The Turd Doesn't Fall Far From the Ass

Apparently, someone mated with the odious Phylis Schlafly at some point, because she has a son. A loathsome, despicable son.

Either Roger Schlafly or a mugshot of a drifter.

And this repugnant, repulsive son of hers also hates the Violence Against Women Act.  (I know, I was totally surprised, too!)

Friday, May 18, 2012
What VAWA is about
 

AP reports:

    WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans set up a showdown Wednesday with the Senate and President Barack Obama over legislation to protect women from domestic violence, a fight that's become as much about female voters this election year as cracking down on abuse. ...  [ellipsis in original]

Okay, to be fair, so far he's just quoting the AP. It's not actually his fault that the AP reporter is being a dick. But the rest of this is absolutely his fault.

    "The man I married had a penchant for drinking and was very violent when he drank," the bill's sponsor, freshman Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., said during floor debate.

Really? Is that what the law is about? Is VAWA going to somehow use federal law to protect women from marrying men who like to get drunk and crazy?

Really, it's more about helping women to get away from that sort of man, which is not at all frivolous, so don't be so shitty.

    Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore recalled what it was like to try to press charges against her rapist in the days before the law's passage.

    "I took him to court (but) indeed, I was on trial," Moore said. "I had to prove, as a victim, that I was not being fraudulent in my accusations. They brought up how I was an unwed mother with a baby. Maybe I seduced him. They talked about how I was dressed."

So she testified in court that a man raped her, but did not want to answer questions about whether she seduced the man. She wants a federal law to presume that men are guilty so that female accusers do not have to answer embarrassing questions.

Because if your house is burglarized, you should have to prove that you did not invite the man in to your home and ask him to haul away your excess possessions.

 

He was totally into it!

 And by the way, asking a woman whether she seduced her rapist is not exactly an "embarrassing question." It's more of an insulting, degrading humiliating slap in the face to someone who has already been through more than anyone should have to bear. You piece of shit.

Another hot VAWA issue is visas:

    Ronan * and his allies argue that there's what he calls a "big national fraud" in which immigrant women claim to be abuse victims in order to gain residency or citizenship through the act, which can offer women permanent residency if they testify against abusive husbands.

    The Violence Against Women Act actually offers two avenues for victims of abuse to seek immigration relief. Women in the US illegally can currently seek temporary visas if they are victims of domestic violence.

More and more foreign women are getting permanent USA visas by making unverified accusations of abuse. We have an immigration policy that favors liars and whiners. 

*I don't know who Ronan is, he's not mentioned anywhere else in this column.

Holy fuck! 

Liars and whiners? I don't even. . .

Let's start with liars. Do you really think that women are lying about being victims of abuse and/or rape? Yes, I know there have been a miniscule number of instances, but come on. Don't you think that most women have at least seen an episode of Law & Order and have some idea of what a rape trial is like? Do you think that they don't know that first the prosecutor asks her to "please describe the horrific, degrading trauma that you went through in comprehensive detail while the perpetrator leers at you." And then the defense attorney steps up and asks "but aren't you really a huge slut?" Do you really think someone is going to put herself through all that if the charges are bogus?

I have sworn affidavits from your college boyfriends. 

Let me read them one by one,  you big whore!

And whiners?Seriously, whiners? So, women should what, just keep a stiff upper lip if they're being beaten? Where is this idea coming from, that men ought to be able to knock their wives around without them getting all whiny about it?

Of course this is the same prick that was all in a panic about not enough white babies, or too many brown babies or something:

Eagle Forum Legislative Alert: 

Thursday, May 17, 2012

America is becoming non-white
For decades, the NY Times has been promoting immigration policies that heavily favored a huge influx of non-whites.  [citation needed] Today's lead story brags:

    WASHINGTON — After years of speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official: White births are no longer a majority in the United States.

Bragging, making a simple factual statement, tomato/tomahto!

The article goes on to quote experts who say that this is a wonderful thing, except for the facts that the Hispanic immigrants are uneducated and do not vote Democrat often enough. 

What the fuck article did he read?

Here is what the Times article says about voting:

But there are bright spots. Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said the immigration debate of recent years has raised the political consciousness of young Latinos and he is hopeful that more will become politically active as a result. Only half of eligible Latino voters cast ballots in 2008, he said, compared with 65 percent of eligible non-Hispanic voters. “

That's it. That is the only mention of voting in the entire article. Nowhere does it say anything about party affiliation.

It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers. 

Wow, so many things wrong with that sentence. First, they don't share American values? That's why they risk life and limb to come here, leaving family and friends behind, to come to a country whose values they oppose? Does that make a lick of sense to you? 

Also, what American values would cause them to vote Republican? The value of running gargantuan deficits  while preaching fiscal responsibility? The value of invading foreign countries for no good goddamned reason? The value of declaring habeus corpus optional and torture legal? Maybe the American value of keeping birth control out of the hands of women while opposing programs to help victims of domestic abuse? Those American values? 

The NY Times liberals seek to destroy the American family of the 1950s, as symbolized by Ozzie and Harriet. The TV characters were happy, self-sufficient, autonomous, law-abiding, honorable, patriotic, hard-working, and otherwise embodied qualities that made America great. In other words, the show promoted values that NY Times liberals despise.

Ah, yes. The fine liberals of the New York Times

Mr. Brooks joined The Weekly Standard at its inception in September 1995, having worked at The Wall Street Journal for the previous nine years.

 

Ross Douthat joined The New York Times as an Op-Ed columnist in April 2009. He is the co-author, with Reihan Salam, of "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream. He is the film critic for National Review.

 

Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.

 

 

Nothing racist here, folks. Move along.

 

 

 

Update: This post was criticized by two left-wing blogs, the Daily Kos and Right Wing Watch. Apparently they like it when the NY Times celebrates Ozzie and Harriet no longer being a national archetype, but they are upset when I express a contrary view. Why do they hate Ozzie and Harriet so much? Draw your own conclusions. I say that they despise the mere concept of a national archetype that extols traditional American values.

Um, "fuck them Mexicans" is not exactly a "contrary view."