Category Archives: Politics

“I wouldn’t fuck him with a stolen dick!”

Thanks to Jezebel for this one:

State Senator Judy Eason McIntyre and her honest attitude

(Thank George Carlin for the title.)

Politics: the art of the possible

Barack Obama, September 2006:

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values…it requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason.

“Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.”

 

Karen Santorum: no longer a mystery

I’ve been curious about Karen Santorum as an entity in the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination process.

Most potential First Ladies are first and foremost political non-entities. They generally strive to present a pleasantly female harmony to their husbands’ melody.

Not Karen Garver Santorum.

First of all, she looks like hell. She makes appearances with her hair looking like it hasn’t been washed in weeks. She dresses very drably, and makes statements that exactly parallel those of her spouse Frothy Mix Santorum. (She has asked the Holy Spirit to speak through her husband.)

She and Frothy claim to be devout Catholics, and as such they condemn abortion (for any reason) and sex outside marital procreation.

However, in the 1980s Karen Garver lived with her boyfriend for six years.

The man she lived with was a doctor who ran a medical practice that included abortion procedures.

But wait! The creepiest part of this little exercise in hypocrisy? Dr. Tom Allen, Garver’s paramour, was the obstetrician that attended her mother when Karen Garver was born.

But wait! Now we have the full picture here. Media clown Glenn Beck recently interviewed the Santorums, and here’s where it gets truly despicable:

K. Santorum: What did it for me, though, was Obamacare; Because we have, as you know, a little precious, a little angel, little Bella, a special needs little girl, and when Obamacare passed, that was it, that put the fire in my belly.

Beck: How much of a danger are the most vulnerable in our society if Obamacare actually kicks in and the whole bell curve…

R. Santorum: It’s all about utilization, right? It’s all about how do we best allocate resources where they are most effectively used?…Government allocating resources best on how to get the best bang for your dollars and it’s all about utility. It’s all about the usefulness of the person to society, instead of the dignity of every human life and the opportunity for people who love and care for people to give them the best possibility to have the best possible life.

The Santorums break not a single blush at the attempt to use their daughter Bella (born with Trisomy 18) in an effort to vilify universal health care. They do this in the face of the undeniable fact that if the Santorums had been a couple struggling financially with no job-related health benefits, or if either had been a single parent faced with an insurance company that refused to cover “pre-existing conditions” like Trisomy 18, that little Bella would likely not have survived birth.

Yet here they are deriding the Affordable Health Care Act from their teeny tiny pedestals of privilege. And using a sick child (hear this, Sarah Palin?) to parade their anti-woman, anti-life beliefs in public is loathsome.

You still want to vote for Rick “Frothy Mix” Santorum?

“Black people are scary.”

Along comes Gordon Warren Epperly, someone with enough immoral integrity to spell it out loud for everyone to see:

A man from Juneau, Alaska, has filed suit with the state’s Division of Elections to bar President Obama from appearing on that state’s ballot on the basis that the President is a “Mulatto”, and “the race of ‘Negro’ or ‘Mulatto’ had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.”

Gordon Warren Epperly, who lists his address as a P.O. Box, filed the nomination petition objection on February 21, 2012.

According to the complaint:

Barack Hussein Obama II, Aka Barack Hussein Obama, Aka Barack H. Obama has the race status of being a “Mulatto.” Barack Obama’s father (Barack Hussein Obama I) was a full blood Negro being born Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya and raised in the Colony of Kenya. Barack Obama’s mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) was a white Caucasian woman being born in Wichita, Kansas on November 29, 1942 and raised in the state of Washington and in the State of Hawaii.

Therefore:

As stated above, for an Individual to be a Candidate for the Office of President of the United States, the Candidate must meet the qualifications set forth in the United States Constitution and one of those qualifications is that the Candidate shall be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. As Barack Hussein Obama II is of the “Mulatto” race, his status of citizenship is founded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before the [purported] ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the race of “Negro” or “Mulatto” had no standing to be citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution.

The entire complaint can be found here. (There’s a lot of Birther blather there as well.)

And since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes us uncomfortable and angry, it doesn’t count. Right?

Right?

“How many mistakes must we make before we pay for them?”

One “carelessly-made statement” — okay, anyone can misspeak once in a while.

Two or three “carelessly-made statements”, and doubt creeps in.

Dozens of “carelessly-made statements”, and I would invoke V’s comment:

“…to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me nothing short of deliberate”

Let’s let Mr. Paul speak for himself:

1. “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

2. “What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?”

3. “Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War. No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic.” (referring to Abraham Lincoln)

4. “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. These aren’t my figures, that is the assumption you can gather from ‘the report.’ “

5. “Contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” (quoted by Ron Paul’s colleague and collaborator Lew Rockwell)

6. “The criminals who terrorize our cities – in riots and on every non-riot day – are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.”

7. “I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.”

8. “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

9. “Immigrants can spread diseases for which we may have no immunity. There is also the question of crime and culture. Many immigrants come from countries with different legal structures and are not willing to behave in the way we expect American citizens to behave.”

10. “There is no such thing as a hate crime.”

There is a plethora of Ron Paul quotes on Twitter. Enjoy them, if you can keep your breakfast down.

A savage look at Newtonian hypocrisy

I really shouldn’t quote Savage Love letters in their entireties, but this one‘s just too delicious to pass up.

Congrats, Dan. It looks like you’ve got your first high-profile “monogamish” public figure: Newt Gingrich. You must be so proud.

Dan Savage

For anyone who spent last week under a rock: Newt Gingrich, brave defender of traditional marriage, was still married to his second wife—and still fucking the consecrated host out of his “devout Catholic” mistress—when he asked his second wife to agree to an open marriage. Newt had been fucking Callista, his devoutly Catholic mistress, for six years when he made the big ask. Newt’s second wife wouldn’t agree to an open marriage, according to Newt’s second wife, which is how she became Newt’s second ex-wife and Newt’s mistress—the devoutly Catholic Callista—became Newt’s third wife.

That’s not monogamish, SCUM. That’s CPOSish. And lumping honest nonmonogamists—people who don’t lie or cheat—in with the likes of the Gingriches and Schwarzeneggers of the world, which whiny and insecure monogamists (who are not to be confused with reasonable and secure monogamists) are always doing, is simply unfair. Newt, like Arnold before him, didn’t succeed at nonmonogamy, he failed at monogamy.

Newton Gingrich

Zooming out for a moment: The Gingrich campaign has presented the holesome story of Newt and Callista’s courtship as a redemption narrative: Newt is a better man today thanks to Callista, he’s better suited to be president thanks to Callista, and he’s better prepared to defend traditional marriage thanks to Callista. She’s been described as a “devout Catholic” in every profile written about her—so devout that her love brought Newt to the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and ever-more-rabidly anti-gay church. So it seems to me that it’s fair to ask if Callista knew in advance that Newt was proposing an open marriage to his then-wife and approved of the arrangement. (It might be more accurate to say that Newt informed his second wife that she was already in an open marriage and asked if she wanted to remain in it.) Did Callista know about Newt’s open marriage proposal? Did Newt bounce the idea off his devoutly Catholic mistress first? Maybe right after he finished bouncing himself off his devoutly Catholic mistress?

Would the devout Catholic still be Newt’s mistress today if the second Mrs. Gingrich had agreed to remain in the marriage that Newt had already opened?

Callista Gingrich

This news alters the redemption narrative that the Gingrich camp set before the voters. So questioning Callista about the open marriage proposal—what did the mistress know and when did she know it?—seems like an entirely legit line of inquiry to me.

Callista Gingrich, like her vile husband, doesn’t believe that gays and lesbians should be equal under the law because, as a good Catholic, she believes that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should remain celibate. Well, the Catholic Church considers adultery, divorce, and birth control sinful, too. Someone in the liberal media really ought to ask Callista to explain why her faith should place limits on my sexual expression but not her own. (emphasis mine)

And let’s not forget that Newton did the same damned thing to wife #1, except that he kinda left out the “can I cheat on you with your blessing?” part.

Out of this world

The family is watching Planet Earth DVDs for homeschooling purposes, and the beautifully panoramic photography reminded me of one of my old posts:

“You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an instant dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics seem so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck, drag him a quarter million miles out, and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch!’”

–Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut

How the stupid burns!

Oklahoma state representative Ralph Shortey (a Republican, natch) wants to staunch his state’s rampant problems with cannibalism.

After performing some “research”, he has decided to introduce state senate bill 1418 to the Oklahoma state legislature in order to prevent anyone in the state from using aborted fetuses as a food ingredient.

This is not a story from the Onion. Really.

It has been suggested by NPR that Shortey got a little confused about Senomyx’s use of embryonic kidney cells in the 1970s, and how PepsiCo was involved in this process.

Or perhaps Shortey is just a dumbass.