Won't Someone Please Think Of The Children?

A couple of days ago, a Pew Research study came out stating that Four in ten mothers are either the sole or primary source of income for their families, a new high. Unsurprisingly, right-wing boys lost their shit!

Erick Erickson, the man who's so voll von der Scheiße * they named him twice, went on FOX to say this:

When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complimentary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it's tearing us apart.

It's interesting that righties who insist that evolution is a myth and that people have nothing in common with animals because we were made separately, out of mud, or out of a rib, to be the spitting image of the Almighty suddenly want us to model our relationships after lions or warthogs or bonobos or whatever if it suits their argument.

Then Erickson went to his own ridiculous website "RedState" to double down on his bullshit.

The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 30th, 2013 at 02:57 PM

Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children.

Gee, why would anyone be put off by that? All I said was that 40% of families are harming their children because the mothers are too successful. I mean, that's just basic science!

Devestating rhetorical technique, by the way. "emo lefties," "panties in a wad?" You must have been the star of your school's debate team! Also, I assume you just wanted any excuse to type the word "panties," after which you copied and pasted the word into Google Image Search and then resumed your column a few hours later.

And what research did Erickson cite to back up his claim that women making more money is harmful to children?

This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”

Wow, that's quite a leap! The study says that 4/10 families with kids are headed by women who are the primary earners, therefore, ipso facto, women being the primary earners is harmful? I don't even get it.
Maybe if I click on the link Erickson provided, I can read the entire study and see what it says about the harmful effects of mothers having good jobs. . . no. No, the link goes to a Washington Post article about the study, not to the study itself. The Post article does contain this bit of pseudo-info:

But the Pew Research report shows that Americans are decidedly ambivalent about mothers who work outside the home. Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages.

Well, if Americans are ambivalent about something, that's pretty much scientific proof that it's evil!

I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast.

Hmm, must be a bachelor!

 

 

Nobody tames wild animals! Hence the descriptive title "wild animals." Take bears, for instance. Mother bears have to keep their cubs away from adult males because the adult males see them as future competition and will kill them before they get big enough to be a threat. If we're going to model our child-rearing after wild animals, should we go bear?

 

You never go back!

 

 

 

Then it really gets good when Erick tries to seem empathetic.

Not everyone has the luxury of raising their children in a traditional manner and the rest of us have an obligation to help and support those in unfortunate situations.

COMMUNIST!

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with mothers having jobs. There is nothing wrong with women being breadwinners. Sometimes they have to by necessity.

Gee, it's awfully gracious of you to make such a generous allowance!

Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.

And your evidence to support this thesis?

As Pew found, “Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages. About half of those surveyed felt it was better if mothers stayed home with young children. In contrast, 8 percent thought it was better if fathers did.”

Well, that's pretty convincing. Of course, a third of Americans believe in UFOs,  about 30% believe in Bigfoot, and 17% believe that Obama is a Muslim, but still. . . if half worry that it might be bad for marriages, well it's hard to argue with that!
And yes, the link is again to the Washington Post article, not the actual Pew report, which it's safe to assume Erickson has not read.




Here is Erickson and the rest of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club discussing mommies with jobs:






More right-wing boys with their feelings hurt tomorrow!


* It means "full of shit" in German

Anthony Weiner Can Never be President

I hear that Anthony Weiner is re-entering politics.  we here at the Chaos Compound wish him well. There is a limit to how succesful he can possibly be in American politics, however. No matter how successful he may be, he, through no fault of his own, can never be president because of his name. 
President Weiner?Never gonna happen.

 

Air Force 1?

Here are a few more political figure that can never be President due solely to unfortunate names. 


Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse can never be president because it would be too confusing.

Idaho Congressman Raul Labrador can never be president because his name sounds like a dog.

And Idaho Governor Butch Otter can never be President because "President Otter" would just be too adorable!

  

Maybe Surgeon General?

California Congressman Adam Schiff can never be president because he's be too busy yelling at Sam Waterston

  

Chung Chung!

Michigan Congressman John Dingell can never be president because that would just be silly. President Dingell!



Alabama Congressman Jo Bonner can never be President because Bonner is too close to "Boner." Also, "Jo" is a woman's name. The male version is "Joe."

  Arizona Senator Jeff Flake can never be President for obvious reasons.

Same goes for Arkansas Senator John Boozman.

And it goes without saying that if your name contains the word "crap," you should abandon any presidential aspirations you may have. Honestly, it's a miracle this guy made it to Senator!

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush can never be president because he shares the same last name as the worst president in our history. Not his fault, but them's the breaks!



 

Horrible Columnist is Horrible, Probably Racist.

I had never heard of Mona Charen before, but we recently started receiving the Atlanta Journal Constitution again and they featured one of her columns entitled White House Ducks Truth Over Americans' Deaths. I'm guessing that this is a fairly typical column for her since I found the on-line version at Townhall.com

It begins:

Count me as irritable on the subject, but President Obama's imperious habit of suggesting that American diplomats work for him is offensive to democratic sensibilities.

Which is odd since they pretty much do work for him.

Also, Imperious? Really? This seems to be a common theme for right-wing critics of Barack Obama. They like to say he's "arrogant" or "aloof" or "elitist." My assumption is that they think it is the height of arrogance for Obama to act like he's really the president, or that he has any right to be president. Do a google search fro Obama + arrogant. I just did one and it returned 7,900,000 results. Results like:

1. Barack Obama's arrogant EU intervention won't help David ...

1. Beck Maps Out How Scandals Reveal Obama's 'Arrogant' Goal Of ...

 

1. Arrogant President on His Heels: How Obama Fell for the Mandate ...

2.  

Does Obama's arrogance have any limits? » The Loft -- GOPUSA

The Arrogance Of The Obama Administration Will Bankrupt Us ...

 

 

And it would be one thing if he seemed at all arrogant, but Barack Obama? He's conciliatory to a fault. He doesn't strike me arrogant at all.

In the second presidential debate last fall, when the Benghazi matter came up, the president responded: "Well, let me ... talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation [sic]. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am."

 

He's concerned about their safety? The arrogance!

And he is, in fact, the person who sends them out. So what's the problem here?  Hell if I know.

 

 

Then she adds this snide little aside:

(I wish Candy Crowley had asked what the names of the four dead Americans were. But, as we discovered, she had other plans that night.)

 

 

First of all, I guarantee you he would have known the names. No way would he have gone into a debate that unprepared. Secondly, what "plans" did Candy Crowley have? The plan to not let Mitt Romney's falsehoods go unremarked upon? Was that her nefarious scheme?

 

 

Last week during a press conference, the president again described the murdered Americans as "people I sent into the field."

 

She keeps bringing this up as if it were some sort of obvious faux pas, but they were literally people whom he had sent into the field. So what's the objection? It isn't clear. If he hadn't said something like this, she would have attacked him for passing the buck or failing to face up to his responsibilities or something. I think it just grates on her that this particular person is president, and so anything he says that reminds her of that fact offends her.

 

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, emphasizing the president's deep concern, noted, "This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are at risk, people who work for him."

No. Ambassadors and other officers of the Foreign Service represent the United States of America. They are not the personal envoys of Barack H. Obama.

 

Well, yes and no. They are employed by the State Department, at the president's pleasure, which is the agency tasked with carrying out the president's foreign policy, so they kinda represent both the United States AND the President.  Or, as you quoted Obama as saying " these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there."

 

The president sets our nation's foreign policy, Mona. Even if the president is black!

 

(I shouldn't so lightly accuse someone of racism, but I really can't see any other reason why she would be so undies-in-a-knot over a sitting president stating basic facts about the state department)

 

(which reminds me)

 

 

 Anything this president does is an outrage to the mouth-breathers on the right. Even if it is something that other presidents have done routinely, like use a teleprompter or play golf.  Maybe a white Democratic president would have been treated just as badly. They certainly accused Bill Clinton of everything from rape to drug trafficking to outright murder before settling on having received oral, so who knows. Maybe it's not based entirely on racism. But it's still dickhole behavior and it isn't good for America.

 

 

 

Oklahoma Has Terrible Senators

Really, I can't think of a state with a worse pair of Senators than Coburn and Inhofe.

 

James Inhofe, mostly famous for his continued insistence that science is just a nefarious plot cooked up by the Weather Channel to undermine capitalism or something, famously came out in opposition to relief spending for states hit by Hurricane Sandy, calling it "pork." So, one might assume that he would continue his principled anti-pork stance against tornado relief spending in Oklahoma. Well, one might assume that if one was completely unfamiliar with Jim Inhofe.

Inhofe: Tornado aid ‘totally different’ from Hurricane Sandy aid

By Rachel Weiner and Matt DeLong, Published: May 21, 2013 at 10:40 am

 

Different in that Hurricane Sandy didn't affect me!

 

That was a “totally different” situation, Inhofe told MSNBC, arguing that the Sandy aid was filled with pork. There were “things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there and putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C.”

 

Oh, well, if there was help for other people included in that bill, then yeah, totally wasteful spending! We must always be sure to help the narrowest swath of people possible!

 

“Everyone was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place,” he said. “That won’t happen in Oklahoma.”

 

Oh, nooooo. Of course not. Everything is always on the up and up in Oklahoma! It's not like it was settled by folks who cheated in the race to claim land stolen from the Indians or anything. It's not like the founders of Oklahoma got there SOONER than they were allowed by federal law or anything.

 

 

 

 

At least I have to give it to Tom Coburn for consistency. Just as a rat dropping is consistently a rat dropping, so Tom Coburn is consistently a rat dropping. I lost my analogy halfway through there, but you get the idea. My point is Tom Coburn is consistently a despicable human being. Inhofe is, too, but Coburn is always the same kind of despicable human being.

 

 

 

Tom Coburn: Tornado aid must be offset

By Rachel Weiner and Paul Kane, Published: May 21, 2013 at 9:04 am

 

 

Yes, Tom Coburn will not vote for disaster relief unless he can take the money away from some other part of the budget (NOT DEFENSE). Because the important thing is that someone somewhere is being made to suffer. If Oklahoma gets tornado relief, then someone has to lose their food stamps, or someone has to get their Medicaid cut. Coburn will stick to his sadistic principles even when it affects his home state, because it still doesn't affect him personally.

 

 

 

I don't hate the people of Oklahoma any less than I hate the people of any other state!

 

 

Tom Coburn has, however, promised the people of Oklahoma that  “I can assure Oklahomans that any and all available aid will be delivered without delay.” Because I guess he suddenly remembered that the people of Oklahoma still get to vote for or against him, unlike the recipients of Sandy aid.

 

Of course, what makes these two especially sickening is their votes prior to yesterday's disaster. According to Think Progress:

 

 

– Coburn voted in 2011 against funding FEMA after it ran out of money, because, in his words, funding FEMA would have been “unconscionable.” Inhofe did not vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fired back at Republicans blocking a bill for necessary funding to FEMA.

– Inhofe proposed removing grants for storm shelter programs coordinating with FEMA, and instead provide individuals with tax breaks.

 

– After Hurricane Sandy, Inhofe and Coburn voted against a bill for $50.5 billion in Hurricane Sandy disaster relief.
– Coburn demanded that $5.25 billion in FEMA grant funds be reallocated because of sequestration in April 2013.

 

So now they want funds from the very programs that they tried to de-fund. Typical Republicans. Spending on anything that doesn't directly benefit them is wasteful "pork," spending in their state is absolutely necessary and proper. Could any pair of human beings be worse than these two?

 

  Still not as bad.

 

 

 

 

 

Orphan March

So I saw a bus the other day that had this sign on it about going to Washington for an "orphans march"




Yeah, like that.
So my interest was naturally piqued, as I have been especially concerned about the orphans lately, having been learning about them on the BBC.

 

 

I'm especially worried about her.

Anyway, I tried to look it up on the internet, and the first thing I found was this:

Take Action! Jump on the

 Cotton Seed Studios Bus

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Rob

FILM DOCUMENTARY

STUCK

STEP FORWARD FOR ORPHANS MARCH

FRIDAY MAY 17
WASHINGTON, DC

 

 

And their explanation of what the orphan march is all about was this:

We are excited to take a group of folks from OPELIKA to our nations capitol to march on capitol hill with the STUCK Tour for the STEP FORWARD FOR ORPHANS MARCH, an effort to restore civil discourse between politically diverse Americans

Which, I'm pretty sure is not what the organizers of the Orphan March had in mind. I think their purpose is to try and help the orphans.

But anyway. . . . as part of their effort to "restore civil discourse," they are presenting a special guest speaker. . . drum roll, please. . .

 

 



1:00 – 2:30 PM

March to Upper Senate Park Special Guest Speaker: Laura Ingraham

Laura Ingraham! Because when I think of civil discourse, the first name that pops into my head is Laura Ingraham!



Ironically, when I googled "Laura Ingraham Quotes," this was the first one to come up:

There's a rule of thumb in politics. If you're at a point where you're complaining about the other guy being mean and unfair and uncivil, that's probably a sign that you're losing.

Laura Ingraham

 

Just do a quick check of her name on the Media Matters site, and you'll find things like this:

 

Laura Ingraham Compares Benghazi "Whistleblowers" To Freed Slaves, Obama Admin To Slave Owners
 

 

And

Laura Ingraham Claims Immigration From Mexico Would Create U.S. "Hellhole"



a

and

 Fox's Ingraham Compares Press Relationship To Obama As Similar To Battered Women, Prostitutes




so, you know, "Civil Discourse."


So what kind of an organization would trot out this guttermouth as an exemplar of civil discourse? I don't know. The organizers of the Orphan March, which seems, at least at first glance, to be a legitimately well-meaning group, apparently brought her in to speak about her own experience with international adoptions. It seems to be the people doing the bus tour, a group called "Cotton Seed Studios" who are under the impression that this is about restoring civil discourse.

 

Maybe they're thinking of this?

 

 

So who is "Cotton Seed Studios?"  I don't know. They seem like a legitimate arts organization. Their raison d'etre, according to their website is: Cotton Seed Studios exist to offer artist an environment to create, record, express, collaborate and grow with their craft through a full service recording/film studio and premier arts venue.

So, to sum up, I have no idea who any of these people are. But someone, somewhere thinks that Laura Ingraham has something to do with civil discourse, and that's good enough for me.
 

Georgia Lawmakers Illustrate Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Via the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Georgia depends heavily on federal money

Federal funds made up about $10.4 billion of state agency spending in fiscal 2008, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution review of budget records. Four years later, that figure was more than $12 billion, in part because the state had some leftover federal stimulus money. But the total will likely approach or top $12 billion again in the upcoming year. That’s roughly 31.6 percent of state spending, up from about 27 percent in 2008.

That's not all that surprising, given that A) Red states nearly always get more back from the Federal government than they send in*, and B) this is the state that produced Newt "king of Pork" Gingrich.

And then I said "fiscal responsibility!" Ahahahaha!!!

But here's the good part:

Some top lawmakers regularly gripe about federal spending and the state Senate passed a resolution last year backing a federal balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Well, it's nice that they are taking a principled stand. There's a certain integrity in saying "even though it will hurt my state, I still think that cutting spending is morally right, and I'm willing to make that sacrifice." Oh, wait! These are Republicans!

But lawmakers have also urged Congress to spend more on everything from Georgia reservoir construction and commuter rail to medical training, and they have approved tax maneuvers to draw down nearly $800 million a year in extra federal funding for health and nursing care.

And there you have it, today's Republican Party in a nutshell. Cut spending! Cut spending! Cut spend. . .woah, wait, don't cut here! The spending in my district is absolutely necessary! Cut the wasteful spending. You know, the spending that affects other people!

Gov. Nathan Deal said that can’t continue.

 

 

Yes, he won running on that slogan.

“We cannot be hypocritical at the state level,” said Deal, a longtime former Congressman. “We cannot continue to bombard the people in Washington, telling them they need to cut spending, they need to reduce the burden on taxpayers in this country by reducing their expenditures, and then when something like sequestration occurs, be the first to complain we’re not receiving as much federal money."

"Oh, wait, I'm being told that that is indeed our entire business model," he did not continue. "That is actually our standard electoral strategy and the only reason we get out of bed in the morning. Please tell Mr. Koch that I'm very very sorry."

Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, sponsored legislation creating a Senate committee to study alternatives to federal funding for health care programs. He said he’s worried the state has become too dependent on Washington.

“We are basically making assumptions every year in the budget that the federal government is going to continue to carry the state of Georgia,” McKoon said. “As a conservative who wants to see Washington tighten its belt, it’s prudent as policymakers to start asking what is our contingency plan if federal funding is significantly reduced.

In other words, we want DC to stop spending all this money, but we have no idea how we're going to get along without it.


*

Real Man of the Day: Frank Butler

In the Autumn of 18575, Francis E. Butler was a well-known marksman who performed with various traveling variety shows. He would also go from town to town challenging the locals to a $100 bet that he could out-shoot anyone in town, a bet he rarely lost.

On Thanksgiving Day, a local hotel-owner put up the $100 and said he knew of a shootist in his town that could beat the famed Butler. When Butler showed up to the match, he found that his opponent was to be a petitie 15-year-old girl. Butler and the girl each hit 24 shots in a row before Butler finally missed. The girl never did.

Now a lot of men, especially in 1875, would have felt embarrassed, angry, or humiliated to have lost to this young lady in what was exclusively a man's sport. Butler, on the other hand, was smitten. He soon married the girl and the two began touring the country performing their sharpshooting act. The girl would take the stage name Annie Oakley, and would soon have top billing.





This is how a real man reacts to a kick-ass woman like Annie. Real men are not afraid of or repelled by strong, talented, successful women. Real men find those qualities appealing. Real men fall head over heels for smart, tough, independent women. Like Frank Butler did. And like I did.

I don't see why the IRS "scandal" is a scandal at all.

 

Now THAT was a Scandal!

 

 

 

Why wouldn't the IRS look closely at groups whose raison d'etre is hatred of paying taxes? (And also of having access to medicine)

 

 

If this guy doesn't realize that his taxes have gone down,

what are the odds he understands the 501(c) rules?

 

 



And they keep saying these groups were "targeted." I think that targeting means something a bit stronger than "took an extra look at."

 

Also, from everything I've heard, these teabagger groups absolutely have been violating the rules for 501(c) organizations. According to Mother Jones: These 501(c)(4) nonprofits, also known as "social-welfare" groups, are not allowed to make politics their "primary activity."

 

So, a group of people for whom the term "social welfare" is an obscenity form a "social welfare group," and that's NOT supposed to raise anyone's suspicions? Go to any teabagger rally (you'll need a time machine) and ask the people there whether what they're doing is promoting social welfare. Then put some ice on that black eye. These people are doing nothing but trying (and sometimes succeeding) to influence politics.  Look at this handy chart from the inspector general's report:

 

 

 

 



If you're a 501(c)(3), you can't be involved in politics at all. If you're a 501(c)(4), your involvement in politics must be "limited" and can not be your "primary activity." So what other activities did these groups engage in besides engaging in political campaign intervention?  You can make the argument that they operated within the law, that their idiot rallies were for "educational" purposes, and that the guidelines are somewhat vague, but surely this sort of thing should invite extra scrutiny if they're claiming tax-exempt status.

 

(What I think IRS scrutiny would look like)

 



And this trumped-up "scandal" should have been swept into the dustbin of history along with "Travelgate" and "Solyndra-gate" and all the others, but noooooo. POTUS gets out there and apologizes, and says that "the misconduct . . . is inexcusable.  It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it.  I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS."

(Full Transcript: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/barack-obama-irs-statement-transcript-91445.html#ixzz2TVKEEoLT)

And then the IRS director has to fall on his sword, even though this apparently happened under the previous director, a George W. Bush appointee. And even though he was never really the director of the IRS because Republicans have refused to allow anyone to be confirmed for any position in any department because they're sociopathic assholes. 

So, sure, White House, let's enable this kind of behavior, that's a great strategy! Unless. . .


. . . The poutrage leads to a Teabagger resurgence. . .


. . .a resurgent Tea party in 2014 nominates more Christine O'Donnels and Sharon Angles. . .


Oh, my God. It's Brilliant!

Democrats re-take the House!

Fuck Rahm Emmanuel

Chicago Mayor and former White House dick Rahm Emmanuel
wants the people of Chicago to pay for a new sports arena, because, sure everyone's pretty flush right now!

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is set to announce plans to build a $300 million, 12,000-seat arena for DePaul University

Yeah, DePaul University. The private Catholic University would get the taxpayers to kick in about $125 million via bonds and hotel taxes and what-not. Why in the world would a private university get it's basketball court paid for by the taxpayers? Just ask Alderman Pat Dowell:

“Sometimes you have to make an investment in city resources to be able to generate tax dollars,” Dowell said

Right. And what would be a better city resource than an arena which would be owned and operated by a private religious institution?

 

Emanuel avoided reporters on Tuesday, ducking out a side door after announcing a summer parks plan. He also avoided CBS 2′s cameras at City Hall.

So at least he seems to have some sense of shame.

But fuck this guy. He was never any kind of progressive. He's one of these Clinton-type "new Democrats," aka Republican-Lite. Chicago deserves better.

And not for nothing, but why in the world does a Catholic University have this logo?


How did they settle on "Blue Demons?" Was it that California already took the "Angels", and New Orleans already had "Saints?"  So, fuck it, let's be the DePaul Minions of Satan! No that's not snappy enough. . . Blue Demons!

Fun with Yahoo News Headlines

 

Hot dogs with an unexpected ingredient

Meat?

Defamation suit reinstated for founder of Boston

BOSTON (AP) — A defamation lawsuit filed by the founder of the rock group Boston against the ex-wife of the band's late lead singer was reinstated Tuesday by the Massachusetts

Appeals Court.

He was suing her for having referred to him as the "Founder of Boston."

 

Taylor Swift rocks good-girl, bad-girl looks

Now if she could only come up with a good-singer, good-songwriter persona. 

 

 

How Do Wind Turbines Kill Birds? 

 

Yes, how could large spinning blades possibly kill anything?

 

'Fast and Furious' May Actually Be The Best Film Of The Summer 

 

It was certainly the best imaginary scandal of last summer!

 

 

That's it. Gotta go. Basketball is starting!

 

 

 

Maybe Take a Look at Urban Dictionary?

In an article on baseball pitchers by "Yahoo Expert" Jeff Passan, the following sentence appears:

Jeff Passan

 

Yahoo! Expert

8. Matt Cain, who loves the ability to double-fist World Series rings and can't seem to explain how over an impressive career he has managed to average about 11 victories a season.


Yes, Matt Cain loooooves to double-fist his rings.

Jeezus, Jeff, maybe Google new phrases before you use them? Because "double-fisting," that's a thing. And believe me, it has nothing to do with baseball.

Going out of town for a few days

More like a week.

Probably won't be posting anything, but I will be on the Twitter, https://twitter.com/akaProfessorCha

See ya next week.

What the hell is up with New Hampshire?

 

Basically Arizona North

First you got State Rep. Edmond Gionet asking about the possibility of armed insurrection. Now this:

New Hampshire Legislator Claims Boston Bombing Was An Inside Job Because Victim Looked Calm

Several days after suggesting the Boston Bombing was perpetrated by the U.S. government, New Hampshire State Rep. Stella Tremblay (R-NH) doubled down on the claim Tuesday. In an interview on the radio show of anti-government conspiracy theorist Pete Santilli, Tremblay opined that since photos of a victim who lost his legs did not appear to show him “in shock” or “screaming in agony,” the attack must have been staged. 

Jeezus Christ! Where does she get this shit, Alex Jones?

Citing Alex Jones and his conspiracy theory site Infowars, Tremblay notes that while she once believed 9/11 was a real attack by terrorists, 9/11 “truthers” have opened her eyes. 

Of course. Of course you'd cite Alex Jones. Why the fuck wouldn't you? If you're someone who has been elected to a position of responsibility, why wouldn't you conduct research by logging on to Info Fucking Wars?



Of course, this is the state that sent Kelly Ayotte to the Senate. Wonder what she's up to lately. . .

GOP Senator: I Voted Against Equal Pay For Women Because We Have Enough Laws

Well, how about you cancel the law against marijuana to make room for the Equal Pay Act? Since there's some sort of limit to the amount of laws we can have?


Maybe if we let Ayotte explain it, and could she maybe do it in a shambling, incoherent way?

AYOTTE: We have existing laws — Title VII, um, Lilly Ledbetter, all those existing protections in place — that, I believe, enforce and provide that people doing equal jobs are, certainly in this country, should receive equal pay. So, uh, that bill, in my view, didn’t add — in fact I think it created a lot of additional burdens that would have been hard, um, to make it more difficult for job creators to create jobs. . . . The reason that I voted against that specific bill is that, I looked at it, and there were already existing laws that need to be enforced and can be enforced and I didn’t feel like adding that layer was going to help us better get at the equal pay issue.

 Oh, well if it would make it hard to make it difficult to create jobs. . . because, I guess it's easier to create jobs if you have one of those simple 77 cents-to-one dollar male-to-female pay ratios? Because paying men and women the same is too confusing? I don't know, apparently this sort of thing makes sense in New Hampshire.

How did we get to this point?

How did we get to the point where the clearly deranged are chosen for positions of responsibility and leadership?
Take for example, New Hampshire State Rep. Edmond Gionet (R-obviously), who asked this question of Senator Kelly Ayotte:

Now is there anything in Washington that says — any telltale signs that maybe we might be headed for an internal revolution given the fact that these kinds of things are going on? 

Um, what? An internal revolution? How insane would you have to be to think that there might be an "internal revolution" against the government of the most powerful nation in the history of the world?Who would think that there might be telltale signs in Washington that some cabal of disgruntled rednecks might be about to take up arms against the most powerful military might the world has ever seen? Well, to be fair, that's not the complete quottation, maybe it makes more sense in context. Let me see. . .

GIONET: One of the things that concerns my constituents — the majority of my constituents –- is the appointments that are now being made in Washington by our President and the way he is handling the illegal immigrants, nationalizing them and giving them the opportunity to vote, and wanting to keep track of our guns. They are worried that they are going to have to use these guns because of our own government. Now is there anything in Washington that says — any telltale signs that maybe we might be headed for an internal revolution given the fact that these kinds of things are going on? This is what’s said in the groups that I sit in. 

Nope.

Wow, where to start? First of all, "nationalizing" immigrants? So you think that all immigrants are now owned collectively by the people of the United States? Also, no one is letting them vote. And no one is trying to keep track of your guns. They should be. If this were a sane country, there would be a National registry of guns, but this is America, so of course there isn't.

 

Whoo! 'Murca!

 And if you are meeting with constituents who are talking about using their guns against the US government, seems like you have a duty to report them to the FBI or the ATF or somebody, because these people can not be trusted with firearms.

And who are these "groups you sit in?" Do any of them rhyme with "Sean Smurch?" 

ThinkProgress caught up with Gionet outside the event and asked him to clarify his deranged rant.

He explained: “This morning, I was down at the Lions Club, at McDonald’s and this [photo of President Obama with Sec. of Transportation-Designate Anthony Foxx] was given to me. And they’re saying all the key positions… That’s the latest one. But even key positions within the White House are going to people that are going to promote his agenda. And this agenda doesn’t appear to be helping us to the extent that it should be. It might be that we’ve got the wrong slant on things, but here again we’re in our own world up here. We understand what we like, the lifestyles that we’ve had, the way the country should be run. And it’s just not happening.”

Wait. Are you saying that the President is nominating people who share his point of view on the issues? Because that's a pretty serious accusation, buster, you'd better have some proof to back that up! 

 

I'm guessing about 80 proof!

And if you're saying that the president's agenda isn't helping people as much as it oughta be, that's a perfectly good reason to vote for someone else. Or take up arms against the US government,  whichever seems more reasonable.

And you know, it'd be one thing if it was just some little local nobody like Gionet,

 

(seen here losing an argument to a horse)

but of course it's not.  

Just look no farther than Texas. The state that sent Louie Gohmert to Congress:

Gohmert, when not protecting Texas from Sharia Law and wascally wabbits, takes time out of his busy day to apparently actually believe that the Obama Administration is full of members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

GOHMERT: I think it is… It’s very clear to everybody but this administration that radical Islam is at war agains us… Radical Islam is at war with us. Thank God for the moderates that don’t approve of what’s being done. But this administration has so many Muslim Brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America.

Also, he apparently truly believes that Muslim terrorists are going to disguise themselves as Mexicans  and cross the Rio Grande in order to come in and do terrorist stuff.

“We know al Qaeda has camps over with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border,” the Republican from Tyler said on C-SPAN Wednesday morning. “We know that people that are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanic when they are radical Islamists. We know these things are happening.

  

Allahu Akba- - I mean Madre de Dios!

 You know, it's one thing to say that theoretically, the terrorists could put on Dodger caps and shave their beards and try to sneak in disguised as Alberto Queda, but to say "we know these things are ahppening" is a pretty good indication that you are looney.

 

So how does someone like Louie Gohmert get sent to Congress? Hell, this is a state that sent Ted Cruz to the Senate.

Ted Cruz is the guy who claims that Harvard Law had more Communists bent on overthrowing the US than it did Republicans.  Ted Cruz who has this on his website:

Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. Everyone wants clean water and clean air, but Agenda 21 dehumanizes individuals by removing the very thing that has defined Americans since the beginning—our freedom.

Yes, Agenda 21, a  non-binding set of suggestions that the UN came up with in the 1990's would eliminate paved roads. Yes, that's exactly what would happen. And what evil mastermind could have come up with the fiendish scheme to unpave all the roads? I'll give you three guesses. . .aw, hell it was Soros. Of course, you probably knew that.

The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property.

Yes, because if there's one thing your average billionaire hates, it's the idea of private property. 

And if you want to really see just how delusional Ted Cruz really is, take a look at this headline:

 

May 1, 2013 4:00 AM

Cruz 2016
The freshman senator is considering a run for president.

By Robert Costa

This goes beyond the normal sort of "how the hell can a guy who called hurricane relief for New Jersey 'pork' then demanded aid for Texas possibly hope to win" kind of delusional. Because Ted Cruz was born in Calgary.

Calgary, Alberta.

Calgary, Alberta, CANADA.

Which means he is Constitutionally prohibited from serving as President. Even if he had a snowball's chance of winning, he would not be allowed to take office.

Cruz isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem. Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisers are confident that they could win any legal battle over his eligibility. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and he considers himself to be a natural-born citizen.

 Oh, well, if he considers himself a natural born citizen, I guess that's all that really matters. I think the Constitution says that the President must be a natural born citizen or consider himself so to be. I'm sure that will be good enough for Orly Taitz (sadly, it probably would be.)

These sort of people used to be relegated to standing on milk crates, shouting at passersby through a bullhorn. How did we get to the point where nuts like these are in positions of responsibility?

 

 Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States. . .