They've finally done it.

They've finally done it. The wingnut right has finally found their excuse to take up arms against the government of the United States of America. They've been threatening a "new Civil War" or a "new Amercican Revolution" for about 6 years now, and this weekend they finally found the martyr behind whom they could rally.

 Surprisingly, the martyr is just some moocher asshole who thinks he can pick and choose which laws apply to him and which don't because he doesn't like them.

Cliven Bundy has been grazing his cattle on Federal lands for decades. Which he is certainly allowed to do, except that at some point, he just decided to stop paying the required fees. Why? Mainly because he is an asshole. But also because he has some convoluted theory that since his ancestors grazed cattle on those lands since the 1800's, he should somehow be allowed to use these lands, owned by the American people, for free. Because, like most anti-government extremists, he has no problem taking free stuff from the Federal Government that he hates so much, and for which he has no need, but they should provide him free grazing land because, um. . . 'Murica!

“My forefathers have been up and down the Virgin Valley ever since 1877. All these rights I claim have been created through pre-emptive rights and beneficial use of the forage and the water. I have been here longer."

 

The freedom to use Federal lands for free, apparently.

Bundy apparently thinks he does not owe any monies to the dang guv'mint, and also claims that he has tried to pay the monies to the local county government which does not own the land, does not manage the land, has no claim to the land, and really wants no part of this.

And he said this:

Bundy is also making sure to remind everyone that he is not opposed to Second Amendmenting his way to a resolution of his legal troubles. In 2013, he told the Las Vegas Sun that “he keeps firearms at his ranch” and is willing to “do whatever it takes” to protect his property. He added that “I abide by all state laws. But I abide by almost zero federal laws.”

Because nothing says "patriot hero" like a dumb fuck redneck who refuses to follow his nation's laws.

I told you that I did the legal thing and the political thing and the media thing and it seems like it’s down to we the people if we’re going to get it done. You know the things like militias. You know, I haven’t called no militia or anything like that, but hey it looks like that’s where we’re at. We got a strong army here, we have to fight, their [unintelligible] to back off.

of course, he absolutely did not do the legal thing, I have no idea what "political thing" he is referring to, and whether or not he "called no militia," the militia has arrived. Dozens of like-minded "git off'n mah land" heroes have assembled in the Nevada desert, brandishing military-style assault weapons and looking for a fight.

the Bureau of Land Management, not wanting to kill a bunch of Americans, even those that are clearly asking for it, backed down, and stopped the confiscation of Bundy's cattle. So the right-wing terrorists are claiming victory. We should expect to see more and more of these emboldened groups of armed assholes showing up whenever they don't get their way, because now they think they can win. Just like when the Mujahadin drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, making bin Laden and his thugs into heroic figures and attracting new adherents to the cause, more and more of gthe militia-type gun nuts are going to see the fight against the Federal Government of the USA as one that is winnable, which will probably just encourage more of this type of terrorism.

noun: terrorism

1. 1.

   the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Of course, these tea-bagging terrorists are completely delusional, if they think that they would actually stand a chance against the most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen, but hell, how delusional do you have to be to believe the other shit they believe?

Like that Barack Obama favors gay marriage, abortion on demand AND the implementation of Sharia Law!

Or that Barack Obama is a weak-kneed, dithering apologizer AND an iron-fisted tyrant!

Or that the government of the State of Hawaii, the Kapi'olani Hospital, and the Honolulu newspapers all entered into a conspiracy to fake the birthplace of Barack Obama because they knew that a few decades hence, the miced-race son of a single mother with a weird, foreign-sounding name and the face of a teenager would be a formidable candidate for President.


So, yeah, this is happening now.

Are they even trying anymore?

Are they even trying to pretend like their voter suppression laws are addressing any actual problem? Are they even trying to justify them?

Check out Kris "papers, please" Kobach discussing Kansas's voter ID law on some radio show:

Kaufman: I can’t imagine how many widows are voting for their dead husbands in communities like I lived in.

 Kobach: Yeah, it happens all the time

Okay. . .sure. How would that even work, exactly?

Hello, I'd like a ballot, please. Name John Smith.

Okay, ma'am, but, oh - it says here that John Smith is a man and you, ma'am, appear to be a woman.

Oh, yes, I'm Mary Smith. I'm his wid--ahem, his wife.

Ah, well then, by all means here are two ballots. One for you and one for the hubby. Obviously, since no ID is required to vote, I just have to assume that you have his proxy!

That's what you think is happening "all the time?"
Couldn't you at least put some modicum of effort into coming up with some story about a person who looks through the obituaries and jots down the names of recently deceased persons of THE SAME GENDER and then goes to polling places to impersonate those dead persons so he can vote multiple times even though it is like pulling teeth to get people to vote ONCE? It's like you're not even trying to pretend that these laws aren't bigoted.


          Kaufman: And it’s not bigoted.

Kobach: It’s not at all!

Kaufman: You’re not doing it to close the doors on minorities

Kobach: Yeah, exactly. And I think it’s outrageous the argument some make that it hurts minorities. It’s almost a racist argument!

Oh, my mistake. I take it back. Obviously you're not targeting minorities at all. I can tell because you say that you're not targeting minorities at all. Case closed!


  - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kris-kobach-claims-voter-fraud-real-because-widows-vote-their-late-husbands-all-time#sthash.1vbcgAvW.dpuf

Seriously, Mike Huckabee?

When asked in an interview why he continues to oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples, even in the face of the overwhelming obviousness of how wrong he is, Huckabee said this:

". . . when people say, 'Why don't you just kind of get on the right side of history?' I said, 'You've got to understand, this for me is not about the right side or the wrong side of history, this is the right side of the Bible, and unless God rewrites it, edits it, sends it down with his signature on it, it's not my book to change,'" he added, as quoted by CNN.

Oooookay. . .

 So, um. . . you do know that the Bible you have now didn't float down from Heaven with God's autograph on it, right? I mean, if the only way you'll change your position on an issue is if you get instructions signed, sealed, and delivered from the Almighty Himself, then I don't see how you can base your current position on a book of such uncertain authorage. No one knows who wrote the various books and letters contained in the Good Book. We attribute some of them to Moses, others to St Paul, but no one really knows. But I can guarantee you they weren't carved into stone tablets atop Mt Sinai. People wrote them. People wrote down their thoughts and ideas about the Deity and someone collected those writings and called it the Bible.

And don't pretend like you don't already perform your own edits on the Scriptures. You seem to have no qualms about editing out the parts about "judge not, lest ye be judged," or "sell all you have and give the money to the poor." or "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven." You have no problem ignoring those parts, but the part about gay marriage which isn't even mentioned in the Bible, that part is sacrosanct? That part that isn't there, that's the part that you couldn't possibly presume to change?

Are you sure it's not just that you're a hater?

"I'm not against anybody. I'm really not," he said. "I'm not a hater. I'm not homophobic." 

Uh, yeah. . . Pretty sure you are, Gomer.

My Apologies

I know.
I know I've been very neglectful of my duties lately.
Work has been in - sane!
Hopefully, things will soon be back to normal.
We appreciate your patience.

Stupid person says maybe the studiest thing ever

This incredibly stupid person is named Patrice Lewis.



 You know she's extra-stupid from the get-go, because she writes for Wing Nut Daily. And no, I don't normally cruise around on WND, but there was a link on Wonkette.

Anyway, as you might imagine, her entire article, entitled "I live the life feminists hate," is stunningly, head-slappingly stupid. But this one sentence really stood out as maybe the stupidest thing ever.

As much as feminists want to deny reality, the fact remains that men and women are biologically different. (Scandalous, I know.)

Wow! Yes, that's exactly what feminists do. They totally deny the reality that men and women are biologically different, hence the old feminist slogan "what do you mean men don't have vaginas?"

And this sentence, pointing out that men have wieners and women have, um, something other than wieners? I think? anyway, this sentence is used to support her central thesis that the best way to have a happy relationship is to let the dude be in charge. Because otherwise, why wouldn't everyone have the same bodies, hmm? Ever think of that, feminists?

 Oh, and the triumphalism with which she tosses out her knowledge of facts and her charge that "feminists" somehow try to deny this "fact," so touche', case closed, chalk up another win for Patrice!

Honest to God, this whole article is really that stupid. Starting with sentence # 1:

In the wake of some feminist headlines this week (such as this and this), I am going to confess something so shocking, so appalling and so outrageously backward to the progressive cause that I’m certain feminists the world over will faint in horror.

Ready? Here it goes: My husband is the head of our household.

Oh, yes. Shocking. Because we had no idea that old-fashioned people still existed. It never occurred to us coastal elites that some people still live with a 19th Century mindset. Catch me, I'm fainting. Zzzzzzzzz. . .

Actually, to be fair, it gets stupid even before the first sentence. Check out the byline:

REAL AMERICA

I live the life feminists hate

Exclusive: Patrice Lewis boldly declares, 'My husband is the head of our household'

"Real America!" Of course, because people who have relationships based on mutual respect and equality are obviously not real Americans.

And "boldly declares?" Mt God, she really thinks this is some courageous declaration! Oh, she's a rebel, all right. She's thinking outside the box and she's not a afraid to go there!

In today’s world marinated with progressive morals and ideals, it’s tantamount to heresy for a woman to freely admit that her husband heads the household. But let’s face it: It makes life easier for both my husband and me.

You know, any time someone begins a thought with "let's face it," you know they're going to say something stunningly stupid as though it were inescapably true. And Patrice doesn't disappoint.

 I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency. Divisions of labor are utilized the world over in the workplace to increase efficiency. Why not try it at home as well?

Geezus, where to start? I guess with "spiffy?" Spiffy? Is she trying to be cute? Trying to be clever? Trying to be funny? Or is this a word she actually uses in real life? Since she appears not to have been a teen in the 1950's, I gotta think she's trying to be clever in some way, but, um "suh-wing and a miss!"

 

Also, you really want to model your marriage on the workplace? Would you like your husband to be able to fire you? Or maybe outsource your duties to someone younger and cheaper? You think the workplace dynamic is something you'd like to import into your home life? Oh, you are the last of the hopeless romantics, aren't you?

And, yes, most marriages and other domestic arrangements utilize a division of labor. For instance, I generally handle most food-related tasks and the Missus handles most money-related jobs. That way, we can live in a house and enjoy meals. That's perfectly normal. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with one person being the "head" of the house.

 I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart.

The kids are the lungs of the house. My in-laws are the spleen. Grandma is the liver. It's pretty complicated.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. My husband and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

But why?
Why couldn't he defer to you? Or why couldn't the two of you work out some sort of compromise? Why couldn't whoever feels less strongly defer to the one who is more passionate on the subject? Why should the default be you always deferring to him? For the record, it would be just as sad if he felt that he had to always defer to you. Why does either party have to have deference be their default position?

Why is it oppressive or subservient to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband? Unless she’s unmarried, it’s comforting when a woman doesn’t have to “do it all.”

See, that's what you call a false choice. Actually a couple of them. Your only two options are not " look to one’s husband for guidance and strength" or "look to 'feminists.'" One might, for instance look within for strength. One might be surprised what one might find. Or one might ask for guidance from an older relative, say a mother or aunt or maybe look to one's friends. I don't know, there are tons of options.
Also, the choice isn't between looking to your husband for strength and guidance on leaning on him or having to do it all yourself. It's wonderful if you have someone in your life that can help you shoulder your burdens. That doesn't mean you have to give up your own ability to shoulder things.

Much of the hostility toward stay-at-home moms appears to stem from the notion that home is an awful place to be.

Also, it seems to stem mainly from your fevered imagination. Who is hostile towards stay-at-home moms? I've never heard anyone directing any hostility towards them.

But a home ruled over by a domestic diva who appreciates her man is a lovely, warm, welcoming place, a refuge from an often cruel world, an anchor of peace in a tough economy, a haven of tranquility against the rigors of the outside world.

And men know this very well, because they are the slayers of dragons and our knights in shining armor whose efforts permit us to create those homes.

Wow! Just. . . wow!
You know there are many women who create homes without the aid of a dragon-slaying armor guy, right? My sister, for instance. Her husband died at a tragically young age and she has made a wonderful loving home for herself and her children - believe it or not, all by herself!




 So I guess my point is fuck Patrice Lewis, the stupidest person ever!