Pilling The Boehner

OK, this piece over at The Smirking Chimp - a site almost as good for rant-a-thons as BAD - all but completely encapsulates my feelings about the GOP latching with leech-like desperation onto the ready availability of contraception as the issue that will topple Colossus Obama, presumably installing President Mormon, Moonbase or possibly even Man-on-Dog instead.

You've probably been following the issue already - the ginned-up outrage on the farthest fringes of the right that legislation establishing ready access to health care (something they already don't much like) would include, horror of all horrors, a requirement that a common, widely-used and publicly-approved-of medication be a mandatory part of any employer's health care package. Specifically, The Pill. And House Cryer-in-Chief Boehner's threat, this week, that Congress will legislatively overturn any such mandate in the name of "religious freedom."

News flash, John of Orange. Here are a few salient points.

First, this isn't a free speech issue. Yes, we know that your camp has done everything in its power to cast it as such, when it came to Bush-era policies allowing, say, pharmacists to refuse to dispense the morning-after pill on grounds that doing so would violate their personal religious convictions. (Here's where I could elaborate on the theme of, "You think pork is unclean, don't work at Der Wienerschnitzel," but that would be a distraction...and I think everyone here gets the point, anyway.) And, yes, we expect you to predictably trot out the "corporations are people" mantra, in this case, to insist that it is a blow to the very foundations of the Union to insist that contraceptive coverage be part of any organization's health plan, because all those incorporate "people" should be allowed the freedom to choose for all their myriads of employees.

But it's not really a speech issue at all, free or not. Nobody but Congress, lobbyists and pundits comb through the minutiae of anybody's health care plan to argue free speech protections. The Average American (Remember us? We employ you.) is much more grateful for having a job with benefits, hoping for a reasonable per-paycheck contribution, and having the ability to look askance at that scary co-pay number...because I can promise you it is better than the cost of sourcing coverage for even a small family on your own. Been there.

It's an insurance policy. Not a manifesto.

And I think the Average American also instinctively understands where the boundary between a corporation's "personhood" rights and his or her own individual rights lies. It's pretty clear that, if only for reasons of the doctor/patient confidentiality tradition, the pharmacy counter does not and should not get vetted by the boardroom first. One's medical condition should only become an employer's issue when it affects one's personal job performance; not in advance, and certainly not in a broad, company-wide sense.

Second, it's not a religious freedom issue because this is NOT - repeat, NOT - a policy that dictates any given religion's articles of faith, or mandates a state religion. Again, it's an insurance policy. Not a scripture. No employer short of holy orders is, I hope, going to say that by agreeing to employment with us you agree to the following rules of behavior, ascribe to the following beliefs, etc. That is, I think, still pretty much illegal.

Furthermore, nothing in this legislation compels any individual employee to hop right on out there and get on the Pill, now, this instant, should doing so violate that employee's individual beliefs. You are offering an option: one which is, as I noted above, widely available for generations, popular with the public, and effective, and safe. It preserves, rather than overturns, the conscience objection. And if you're that scared that your faithful are going to stray from your position (as, I might point out, plenty of Catholic women already do), then your issues are more in your own communications department and less in your employee benefits division.

It's an insurance policy. Not a sermon from the pulpit. Offering is not requiring or even endorsing, any more than having a vegetarian dish or two on the menu forces or urges everyone working OR eating in the restaurant to become vegan.

I could make the counter-argument, in fact, that efforts to oppose contraceptive coverage being a universal element of the health care legislation constitute a denial of equal protection under the law to women, whose health condition is the one most greatly affected by pregnancies, be they planned, accidental and/or unwanted. Yes, we know that Justice "Bite Me" Scalia apparently has no problem with discrimination against women.(Appalling, in and of itself.) And that nobody has reintroduced the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, for those of you too young to remember how haltingly it limped its way to shameful failure), or legislation like it, in the past couple of decades is a perplexing tragedy.

But one thing you need to remember before you tread down this path, Boehner. Your constituency and those of all your GOP cronies isn't composed of Catholic bishops, Fox News pundits and right-wing ideologues alone. They also include a great many women. At least some of those women have been listening, especially in light of the recent (and ongoing) SGK/PP travesty. And when they step into the voting booth, in the primaries or the general election later this year, let's just consider. Will they march happily in lockstep with you and the other white men of privilege who are trying so hard to dictate to them what they are and are not "entitled" to when it comes to their health, simultaneously talking out of the other side of your mouths about how government needs to "stay out of" individuals' decision-making about their lives? Or will they turn to another candidate who seems to exhibit something like care or empathy for the issues that really matter to them, and genuine individual empowerment?

Stay tuned. Every day it looks more and more to me like the right-wingers have chosen the wrong horse to bet on in this race, by fixating on this issue. It's the modern-day burka of the Western world, and I believe waving it in the wind as Boehner is doing will prove to be the act of sheer foolishness that finally brings down their house of cards decisively.

One of my other favorite blogs, Library Grape, goes on to demonstrate how Boehner is making it both dumb and dumber.

He's Baaa-ack!

Just when you figured the well had run dry, our old pal Jeremiah has returned - inspired, perhaps, by the verdict regarding the Phelps clan? But his return comes with a twist. It's apparently quiz time!

Describe in your own words what you think a person who is an atheist is, then ... provide Scripture verses that describe for us what an atheist is.

Hint: One can be found in the book of 1 John.

Who's up for the challenge?

Jeremiah's Pal Doesn't Like Spicy Meatballs!

I was so excited for a while - popped over to Jeremiah's place, and there was a new post! Maybe he would now be fretting about an objectionable ad in a local paper in, say, South Dakota, having already "done" billboards. Sadly, no - it was Jer's (perhaps only) online friend, "Objective Scrutator." He seems to have a thing for the Italians much akin to Ralph's anti-Irish tirades. I guess faith-based bigotry isn't enough for them all on its own. Let's listen in.

Previously, I noted that Christine O'Donnell engaged in feminist activities in the past, and refuses to renounce her previous actions. Now, we learn that she picked Christianity as her faith by Italian intricacies:

Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell says she tried "every other kind of religion," including witchcraft and Buddhism but became a Christian because of her love of Italian food.

"I would have become a Hare Krishna, but I didn't want to become a vegetarian," O'Donnell said in an interview with Bill Maher in 1999. "And that is honestly the reason why, because I'm Italian and I love meatballs."

How you get from "meatballs" to "Italian intricacies" is baffling enough. The bit about not renouncing feminism, expected. And I guess he hasn't seen her stunning debut (and spectacularly bad) campaign ad. You know you're starting out from a pretty low point when the first line in the script is "I'm not a witch."

The reason to become a Christian is because it is the One And Only Truth, not because the Bhagavad Gita prevents you from setting a cow on fire and proceeding to devour the charred remains. Professing a love for Italy is also suspicious; after all, the blood relative of Janet Napolitano, that Communist Giorgio Napolitano, currently presides as President of their depraved nation.

You want the Upanishads, OS, not the Gita. But I don't have time to take you through remedial Hinduism 101. As the guy who does the travel ads on MSNBC says, let's move on to Italy.

Suspicious, you say? Because someone you disapprove of has the same last name as someone else you disapprove of? And happens to be Italian? Say on! This is gonna be good.

The depravity of the nation of Italy extends into the very roots of their cheesy and stringy culture, ranging from anti-Christian bigotry from strumpets such as Sabina Guzzanti to harlotry and lasciviousness from their singers such as Anna Tatangelo. Their abandonment of supporting America in the War on Terror is also to be highly condemned. Despite Wikipedia's liberal bias, I must link to this article which shows that Italy was the primary supplier of WMDs for Saddam Hussein. Need I even mention Mussolini and his atheistic doings? (His former supporters, to this day, still claim that Mussolini's concentration camps were great places to be.) Need I even mention that it was an Italian government which executed Jesus Christ?

OK, "cheesy and stringy" culture? I presume he's referring to pizza and to string bikinis, both common features of the Italian landscape. (Never mind that this is also the country that surrounds the Vatican, where you better wear long sleeves or get expelled by the guys in funny pants who follow the orders of the guys in the fancy dresses.) The "strumpets...harlotry and lasciviousness" is also to be expected, a clearly telegraphed signal that not even the lunch-lady type at his local IGA deli counter would put out for OS. The Italian government/Christ thing? Kind of a stretch, frankly, unless you want to adhere to maps that still include Prussia or, more likely, Macedonia.

But I cry absolute foul on the link (not shown here, but you can get to it from Jeremiah's place) that supposedly proves Italy fed Hussein's non-existent WMD program. It documents Italy's support for Iraq... during the IRAN-Iraq war. Even follow-on links on the notoriously-unreliable Wikipedia show that in the same conflict, the U.S. supported Iraq right alongside Italy, while Iran continued to have the benefit of military aid supplied to that country by the U.S. at the height of the Iran-Contra scandal. Facts are not optional, pal.

Clearly, Italy is not a model country, and not a model for "Christ"ine to convert to Christianity. Indeed, her love for the country which killed Jesus and several of His kinsmen is a not-so-subtle pretext for what she intends to do to Christianity [my emphasis] if she is given a chance.

And what, pray tell, would that be? Sit everyone down to a hearty plate of fettuccine marinara in church halls (since he seems to suggest her love of Italian food equates to support for all things Italian, so what better way to indoctrinate the impressionable Sunday schoolers)? Advocate for all sermons to be sign-language-interpreted topless by a buxom Italiana? Demand that Nascar add a Vespa-racing/Bible-quoting marathon to their schedule?

A President Mike Pence should haul this Wiccan idolatress out into the stockades, and encourage the public to pelt her with hard meatballs. The meatballs will only be the first bits of fire and brimstone she will face.

First, hit a dictionary and look up "stockade." Second...still on the Wicca? Better be careful, there, OS. After all, (dons Margaret Hamilton pose) I can cause accidents, too! (And, no, I'm not green. Though, unlike your nemesis Christine, I am a witch.) And...Mike PENCE? He has about as much legitimate shot at the Presidency as...well, as Christine O'Donnell.

The footnote below from OS refers to one of the "strumpets" linked to in his post, and he states:

"While I don't care about the Pope being insulted, I am offended at her insults; they are used in a context which mocks Christian teachings about Hellfire and sodomy, and should be refudiated by all good Christians."

"Refudiated." Way to go, there, brainbox.

Jeremiah Expounds on Advertising

You know, I was starting to worry about Jeremiah. Perhaps he had collapsed under the weight of all those (nonexistent) posts people were leaving on his conservatista screed? Or the birds he seems to comment on, in those rare human moments he evinces, may have objected to being binocular-stalked by such a creep and enacted their Hitchcockian revenge scenario? But he's finally back after a long dry spell, and it's a billboard campaign on the sacred ground named for Billy Graham that is the object of his ire...

Atheists put billboard on Billy Graham Parkway (OneNewsNow.Com)

CHARLOTTE, NC - A statewide coalition of atheists and agnostics has placed billboards in six North Carolina cities, including one along the Billy Graham Parkway in Charlotte.

That sign, according to The Charlotte Observer, pictures an American flag and the words "One Nation Indivisible" -- omitting the words "Under God," which were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

Of course, if a Christian group were to erect a cross beside one of the billboards, the atheists would demand that it be removed.

Actually, Jer, the billboard company would probably demand that it be removed. They're the ones who have an agreement with the landowner to erect the billboard, not your hypothetical cross-building trespassers. You want a rebuttal? Buy your own billboard placement. I'm pretty sure Christ wouldn't have endorsed vandalism. Even though the crowd you ostensibly run with seems to think it's a solution.

I don't know about you, but I thank God for our country and the godly, Christian men and women who founded it.

Oh boy. Here we go. Ever read up on Deism, Jeremiah? Most of those founders - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison - held Deist beliefs. Their supreme being created the universe and then essentially recused him/herself, leaving natural laws to be the default operating system. Educate thyself here and get somebody to help you with the big words you may not understand.

I think the bit about how strongly Jefferson was opposed as a candidate by clergymen speaks pretty directly to his beliefs being anything but the "godly, Christian" ideal you have in mind. Bear in mind that he drafted the Declaration. You know - about as founding a document as you can get.

Man had, and has no say in the founding of our nation. It was entirely a process directed by God Himself.

(Assuming the tone of Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler) Really? Nothing to do with us humans. All God's doing. Really, Jer? Really??

This is so nakedly ridiculous and lacking in even a semblance of documented justification that I am literally speechless.

Really.

Except for these two queries. One, if this was what God Had In Mind All Along, why isn't there a book in the Bible about America? (And don't do me a "Book of Mormon" tap-dance, here - that's a whole other bowl of Jell-O...) And, two, what was God up to before 1954 and the relatively late addition of "Under God" to the Pledge?...under pressure from the Knights of Columbus and during the McCarthyist communism frenzy, if I remember correctly. Was he playing tiddlywinks with an alternate universe somewhere? Getting together with Buddha, Allah and Zeus for boys' night out at poker? Grazing cows on the Milky Way? That Jeremiah can't answer either of these questions with anything but non sequiturs tells you everything you need to know about his ham-handed attempts to try to join government and religion at the hip. All rhetoric, no substance. He's a one-man "Christian" Taliban.

John Adams said...

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams was also a Unitarian and espoused a number of Deist principles, including a conviction that God did not intervene in individuals' affairs and excluding the notion of the divinity of Christ. I feel reasonably sure that he would be horrified at your attempt to co-opt his statement and pretzel it into your Bible-thumping totalitarian vision for national government and, indeed, the whole world.

And that meant that our Founding Fathers who created the document were a God-fearing people, and that the people must likewise be God-fearing people to keep voting God-fearing people into office.

Er, no. It meant that the Founding Fathers had a much more common-sense approach to life and much more of an Enlightenment sensibility than you have ever or will ever have, Jer. Adams eschewed fear as a basis for faith in favor of the preeminence of the human conscience. You exhibit exactly the "spirit of dogmatism and bigotry" that Adams would have loathed. Read up on the man on the Unitarian Universalist Association's web site.

So, I'm not about to change to suit the wishes of unbelievers to try and force me to think otherwise. They are more than welcome to change their way of thinking, and it would better for them if they did change to the Truth.

Oh, how ever shall I sleep soundly at night, knowing that Jeremiah continues on his unblinkingly ignorant, smug, intolerant and closed-minded path through existence??

Actually, now that I think on it...without a whole lot of difficulty.

Jeremiah's First DADT "Thoughts"

Well, it's not the endless sermon we're used to from Jeremiah, though I'm sure that's waiting in the wings. No, instead, today Jer borrows a page from the GOP to ask his handful of readers their thoughts on DADT. * sigh * So few sentences, yet so much that is simply wrong. Read on.

- - - - -

Should The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy of Our United States Military Be Overturned, Or Left Alone?

Going to have a little question, answer session here, today...

Okay, my answer is, it should be left alone. Either that, or overturn the law, and disallow homosexuals from serving in the military at all.

Why?

Quite simply, to maintain the integrity of our men and women in uniform, because that's what our Military is all about, and in order to maintain their integrity, they need to be held accountable to a high standard. Perversion is about as low as you can go, and therefore, should not be specially protected.

- - - - -

No surprises here. We all knew this was the angle Jer was going to take, though he does it with a smugness that is jarring; particularly if, like me, you also are getting a little tired of the teabagger crowd constantly equating military service with something approaching Impending Sainthood on the societal values scale. You'd think it was the only occupation of any redeeming value in the world.

But my reaction to this can be summed up pretty completely in a single question.

Where would you stop, Jeremiah?

At what point would institutionalized discrimination against (or in favor of) any given group of people become just Too Much for your tender tummy to stomach?

We know that he doesn't care for openly gay service members. What about women? Jer would probably argue that their mere presence in the military is a temptation to sin, so they had better be kept out. If the boys want someone to fondle, there's always the womenfolk of whatever country we happen to be invading. I mean, they're foreigners. They don't count.

And, you know, while he's at it, Jeremiah might condone a religious litmus test, to make sure no scary Jews or Muslims or Pagans or any other faith of which he disapproves are allowed to serve. Forget all that flowery Constitutional language to the contrary. No, sirree - we had better act fast to make sure that all that bloodshed happens only in Jesus' name.

And then there's the government that sends those troops off to war. Shouldn't they be held to a high standard and be all about the Integrity? Presto! Jer has a rationalization for all government offices being staffed only by straight men. (We haven't gotten into the racial stuff, yet, but I somehow suspect that in Jeremiah World, "men" translates to "white, conservative men." I could be wrong, but I doubt that I am.)

And if government is a white-straight-Christian-boys-only club, well, then, who ever thought it was a good idea for non-Caucasians, women, those of diverse faiths, and gays to be allowed to VOTE? There's your problem right there. Take anybody who doesn't toe Jer's line right off the voter rolls. The dilemma is solved! Arguably, forever, since only clones of Jeremiah...well, and corporations, according to the Supreme Court...will be considered citizens. World without end, amen.

See, Jeremiah, here's the thing. What you like to call a group's "special protection," most of the rest of us call "equal rights and nondiscrimination." If the USA is "the greatest country on Earth," as I daresay is your claim...then how is that greatness enhanced by endorsing any level of discriminatory practice, in any sphere of society; much less in service to the nation?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." "Men," of course, to be construed in the sense of "all mankind."

Admit it, hypocrite Jer. You love to wave the flag, but don't give a rip for the real values it represents. In your universe, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are the purview only of a select few. THAT point of view is what is "about as low as you can go," and it most definitely "should not be specially protected."

Jeremiah Sees Demons Everywhere...

Our old pal Jeremiah takes a small-time incident of terrorist funding and turns it into a Federal Case...literally! Document the atrocities below.

- - - - - - -

Al Qaeda: Auto parts dealer pleads guilty to aiding Al Qaeda - latimes.com

In a politically correct environment, it's a wonder that all our corporations aren't run by terrorists.

Hmm - I guess Jer doesn't have a problem with Enron chuckling about screwing Granny over on her electric bill, or Halliburton/KBR building shoddy showers that electrocuted troops overseas, or Wall Street peddling investments they knew would fail to an unwitting public. To him, that's Capitalism, not the predatory behavior - economic terrorism, if you will - which it is. His statements will hold water on this front when he can tell me in convincing terms just what marvels Big Business has wrought for HIM, lately. They're the true domestic terrorists, IMO.

However, that is the path that Obama wishes to lead America down. Through his communistic vision for America and through Islamic groups which he is working hand-in-hand with. This is what he meant whenever he talked about "fundamentally transforming America," or "CHANGE."

Facts, Jeremiah, facts! Who are these "Islamic groups" with whom you claim Obama is in cahoots? Evidence? Even sustainable rumor? Because your saying it doesn't make it accurate, any more than my teenager saying "You don't understand me!" in those desperate tones is accurate just because she believes it to be true.

And, come ON, pal. "Change" means installing terrorists at the helm of industry throughout the nation? Puh-leeze. What dictionary and thesaurus are you consulting? (On second thought, never mind - you've been hanging at Conservapedia, haven't you? All the falsified facts and history you need, on demand...) Change might just have meant, you know, a few things like...reducing taxes for most of the country, repudiating torture, equal pay for equal work, ensuring accessible and affordable health care for everybody. And you think those are terrorist values? Dude, what are you smoking?

I could say that I didn't think America needed changing...well, that would be true, say 55 years ago.

Ah, yes: 1955 was clearly the apex of all that was best in our national character.

America changed 47 years ago...

1963? You mean, the year that all this happened? Or are you talking about JFK's civil rights legislation? But, sorry to interrupt, Jer: do continue.

...whenever they changed our public school system into an atheist-based system of education, and that was the worst thing that could have happened for America.

Putting aside the imprecision of "whenever"... Aha! It must have been this, then. Bad, bad Supreme Court to assert that schools aren't churches! Jeremiah slaps you with his holy hand of righteousness!

Why? Because communism is a result of atheism! Did you know that? Yeah!

No, I didn't know that, Jer. Communism is a broad-brush political philosophy. Atheism is an individual's personal rejection of religion. Saying "Yeah," even with an exclamation point (!), is not enough to logically connect the dots between the two. As above, your saying it does not make it so. Please consider some remedial courses in constructing a convincing, factual argument for your point of view.

That is how the ACLU, along with the American Atheist's Association planned to change America to an atheistic nation, and we are a comprised of mostly atheists in this nation...oh, many will say they are "Christians" but they live like atheists everyday - taking pride in money, their homes, their cars, just everyday materialistic things above or before God.

OK, now you're getting somewhere, Jeremiah. Beginning to eat your own. Going after all those "so-called Christians" who aren't following your own narrow-minded, bigoted, stick-up-the-ass agenda. Please. Devour your own base. We'll watch.

Glenn Beck had a good show on yesterday (May 18) where he talked about how the secular forces of our government are merging with, or working in conjunction with the church in many aspects to bring about a takeover of churches all across America with his guests Dr. Peter A. Lillback and Jerry Falwell's son. Dr. Lillback wrote the book 'Sacred Fire,' I haven't read it yet, but intend to purchase a copy.

Good for you. I'm sure your purchase will help Dr. Lillback enhance his monetary situation, household status, automotive capability, and materialistic profile beyond what he already receives from his academic position and his speaker's fees from the Center for Christian Business Ethics and his Fox News contributor/guest honoraria as he opines on the Calvinist imperative to give a decent day's effort for a decent day's pay. In fact, I'm sure he will pray for you all the way to the bank.

Also, it's an oxymoron to include the words "Glenn Beck" and "good show" in the same sentence.

This merging, however, of many churches with the secular society is a dangerous move...of course, this has been evident for many years now in the way that many churches don't preach truth, standing for abortion and homosexuality, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, etc.

Oh, yeah, that taking from the rich and giving to the poor - so damned un-Christian, I don't even know where to begin.

Mr. Beck talked about this with his guests yesterday, and like Dr. Lillback said, "Where in the Constitution are the words social justice?...you can't find them, because they're not in the Constitution." And I would also add abortion to that - where in the Constitution can you find the word abortion...it's not in there. As a matter of fact, Roe v. Wade violates the fourteenth Amendment, and contained within its wording are these words - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.

You remind me of a moment in the film version of "1776" - the Pulitzer-Prize winning musical commissioned for the U.S. Bicentennial, chronicling the often awkward and contentious birth of the Declaration of Independence - when, in debating the Declaration that has finally come to the floor, one delegate comments "Nowhere in this document do you mention deep-sea fishing rights..." and the rest of the Congress groans in weariness. You hold the mythological perspective that the Founders should have been all-knowing and all-seeing, should have envisioned the 21st century while writing their documents in the 18th, and enshrined anything and everything then and there, for time immutable, unchanging, rather than creating a living, breathing document that would, and should, evolve over time.

Oh, sorry. I forgot. That word "evolve" is a foreign language to you, isn't it? You want to go back to women being unable to vote, black people being 3/5 of a person...but you might let that little thing called Prohibition slip through the cracks, because you like it, right? Selective amendments, thy name is Jeremiah.

With innocent persons the wording of the fourteenth amendment is unconditional, and no law whether created by the Supreme Court or our representatives can supersede it.

Hmm - sounds like Jeremiah doesn't like the notion of due process. Why am I not surprised?

But just like people in the heading of this story who are permitted to have entry into our country who are terrorists, we also can see in the abortion issue, that political correctness mingled with Supreme Court decisions is a toxic and very dangerous mix.

You seem really hung up about the Supreme Court in this latest diatribe, Jer. Could it be, perhaps, that a nominee of whom you disapprove has been put forward recently by a President of whom you disapprove even more? Sorry. It can't be The Scalia Show, 24/7, as much as you might wish it so. By the way, Calvinist that you are, how are you not up in arms that the makeup of the Supreme Court is shaping up to be increasingly Catholic and Jewish? Inquiring minds ask in wonderment.

Thankfully this person who was aiding our enemies has been caught and apprehended. Hopefully he will go to prison and stay there.

Astonishingly enough, in conclusion, I agree with you, Jer. This single, small-time auto parts dealer who sent, gee, thousands of dollars to Al Qaeda - that's gonna go far in terms of global terrorist activity! - should be convicted and jailed. But for you to use his malfeasance as an excuse to advance your own homophobic, bigoted, messianic agenda...as a rationale to crusade for your worldview to trump everyone and anyone else's? That's a stretch even for you.

Why not admit for once that it's not about atheism, Obama, communism, abortion, or any of your scary, looming threats? Maybe this time it's simply about a clumsy terrorist sympathizer in Kansas City, for crying out loud, who owned up to his own stupid behavior and is reaping the consequences.

You don't do your point of view any favors by being such a chickenshit in everything you post. The world is not out to get you, Jeremiah. Chill out, won't you?

Jeremiah Talks Kagan

Again, Jeremiah takes on a topic too big for his mental capacity, and embarrasses himself for all to see. Film at 11 follows.

- - - - - - - - - -

Obama Picks Another Extreme Left-Wing Democrat For the Supreme Court

…

To be firm, Ms. Elena Kagan is unfit for the title of Supreme Court Justice of the United States. She has very little if any experience in law, and no judicial experience.

Is that right? How do you get to be the Dean of Harvard Law, and then Solicitor General of these United States, with “little if any experience in law,” then, Jer? SuperLotto?

Worst of all, she has sought to destroy the foundation of our society, that being marriage, the institution that holds our nation together, literally. Without marriage (the bond between One man and One woman) we have no unity.

But, wait, Jer. Kagan has stated that she does not believe the Constitution grants a specific right to same-sex marriage under the equal protection clause. How does that square with your assertion that she wants to shred traditional marriage as an institution? Seems to me you’re grasping at straws.



Ms. Kagan also fought the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy that our military has to disallow homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

Not exactly, Jer. She disallowed military recruiting on campus because of the school’s anti-discrimination policy, which she found the DADT policy in violation of; and, when a final ruling on the issue was handed down, she reversed her decision and reinstated the recruiters’ position. Don’t you want justices who will hew to the rule of law?

And to be honest, I don't like the law either, but not for the same reasons that she does...she wishes for homosexuals to serve openly in our military, which would do more harm than can be said on these pages, worst of all, it would feminize our military and cast a blot upon the institution - an institution that has been one of honor and nobility, men of character who stand for what is right, and not what is wrong/perverse.

OK, first of all, the military already includes women, like it or not, so your characterization of it as an all-male institution of mainline manly-manliness is plain wrong. Second…you have NO idea whether or not Kagan would endorse DADT as a policy or not, nor whether she would support openly gay military service (though I hope she would). The only facts at your disposal are her enforcement of Harvard’s campus regulations regarding discriminatory organizations recruiting on campus. For anything more, you, like the rest of us, will have to await confirmation hearings in the Senate.



Just as expected, Obama will destroy the institution of marriage and our military. He is destroying our country from within!

There’s a spectacular leap, pal. One moment we’re talking about a Supreme Court nominee, and the next Obama is mandating wholesale divorces of couples of whom he doesn’t approve, and is dismantling the military with blistering speed. How'd you get from there to here?

You don’t actually read anything or absorb any genuine news reporting, do you, Jeremiah? You just shove everything you hear from the voices in your head into your own faux-pious filter, like so much sausage meat into the grinder, and then you serve up whatever comes out like a banquet of righteousness.

Talk about your junk food.

Who's To Blame? Never Mind, Jeremiah Blames Everyone!

After a prolonged dry spell, our friend Jeremiah is back, with, as one might expect, a true “jeremiad” (if you don’t know the word, Wikipedia it, now, for it truly fits), this time singling out those scary brown people from Mexico and blaming, of course, the twin demons of abortion and sex education. It’s another classic which we’ll deconstruct for your dining and dancing pleasure, below:

- - - - - -

Cultural Trouble

WASHINGTON – White flight? In a reversal, America's suburbs are now more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population as many younger, educated whites move to cities for jobs and shorter commutes.


I've noticed this for quite sometime, as I live outside a small city/town. Most of the kids that I grew up with while going to school (all my classmates) seemed to have disappeared, moved to other states to further their education and find jobs.

Oh, dearie me. Families are more mobile now than they were in an agrarian economy, moving sometimes frequently for school, work, and other motivations? Earth to Jer – this has been a trend for decades, now. Get with the program. 



Until recently (the last few years), I was unaware of the growing immigrant population, and great deal of them are illegal immigrants from out of Mexico.

Really? Because it seems to have been a big issue for your fellow right-wing travelers for quite a while. Or did you think they were talking about landscaping and charming historical re-enactments when it came to “border fences” and “minutemen”?



The demographic changes are due in part by a combination of things that must be factored in - 1. Abortion 2. Sex education 3. No immigration laws



Those three, to me, are the three main things contributing to this decline in the decline of the American population, and the rise of other nationalities in our country.

Oh, boy. Here we go. I can’t wait to see how he tries to defend this steaming pile of…well, you get the idea. DO go on, Jeremiah…



(Also...how do you "decline" a decline?)

Many would say, especially liberals, that America is a country of people that are all immigrants, or of immigrant background. 



That is true.

Good thing that “many would say” it, then, since apart from Native American tribes, it’s demonstrably TRUE.



However, in today's case, the cultural backgrounds of those immigrating here are totally alienated from those who moved here 223 years ago.

Whaaa? You mean non-European by that, I assume? Hmm. Kind of begs the question of why you’re kvetching only just NOW – I mean, why weren’t you on the warpath against immigrants of Asian descent? Too fond of your pot stickers and satay to gripe about that? Or just too busy struggling to hold your own against their kids in Math class?



The ethics of immigrants here today have Islamist backgrounds (which has established a movement here on our soil, American soil) Islam of course, which is known for its actions of terrorism, and the ethics of those who predominate the majority of immigrants to the U.S. Mexicans (which are comprised of mostly Spanish descent) and other immigrants - these immigrants, are responsible in large part to the drug problems that we have in America.

OK, now we’re really in the toxic labyrinth that Jeremiah quaintly calls “logic.” From what I can tell, he seems to be trying to connect the dots in such a way as to claim that Mexicans are devotees of Islam, or at least fellow-travelers with extreme Islamic values. That’s manifestly nuts. You try to throw a quinceañera party for your teen daughter in Islamabad – there’ll be stonings for all in the offing! Go to California sometime and tour the string of missions up the coastline, Jer. Mexico was and IS primarily Roman Catholic. Last I heard, that’s still a flavor of the Christianity you purport to represent.

Mexicans are of Spanish descent. Yes, once upon a time. Why is that important for you to point out? Or are you forgetting that Spain actually is, you know, part of EUROPE? You know, those people who struck out for America (Ferdinand and Isabella, remember them? Columbus’ bankrollers?) a couple centuries ago, but whose backgrounds you claim their descendants don’t share. Sheesh.

I’ll skip over the ungrammatical “responsible to” construction as unworthy of my time. Yes, there’s a problem with drug running on the border. But unless you think immigrants in the U.S. illegally are the sole buyers for that particular commodity, that’s a very weak cause-and-effect line to draw. I’m sure you’ll clear all that up in the next paragraph, though.

 (Though, in fact, you won't.)

Another problem contributing to the decline of American society is the philosophy of Political Correctness - A leftist/Marxist/progressive (all in the same group) philosophy which seeks to make acceptance of lifestyles, and ethical behaviors which do not comply with the rule of law, and in many ways is used to influence Supreme Court decisions regarding the legality of such ethics as those held and committed by Islamists. Though it is also aimed at protecting sexual behaviors that go against the grain of traditional family, and which is used to feminize males of the human race. Create dolts, in essence...so that they do not know how to manage family life...and much of that can be accredited to the distribution of pornography, which has adverse affects not only on the pathologies of men, but on women who indulge in it, as well. Pornography is a visual representation of sexuality which distorts an individual’s concept of the nature of conjugal relations. This, in turn, alters both sexual attitudes and behavior. It is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children and to individual happiness. In undermining marriage it is one of the factors in undermining social stability.

It’s just dizzying, isn’t it? A minute ago it was all about the druggie Mexican jihadists, and now it’s the terrifying liberals and their live-and-let-live philosophy that is somehow insisting on dismantling marriage and turning Jeremiah into a sissy, and if he won’t then Ruth Bader Ginsburg will come to his house and MAKE him by showing him pornography.

Don’t sweat it too much, though, Jer. You’re ALREADY a dolt. Not much more we ominous liberals can do to help you down that path. You’ve long since crossed that finish line.

If I may just say, though? Some actual FACTS would be nice to see from you somewhere in this diatribe. FWIW.



Factor in this, while at the same time children in every public government-run school all across the nation (millions of children) are encouraged to engage in sexual intercourse before marriage, and worse, it is labeled as "abstinence" education. They don't teach abstinence, so no wonder STDs are skyrocketing out of control. If they actually taught abstinence, the ACLU would have a fit, because their main goal, like most leftist atheist organizations is to destroy the family and our nation. Communism is their goal - tear down the family unit, create a welfare state and viola! you have social disunity and dependence on a very large and powerful government, power that they, the people themselves have given to the government, and now they have power to do as they please with the citizenry, just as the people of Germany bestowed upon themselves when they elected Hitler...little did they know that they would be escorted to a gas chamber...because they did not have the basic foresight to cut through the propaganda that they were being fed before Hitler was elected.

Whoa, Nellie! Now it’s not porn to blame, it’s the audacity of sex education! Those high school “health” teachers are out to shred the Constitution and make impressionable teens rely on government at a national level while indulging their raging hormones! They want to throw a gigantic co-ed slumber party in the gym while relocating your family unit to a rural co-op somewhere to act as slave labor for the Fed. Oh, and – HITLER!

Really, Jer? Hitler? You think that’s remotely valid, comparing teens getting basic health information in school (they’ve already Googled it by the time they hear anything official: trust me) with the Holocaust in Nazi Germany? That’s a new and very low stretch, even for you.

Also, where does the orchestra come into this? I mean…viola? What do you have against the cello or the double bass? Or, for that matter, the oboe? Are you on a vendetta against woodwinds, now?



Nations always turn out that way when the State, or the government controls the education of their youth, and not the parents.

I’d be fascinated to know whether or not Jeremiah himself went to public school. And I am, yet again, thankful that he appears to be childless.


Most dictators have this idea of "perfection," or a "perfect" society where everyone thinks and acts like they do. These dictators, all dictators are atheists, and this "perfection" they seek is what we call T-Y-R-R-A-N-Y.

Well, duh: of course dictators are tyrants. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to say that all dictators are atheists. The historical record is full of examples to the contrary. More wars of conquest have probably been fought for religious reasons than for any other single motivation.

I could also argue that Jeremiah is the one who actually wants everyone to “think and act” as he does. But, as that’s too cheap and easy a shot for me, I’ll let him go on instead.


That is what we are headed to at the present moment if we do not do something to change the educational needs of our youth in our public schools.

Change the needs? The need is what it has always been: high-quality instruction in the basic subject matter and the development of creativity and critical thinking. So what could….oh, I see. Jeremiah wants it to be 24/7 Bible study. Next!



In the article it mentions delay of family and births - Okay, this would be due primarily to the other things that I've mentioned. We have a society that is not so much delaying family units, but that do not want to take responsibility for starting a family. If they would take the initiative to take responsibility for beginning a family, then we would have a demographic ratio that is in favor of America. However, that is not the case, because they murder the results of starting a family instead of taking responsibility for them. It's very sad to see our society murdering their own unborn, and liberals have created such a society in which it is hard to raise a family due to their creation of a welfare state. It takes a substantial income to raise a family, but the family is where society starts, and liberals have destroyed that as well through abortion and sex education.

Excuse me…couples (by which he means white Americans) are having fewer children, later, because of “the other things he’s mentioned”…like Mexican Islamists running drugs and stalker-teachers luring their students with porn? And if only those white American couples bred like rabbits from an earlier age, in blissful ignorance of all that abstinence education they never had, they’d have the edge on those pesky brown folks and could keep running the show?

You can’t have it both ways, Jer. On the one hand, you’re up in arms because teens are sexually active. On the other, you’re blaming abortion as a reason (or vehicle?) for couples having kids later in life. Those two are at complete odds with one another, like magnets with opposing polarization.

By the way, couples who have children later in life are generally better, more relaxed parents and make a more meaningful contribution to society.

Every family is different. You want to enforce some kind of cookie-cutter, Stepford-wife mentality that matches up with your own prejudices and viewpoints, turning every family – well, every white family, at any rate – into some kind of mindless, homeschooling baby factory that feeds your need to feel in control and superior and safe, by the numbers if nothing else.

What are you so afraid of? I wish I could control your movements for 24 hours. The first thing I would do is put you on a long cab ride with one of our local, primarily Sikh, cabbies. A talkative one, too. Between the turban and the lingering aroma of curry I bet you’d crap your pants.



Atheists had it all patented on how to destroy America, and they have succeeded.

Again, facts would be nice right about now, Jer. But you don’t do facts, do you?



We failed, because we did not stop them. Now am I taking a self-defeating attitude you might ask? Well, no, I'm just stating the facts.

Oh, America’s been destroyed? Who knew?

 Damn, why did I file that tax return?

Like we defeated slavery in the 1800s, we must now defeat the atheist liberals in the exact same way.



If there are enough people with the mindset to change the vote in favor of America this coming fall, we won't have to defeat them like we did slavery.

So, your white-power, fear-the-brown-people-from-another-culture crowd defeated slavery? Might want to re-think your rhetoric, there, buddy. It doesn’t scan too well.



However, I don't think that will be the case, due because we have a younger and middle aged demographic that outnumbers the older, wiser voters...they outnumber the older, wiser voters, and plus they have all be educated in our atheistic public school system.

Well…thankfully, they’re more coherent than the above “sentence.”



Raising an army?



Well, we can, but we have to get the folks with the initiative, first. If we can't, then the country will continue on down the same route it is headed until we become the dictatorship that is only a step away.

Ooh! Look here, everyone! Jeremiah’s starting himself a militia! Grab your slingshot! Get Sarah Palin’s helicopter on the phone, stat!



So, the problem is much bigger than what meets the eye, as so many generations of indoctrination have gone by, and millions have sit under the sound of Atheism and Marxism/Communism which is based on Atheism.



The best thing to do is to pray.

Aw, Jeremiah. You sound so sad…I almost (emphasis on the almost) feel sorry for you.

Seriously, man. Stop being so batshit scared of anyone and anything that is different from you. I don’t believe in your God. But I feel pretty safe in saying he would not want you or anyone to be so relentlessly paranoid of such big swaths of your fellow humanity.

It would do you a world of good if you spent half as much time contemplating how you could be of help, as you do on who and what to blame for all your perceived universal ills. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Sound familiar?

Jeremiah Gets Health Care Reform...But Doesn't "Get" Health Care Reform

I've been keeping an eye out for Jeremiah's pronouncements and, doubtless, many misconceptions about the new health care legislation. I guess in the wake of the actual vote he may have transformed into a centipede for a time (not unlike C.S. Lewis' character Screwtape), because it took until today for him to hit the keyboard. And I do mean "hit," literally! Follow along as we document the disinformation.

To quote, paraphasingly, the Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. "Freedom dies a little bit today," and of course, that puts into perspective lightly, the challenge that we now face with Obamacare poised to bear down hard on the small-business sector, middle-class families. Some $200 billion dollars in extra taxes as I understand it.

Clearly, Jer does not understand it. Either that, or he thinks that the tax credits being made available to families earning up to 400% of the poverty level - which would be $88,000 per year, which I would certainly classify as middle-class: probably even upper-middle in many parts of the country - are actually taxes. Same for those tax credits of 35-50% of insurance costs for small businesses. Who will taxes go up on? Individuals making more than $200k or couples making more than $250k per year. I'm here to tell you that this does not equate to "middle-class," Jer, and if you think it does I've got a great deal for you from McCain to go pick lettuce in Arizona for the apparently "starvation" wage of $50/hour.

The United States of America, my dear friends, cannot afford this mockery of our economic system. This will destroy capitalism and the free-market. Of course, the free-market is a joke to the communists who control Washington D.C., like Ron Bloom, Obama's Manufacturing Czar, who said in early 2008...

We all know the free-market is a joke... Ron Bloom February 28, 2008

At least Mr. Bloom thinks so ... but do you agree with him? If you do, you must not be familiar with America's way of doing economics, the kind of economics that made this country great.

Destroy capitalism? Wreck the free market? Yeah, a bill that hands 30+ million new customers to non-government companies, with a mandate to purchase their product, that's really going to bring the engines of commerce to a grinding halt. Also, you've got to love how much Jer and his crowd adore free enterprise today, after two terms' worth of no-bid contracts that you'd think they could have mustered a teensy bit of outrage for.

If you agree with Mr. Bloom, you are probably more familiar with European socialist form of economics. If you lived through the holocaust, then you're probably familiar enough with socialism that you don't want to see anymore of it. You know what it's like.

The Holocaust and socialist economic theory? Kind of a reach, there, Jeremiah. The German government did funnel an incredible sum into their own war-making machine, striving for economic independence from a global economy (the kind of thing you'd think Jer would root for, isolationist that he is). But, on the whole, the economic foundation for the ongoing Nazi regime was the exploitation of the people and resources of conquered territories.

And, seriously? Jer ought to be ashamed for trying to leverage Holocaust survivors and putting words in their mouths in this vile manner.

History is the best guide and teacher, if need be, to help us in this area, because, as the saying goes, "Those who forget their past, are doomed to repeat it." And we surely don't want to do that.

Brave words from someone who forgets the past with regularity, superimposing his preferred vision on top of reality.

Mr. Obama and our current crop of elites governing Washington are doing just that, they are disregarding our past, with all the suffering and misery that was directly attributable to programs just like the one Mr. Obama signed into law yesterday, Big-Government Universal healthcare. A single-payer system, which means the government has complete control over every aspect of your healthcare needs ... they make your choices for you, and if you have a special need that needs immediate attention? You may or may not get the assistance that you need.

Did he grab your attention with the dog-whistle words "Washington elites"? (Funny how badly that jibes with the disparagement of "community organizers" during the campaign, isn't it?) Because after that it turns into a sludge of inaccuracy. First, let's hear about all this big-government suffering and misery - maybe from a gang of Tea Partiers on their way to cash Social Security or disability checks or to check in for a Medicare-covered appointment. Single-payer? Flat out WRONG. Government making your health care choices for you? Again, BS, big-time. Can you read, Jeremiah? Have you actually looked at the legislation or done any research outside your own head? *Sigh* Never mind. I know the answer.

By the way. It's President Obama. Not Mister. P-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t. I know you don't like it, but that's the way it is. Cope.

What this bill will do, in essence, is give many incentive to retire early, and when this happens, then the number of people who are already on some form of government subsidy, subsidized by taking more from the American taxpayer than is already the case, then you add the new retirees to this number and you have an system that is overloaded demand-wise ... and when demand becomes more than supply, then they will ration the healthcare, based on the person's income, including other things that will likely be factored in as part of this administration's agenda, like age, gender, race.

OK. First of all, the people this bill will be of most help to are those already living on the edge. When you fall behind with every paycheck, this doesn't constitute anything close to an extra incentive to retire. There's a reason you see all those grandpas and grandmas passing out carts at Wal*Mart, and it's not recreational in nature.

Did he miss the CBO scoring? The deficit reductions? Productivity savings in Medicare?

And as for his paranoia about age, gender and race...Jer, that quasi-eugenics fearmongering just makes you look like a worse conspiracy theorist than you are. You might as well be talking about profiling by shoe size. It's embarrassing, OK? It also uncovers that you are speaking from the viewpoint of barely-closeted racism. Quit being so damned scared of anybody who isn't a middle-aged white male, will ya?

This country will look really weird in a few years from now, a lot weirder than it already is with the multiculturalism and political correct dogma that is spouted daily in our colleges and universities.

Ooh, that scawy, scawwy educashun! How dare young people actually aspire to learn something, to improve themselves and maybe the world? It would be so much better if we all looked like we came out of the same rundown trailer park, complete with our beer guts, poorly-fitting bermuda shorts, and cowboy hats with flag bandannas on them. But you can still flee from all that "weirdness" you so fear, Jeremiah. I'm sure there's a Tea Party event in your neighborhood with your name on it, and an incendiary sign provided by FreedomWorks for you to hold while you screech incoherently.

You see, this administration's goal is the elimination of charity altogether. They are following the lead of one of their greatest idols, Margaret Sanger.

Are you following the train of thought here? Health care opportunity leads to multiculturalism leads to abolition of charity leads to Planned Parenthood?

Nope, I'm not following it successfully, either.

With the elimination of faith-based charities, then they will have successfully cut off the financing of God's kingdom. The Church is responsible for the charity freely given from the heart that has helped so many in this country through numerous natural disasters, wars, famines, etc, etc. It's what has made our country great. Made us rise to the top. However, many have taken it for granted, and decided to trust more in the government than in their Christ-like neighbor, or community Church.

Ah! Now it's just faith-based charities the eeeevil Obama wants to get rid of. Did you see that not-so-subtle pivot on Jeremiah's part? Never mind that this administration has not only continued Dubya's program of "faith-based and community initiatives," but expanded it. Mustn't allow the facts to interfere with the rhetoric.

And just what is it that has made America "great," Jer? Free market economics, as you stated above? Or religious charities (presumably, religions you favor)? As Stephen Colbert would say, "Pick a side; we're at war."

You see, God's people are there to help when there is a desperate need...there to pick you up when you are down, and this is in the Spirit of Christ. So, then, you can go on and help yourself...and whenever you are doing well, there may come a point in time when you see someone who is down, and you remember how the church helped you, and so you continue that work on in their lives, by helping them.

And Jeremiah embodies this principle by disinforming the world on his blog - well, the handful of people who actually stop by, which must be a number I inflate by double- or triple-digit percentage points whenever I pop in - and doing his best to make you afraid, reactionary and paranoid. Very Christian indeed of you, Jer.

The government on the other hand, they're not like that ... the government wants to take other peoples money...tear them down, and then ration it out to you, just enough to keep you satisfied with little, but not beyond what they deem necessary, so that you will put more trust in them than you do God to supply your needs.

Government is constituted BY people, Jeremiah. It works to coordinate common necessities that allow a society to function and thrive. Call me silly - I'm sure you will - but I would rather live in a society where air traffic safety, interstate commerce, food and drug inspection, clean water standards, and even simple local services like providing a fire department and repairing potholes are things under the control of a government, as opposed to God, or even the church down the street. Even the Christ you claim to revere told his followers to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." That sounds to me an awful lot like an admission that faith cannot do everything well, but has its own sphere, just as does government.

Well, if all goes as the Democrats are planning for it to, then many people are going to find out just how much they are able to trust in the government, and they may just get a big surprise. Many people, I'm afraid, don't even realize how badly it's going to hurt this country's working middle-class.

Yeah, that elimination of pre-existing conditions, that's going to be a low blow to average families. And they're just going to despise the ability for kids to be covered on parental insurance policies until age 26. Clearly, the end is nigh.

The fact of the matter is, Jeremiah? This isn't perfect legislation. Of the majority of Americans who approve of it, a fair percentage say that it doesn't go nearly far enough to solve the problems so many families and individuals face, and I agree with that sentiment. But once people begin to receive the benefits it provides, even the naysayers will begin to concede that the sky has not fallen, the economy has not collapsed (at least, not from health care reform: we'll leave Wall Street mendacity for another time), their burdens are eased and some of their anxieties mitigated. Those people will sit up, shake themselves, wonder why on earth they ever even listened to, much less believed, all the tripe you and your camp have been dishing up about Death Panels and so forth. And the narrow-minded cabal you support, that lines their pockets with lobbyists' cash while working to persuade poor schleps like you to vote against your own best interests through cynical ploys and whip-up-the-crowd malarkey? They will be seen through, and sent packing.

Maybe even by you. I don't hold out great hope...but I am sure you would be the last person to tell me that miracles never happen.

Pot, Kettle...Heeeere's Jeremiah!

Well, what do you know? A new week has barely begun and Jeremiah is out of the starting gate with a fresh-picked bushel of nonsense. He reads words that aren't written, sees things that aren't there, and himself (ab)uses every tactic for which he assails Those Evil Liberals. He tries to make it sound like it's about his favorite topic, but as usual with Jer it's mainly about the fear. Read on - we'll undoubtedly be getting a lot of this sort of thing over the coming news cycles, as health care reform finally comes to a head.

After opening with some "analysis" from the American Thinker blog (I won't link - suffice it to say that its staff frequent Dennis Miller's and Bill O'Reilly's programs, and one runs the aptly named site Right Wing Nuthouse), the madness begins...

All in all, all this bill amounts to is another one of the big-government, centralized-authority liberals (communists) pork barrel spending sprees. Something else to rob the elderly of their social security.

Health coverage for uninsured Americans is a "pork barrel"? Does Jer not understand the terminology? I mean, he's usually so precise - just look how he clearly and in great detail describes the common ideological ground between liberals and communists......with parentheses. He might also have noted that the elderly have Social Security thanks in large part to legislation enacted by lawmakers with more faith in "big" government and centralized authority than he possesses. Lots of dissonance bang-for-the-buck there, in just two sentences; however, we have much more ahead.

One might say that it "wouldn't be so bad" if the bill didn't contain abortion in it, but we know that the liberals couldn't be more dissatisfied if it didn't have abortion contained in it, because it is not only money for the Democrats coffers, but it plays right into their agenda..."there's unsustainable populations of people on this earth, we have to do something about global warming", blah, blah, blah, and that sort of pro-death, fear-scaremongering non-sense.

Setting aside the knot of quadruple negatives for the moment, I regret to inform Jeremiah that Words Mean What They Say, and the only way that abortion is mentioned in the health care reform language is to specifically disallow any kind of government funding for insurance covering the procedure. Continuing to insist that the facts are otherwise is just pathetic. It's like insisting that it's actually a bologna sandwich just because someone spread the peanut butter in a circle.

Interesting attempt to link advocacy for a woman's right to choose with a response to climate change, though, as though everyone but Jeremiah is pushing population control as a rationale for the first and a solution for the second. "Pro-death." Talk about your fearscaremongeringnonsense!

That's how communists a.k.a liberals work. If they can scare you into believing a lie to fulfill their pro-death mindset they'll go at extraordinary lengths to accomplish it.

Did you see what Jer did, just there? That "communists a.k.a [sic.] liberals" reference is just what he's talking about: extraordinary lengths to scare you into believing a lie! What a great example of...wait...do you mean to say that he didn't realize that he was engaged in precisely what he's complaining about? Oh. Never mind.

Even go so far as to pass such a pro-death bill behind closed-doors partisan sniping session.

Not that conservatives have ever done anything of the kind. Why, remember when they were trying to be so bi-partisan about things that they cut off hearings in the middle of Democratic testimony, and often wouldn't allow their opponents so much as the courtesy of meeting space? All terribly noble and aboveboard. The Founders would be so proud.

Bipartisanship and especially the will of the people is totally dismissed from the get-go, and of course, that's a perfect exemplar of fascism, given that the Democrats have it so clear on display for all to see.

The will of the people is dismissed? But, Jer, it's the "will of the people" that put the party you happen to dislike in the majority. It's called v-o-t-i-n-g. And I have two questions. First, can't you make up your mind? Communists, or fascists? Can't have it both ways, you know. (Or, more likely, you don't, and just like to use scary-sounding words.) And, second, if all these underhanded deals are happening, why would the Democrats make anything "clear on display for all to see," particularly evidence of fascism? Or are you hallucinating again? Too much Ovaltine will do that to you, I hear.

Of course abortion is what the bill is about, or else they would have scrapped their plan and went with the modified version by one of their own who has some modicum of sanity, Rep. Stupak.

See above, about Words Meaning What They Say, and no amount of declaiming to the contrary changing that core fact. No matter who's talking. But you know how he operates - when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when you're Jeremiah, everything's about abortion.

As for Stupak's "modifications," if you want fascism, then you've got it right there. His language would not only disallow government funding for insurance covering a medical procedure which - hate to break it to you, Jer - is still LEGAL in the US. It would go further and specify that no private funds can be used to purchase such insurance. Get that? Stupak would like to be able to tell all of us as individuals that we cannot spend our personal funds to purchase a legal product supporting a legal medical procedure. Forget government "getting between you and your doctor" - Bart Stupak would like to get between your bank account and your insurance agent and your doctor, all at once!

And Jeremiah calls that "sanity." Pull up your hip-waders. It's mighty deep out there...and I don't mean the water.

Barack Obama is nothing more than a dictator, and people who blindly follow him don't realize how truly dangerous he is, no, he is Dear Leader.

Funny, Stupak sounds a lot more dictatorial, by my reading. But I guess that, in any case, this proclamation puts the "communist" line to bed, if we're already a dictatorship...again, apparently, on no grounds stronger than "Jeremiah Says We Are." By the way, I doubt Jer knows that Dubya issued nearly 300 Executive Orders over the course of his administration, while Obama's current total sits at 44, well behind his predecessor's pace. And let's not even talk about how different Obama's attitude toward and use of Dubya's favorite toy, the "signing statement," has been.

What more reason do the American people have to wake up and smell the coffee? And no, that not the coffee-Astroturf party that the Liberals have going in response to the true Americans in the Tea Party.

Oh, this is rich. No, literally! I refer, of course, to the well-heeled corporate funders of the oh-so-grassroots "Tea Party" that the patriotic Bible-thumpers who populate Jeremiah's imaginary world adore. Americans For Prosperity. FreedomWorks. Koch Industries and the Scaife Foundation. Faux News, of course. Big-business conservatistas and master orchestrators of "spontaneous" movements, all.

Yet Jer thinks that the "coffee party" is the astroturf? The Coffee Party that started with an idea on a Facebook page a few weeks ago, and uses Google AdSense to defray its web hosting costs?

Follow the money, Jer. And consider switching to decaf. You're clearly too wound up to think straight.

But the kind of coffee where you wake up to in the morning and realize that reality has just struck...we need to get the Democrats out of power, and fast.

Well, if all comes together, Conservative prospects look to be pretty promising.

I know you're trying, Jeremiah. It's a thankless job, doing your daily darnedest to demonize everyone who doesn't hold your own arch-conservative views. Working tirelessly to persuade people to take positions against their own best interests and those of their families, neighbors and friends, all so that big business, Wall Street, talk radio and televangelism can continue to flourish at society's expense. And, especially, trying to enforce your own personal hangups on the morality and behavior of an entire gender, as if shoehorning a size 8 foot into a size 6 shoe.

Do yourself a favor and take a rest. Because when health care reform becomes a reality, and people realize they're benefiting from it more than not...that it offers them one of those rare patches of certain ground under their feet...that the sky hasn't, in fact, fallen? Then you'll regret all those lost hours beating your paranoia drum for nothing, and Conservative prospects will be less promising than ever.

All Aboard the Jeremiah Crazy Train!

After a drought of a couple of weeks, Jer has returned with a full complement of the misguided. Today, he brings us the intersection of atheism and pornography! Follow along as we unfurl the non-sequiturs...

...the far left and the factions that make up the far left, which can be broken down into two basic groups - atheists and homosexuals.

Never let it be said that Jeremiah doesn't know how to make a dramatic entrance! Surely he will go on, now, to exhaustively yet succinctly support this sweeping claim?

Of course, all homosexuals are atheists, but not all atheists are homosexuals ... however, overall [...] in the atheist worldview there is no objective morality ... I mean, birds have better sense than most atheists have.

Hmm. Guess not. After he's left off any attempt to explain why he thinks "all homosexuals are atheists" (what's next, all straights are Republicans? all transgendered folks are aliens?), I don't suppose we should remotely expect him to tackle backing up his statement on objective morality. Or ornithology.

Getting back to the pornographic aspect of this thread ... this is one aspect of atheism, as there are many other practices, and or philosophies which fall under the same heading-atheism. So, pornography is just one aspect of atheism. Pornography is probably one if not the single most effective destroyer of life in the atheist's arsenal of weaponry.

Oh, I see. All homosexuals are atheists, so therefore straight porn is one of their chosen weapons against the bastion of purity that is Jeremiah. Perfectly logical. Incidentally, did you notice that Jer has just gone on record saying that pornography destroys more life than abortion? Bet he didn't, either. But one thing is certain...I'm going to be watching for him to catalogue all these other horrific atheist "practices" he alleges. That will surely be a post to remember!

So many people think that the women who get caught up in pornography are the "victims" ... well, that' not entirely the case, but women do put themselves in a highly risky business when doing porn shoots and movies for a "job."

Well, that's dismissive for ya!

Men must not be left out of the victim equation, because they too indeed, become victims...especially those men who become sex addicts. A severe level of brain-damage occurs with sustained levels of epinephrine going into the blood-stream...this chemical is released when excited or frightened in varying amounts, depending on the level of excitement or fear, and it is meant to prepare one to fight or flee the scene, it's like instinct...it puts more blood to the lower extremities, to prepare one to run, in essence ... so that is a healthy thing, in a sense.

Jeremiah is not a doctor, but he plays one on the Internet. Particularly when he's talking about other people "playing doctor." Better not dwell too much on those lower extremities, Jer - you might hurt something.

But there are times when it is not so healthy, such as when lust becomes a factor, looking at pornographic material in a book or magazine, or watching pornographic films/channels on the television, or on the Internet.

Wow - sounds like he's done some very complete research! Someone find this man's Netflix account and PPV statement, stat!

The combination of epinephrine, and the image works to cut a channel into the brain so that eventually, that is the only part of the brain that works, the part surrounding those images that have been stored into it, while the other parts of the brain become atrophied altogether so that that person cannot function in a normal way, or have a normal life.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a really confused version of a graphic from a 1950s educational film? Or maybe one of those responses you hear from schoolchildren every Thanksgiving, describing how to cook a turkey?

So, yeah, men become victims to this terrible fate of damage done to their brain through the viewing of pornography. Not to forget, also, that pornography is the leading cause of family break-ups. Wives feel rejected due to their husbands looking at other women through the various means of objectifying them. Many broken hearts can be accredited to the atheists pornography, and likewise souls spending eternity in a hell that burns without ceasing.

Now pornography is the "leading cause of family break-ups," is it? Crockery-flinging arguments and pathetic apologies, maybe. Break-ups? Not so much. I'm pretty sure it pales next to infidelity, financial woes, and a host of other culprits. But don't worry about that scary brain damage, guys, because according to Jer, you're hell-bound anyway...

God help our country. If you know of a friend who is addicted to this horrible atheistic disease, please try to encourage them and help them to break free from it.

Now it's a "disease." From plot to weapon to malady, all in one post! Quite a feat, Jer.

So, to sum up - the terrifying gay atheist pornographers are out to get you. I'm sure Jeremiah could elaborate for you, but I think I see him over there, cowering behind a bank of the Westboro Baptist Church's protest signs. Careful of that one with the rainbow paint job, Jer! It's probably been near enough to someone gay to have cooties.

A Dip Into the Fundie End of the Gene Pool

I'll admit it - I have a weakness for the collection of rampant nuttiness that can be found in the archives at Fundies Say The Darndest Things. Think the work of our fave Jeremiah, only wackier and far less coherent. And, in the absence of any fresh rants from him worth commenting on lately, I thought I'd pop into FSTDT and see what was noteworthy this week.

As always, they didn't disappoint. Forge ahead, Gentle Reader, and marvel at the cognitive dissonance.

From The I Saw It, So It Must Be Real File:

WYSIWYG — What you see is what you get!!

The Biblical geocentric model of the universe is called WYSIWYG—what you see is what you get...True science is supposed to be based on observation. We see the array of stars wheeling around the earth approximately daily, and we motorize our telescopes to follow their steady motion. We see the sun rising and setting daily. We see the planets doing roughly the same thing, and we see the moon following them on a somewhat different schedule, all revolving around the earth as our eyes testify.

There is no justification at all from what we observe to arbitrarily assume the stars to be fixed and the earth rotating. The beauty of geocentricity is that what you see is what you get! It is a simple and readily understandable scenario for those who are willing to believe what their eyes tell them, and make the mental transition back to the instinctive reference frame of a stationary earth.

Oh, now, come ON. This is even worse than the Creationist Museum, with people putting saddles on dinosaurs and trying to call it science! What's next? I see a rainbow, so instead of learning about refraction and moisture in the atmosphere, I will assume that God is fingerpainting? I go to see Avatar in 3D and I believe that blue aliens are really flying right at me? And don't get me started on how freshly silly this is coming from a group that very likely bases its faith on the manifestly UN-seen.

From The "Super Sunday" Word of Prophecy File:

We are in our 111th congress and 111th supreme court justice
we are also in the 111th pope of saint malachy's prophecy
44 kings of Israel, 44 presidents and now 44 super bowls.

I think this is a numerical sign that we are at a juncture of some judgement about to come to the US and WW 111

Has anyone else received numerical synchronicity signs from the Lord? I have like, alot of them.

I won't even touch any of the grammar or spelling. But..."44 super bowls"? Really?? I guess the new question is, whose team colors would Jesus paint his face with? All-out wacko. I wonder who runs the Seraphim Football Pool.

From ET's This-Time-It's-Personal File:

(Wiccans in the Military)

I feel this is a devastating blow to the core of who and what America used to stand for. I would rather die at the hand of terrorist or enemies than to be protected or represented by pagans. In the Old Testament did God's make armies full of devil worshipers prosper and defeat the enemy? Uh, no. So then why do we think it is okay and that God will continue to protect and make us victorious if we are allowing open worship of false gods? That's like setting up an idol of Baal right next to the temple of God. Do you think He is going to stand by quietly? As you can tell, I am furious.

OK, you who know me know my reaction to this one, going in. (A) Ignorance: pagans don't buy into the Christian god/devil dichotomy, so this is a moot and invalidated point; (B) Surprise! There have been Wiccans and pagans in the military - and, quietly and unobtrusively, everywhere else you go! - for a long time, they just haven't had the right for their faith to be recognized on military headstones until recently (one good thing to come, against all odds, during the 8 years of BushCo); and (C) so far, I'm not seeing any kind of divine intervention stepping in to warn off those scary pagans from serving their country just like many Jews, Sikhs, Atheists and a host of other non-Christian members of the US military do. But, then, if you'd "rather die at the hand [sic.] of terrorist [sic.] or enemies," dear FSTDT poster, please knock yourself out and enlist. I daresay I will appreciate your service far more than you appreciate that of those with whom you disagree.

And, finally, From The "What I Tell You Is True...From a Certain Point of View" File:

Many people think that Star Wars is a good movie. This may be entertaining, but in fact it is evil. Why, you ask, is a tool for millions of Satan's favorite movie? The answer is the police force.

Throughout all three movies, people always said that in May the Force be with you. However, what is power? In the "angel" Obi-Wann Karboi said, "It's something inside all living creatures." But, is it not God?

Police make people like the devil. Luke is a "teaching" the dirty, wizened, dwarf substitute for God, Yoda make things flying in the air TELEKENISIS. This is the devil!

Darth Vader should be a good evil and Owen en. This is not correct. They are evil, because Owen En hope Luke (a desecration of the things the name of the devil, biological) use of such super-senses feeling and get good. George Lucas is telling us that the Jewish Christians, God is not enough, and want us to believe, at a higher secular human force. Tell Jesus, George!

The R2-D2 is the mute false god Baal who children are told is "cool." It so cool when you play God, and that your position? I do not think so!

OK. Full disclosure. I've been a classic SW geek of the first water for years. I won a trivia contest on the original trilogy back in the eighties, at no less a venue than a science fiction convention, where I can promise you the competition is stiff. Even after all these years, I know the odds against successfully navigating an asteroid field (3,720 to one, if you're wondering). But, all that said...I can't make anything resembling sense out of this post! The police force? Where does that come from? Obi-Wann Karboi, Owen En - does this guy have any concept of actual character names (be it noted, he's posting this on a fan fiction site, which seems like a built-in recipe for ridicule all by itself)? R2-D2 is BAAL? Yoda's CGI flying-objects tricks are Satanic? Police make people like the devil?

My only conclusion in response to this one has to be that the individual who posted this was unbelievably high for the SW viewing, the posting, or more likely for both.

And right about now I am all-but-wishing I was in the same boat, perusing these posts...because then they might make something a little more approaching sense, instead of saddening me anew at the way ignorance and denial continue to be held up as American virtues, in some circles.

And just to bug this last poster, I'll close by saying May The Force Be With You.

Jeremiah Crows...but Should be Eating Crow Instead

Time once again, boys and girls, for another deconstruction of your favorite fundie and mine, good ol' Rev. Jeremiah. Are you seated comfortably? Then let's begin.

In his latest foray into our common sense, Jeremiah celebrates the Brown special election victory in Massachusetts. (I guess he didn't read the part of Brown's platform that says he believes an abortion should be a decision "ultimately" made between a woman and her doctor...) But, oh, the dissonant places he goes in his paean to the glory that is Teabagger Brown!

Brown Wins!

I know I'm a little late on this, due to too many irons in the fire, of course, but ... I'd like to take this moment to congratulate Scott Brown on his magnificent victory last night over the Democratic Senator Coakley.

Way to go, Mr. Brown!

So far, so good. No bankrupt talking points, no slander. Honest enough for our Jer.

How long has it been since Massachusetts had a Republican for Senator? Well, from what I've heard, it's been a long time, long even before I was born. I think it's forty some years since Ted Kennedy occupied that seat and even before then, if I'm not mistaken. So that's getting close to the century mark.

Er...wrong. JFK defeated then Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., in 1952 - still well this side of the 100-year milestone. Still, thanks for playing, and we have this splendid selection of Tupperware and the collected works of Ann Coulter for you.

Also, Jer, when you're looking for, you know, actual historical facts beyond "from what I've heard," The Google can be your friend.

This says something major is happening in our political world, and my thinking is that it has something to do with this healthcare bill that the liberals (communists) in our Congress are trying foist upon taxpaying Americans, is what I think. I know, it might appear as if I've not been keeping up on this, but I have...and I don't like what I see coming from the communist power-structure that has manifested itself in our nation's headquarters. My, what a dangerous bill.

Ooh! Cue the Red Menace rhetoric (after all, what stronger strategy than to call anyone who disagrees with you a communist?). Someone blast out O Fortuna at high volume. Jeremiah's about to expose all the dire peril lurking in this piece of taped-together legislation...

Anyways, this victory in Massachusetts shows that the people are finally beginning to see this for themselves, and are taking advantage of our electoral process to turn it around while we still have an electoral process, because from the signs it was becoming more and more evident that our White House and representatives were going to eventually change all of that if they could fool the American people into going along with it. Thank goodness that's not the case.

Whaaa? That was anticlimactic, Jeremiah, to say the least. Not even the slightest attempt at actual evidence...just this Rumsfeldian "My, what a dangerous bill," which I imagine voiced in the same tones as "Oh, dear me, little Pookie has had another accident on the carpet."

So, a little data-checking:

1) Those Democratic (ooh! Communist!) majorities in the House and Senate were, in fact, Jer, elected by "taxpaying Americans." So it's worth considering that they're not so much in the business of foisting as in the business of enacting the will of their constituents. Well, maybe not you, of course...but then you're not a representative sampling, now are you?

2) You did know, Jer, that Massachusetts already has statewide health care, yes? A program that is, in fact, more generous to the citizens of Massachusetts than the proposed national legislation would be (you can read up on it here). Republican then-Governor Mitt Romney was the one who signed it into law. So, by your lights, Massachusetts residents voted in a national election primarily against a benefit they enjoy as a state...all in order for their guy to work to deny the other states in the Union a less progressive plan than the one they already possess. Somehow, I don't think that's how the average voter's mind works.

3) Also, explain the recurrence of that "communist" label, would you? Because I seem to recall a seminal document of American politics which includes the charge to "form a more perfect Union" and "promote the general Welfare." How does accessible, affordable healthcare for all citizens not serve these worthy goals, pray tell? You seem to be all for going it alone apart from questions of belief, in which cases you would be happy to foist your views on others.

So, it's time to go to work, and put the commie elites in their rightful places, and that's some place getting them a real job, not in Washington D.C.

Such a short sentence, and so much that is wrong contained within it. The biggest dissonance first: "commie elites" and "[get] a real job"? Can you perhaps connect those two in some sane way, Jeremiah? I mean...either all these people you disagree with are elite snobs looking down on and shafting you, Joe Average Applepious (h/t Stephen Colbert for that last), or they're lazy parasites feeding off the public dole at your generous expense. Which is it? Because it sure reads like you're trying to equate apples with turnips.

And by suggesting that none of the jobs in DC are "real jobs," I assume you feel that Scott Brown is actually doomed. And, come to that, I'm curious...what is your "real job," exactly? What do you do that makes for gainful employment - that lines your pockets, or enriches the corporate trough at which you are pleased to feast? You seem to have a lot of time to devote to nature photography and blogging.

Serious challenge, Jer. Tell us what you actually do for a living. Explain those "irons in the fire," please. I'll even start so you don't have to be shy. I co-own and operate a technology web site. Have done for nearly a decade, while freelancing on the side.

If you're currently unemployed and have time on your hands, I'm sure there are some online correspondence courses that will help you build your capacity to craft a cogent, rational argument for a given point of view. Because given the quality of even this brief post, you could do with the tutelage.