much for the kiddies, you see. It's oddly similar to the rationale provided by Republican boy genius, Paul Ryan, a few months back for why we should completely destroy the idea of government funded school lunches. The possibility that many of these parents can't provide lunches as opposed to not wanting to make them for their kids doesn't seem to ever come up in these conversations for some reason.

Carolla speaks from experience though. His family lived off welfare growing up and he himself received government subsidized school lunches:

The lesson seems  to be pretty clear. Parents should buy/make their kids their own lunch, otherwise they may grow up to be bitter, right-wing douchebags some day.

What was also amusing was how Carolla was whining about how the word "conservative" is seen as a negative nowadays:

It’s bizarre and that’s what we have turned it into. But also, it’s the left turning conservatism into a pejorative, number one. Being conservative didn’t used to be a pejorative in any stretch of the imagination. Being a conservative with your money was being prudent. Being conservative as it pertains to work or investments or even at the poker table it was sort of prudent. Conservative meant prudent; it was not a pejorative.
The left has taken over the word conservative and turned it into a pejorative. So it’s like, “Oh, you’re a conservative?” They’ve done a wonderful smear campaign.
“Oh, are you a conservative?” “Yes, I’m a conservative.” “Oh, great. You hate women. You hate blacks. You hate all cultures. You love people’s money. You hate poor people.”
“No, no. I just want to focus on education. I want to focus on hard work. I want to focus on being motivated and getting ahead in a country that made for that ethic…”
Now, it’s weird that I can be conservative and never talk about religion. Because conservatives are a bunch of Bible-thumping, you know, brainwashed, you know, they believe the earth is 1,000 years old. How come I’m not religious? I’m an atheist. See, they just pick and choose whatever they want.

Sorry, Adam. You guys are doing a great job ruining that word on your own. You definitely don't need any help from liberals on that front.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Sorry Republicans, Looks Like Obamacare Is Here To Stay

Here's a poll that should make every conservative pundit and politician soil their undies:

Republicans who signed up for Obamacare this year are liking their new insurance coverage, according to a new survey.

A poll of Obamacare enrollees published Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund found that 74 percent of newly insured Republicans are happy with the plans they bought. Overall, 77 percent of people who had insurance prior to the rollout of the Affordable Care Act said they are pleased with the new coverage they obtained in the last year.

The survey revealed the current uninsured rate among working-age adults in the U.S. has dropped to 15 percent, down from 20 percent in July-September 2013 -- meaning an estimated 9.5 million people have gained coverage since then.

74% of Republicans - REPUBLICANS!! - are happy with their new government-defiled health insurance. Just to give you an idea of the significance of such a number, only 21% of Republicans had a positive opinion of Obama after Bin Laden was killed. As Bill Maher once said, Obama could save an average Republican from drowning, and they'd still hate his guts. The fact that we have not just a majority, but nearly 3/4 of Republicans accepting something positive came out of the socialist, Kenyan anti-Christ is a colossal accomplishment.

Truth be told however, this shouldn't really be that surprising. Obamacare, for all its faults, really does have some very pleasing things that make it very attractive to most non-wealthy folks. Indeed this very thing was predicted correctly (for once) by Bill Kristol in 1993:

The long term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse — much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependency for “security” on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government…
Conservative complain all the time about big government not being able to do anything right, and being awful for the populace. But the truth is that the real reason they don't want big government policies to be in place is that they might end up actually being popular. That's what conservatives fear more than anything. They've seen how popular programs like social security and medicare are, and how that makes it much more difficult to eliminate them.

And now conservatives have to face the frightening fact that repealing Obamacare has just gotten significantly more challenging. In a few years, you're going to see right-wing nitwits holding up signs like this:

But with Obamacare instead.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Grover Norquist Thinks Song About Man Killing His Wife Is "Pro-Family"

You can't make this stuff up:

According to Grover Norquist, the song "Hey Joe" (which by the way, Jimi Hendrix only did a cover for), is "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment". Here are the lyrics so you can judge for yourselves:

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
Hey Joe, I said where you goin' with that gun in your hand?
Alright. I'm goin down to shoot my old lady,
you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.
Yeah,! I'm goin' down to shoot my old lady,
you know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.
Huh! And that ain't too cool.
You don't really have to listen to the song very long to understand that it's about a man planning to kill someone. In this case, his wife. Yes, Grover thinks a song about a man killing his wife with a gun is "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment".

Seriously, the guy gives it away in the third fricken line! You hear this in the first 30 seconds. It's kind of hard to miss.

After many twitter users on Grover's feed kindly pointed out this little detail to him, Grover tried to offer a defense:

Okay, now Grover's trying to claim that he knew about the song being about a "horrible crime" the whole time? So where does the whole "pro-family" and "pro-2nd amendment" thing fit in again?

This shouldn't really be shocking, though. After all, the prophet Reagan (peace be upon him) seemed to entirely miss the point of Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A., so it should come as no surprise that one of his most prominent minions would be equally dense when it comes to comprehending musical verses.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Joe Scarborough Forgets Why He Was Supposed to Be Outraged At The IRS

On Tuesday's episode of Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough provided yet another wonderful example of why no sentient human being should ever listen to Republican complaints about anything ever.

Scarborough and his panel were once again whining about IRS-gate. Scarborough was particularly perturbed by the New York Times not giving the story the exposure it so rightfully deserved:

You know, if George W. Bush or any Republican and an IRS member that went after Democrats, and then there was an internal investigation launched, you would not have time, or space on the front page to talk about women's issues. This is a scam.
 But later on in the show, a funny thing occurs. Scarbrough says the following:

If it was Henry Waxman or Darrell Issa or whomever, when the IRS gets involved in this sort of play, whether it’s against Democrats or Republicans, I think that is the time the Hill should go after him.  I’d love to see some Democrats come out and start pounding this guy too. Because there were Democratic groups also targeted as well, right? I slept through three years of law school, but even I know political speech is held to a higher standard.

Did you catch that?

Remember, the entire point of this moronic farce to begin with was that the evil thugs at the IRS were targeting poor, innocent, little conservative organizations. But here's Scarborough whining about the fact that Democrats aren't as outraged as Republicans are at the IRS, despite Democratic organizations being targeted as well. If left leaning organizations weren't able catch a break, and had to be examined closely as well, then what the hell are you guys complaining about?

By admitting that liberal groups were also the victims of scrutiny by the IRS, Scarborough manages to unwittingly destroy the entire original right-wing rationale for this inane "scandal".