Bumbling Your Way Into Our Hearts Every Weekday

Whenever Elizabeth Hasselbeck attempts to tackle a weighty subject, it is often akin to a young boy trying to unsnap his first bra clasp, or attempting to open a jar of pickles with your elbows. It's difficult to watch and futile in many regards. So, when she decided to take on the issue of same-sex marriage with Ellen Degeneres' wife Partia, it didn't end well for Hasselbeck at all.



Just knowing that Elizabeth is a mother is quite shocking at times. It's almost a given that she has some form of stay-at-home childcare so that she can attend to her duties of conservative "pretty-girl" and stalk Sarah Palin and swoon over Sean Hannity whenever she is called on to do so. But what is truly frightening is the reality that her children will begin to see the world as she does. To be the child of conservative parents in todays world is a very frightening concept.

Like We Didn't Already Know, Meghan

In a recent interview for Out magazine, Meghan McCain talked about her stance on gay marriage and how not only her and her father differ, but how her standpoints on many issues differ with the status quo in Republican ideology.



And when asked about Joe "The Former Gimmick That Somehow Still Gets Press" Wurzelbacher, she said what many of us have been saying from the beginning:

Joe the Plumber — you can quote me — is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing

And when Joe's reaction to the gay lifestyle was reported ( did it really have to be? We all knew what he was going to say ) it wasn't exactly a bombshell scoop worthy of front-page attention.

It bears repeating - I almost like Meghan McCain. Her stance regarding what has been and what continues to hold back the Republican party are not simply honest, but relevant. After all, the modern GOP - as fractured and meandering as they are - are stuck in this mindset that it should always be the 1950s. However, Meghan doesn't come off as the strong voice that she desires to be simply because of who her father is. No one, well maybe a few people are, is saying that she needs to completely distance herself from her father in order for her words to have more validity. But, being the daughter of John McCain is quite a load to bear.

Early Morning Conservative Conspiracy Theory

This morning, the Fox"Nation" has a headline that reads "Was Reporter Dragged from Press Pool for Supporting Traditional Marriage?".

It seems that the bulk of the reactionary drones that frequent that site in order to gather their talking-points for the day seem to think that the Secret Service removed her simply because she wanted to give Obama a letter about upholding traditional marriage.

The problem is that the Secret Service have a duty to protect the President. This woman, who also alleges that she is a Roman Catholic Preistess, wanted to personally hand Obama a letter and insisted on waiting for him. That is a classic trigger for the Secret Service to act, and remove whomever makes such a claim.

This is on par with the "Obama is closing Republican Chrysler car dealerships".

speaking of......

Your AOL Hot Hotseat Poll

Completely Clueless Quote Of The Year?

Here's a gem from Sam Schulman of The Weekly Standard.

Gay spouses have none of our guilt about sex-before-marriage. They have no tedious obligations towards in-laws, need never worry about Oedipus or Electra, won't have to face a menacing set of brothers or aunts should they betray their spouse. But without these obligations--why marry? Gay marriage is as good as no marriage at all.

Not only is it blatantly obvious that Mr. Shulman has never met a gay couple, but it should be pointed out that he has been married three times. Guess he doesn't know so much about "traditional" marriage either.

As it is quite likely that Sam picks and chooses his citations from the Bible, maybe he ought to realize that divorce is a "sin":

Matt. 19:9

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

If They Weren't Confused Before, They Certainly Are Now

Another fine example of ignorance in advertising from the fine folks at NOM.



You remember when you were a kid and you played at school with ALL the kids, no matter what sociological background, what ethnicity, how rich or how poor their families were? Kids can clearly see past all that and know what is important in life.

The willfully ingorant controlling the words of children is not only scary, but shows the depth of dishonesty which they are willing to go.

Suddenly, I'm reminded of the mouth-agapes grunt from seething, wing-nut, prattle-heads about children being used in the debate over SCHIP.

Is this alright with you guys?

Quote Of The Year?

No, it's not to early to call it. If this one isn't a winner, it's in the running.

...I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, "Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people . . . you need to witness to them and you need to show that you're not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA.

Carrie "Side-Boob" Prejean talking with the man that is treating her like his brand-new toy, James Dobson.

Be on the lookout for the religious-right to claim that Carrie is the modern-day equivalent to Job if she gets her crown taken away.

Sheesh.

Because Every Man Dreams Of Screwing An Underage Goat

The spirit of Jerrry Falwell lives?

Seriously, the general distaste and anger that he and those that identify with him have toward not just the homosexuals in America, but anyone that doesn't fit into their canted view of the world is simply astounding.



It's that type of logic that people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and O'Reilly use. Just because you think it's "icky" doesn't mean that it's the same as something that is actually reprehensible. But, that is one of the classic plays in the fringe-conservative handbook. If you want to show that you're against it, compare it to Nazi concentration camps, rape, or finger-banging a catfish.

The sad part of this is that there are Christians that actually have tolerance and appreciation for their fellow Americans. Robertson certainly isn't one of them.

Shorter Allahpundit

Marion Barry Says D.C. Risks All Out Civil War If Gays Are Granted Right To Marry

Normally, it's my side that attacks and slanders the black man. Here's a black man that I could care less about but he voted against gay marriage so he gets a momentary pass from me. I bet you won't attack him. Go ahead, just try it and I'll call you a racist. Even though I'm race-baiting you and therefor doing something that my side has decried more times than I can think. go on, Michelle Malkin is standing right behind me all giggly-like begging for you to do it.

Hannah Montana? Really?

( h/t to 2-Political-Junkies )

It's always a great way to end your week by claiming that you know more about the bible than somebody else. And, when your the fanatical, religious-right, you are always going to shriek the loudest and claim that you hold some sort of moral high-ground.

Although I find Miss California's ascention as the new Republican toy-of-the-moment quite telling of not only her opportunistic ways, but of the party that can't seem to have a coherent message. They loved Sarah Palin for her beauty-pageant, glittering generalities a answers, so why not Carrie Prejean?

The issue of gay rights and gay marriage is always going to be something that the Right rails againsts not just because they think they understand the bible more than everyone - though that is what they will tell you - but simply because of the "yuck" factor. In essence, their mentality is that of a gradeschool child who thinks that they'll get cooties if a boy or girl touches them. They speak of love, God, and faithfulness as if they know exactly what all those really mean.

Now that the religious-right has latched onto Ms. Prejean and gone after Perez Hilton, it couldn't get much more pathetic, could it?

Oh, you completely underestimate them. It seems that Miley "Hannah Montana" Cyrus has been "tweeting" with Perez Hilton. Oh, no!

I am a Christian and I love you - gay or not - because you are no different than anyone else! We are all God's children.

It appears that Ms. Miley doesn't seem to understand that not all "Christians" are as loving as her.

Such statements will send the wrong message to our children who are influenced by this teenage megastar. Parents need to realize that Cyrus is not the positive role model she was once thought to be.

Take Action

Send Miley Cyrus a letter stating that you do not approve of her comments.

Clearly she is confused and does not understand the Bible. Please pray for the Lord to open her eyes to the truth.

That's right, they're going after Hannah Montana. I'm guessing the Jonas Brothers' agents are arranging a new talking-points memo as we speak.

The Only Way I'll Discuss This Miss California Kerfuffle With Perez Hilton Any Longer

.....is by letting Jay Smooth do the talking.

NOM: The Alternate Version

Even though this is a parody, it's still frightenly close to the reactionary paranoia of people staunchly against gay marriage and gay rights.



( h/t to driftglass and watertiger )

The Politics Of Therocratic Rule And The Evolution Of Abomination

Over the past several months - the last one being the primary focus of this piece - there has been quite the discussion surrounding "Christianity" in America and the right for same sex couples to marry. And, as a peripheral component, the "church's" views on the death penalty versus abortion.

By default, the religious Right's primary rationale behind their refusal to allow same sex couples to marry ( and by futher extention, their reluctance to let them enjoy the same basic rights that any other American is afforded ) is groudned in the ill-informed notion that the bible explicity tells them that same sex couples are an "abomination".

Recently, I saw a fantastic documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So.

Here's the trailer:



The crux of the arguement between the religious Right and those seeking equal opportunity and rights for same sex couples ( gays and lesbians in general, wether they be "married" or not ) revolves around this notion of "abomination".

By it's strict definition, the word "abonimation" means the following:

–noun 1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.

While there are several mentions of "abomination" in the old and new testaments, many of these are no longer seen in the same light or are blatantly ignored as irrelevant.

Recently, there was a wonderful comedic piece done that highlighted this.

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

To provide biblical context to this piece ( something that the Right, en masse, continually espouse but never provide ) here's some forgotten "abonimations" from the Bible that don't seem to be such a big deal anymore.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Deuteronomy.22:5

So, cross-dressing is bad

Lying lips are abomination to the LORD but they that deal truly are his delight.

Proverbs 12:22

So, do you think that Jesus and his pop are Fox"News" fans?

Recently, Sean Hannity - the good Catholic boy who claims to have never watched porn - advances a lie about Obama's defense budget



More from Media Matters

During the April 8 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity again falsely claimed that President Obama has proposed to "cut not only missile defense, but our defenses dramatically." In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009. As CNN.com noted on April 6, "The proposed overall fiscal year 2010 Defense Department budget is almost $534 billion, or nearly $664 billion when including the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Aside from the religious Right's bigotry towards gays and lesbians, their desire to protect the homeland at any cost is another major issue.

Unfortunately, since Hannity cast himself in the role as "true-believer", a lie is still a lie in the "eyes of the Lord".

He that justifieth the wicked,and he that condemneth the just,even they both are abomination to the LORD.

Proverbs.17:15

When reading the phrase "justifieth the wicked" I am reminded of O'Reilly's refusal to apologize for his comments surrounding Sean Hornbeck.

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed

Leviticus, chapter 11 and references to seafood

Guess that takes care of Red Lobster, and all your other favorite seafood joints.

There's a blatant hypocrisy within the religious Right when they attempt to toss out biblical text in order to defend their positions.

Yesterday, I saw an exchange between HRC President Joe Solmonese and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage debate on MSNBC's HARDBALL.



The video being discussed puts forth several lies and loads of misinformation surrounding same-sex marriage and the "problems" that it would cause. Think Progress has also addressed the fact that the people in the ad are actors, not real people.

Even Dr. Laura Schlessinger - a darling of the conservative movement - has recently told Larry King that she thought same sex marriage was a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.

The question to the religious Right has remained the same, and been just as simple to answer, as it ever has been - what are you so afraid of?

While their answer continually flutters between how they interpret an historical document that has been translated thousands of times over, comes in a variety of lingusitic variation dependeing on your particular preference, and has it's roots in a canonization process that was subject to begin with, as some ancient texts were left out from what would become the "Christian" bible that we all know today.

It is that same revisionism that drives the relibgious Right in all that they espouse.

Last night, as an aside to the same sex marriage issue here, I saw Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O'Donnell get into a heated debate where Buchanan appears ready to blow his top.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The discussion revolves around Notre Dames's invitation to Barack Obama to give the commencement address. While Buchanan sees this as a bad move - due to Obama's views on abortion and what the catholic church believes - O'Donnell brings up the valid point that George W. Bush was allowed to address the school multiple times and he used his power as Texas governor to permit the death-penalty more than any other governor had before.

Buchanan, clinging to his willful ingorance in regards to the Pope's view on the death penalty, continually insists that O'Donnell is the one that has no perspective on the Vatican and the Holy Catholic Church.

In all, the relious Right's desire to espouse and execute Theocratic rule, in virtually any situation where they dane it applicable, is indicative of their inabillity to see that this country was conceived under the separation of church and state.

As the Right loves to use the "founding fathers" statements in an order to prove that they somehow believed in a separation of church and state, it is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson had quite different ideas than those that have sullied his name and his deeds.

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802)

There have been wonderful discussions in the past that show that many of our "founding fathers" ascribed to a Diest point of view rather than the "Christianty" that is practiced - whether in earnest of convenience - by members of the religious Right.

It is easy to see that our nation has always been more groudned in progressive ideals rather than the religious-regressivism that is continually espoused by the religious Right and those that identify with them.

Theocratic rule within the United States would bring about such a vast and sweeping change to not only the liberal or progressive constituancies in America, but the conservative movement as well. The idea that we could have any sort of advancement within those boundries is far from the truth.

To hear people conservative commentators and pundits speak of biblical text often conjures many questions in my mind - chief of which is whether they actually understand the passages or ideals that they are attempting to discuss. But, isn't that the point of the religious Right and the bible which they claim to hold so dear? It is a mindset who's primary function is to keep it's following ignorant to the world around them.

Those that use the bible as a tool of divisiveness can't possibly have the desire to truly live by each and every word, to create theocratic rule. Their lives would be effected just as much as those which they seem to despise.

Worst In The World v. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3

----- a veiw from the wayback-machine from last week, in case you missed them ------
Rick "The White House Leveled A Veiled Threat At Me" Santelli

Rush "My Style Is Better Than Your Substance" Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh ( again )

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Fred "Bristol Says This But Means This" Barnes

Chris Wallace

Mitch "I'm Playing Beeker In The Live Action Muppet Movie" McConnell

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A"Roid" or Celina Roberts

G. Gordon "Un-apologetic Right Wing Terrorist" Liddy

Micheal "You Can't Trust A Word We Say" Steele

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Being Gay Is Equal To.....

.....murder.

Well, that is if you're talking to Scott Renfroe - Republican State Senator for Colorado.

Debating a gay-rights bill on the floor of the state Senate on Monday, a Republican lawmaker took the rhetoric to new heights by equating homosexuality as a sin with murder.

"I'm not saying this (homosexuality) is the only sin that's out there," said Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley. "We have murder. We have all sorts of sin. We have adultery. And we don't make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal."

Other Republicans said the bill, which would allow partners of gay state employees to be covered by health care benefits, is an attempt by Democrats to chip away at a constitutional amendment voters passed in 2006 defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is merely a representation of the Christian meme of "all sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord". Of course, eating shellfish and pork is no longer a sin - as that was on par with "homosexuality" in the Old Testament.

Being gay is not illegal. Murder is.

This is part and parcel of the fanatical Right's inability to understand that their narrow view of life ( no matter what aspect they are referring to ) is muddled beyond comprehension by invoking religion.

More from Think Progress.

The War On Marriage

From the fine folks at 23/6



You know, when looking back on the comedy sketch about Prop 8, there is some relevant truth to what they were singing about. Gay marriage could benefit people in economic ways.

That aside, isn't the main reason for the "demise of the family" divorce?

Focusing On Firings

From HeadzUp




Dobson will fight against Teh Gay even at the expense of the jobs of people that work for him:

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

More here.

While some bring up the very valid point that donors to FOTF should be concerned how their money is used, I'm wondering if this is a violation of the "ministry's" non-profit-tax-exempt status.

More at C&L

Huckabee's Prerequisites

Last night, I saw Mike Huckabee on some random, evangelical program on EWTN - at least I think that's the channel. He was giving some nonsensical prayer and holding hands with a televangelist who apparently thinks that bleeching his hair is a good idea.

I found myself sitting in bed a thanking whatever celestial creature that is listening that Mike Huckabee is not President.

Then, I saw this this morning:



So, Huckabee thinks that gays haven't been assaulted enough, that they have to cross some violence threshold in order to be considered the same as him? Perhaps he isn't familiar with people like Matthew Shepard or Harvey Milk. What about the thousands of men and women that are visciously attacked simply because they are "gay".

Above all, Huckabee is a "minister" and is essentially required to use the bible to compartmentalize people into groups. He has to, and will continue to, twist biblical text in order to excuse the ill treatment of those with whom he disagrees.

While some may see a vast difference between gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights - meaning that gays should be required to face their struggle on their own terms and not claim that they are experiencing what blacks did during segregation - they are, in their own way, exscusing this treatment outside of the biblical realm. It's just as wrong.

To say that you have to meet a pre-set level of violence in order to be seen as a relevant member of society is far more pathetic than I have words to describe.

One Too Many Kicks To The Head

Ever since Chuck Norris was courted by Mike Huckabee, he seems to think that he has the answers for just about anything. And, since Prop 8 is such the hot-button issue, Norris feels comfortable chiming in:

The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

More here.

The only problem with this line of thinking, is that strick interpretation of the bible paints you into a corner. There is context within the bible that no one seems to be willing to face.

Take the word "abomination" for example. When reference with sex between two men or two women, it is only speaking of the "norms" of that date and time. Of course, the eating of pork was seen in the same light as two men sucking each other off. So, when taking this into account, how can people that claim to interpret the bible in such literal terms speak with a straight face.

But, to assume that people such as Chuck Norris have the intellectual capacity to realize that they are wrong in how they interpret the bible is, in and of itself, an exercise in futility.

Gingrich And O'Reilly Are Afraid Of "The Gay"

O'Reilly's war imagry in his book "Culture Warrior" was so overblown and laughable that he just can't seem to let it go.

Now, his good buddy Newt Gingrich is taking it to another level. It's not just a "gay agenda", it's "fascism".



Do Newt and O'Reilly honestly feel that random gay and lesbian people are going to "impose their will" upon them? Certainly, O'Reilly could use some help picking out his ties, but they are doing nothing but creating an aura of radicalism around gays and lesbians that simply isn't there to begin with.

Then, you've got Newt using the word "fascism".

Like so many before him, he is doing nothing but attempting to redefine what that word - and many others that already have a clear definable meaning - means.

But, this "imposition of will" statement is even more frightening. Certainly, O'Reilly and Gingrich realize that what they are doing is attempting to impose THEIR will upon an entire community. They are wanting to strip away rights from people simply because they don't agree with them.

Of course, if you ask Newt what he thinks that bible says about adultery and divorce, i'm certain that he wouldn't be too eager to answer.

And while we are on the subject of this alleged "fascist gay state", let's take a look at one of these scary protests that O'Reilly and Newt are talking about: