This Week In Slut-Shaming

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Insane Laws Interspersed With Adorable Kittens

It's possible that some state Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall, realizing that they are fast becoming a permanent minority party and there's only so long you can keep Gerrymandering your way out of irrelevance. So, while they still have power, they're pulling out all the stops and putting the pedal to the metal towards Crazytown while they still have the chance. Here are a few of their more insane recent proposals, interspersed with adorable kittens to keep your heads from exploding.

 

You're welcome, humans!

First up, Montana crazy person Gary Marbut has proposed a "Sheriffs First" bill that would, in defiance of the Constitution, years of legal precedent and common sense, give local Sheriffs supremacy over Federal Law enforcement officers. Not only would FBI, ATF or Federal Marshalls have to get permission from the local yokel sheriff before arresting anyone, if they failed to do so the ensuing arrest would be considered kidnapping and the Federal agent could be arrested and charged.

Hey, who do you trust more?

Montana Bill Would Let Sheriffs Arrest FBI Agents for Arresting People

If Montana voters approve Gary Marbut's referendum in November 2014, any FBI agent who tries to arrest a Montanan for a federal crime could be arrested—and charged with kidnapping.

Marbut's "Sheriffs First" bill, which cleared a Montana state Senate committee last week, makes it a crime for a federal agent to take any law-enforcement steps without first getting permission from the county sheriff.

This might sound like the sort of whack-a-doo idea that would have no chance of passing, but. . .

The proposal already passed both houses of the Legislature once, in 2011, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.

In Missouri, nutbag legislator Mike Leara has proposed a law which would make proposing a law against the law. Sounds complicated, but it isn't. In fact, the entire bill is only one sentence:

578.460. Any member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

So if any member of the Missouri legislature were to propose, say, limiting magazine size or keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, that legislator would himself become a criminal, but would probably still be able to own a small arsenal, because FREEDOMMMMMMMM!!!!!

I'm not sure what the legal theory is behind this, what interpretation of what law makes this lunatic think this law would stand up to the slightest legal scrutiny, but I think it's probably based on the legal precedent of Because I Want To v. Fuck You.




Not to be outdone, ironically named South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright has proposed a bill that would have high schools teach classes about guns.

I'm pretty sure this is not him, but Google image search seems to think she is.

 



Bright says he got the idea after hearing from older constituents who “remembered the days” when students could join a rifle team or learn about shooting during a school day. “We’ve got football, we’ve got basketball, and we’ve got baseball,” says Bright. “I think if they had a hunting team, it would be a great idea.

If there's any substantive difference between a basketball and a loaded rifle, I have yet to see it!












And then, of course, there's Kansas.

Kansas, where they want to pass a law requiring teachers to lie to their students.

Bill asks teachers to question climate change in class

HB2306 calls climate change 'scientific controversy'

House Bill 2306, introduced last week, says science classes must “provide information to students of scientific evidence which both supports and counters a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

Like gravity, or the Earth being round.

The bill says instruction about “scientific controversies” should be objective and include “both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis.” The only controversy identified in the bill is “climate science.”

Because only 97% of scientist agree about global warming. That's hardly a consensus! Obviously both sides should get their viewpoints aired. Both the scientists funded by Exxon-Mobil and those funded by the Koch Brothers!





Well, that's enough for one night. I'm sure there are many more CRAAAAAAAZY laws being proposed by Republicans throughout this great land. There are damn sure more adorable kittens!

So that's what it takes.

I've been wondering for a while what could it take for the remaining semi-sane members of the Republican party to finally come to terms with the misanthropic skull-fuckery with which they have gotten into bed.

Apparently, this is it.

John Boehner refusing to bring hurricane relief to a vote in the house is apparently the final straw that breaks the elephant's back. The Republican leadership being too afraid of the teabag extreme to do the simple, decent thing, yet knowing that they daren't vote no, because they need some relatively sane humans to vote for them, that seems to be the bridge too far for at least some Republicans.

“I’m here tonight saying to myself for the first time that I’m not proud of the decision my team has made,” said Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y.

Wow! Mull that over a minute. He's never, up to this point, not been proud of the decisions made by the Republican Party. Think of all the assholetry he's been OK with up 'til now.

Even if he's only referring to the two years he's been a member of Congress, he's apparently been fine with holding the nation's credit hostage in the debt-ceiling fiasco. He had no objection to the party's allowing themselves to become the vassals of Grover Norquist and the Koch brothers. No problem with leadership demanding that tornado relief for the midwest be offset with spending cuts elsewhere or those folks can lump it. But this is beyond the pale.

And it's not just him. Lunatic Peter King (R-NY)  broke Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. In fact he shattered it, then stomped on the shards.

 

 

Peter King, pictured giving his fellow Congressmen the frowning of a lifetime.

“Tonight’s action not to hold this vote is morally indefensible,” King said. “There are thousands and thousands of people throughout Long Island, Rockaway, Staten Island, New Jersey, throughout the Northeast, who are homeless tonight, who are without jobs, who lost their business. “This is absolutely indefensible.”

“Boehner is the one,” the New York Republican explained. “He walked off the floor. He refused to tell us why. He refused to give us any indication or warning whatsoever… I’m just saying, these people have no problem finding New York — these Republicans — when they’re trying to raise money. They raise millions of dollars in New York City and New Jersey, they sent Gov. [Chris] Christie around the country raising millions of dollars for them. I’m saying, anyone from New York and New Jersey who contributes one penny to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee should have their head examined. I would not give one penny to these people based on what they did to us last night.”
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1xSns) 

 

 

 

 

Holy Shit!

Keith Olberman never gave it to 'em that hard!

 

“I’m going to do what I have to do,” King insisted. “I’m going to be independent minded. Sometimes, as John Kennedy said, party loyalty demands too much. And I would — as all of us do — often, you give the benefit of the doubt to your party. We are a two-party system. But I’m over that because as the very least, you’re expected to be treated fairly… When your people are literally freezing in the winter and they’re without food and they’re without shelter and they’re without clothing and my own party refuses to help them, then why should I help the Republican Party?”
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1xSns)

 

 Suddenly, you're not a part of the Republican Party? Suddenly, you're going to start referring to them in the third person? Like we're going to forget what a sack of shit you are?

 At least be man enough to own your part in the party's rat-fucktitude. Like Chris Christie did:

"There's only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: The House majority and their speaker John Boehner," Christie told reporters in a press conference today. "Last night, my party was responsible for this." (emphasis added)

 

  

Artist's approximation

"Last night, politics was placed before our oaths to serve our citizens. For me it was disappointing and disgusting to watch," he said. "If the people of New Jersey feel betrayed today by those who did this in the House last night, then they have good company. I'm with them." 

So, this is what it takes. The nominally sane members of the GOP will gladly go along with the gleeful destruction of all that is good about America, but they draw the line when the nihilism affects them directly.

Oh, Republicans. You're so predictable!

 

The problem is, We Just Aren't Killing Enough Children These Days

You know, sometimes, no matter how hard  you beat a child, that child just never learns to respect his beater. And when that happens, that child is a lost cause. The only thing left to do is kill him in as gruesome a way as possible, to serve as an example to the others.



Hi, I'm Republican legislative candidate Charlie Fuqua, and I'd like to speak to you parents about why it is that none of you seem to be stoning your kids to death.

As I've said in my book Kill 'Em All, Let God Sort 'Em Out, or whatever it's called,

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21

Now for those not familiar with the Good Book, by which I mean the Bible, not my book, although mine's pretty good too! LOL! The passage reads as follows:

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Now, I know that some of you LIB'RULS out there might say that this is a pretty good example of why we shouldn't base our laws on the Old Testament, but I say fuck you, I want to kill some kids! I mean, that's what God commands.

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children.

Am I not merciful?

 the Scripture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. 

Because you want to be sure that all of society shares in the responsibility for stoning a child to death. You can't just go around hucking rocks willy-nilly at every kid who looks at you sideways. It's not the wild west! Proper channels, people!

 Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

Because who is more respected than someone who threatens to kill a child with rocks?


Now, you may think that I'm some lone voice calling in the wilderness, that no one else is going to have the balls to stand up for the execution of sassy children, but you'd be surprised. My campaign has received financial support from  from the Arkansas Republican Party and U.S. Reps. Tim Griffin and Steve Womack, And, according to the Arkansas Times blog:

To date, Congressman Griffin and Republican Party Chair Doyle Webb have criticized some of the things Fuqua has said. Womack has said nothing. But no party official has demanded money back or urged Fuqua to withdraw from the race.

Hell, it's Arkansas! Down here, I'm considered a reasonable centrist. You should see the things that Loy Mauch  writes on a regular basis.  Heck, Jon Hubbard makes a habit of extolling the virtues of slavery, and no one says boo to him either! Welcome to Arkansas, mother fucker! Yee Haw!

I'm Charlie Fuqua and I approve this message.
Now go throw a rock at a child.

Hey, Texas Republicans, You Said That Out Loud!

 

The Texas Republican Party recently released its 2012 platform. As one might expect, it oscillates back and forth between crazy and stupid. There's a few dumb things you might expect, like

We also urge the Texas Legislature and the U.S. Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any judicial jurisdiction from allowing any substitute or parallel system of Law, specifically foreign Law (including Sharia Law)

You know, just because legislation is spectacularly unneccessary is no reason NOT to pass it!

and

Unelected, Appointed Bureaucrats (Czars) - We decry the appointment of unelected bureaucrats, and we urge Congress to use their constitutional authority to defund and abolish these positions and return authority to duly elected officials, accountable to the electorate.

Sure, let's vote for every fucking bureaucrat. I want the assistant to the under-secretary of agriculture to be directly accountable to me, the voter.  I can't have the President just going around appointing middle-managers to oversee the study of interstate traffic patterns without the voters weighing in.

There's the wholly pointless stuff, like

Electoral College - We strongly support the Electoral College.

Really, that's the entire bullet point. "we strongly support the Electoral College." Maybe they had to meet some minimum number of words or something?

And there's the crazy stuff like

Emergency War Powers and Martial Law Declarations - We strongly urge Congress to repeal the War Powers Act and end our declared state of emergency. Any Declaration of Martial law should be approved by Congress.

Because the president could be declaring martial law any minute without that Congressional check.
Also, wouldn't it be better to say "No Martial Law?" Why say no martial law unless. . . ?

and

Transportation Corridors – We oppose the construction of transportation projects which surrender control or ownership to foreign interest. We oppose the use of eminent domain for construction of a “trans-Texas corridor” or similar project which would create a federal corridor through Texas.

Yeah! I am so sick of the feds building roads and then giving them to the Belgians!
Also, um, you do know Interstate 10 already runs through Texas, right? I-10 is a federal road. A federal road through Texas. So you've kind of already lost this battle. Sorry.

And the assholish stuff like

Natural resources and conservation easements; groundwater and/or mineral rights are a vested ownership. Conservation easements, involving watersheds, green areas and nationalization of lands should be resisted in the strongest manner applicable.

'Cuz don't tell me I can't dump my leftover meth chemicals in the drinking water!

 

 There's even some stuff that makes sense, like

Judicial Nominees - We urge Republican Senate leadership to ensure that a record vote is taken on every judicial nominee.

Wow! When even the Texas Republican Party is fed up with your constant filibustering, maybe it's time to knock it off!

But there are a couple of planks in this platform that are truly shocking, even by Texas Republican Standards. First, there's this:

Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

Wow! Um, guys, you're supposed to pretend that you don't intend to engage in voter suppression.

Oh, but that's nothing compared to this:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Holy schneikies!

 Isn't challenging the student's fixed beliefs the whole point of education?
Oh, no we can't have that.
Let's say a student has a fixed belief that an old man who lives at the North Pole brings all the children of the world toys once a year. Sure would hate to have him ever challenge that belief!
Or let's say a kid has a fixed belief that the sun rises every morning out of the Gulf of Mexico, flies across the sky every day, then sets down in the Sea of Cortez each evening, because that's sure what it looks like. Can't have that belief challenged!

I know Republicans don't really like people to use critical thinking skills, but holy shit! You're not supposed to say that out loud!

Imagine Being a Republican Today.

Imagine being a Republican these days. Not a teabagger-nutjob Republican, but a good old-fashioned Eisenhower Republican. Who would you vote for? Could you even find a candidate you could take seriously?


 
 
Michele Bachmann? Batshit crazy.
 
 
 
 
Santorum? Assuming you're not a psychotic hatebag, and you have at least one friend or relative who is gay, you can't possibly consider voting for a man who compares gay marriage to dog-fucking.
 
 
 
Newt? Corrupt, lazy, and sooooo 1990's.
 

 
Mitt Romney? Actually looks presidential. Has a legitimate resume. Unfortunately, required to run away from his top accomplishment.
 
 
 
 
Tim Pawlenty? First of all, Zzzzzzzzzz! Secondly, he wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. And worst of all, he has started to refer to himself as "T=Paw." Unsupportable!
 
 
 
Sarah Palin? A walking punchline who will never run any kind of legitimate campaign and will quit halfway through whatever quasi-campaign she does run.
 
 
 
Ron Paul? Almost as crazy as he looks. Glorified anarchist. Republicans can't support anyone who would legalize drugs.
 
 
 
 
John Huntsman? Considered a reasonable moderate. This combined with the fact that he served in the Obama administration means he has zero chance of getting throught the primaries.
Also, if you do a google search for "Huntsman" you get nothing but spiders. (check it out)
 

Teabaggers in Action -- Chapter the Fourth

Today's Teabagger is Minnesota state senator Dan Hall.


Dan Hall claims to be able to read at a sixth-grade level, but that seems a bit dubious listening to this rambling word-goulash of a speech.

Oh, and here's a tip for aspiring public speakers. If you hear yourself beginning a sentence with "My friends are minorities. . ." just stop. There is no good ending to that sentence. There is no way that thought ends without you looking like the ignorant racist that you probably are.

Especially if your speech is anti-integration. And extra-especially if you use the words "segregation " and "integration" interchangably like Dan Hall seems to do in this clip.




So good job, Minnesota teabaggers. This is the guy you put in the State Senate. Were you trying to make Bachmann look like a reasonable choice by comparison?

Gohmert Stakes His Claim to the Title "Craziest Member of Congress."

I don't know what's crazier, the idea that Obama has some secret officer corps or whatever that he can call up at a moment's notice, or the thought that the President of the United States would intentionally deplete the military in order to acheive some sort of vague but nefarious goal. Either way, ball's in your court, Bachmann!

Seriously, though, there is something horribly wrong with this country if people like Gohmert and Bachmann can keep getting elected. People who seemingly go out of their way to show themselves as mentally unstable should not be put into any position of responsibility. I wouldn't hire one of these nutbags to manage a Starbucks, let alone be an important part of the Federal Government. How can this happen? Aren't their constituents embarrassed every time they see their representative on TV? How do you have a discussion about any subject with someone from another district without that person throwing "yeah, well at least we aren't represented in Congress by Louie Gohmert" in your face? How do you look at yourself in the mirror knowing that you voted to put a lunatic like Bachmann in a position of importance in the government of the good old U S of A?

Someday, when historians are analyzing the collapse of the U.S. they will look at clips like this one and ask "what the hell made people think that they should choose paranoid crackpots to be their leaders?" and surmise that we all must have fallen under the spell of some doomsday death cult or something that made us wish for our own destruction.

Some Things Are Just So Predictable

Yesterday, The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran this Op/Ed piece:

A case for term limits in Congress

By Lee Raudonis

Whenever I see a column by someone with whom I am not familiar, the first thing I do is check the author info at the bottom of the column to see if it's anyone with an obvious axe to grind. So who is Lee Raudonis?

Lee Raudonis of Big Canoe is a former executive director of the Republican Party of Georgia.
(Big Canoe is the name of a town in GA)

Ah, now it makes sense. Republicans only care about term limits when they are in the minority.
From the Gingrich "revolution" until 2008, you never heard them talking about term limits. Hell, term limits was even part of the Contract on America, but as soon as they took power, eh? Term limits? mmmm, no thank you.



Lee Raudonis knows what I'm talking about:

Remember the “Contract with America,” a document that some believe helped Republicans gain control of both houses of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years? I remember it well, because I was working in the House of Representatives at the time and suddenly found the member for whom I worked in the majority party. I also remember the “Contract,” because one of its key provisions was support for congressional term limits.
At the time, I thought this provision was more of a political gimmick than a serious proposal to reform government, and I was not all that disappointed that the House could never muster the 290 votes needed for a constitutional amendment to put term limits in place.

Oh, they tried so hard to muster those votes! So much effort. . . oh, wait! I'm thinking of all the effort they put into trying to destroy Bill Clinton! Watergate, Filegate, Troopergate, Travelgate, and when they couldn't find anything, they impeached him for getting blown. I guess that's what distracted them from their efforts to install term limits.

But I digress. Go on, Lee.

In the 15 years since I left Washington, I have become a supporter of term limits

Qu'une surprise !
I bet it was for the reason usually given.

I have become a supporter of term limits — but not for the reason usually given.

Whaaaaa???

Rather than favoring term limits as a way to prevent representatives from becoming corrupted by power and out of touch with their constituents, we need to limit congressional service in order to break the unhealthy bond that exists among many representatives, their political party and their constituents. Too many members of Congress have become so dependent on their constituents and party for their identity that they seem incapable of making any decisions that might upset the voters, even if the future of the country depends on those decisions.

Yes, clearly that is the problem. Congressmen are just too responsive to their constituents. It's so obvious now! Also, they are just so dependant on their party, that's why Barack Obama had such an easy time getting healthcare to sail through the legislature! Members of Congress were just so closely tied to their reform-favoring constituents and their reform-proposing party that they just never thought to oppose. . . wait a minute! That's not how it happened.

Max Baucus (D-Healthnet)

By way of example, few politicians in either party appear capable of making the difficult decisions needed to bring the budget deficit under control.

And that brings us to the second thing that is just so predictable. Once out of power, Republicans quickly rediscover their fear and hatred of deficits.

I seem to remember someone saying. . .



just a few years ago, when Bush 43 was running up deficits that would have made the Gipper blush. No one on the right was complaining about fiscal irresponsibility then, just as they weren't griping about deficits in the '80's. But as soon as they are in no position to do anything about it, MY GOD!!!! THE DEFICIT!!!!!!

It's just so predictable!

The third thing that is just so predictable: The "Vote Out All The Incumbents" movement that surfaces when the majority of the Incumbents are Democrats.


here's one example:

The objective of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy is to force Congress to act more responsibly as representatives of the American people, present and future, as well as in their role as caretakers of our nation.

Here's another:



See, it's got nothing to do with which party is in charge! Of course not! The fact that there are currently 257 Democrats out of 435 seats isn't the point. And the fact that if every incumbent is voted out there would be 257 Republicans instead, well gosh! That never even occurred to me! And even if all the incumbents aren't voted out, each one that is is voted out has about a 60% chance of being a Democrat, so that an anti-incumbency-themed election could only help Republicans, well, Gee! I never even thought of that! It's just that we didn't happen to be in an anti-incumbent mood from 1994 through 2008. Party has nothing to do with it!

It's all just so predictable!


P.S. I don't know why this strikes me as so funny, but when I did a Yahoo image search for Newt Gingrich, Yahoo advised me of this:

Others who searched for Newt gingrich also searched for...

• • 

    kirsten dunst

  • 

    katee sackhoff

  • 

    bret mich...

  • 

    laura ling

  • 

    lindsay lohan

Not a political figure in the bunch! Apparently people who like Newt also like drunk girls, over-the-hill rock stars, an actress I never heard of, and some girl's butt in a thong.

Yeah, that sounds about right!

Please, just shut up. I can't take it anymore.

McCain: Don't expect GOP cooperation on legislation for the rest of this year

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

I'm sorry, am I to understand that what we've seen from the Republicans this last year or so has been "cooperation?" You know, this bill was gutted of everything that would have made it worthwhile to try to please you assclowns and all you did was piss all over the process, drum up phony outrage and spread outright lies about bullshit like "death panels."

You were sitting in the passenger seat, you grabbed the wheel and ran the car into a tree then complained that you weren't allowed to drive. So I hope you're right for once. I hope there is no more cooperation, since it seemed to be a one-way street anyway. I hope that Harry Reid grows a pair and starts actually ramming legislation down your throats. You don't deserve to be involved in the process. You've shown yourselves to be completely irresponsible, obstructive whiners whose only goal is your opponents' failure.

You guys have been pretty upfront about your motivations for stopping healthcare reform.
South Carolina dickweed Jim DeMint said that if they could stop the healthcare bill "it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Not "we need to stop this bill because it's a bad idea." No, you had to try to stop a bill that would give millions of Americans better access to doctors and medicines because it would be politically advantageous. So fuck Jim DeMint, he's not allowed at the grownups' table anymore.

And remember Orin Hatch? He said that the bill had to be stopped because it would make the Democrats too strong. (really!) Party politics is more important than the health of the American citizenry? Fuck you, Hatch. You don't get to be involved in any discussion of substance anymore.

If you had complaints about the actual content of the bill, like the cost or whatever, you had your opportunities to register your objections, but you opted to scream and whine about socialism and health rationing and killing grandma. If you're not going to take this shit seriously, then why the hell should you be involved? The majority gets to pass the laws it wants to. If the people don't like those laws, they can vote the bums out and send in a new batch of bums to enact different laws. That's the way a Republic works. That's the way America works. You all seemed to have no trouble grasping the concept when you were in the majority. Well, now the people have sent in a different group of bums because they didn't like what you bums were doing. That's the system. Grow the fuck up and deal with it. Either put on your big boy pants and try to participate constructively, or shut the hell up and stay out of the way.