Right Wing World's Response to Paris Attack: Impeach Obama!

Whenever something awful happens (except for the wide berth given the Bush Administration following September 11), things inevitably get political. And each side declares that the other is "politicizing" the tragedy, usually while simultaneously politicizing it themselves. Sadly, such is the case with Friday's terrorist attacks in Paris.

And right after this left-right thing (which frankly comes with far more volume and crassness from the right*), comes the inevitable blame game. Regardless of how they get there, it's a) the fault of Democrats in general, b) the fault of President Obama, c) the fault of John Kerry, or d) the fault of Hillary Clinton. They're also apt to pick any or all of the above, and the funny thing is, it doesn't have to make sense or have any basis in reality. It's the "Thanks, Obama" punchline, except they're for some reason, serious. And then, inevitably comes the calls for impeachment. The charge? No idea, outside of "presidentin' while black."

Here's a post from Right Wing World Ground Zero, FreeRepublic.com, and not just from the page, but from site creator Rim Job Jim Rob himself.

[Excerpted entirely due to short length]

Jim Robinson of Free Republic with succubus alien being demon seed
Ann Coulter, from source.

Impeach Obama NOW!! Before the Islamofascists attack US again!!

Posted on 11/13/2015, 10:04:58 PM by Jim Robinson

Obama's wanton lawlessness, criminal incompetence, willful neglect, refusal to enforce the law, refusal to secure the borders, refusal to even recognize the obvious enemy, refusal to take Islamic terrorism seriously, etc, leaves us wide open to terrorist attack. Our borders and nation must be secured! All Islamics here on temporary visas must be rounded up and deported now! Recent Islamic immigrants should be suspect. Obama's treasonous policies are inviting ISIS to attack us!!

Don't let it happen again.


And here are just a couple of responses, just to give you some flavor.


"This is just another reason of many for Obama to be impeached."

"I agree completely except it is too late. The radical left has taken over the country and are now consolidating their power.We will never give up and maybe we can take our country back but the only way I can see that happening is an act of God."

"I believe 45 percent of the country would support a democrat even if they were brain dead on a ventilator. We MUST win the presidency with either Trump/Cruz or both."


So much for hoping that a serious event might shake loose some sense on the right.

* If you don't believe me, check Michelle Malkin's or Ann Coulter's recent Twitter feeds.

Right Wing World: FReepers Go Bananas on Gay Marriage Ruling

As I said in my earlier post, the Fourth Circuit Court ruled Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.  This is newsworthy, and cause for celebration for marriage equality supporters. Now, "traditional marriage" supporters (a misnomer, since almost nobody is against traditional marriage) are less pleased. What drives them, and keeps them as invested as gay people remains a mystery to me. But to say that some of them are not taking it well, would be a vast understatement.

Today, I checked in on FreeRepublic.com, one of Right Wing World's most fervent outposts on the web. And what I found there was. . .well, kind of amusing. FReepers are nothing if not entertainingly batshit crazy. But they also veered into the disturbing. Particularly that bit about hanging judges.



Actual Screen Cap of FReeper Discussion (Click to embiggen)

[Excerpts]

"Short of impeachment of these judges, there is no going back to civilization."

"One more example of the Decline of Western Civilization. We live in a culture of death that has rejected God and celebrates evil and perversion. Lock and load, folks. Lock and load."

"Someday someone is going to hold judges accountable for making up law (legislation) from the bench."

"A constitutional amendment banning queer marriages is needed... in addition to impeaching these corrupt and traitorous judges."

"Who, in their right mind, would even want to be president and have to govern over this drain-circling country?"

"Yep. Opposition to homosexuality is falling like dominoes. If no one is going to draw a line against it, it's going to be up to We The People. Load the magazines...it's coming sooner rather than later.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!"

"There is NO HOPE AT ALL for this country. None."

"We've gone so long being meek, compliant and quiet, that our enemies have us against the ropes. The only way to win back our Republic is to fight. Hopefully, it'll be just with words, picket signs, and maybe fists, but if it goes further, we have only ourselves to blame."

"When will a state secede? The 10th amendment is being stomped on."

"It’s time to start hanging judges."

"The coprophiliacs and lesbians win again."

"We are quickly becoming the United States of Sodom and Gomorrah."

"It’s like they’re soldiers in Satan’s army."

"I am full of such rage, hate and anger as never before. I hate all of them, the left, the libs, the immoral, the courts, the president, the politicians. Eff all of them. I wouldn’t even mind if God destroys us all and sorts us out later. I hate living in this country. . ."

Here and here are the source pages.

Jay Carney Steps Down as White House Press Secretary

As my Swiss friend Romie might say, "What the big deal is?" Why should it be suspicious or controversial that a press secretary would resign? It's a position with a rather high turnover rate. George W. Bush had four of them in eight years. Jay Carney was President Obama's second.
[Story continues below]




I'm also seeing a bunch of Twitter and other commentary from Right Wing World, calling Carney a "serial liar," and worse. Which I find kind of amusing, since the position is about "spin," though not everyone would call that lying. It's a rather thankless position, one that does not lend itself well to blunt honesty. And I wonder, who would the right consider an honest press secretary? Ari Fleischer? Ha! Dana Perino? Haha! The late (and former FOX "News" Sunday host) Tony Snow? No way.

So no, I don't think Carney set himself apart as particularly worse than any of his predecessors.  But frankly, I haven't been a fan of very many of these guys (and gals). Historically, I rank them right in there with the heads of the DNC and RNC for people I don't particularly like to listen to.  All of them are in a position of spinning to their own advantage, all the time. But that might be the difference between a liberal like me, and your typical hardcore conservative: I don't love the person in this position simply because he's "on my team." What do I mean? Scroll down below the excepted article below, and I'll show you.

[Excerpt]

White House press secretary Jay Carney leaving

Jay Carney is stepping down as White House press secretary, President Barack Obama announced on Friday. Obama said Carney told him of his decision in April, and Carney later said he plans to leave the position in mid-June. The President announced that deputy press secretary Josh Earnest will step into the role. . .

Read more at: CNN

Now, what did I mean by the hero-worship some on the right have had of the president of their party's spokesman? Well, here you go. Right wing outpost FreeRepublic.com had a love-fest with Bush era press conferences, particularly those of Tony Snow, who was himself--it is alleged--a "FReeper." This image would accompany any post regarding a White House press conference. Can you imagine a fawning graphic like this for any other politician?

Will Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Tough Time with Boston Bombings?

When something bad happens in the news that is of the scale of the bombings in Boston, I feel compelled--and I don't know why I do it--to check in with FreeRepublic.com. Not to get the news, or some kind of insight, heavens no. I just want to see what the lunatic fringe (now, sadly with representation in Congress) is saying, right off the bat.

I liken FReepers to Sophia Petrillo on The Golden Girls, who was said to have suffered a stroke that removed the "tact" filter in her brain. FReepers have no filters, except the reality distorting Right Wing World prism they run everything through. They have no concept of "too soon" or "out of bounds," unless it goes against one of their near-and-dear issues, and then they are extremely easily offended, and full of outrage. They are also prone to instant conspiracy theories. Some flame out very quickly, some catch fire. All have inconsistencies, blind alley tangents and plot holes, with some having coherence problems at the very beginning, and others falling into unintelligiblity later on.

And sure enough, there were already FReepers calling the Boston Marathon bombings a false flag incident. Some were tying it to Sandy Hook. And that of course was leading them to some sort of tie-in with "gun grabbing" and Obama using it to take more of our "freedoms." Yeah, they're idiots. So, while I was glad to find this article from Dave Weigel about why spinning this into a conspiracy will be awkward, he underestimates the wingnuts. They don't care if their theories are around the bend, make no sense and are self-contradictory. They're all id, no tact, no logic, and have no problem with cognitive dissonance. See why I keep tabs on 'em?

[Excerpt]

Why the Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Tough Time With Boston

. . .We walked past it right in time to hear the "false flag" guy. Dan Bidondi, a "reporter/analyist" (sic) for Alex Jones's InfoWars, managed to ask Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick the very first question in a nationally televised press conference. 

Why were the loud speakers telling people in the audience to be calm moments before the bombs went off? Is this another false flag staged attack to take our civil liberties and promote homeland security while sticking their hands down our pants on the streets? . .

Read more at: Slate

Glenn Beck Supports Gay Marriage?

Not a live video, click source link below at TowleRoad

In a true sign that Right Wing World is wobbling on its axis (and possibly careening wildly in its orbit), Glenn Beck has expressed support--or at least lack of hostility--for same-sex marriage. Yes, I know, you're more surprised that Glenn Beck is still "a thing." Me too. But this is big news in places like Free Republic, where they're outraged, and promising to never listen to his radio show any more. Wait, he still has a radio show? Yeah, but for how long?

[Excerpt]

Glenn Beck Expresses Support for Gay Marriage, Says Republicans Need to Create 'Ultimate Big Tent'


"Let me take the pro-gay marriage people and the religious people — I believe that there is a connecting dot there that nobody is looking at, and that's the Constitution...The question is not whether gay people should be married or not. The question is why is the government involved in our marriage?". . .

Read more at: TowleRoad

Captain Obvious: Sorting Out Sandusky

This post shouldn't have to be written. But the truth is, posts like it aren't written often enough. On Friday, Jerry Sandusky, the assistant coach at Penn State, was found guilty on 45 of 48 charges for sexually assaulting many, many boys over the years. His guilty verdict was cheered by many on the scene, and my immediate response to the news was, "good."

So, why a Captain Obvious post? Because though 99.999% of sentient humans take this news as a good thing, a goodly portion of those people equate Jerry Sandusky with ordinary gay people. He's not. Sexual orientation is a continuum of sexual attraction from heterosexual to bisexual to homosexual, with shades of grey in-between (and of course, the rare asexual, outside the scale). Pedophilia and pederasty describe a psychiatric disorder wherein a person is sexually aroused by under aged--and unable to consent--children. There are straight pedophiles and pederasts, and there are gay ones. Oddly enough, many child abusers often pick targets that are the opposite sex from their adult relationships. This is the case with Sandusky. Or perhaps not. Many predators just need prey, and Sandusky had access to boys. Who knows what his other predilections might be.

Good luck, short eyes. Image from LA Times.

So, calling Sandusky "gay," or trying to make him representative of all gay people isn't just wrong, it's hideously, unfairly and maliciously wrong. It is also dangerous, and I don't just mean to the gay people you're slandering. If you're got it in your head that it's the gays you've got to watch out for; if you're keeping your kids away from their favorite gay uncle because you can't separate concepts adequately. . .you may be letting your guard down to the actual predators. Married, family men, respected in the community like Sandusky.

Meanwhile, the idiots at FreeRepublic, the tea baggin', Palin-lovin' outpost of the interwebs, can be depended upon to take this wrong-headed thinking to its zenith (or nadir, depending upon your point of view). They run every pederast/pedophile/kiddie porn/you name it fetish under the badly named "homosexual agenda" portion of their stomach-churning site. When my conservative mother assures me that Republicans aren't homophobic, by-and-large, I think of FreeRepublic, and realize that Mom is hopelessly naive. Here are just a few of their comments. The asterisks mask a few words that they actually feel free to type out.

[Excerpts]

"Isn’t men liking men considered normal now? S/"

Editor: Boys, idiot.

"Jerry, Jerry, you're a fairy, A fan of banana and cherry, Go to jail, For a century! A little trick with Dick."
 
Ed.: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of "conservative humor."


"FNS and CNN anchors, both sex perverts, talking about another sex pervert committing anal rape of boys is too much."

Ed.: See what he did there? Anderson Cooper and Shepard Smith are somehow equivalent to Sandusky. Nice. Now, for a doozy:

"Great. Now if they can just quit promoting in schools the idea that “sodomy is good” to the children, so they are less likely to be victims. Sodomites are twisted and have a sick reality, which knows no sexual morality. They misuse their body parts in debasing ways. There is no logic or morality—so age makes no difference. Pederasty and homosexuality has been intrinsically linked since Ancient Greece and the Samurai. It is a learned behavior. Schools intentionally promote Sodomy in Sex Ed (they teach anal sex) and by having “Day of Silence” and putting the word gay with “Pride”. Sodomy is a Vice and children need to learn Good and Evil by the Standard of the Bible—since our Natural Rights come from God, so they do not fall victim to these people who have no sexual boundaries and will use them. The homosexual reality is that debasing acts are “love”, which is the slippery slope to any debasing act-—even that with children—since “self pleasure” is their only criteria for “good”.

Get perverts out of the schools. -—like Kevin Jennings. Better yet, get your children OUT of public schools. They are promoting evil to children—to normalize the debasing and dysfunctional lifestyles which lead to a socialist state."

Ed.: The stupid. It burns! No, jackass, you're wrong about almost everything you've said. But the key chink in your screed is your "slippery slope" comment. You're not even smart enough to know that it is the name of a logical fallacy. One of the main ones.

"Wait a fews years as this nation sinks further into immorality....this behavior will become legal and protected."

Ed.: No. It won't. Rape and molestation are crimes on people against their will. The only time I've seen any otherwise rational person argue against protections against rape, it was Republicans trying to change it to just "forcible" rape, whatever that means.

"Just more proof that homosexual fa**ots have no business in leadership positions."

Ed.: See? Told you there'd be asterisks! Offensive, wrong and redundant. The FReeper trifecta!


"Or be able to adopt!"

Ed.: Okay, moron, Sandusky was a married heterosexual, as far as we know. How exactly would your knee-jerk reaction have stopped him?

And on that note, we have the lone, sane FReeper, who answered that last bit better than me. Credit where it's due:

"The problem with your statement as it pertains to this case was that there was no evidence that Sanusky ever lived an openly “homosexual” or “fa**ot” lifestyle outside of molesting young boys which was done in secret and not openly. Sandusky was never, as I understand ever interested in having sex with other adult men, only in having sex with children who happened to be male. A male pedophile who prefers having sex with female children is none the less still a pedophile and just as sick, twisted and evil.
Barring openly homosexuals from leadership positions would not have prevented someone like Sandusky from doing what he did as he was not an openly homosexual man who had sex with other adult men. He lived as a straight man, a pillar of his community, someone well respected in his community and someone that even his neighbors and close friends, some who are deeply religious, had no idea of his perversions, yet he was someone who secretly preyed on vulnerable children for years." --by MD Expat in PA

There is much, much more. But for once, I'm going to give a FReeper the last word.  Source.

UPDATE: For Dan, my friend at the conservative LasVegasBadger, I do not think that FreeRepublic represents all or most Republicans. But they are a very vocal, and unfortunately these days, heeded force, the core of the tea party. Dan, you keep me on my toes.

Conspiracy Corner: Breitbart Was Totally Killed by White House!

I didn't mean for this to become the "all Breitbart, all the time" blog, and predicted I'd never talk about him in my most recent post. But I added the caveat that I'd drop the subject unless there was a surprise. I think this qualifies, thought it should probably fall into the "shouldn't surprise you, but still does" category. I bring to you the possible replacement conspiracy theory to the birthers and the after-birthers (ew): the Breitbarters! They're so crazy, that after a harmless (but initially suspicious) package was delivered to Rush Limbaugh, they'd incorporated that into the theory. This shit moves fast these days, kids.

[Excerpts]

"I think he was so effective that he was murdered... and there are those that openly wanted him gone."

"If they really wanted him gone, then they could not have chosen a better time. His death sucked the air out of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s press conference on Obamao’s forged documents."

[Editor: LMFO!]

All screen caps found at JoeMyGod.com

"He was walking alone late at night. Someone could have poisoned his drink in the bar, or got him with a KGB-style umbrella injecting in the calf. Motive: he was a very active and influential opponent of the far left-wing forces who openly confronted the Occupy creeps, and recently revealed that he had damning videos of the Dictator-in-Chief, who happens to be from Chicago, a bedrock of mob-style hits. Can’t rule anything out yet."

[Ed.: Impressive!]

"I'm surprised that it has taken this long. Expect more now that the Media has proudly provided [Rush's] address to the idiots on the left. Gated community might slow them down."

"Very little mention of the jogger seen running by Breitbart minutes before he collapsed, according to the witness."


[Ed.: Quick! Call CSI: Brentwood!]


"Breitbart ...warning. Limbaugh... Beck... Somebody trying to silence free speech?"

[Ed.: BECK? Who on earth cares about Beck?]

"So sorry about Breitbart, and now Rush. God save us from the loony left. Please let Rush and family be okay. They really want to shut us up, but if it’s war they want, it’s was they will get!!!!"

[Ed.: Fellow libs, they're on to us! Let's hope they don't have gun racks on their Rascal scooters!]

"[In response to the message above:] Yep, they are just BEGGING for it. And they shall recieve [sic]."

[Ed.: Wow. They've declared war on a mythical "they."]

"Way too many Freepers are conspiratorially-minded. Men who have defective hearts have heart attacks in their 40s which are often fatal. Sometimes things are as they are and there is no need to attribute them to 'outside forces.'"


[Ed.: Huh. A FReeper "concern troll" or a rare voice of reason?]

"Makes me wonder if the libs are trying to scare us into keeping obama [sic] in the WH by offing conservatives. I hope our four candidates have guards. Obama comes from the most corrupt sity [sic] in the nation and I put nothing past them. Firdt [sic] Breitbart and then Rush. To coincidental. It is WAR!!"

[Ed.: I was unaware that Honolulu was the corruption capital!]

"If his family were smart, they’d insist on an independent autopsy. I wouldn’t trust an opinion by anyone in bed with LAPD and Hollywood libs."

[Ed.: As with all conspiracy theories, there are many--maybe hundreds, maybe thousands--of co-conspirators.]

"Do you think the ME isn’t in on it?"

[Ed.: See?]

"It will take blood...eventually."

[Ed.: Somebody should really be keeping an eye on these people.]

"Sounds like 'they' are warning some folks. 'Don’t be like Brietbart [sic].'"

[Ed.: Wow.]

 "He could have been poisoned when he ate with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn."

"I had the SAME thought. Beck has said in recent weeks bad things he won't go into any detail about have been happening to his family, himself and staff."


[Ed.: Disturbed minds think alike! And again with Beck? Only this crowd thinks Beck is anything other than a loon.]


"Andrew was killed.......I hope someone has those videos of the liar in cheif [sic]"

[Ed.: OMG!  Barack Hussein Obama must've been the mysterious jogger! It's all making sense now!]

"It’s mathematically possible to calculate the chance that a 42 [sic] year old would die of a heart attack in the same month that he is going to release politically damaging information. What you do is you determine the chance of the first event and multiply it by the percentage representing the second event.I’ll let you know, the probability of the first event is less than 0.01. Necessarily, the probability of both events is less than the probability of the first."

[Ed.: Must be that new math. That new crazy math.]

"I still cannot get over it. Maybe, just maybe, he had to fake his own death to save his family?"

[Ed.: And now, we have an alternate conspiracy theory. Interesting. . .]

"Weird day. Andrew Breitbart is silenced. Sheriff Joe reveals the birth certificate is an obvious forgery. And Rush gets a bomb scare.  The Rush one is interesting as maybe more credible threats had been recently made to his security team and they were on high alert. Weirder and weirder."

[Ed.: Breitbart looked 15 years older than he was, Rush's "scare" was a false alarm, and Sheriff Joe is a loony birfer. But I guess this is keeping these weirdos busy.]


All quotes found at the right-wing central command, FreeRepublic.com. I'd give you a link, but you can find this crap all over their site. 

Responses to "Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage"

I did it again. I wandered into the vipers' pit at FreeRepublic.com. And I simply couldn't resist commenting upon their ridiculous post, "Five Reasons to Oppose Gay Marriage." Since it is apparently impossible for me to comment on their site (I signed up, but was never allowed to post), I shall do so here in my own space. My efforts to bait FReepers into visiting me here have been (wait for it) fruitless, even when I seeded articles with as many disparaging words as I could think of. Oh well.

Image from WBET

Here are the bullet points, followed by my comments.

1) Gay marriage is incompatible with Christianity (and for that matter, Islam & Judaism).

[Editor]: First and foremost, this is only a reason to be personally against same-sex marriage. It is not sufficient reason for laws or constitutional amendments. Conservatives like to squawk about religious liberty, but often forget that the first amendment is supposed to also protect people from religious oppression. So, a religious objection is (or should be) irrelevant in law.

Secondly, not all Christians (or Jews, and I'm sure some Muslims) are anti-gay. Some are very welcoming. Besides, the bible's scant admonitions are imprecise, probably badly translated, and inherently open to interpretation. If you parse "thou shalt not lie with man as with a woman," there's plenty of wiggle room there (pun intended). And it says nothing about two women. Jesus, by the way, never said boo on the subject.

2) Gay marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom.

[Editor]: In no way is this true. Religions and the religious are free to go on thinking that same-sex marriage is bad, and that gays are demonic heathens. No serious person is attempting to have same-sex marriages performed at churches who do not want them. Churches are currently allowed to deny performing marriages, and do so all the time. 

As for business people "being forced" to provide catering halls, cakes, flowers and the like, really? If a person is so religious that their personal morals are offended by selling goods or services to gay people, perhaps they should try a different vocation. Good grief, do they run background checks on all clients, in case they may be doing something against their religion? This potentiality has nothing to do with legalized marriages anyway. Right now, gay people regularly have commitment ceremonies, and the business owners are faced with the same decision. 


3) Civil unions could confer every "right" that marriage does.*

[Editor]: This one is dumb. But let's take it at face value. If civil unions and marriage are the same, why bother with different terms? "The same, but different" or "separate but equal" don't fly in the United States. Anyway, the statement isn't true. Civil unions don't have any federal recognition at all. The solution is simple. Everyone should recognize that there are civil marriages and religious marriages (holy matrimony). I got married at City Hall. I didn't ask for--nor do I want--holy matrimony.

4) Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends.

[Editor]: Even though it is a common part of speech, a "slippery slope" argument isn't just a logical fallacy, it's one of the main ones. It actually has that name! The following is an actual line from this argument:


"Furthermore, once that door is opened, where does it stop? How about brother and sister? Marrying the dead sound any better? How does man and dog strike you? Adults marrying children? How does marrying a tree or a clay urn hit you?"

In all of the above examples--except the brother and sister, assuming that they are both adults--you have not just bad logic, but a legal impossibility. Leave aside how insulting it is to have my relationship compared to one with a dog, corpse, tree, child or urn. None of those things can offer informed consent. So the argument is void. The incest argument is a red herring too. Nobody is sexually oriented toward family members. It isn't a sexual orientation. And there are no throngs of incest activists looking to get married! Let 'em move to Kentucky or something.

5) Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage.

This is probably the stupidest item in the list. "Marriage" isn't a collective, like The Borg on Star Trek! My marriage--and I already have a legal, gay one--isn't, doesn't, can't affect anyone else's. Opponents act as though expanding marriage to include same-sex couples is a zero-sum game. If I take some "marriage," it doesn't take some away from somebody else!  


Okay, so that's it? Those are your "good reasons" to oppose gay marriage, FReepers? None of your reasons can explain why my current gay marriage is doing anything to anybody. There are thousands of married gay people in several states and the District of Columbia. What tangible harm are they causing right now? Because this isn't hypothetical anymore. We're here, we're queer, get used to it. That may be cliche, but it is 100% apt.

In the unlikely event that you want to read the article that inspired this response, by all means, go to FreeRepublic.com. Hang around, read some stuff, but be warned. They're pretty appalling.


*Upon re-reading #3 above, I realized that a surface reading of my response could be seen as a contradiction. First I say separate isn't equal, then I say I will take civil marriage over religious marriage. If you took it that way, read it again. This is about civil marriage, and the rights and privileges afforded by it. This isn't and never was about holy matrimony.  

Survivor of Giffords Shooting Says She Makes Him "Want to Vomit"

Bitter, party of one. You'd think going through a trauma together would soften your heart a little. This guy sounds like a died-in-the-wool FReeper. You know, basically unreachable.


[Excerpt]

Gabrielle Giffords Makes Tucson Survivor 'Want To Vomit'

A year after the Tucson shootings that left six dead and 13 injured, one of the survivors has strong feelings about the incident and congresswoman and her astronaut husband Mark Kelly.
That feeling is best described as nausea.

"Every time I see them on TV," George Morris, 77, told the Arizona Republic, "it makes me want to vomit. . ."

Read more at: Huffington Post

Notable Quotable: Right-Wing World Edition

"I would rather have Sarah. Or Cain. But I would pull the lever for Gov. Goodhair.


At least he's got balls enough to shoot a coyote when out jogging with his dog."

--by JRandomFreeper (gone Galt), from FreeRepublic.com, one of the purest distillations of the tea party on the internet. 


Yep, Perry should be President because he's got balls, and shoots animals. Brilliant.


Source: FreeRepublic

Sarah Palin Says "No" to Running in 2012

Though she kept her faithful holding on for almost as long as she possibly could, Sarah Palin let them down on Wednesday. The former half-term Governor of Alaska milked it, and milked it. As recently as Tuesday, Palin's fans at FreeRepublic.com (the purest blend of tea party radicals on the internet) believed that Palin was not only running, but, well. . .

New Signs Palin Will Blow Up The GOP Race


Sorry, FReepers, it is not to be.

[Excerpt]

Sarah Palin 2012 Decision: Former Governor Not Running For President 

Sarah Palin will not run for president in the next election cycle, according to multiple reports.
"After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for president of the United States," said Palin in a statement on her decision." As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order. . ."

Read more at: Huffington Post

Right Wing World: Crazed Reactions to Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal

As usual, when a big political thing happens that I know will drive right-wing world crazy, I dip a toe into the roiling waters of FreeRepublic.com. FR used to be an internet outpost for only the fringiest of the fringe of right-wingers. Then something happened. The people stayed just as nutty, but the politics of the Republican party and/or conservatives lurched as far to the right as is possible. Making the FReepers mainstream conservatives, as unlikely as that seems.

But I'm hoping the rabidly anti-gay sentiments of FReepers (and from the tea baggers) are still sort of fringy. Because their reaction to the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is frickin' insane:

"Purely pandering to the f*ggot and d*ke voters."


Editor: Yes, this type of language (sans asterisks) is typical on FR on any "Gay Agenda" (yes, they call it that) topic.

"barf alert doesn’t even come close. Maybe weeping, wailing, tearing our outer garments and throwing dirt onto our heads while sitting in ashes would express our sorrow and revulsion."


Ed.: Go ahead, I'm not going to stop you. But you might want to examine why this freaks you out so much.

"I’m SO close to meeting the physical requirements to serve, and the more I see of this garbage the more I wonder at what the hell I’m choosing to do. It’s disgusting. And all I can say is I’m glad Obama won’t be in charge forever..."

Ed.: I'm SO curious what this dude's physical requirement is that won't let him serve! Apparently, it's disgusting.

"Now comes the screaming for partner Bennie's and housing."

An example of the FReepers' impenetrable humor.

Ed.: Yeah, because it would be so terrible for gay people to be treated equally.

"It’ll be interesting to see how the first sexual harassment complaint against a homo is resolved."

Ed.: I'd imagine, in exactly the same way as if it were heterosexuals. Though I'd also wager that most gay service members are already so used to playing it straight, they're unlikely to step out of line any time soon. So don't worry so much about the "homos" for a while, 'k?

"Now homo’s can have homo parties in base.
Men can wear dresses after work on base.
same sex can kiss and hold hands on base.
Homo officers will give promotion to their homo.
women can buy strap on and both sexes can buy homo mags.

men forced to ahve showers with homos acting up.
survival training consists of men having to share sleeping bags with other men in cases of hypothermia.  the list is endless and this had better be overturned."

Ed.: This list is so paranoid and deluded, I don't really know what to say. Anyway, I'm more entertained by the bad grammar, bad punctuation and bad capitalization. This dude is really beside himself, apparently. But the next guy, one "LibWhacker" (oooh!) takes the prize:


"How long do you think we'll have to wait before we begin hearing of homosexual NCOs (or even officers) raping recruits? Gonna happen. Count on it.

Sending your son off to serve in the military is going to be a lot like sending him off to serve a prison sentence, with organized homosexual gangs preying on the weak and, where gays manage to attain rank in numbers in a unit, forcing those soldiers who don't accede to their sexual demands to do all the most dangerous jobs in war zones."


Didn't I tell you? Is that one magical, delusional rant, or what? Homosexual gangs? I swear, on one hand we're mincing fairies, and on the other, we're unstoppable rapists? They really need to make up their minds.

If you want to see more (and oh, there's so much more), you can go here: FreeRepublic.  And if that doesn't fill your need for freak, check out anything under the misnamed "homosexual agenda" banner. . .or. . .uh. . .well, just about anything else.

The Right Wing Reaction to Marriage Equality in New York

First, let me say that I'm aware the blog has been top-heavy with Countdown with Keith Olbermann clips and stories about same-sex marriage, and sometimes a combination of the two. That's because Olbermann came back this week after a long hiatus, and because of all the expected (now delivered) action in New York on marriage equality. So, I can't promise to let up entirely just yet. Give me a couple of days to bask.

As regular readers of my blog (all twenty of you, thank you) know, when a big, politically divisive story crops up, I like to go check out FreeRepublic.com. Well, I don't like to, I just do it, because it is one of the largest internet outposts for pure id conservatism. Or what is known these days as conservatism. Anyway, I wasn't to be disappointed. This story isn't even an hour old, and look at the treasure trove of doom, gloom, hatred, homophobia, apocalyptic rage and otherwise unpleasant reactions for right-wing world.

[Excerpts]

"The idiots didn’t legalize homosexual marriage, they’re laying the groundwork to persecute those that don’t support it!"  Editor: No, in fact there was a uniquely stringent set of religious exemptions passed that is bound to the law. Meaning, if one day someone tries to remove them, they invalidate the main law.

"Welcome to HELL,New York!" Oh, eek. Yeah, I'm sure New Yorkers are quaking in fear. They've already been through hell and back.

"They just spit on Christ" Really? Where does Jesus say anything about same-sex marriage. Bueller?

"Making perversion legal - the end of a once great Republic. Obozo will finish us off once and for all." Gosh, these guys are creative. "Obozo." Genius! 

"Those so-called protections will go bye-bye at the drop of a liberal judge’s hat with the first lawsuit." Wrong. See above. But look what you're worried about: the right for religion to continue to discriminate. Doesn't sound very 'Christian' to me.

"Not to worry, Jesus is taking notes, so to speak." Ooooh. Is he makin' a list and checkin' it twice?

"I'll look for a LOT of homosexuals getting infected with HIV in their wanton celebrating tonight. They only need the mildest excuse for debauched behavior."  Yes, because Spring Break and Mardi Gras partying by straights is sooo restrained, and always done safely, and soberly.

This is a favorite cartoon at FreeRepublic. It hinges on the "slippery
slope" logical fallacy. It is easily refuted: children cannot give informed
consent, so pedophilia is out. Nobody can marry more than one person,
so there is no "equality" issue there. But gee, aren't they funny?

"Well, I always thought that if the tragic scenario occurred in which Al-Qaeda got its hands on a nuke, for me the least upsetting place for it to be set off would be in Hollywood. But, I’m really thinking right now that New York is pulling to the forefront. To repeat, burn in hell, New York!!" Nice. And these people claim to 'love' America. Apparently only parts of America.

". . .what upsets me is that the voter in NYS had no say in this matter, and from what I read, that is because unlike California, the voter cannot overturn what the legislature deems as legal. Is there no state in the union that refuses to capitulate to this devilry?" Yes, 31 of them, actually. Somehow, 31 states found the argument that it's okay to vote on other people's civil liberties. I dare say, the devilry is in that detail.
"Another nail in the coffin." You're confusing us with the Vampire Rights initiative on HBO's True Blood. Different issue.

"Memo to NY: since you’ve decided to officially become a degenerate [epithet deleted] state, don’t expect any help or sympathy from me the next time you have a 9/11. Burn in hell, New York." Another one of the America haters.
 
"All I can say to New Yorkers, is if you believe the Bible is the word of god. . ." Enough of this argument already. The United States isn't and shouldn't be ruled by the Bible or any other religion's text.
 
"It was only a matter of time until enough votes were bought." Yes, because if something passes that you don't like, it must have been illegitimate.
 
"So I suppose our only hope is that a single conservative judge will throw this out, like that rump-ranger in California did?" Unsurprisingly, this FReeper is as ill-informed on what he's talking about as most of them are. The "single judge" didn't just throw out a law. He ruled that Proposition 8 was un-Constitutional, and his arguments were virtually unassailable. Not to mention that the defense put up a pathetic case. And Judge Vaughn Walker may have been a 'rump-ranger' (see how clever they are?), but he was also a conservative judge.
 
"Kinda gives a new meaning to a “Shotgun Wedding” don’t it?" Once again, I'm stymied by conservative humor. This--I'm sure--is staggeringly funny to them, but I don't get it.
   
"With animals and children on leashes not far behind." As I noted in the caption to the cartoon, the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy, something FReepers don't understand. Animals, like children cannot give informed consent.

There's lots more, and it's sure to get worse--and quickly. These quotes came from two posts there, but there are sure to be dozens. So rather than give you a link to a particular thread, if you want to read more, just go to FreeRepublic.com, and click "Homosexual Agenda" at the top of the page. Yes, their terminology is as inaccurate as their page layout is dated.

Las Vegas Review-Journal Copyright Case Tossed. Good.

Here's the story of a hobbyist blogger, who was blogging along merrily, and then got freaked the hell out. Yes, I'd been blogging for a couple of years, careful to give attribution when I used sources, making it clear that not everything at Greenlee Gazette was produced by me alone. As is common practice on blogs, I clearly indicated excerpts and photos and whatnot. I thought everything was cool.

Then one day, a company called Righthaven started buying up the copyrights--so I thought--of articles from The Las Vegas Review-Journal (apparently in cahoots), and started suing bloggers who excerpted from that source, willy-nilly. You could be a big duke like FreeRepublic.com or Democratic Underground, or a little hobbyist like me. Well, I removed everything I'd ever excerpted--maybe 35 posts--except for the links, and one photo that I have every right to show, morally. And thank goodness, they never came after me.

But they did go after Democratic Underground with a vengeance. And they lost. Badly. And DU is going after them for damages. Good.

[Excerpt]

Judge rules Righthaven lacks standing to sue, threatens sanctions over misrepresentations

A federal judge in Las Vegas today issued a potentially devastating ruling against copyright enforcer Righthaven LLC, finding it doesn't have standing to sue over Las Vegas Review-Journal stories, that it has misled the court and threatening to impose sanctions against Righthaven. . .

Read more at: VegasInc.

Right Wing World: Free Republic Silent on John Ensign Scandal

If you want to see what liberals, progressives and/or Democrats are saying about an issue, you can go to Daily Kos, or to Democratic Underground. If you want to see what conservatives, tea baggers and Republicans are saying, there are a few places to go, like FOX Nation, Red State or Hot Air. But if you want to read distilled, hard-core conservative commentary, you can do no better (or one might say, worse) than Free Republic. FR is not for the faint of heart. Before you go there, dip your toe in right-wing talk radio. Watch a couple days of FOX News, especially Glenn Beck, Hannity and Huckabee. Then you might be ready.

Here is the mission statement of Free Republic (reduced in size due to length):

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism [sic], feminism, homosexualism [sic], racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our BORDERS, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
 
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is NOT a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our GOD-GIVEN rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of Life.


Our God-given Life, Liberty and freedoms are NOT negotiable!!


For God, Family, Country, Life and Liberty!!


If you cannot live with the above, fine, but keep your mouth shut about it while on FR. Don't fight against us on ANY of our deeply held beliefs!!


DON'T TREAD ON ME!!

Anti Life & Liberty trolls will be ZOT on sight!!  [Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2627159/posts]

And you'd better believe, they mean it. You won't last long if you sign up, and then do anything to go against that screed, like mention that gays are human, or that atheism is Constitutionally protected. And if there is an issue--big or small--that can make Democrats look bad, Free Republic will be all over it. It can be extremely speculative, with the flimsiest of "facts" to build the story on, it doesn't matter. They'll go for anything that boosts "conservatism" (in quotes, because their idea of conservatism strays so far from what it used to mean), and anything that tears down liberals, particularly President Obama.

So, I've made Free Republic a go-to site, whenever there is a big story that I think they'll be either shrieking in horror about, or having libertygasms over. They rarely fail to deliver the most hyper-partisan take on whatever the story is. But occasionally, they do fail me. While they usually will eventually get their shit together on a unfavorable conservative story, in the early days, they are often utterly silent.  I went there this evening to see what the FReeper take on the John Ensign scandal was. Surely they have something to say about it, right? No, not so much.

My best guess is, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, Michael Savage and the B- and C-listers must not have the Ensign story on their radar. Or if they do, it must be either very muted, or very muddled. The FReepers don't know what the "official line" is yet, so they're just clamming up about it.

Uncharacteristically, right-wing world went all wobbly about the Osama bin Laden shooting. For once, they must not have taken a meeting to decide what their line would be. Different talking heads had different things to say about it, different people to praise or criticize. It was kind of a mess, other than they tried really hard to avoid giving President Obama any credit. Eventually they settled on "Obama is taking all the credit for himself. He's arrogant. (And did you notice, he's black.)"  Right now, as it pertains to the Ensign story, I think they're doing what they usually do: waiting to see what Limbaugh and the rest decide the storyline should be, or better yet, hoping the story will die out and go away.

So, Okay, Glenn Beck Was Talking to Sarah Palin. . .

First I got stuck in a string of Arizona shooting posts, then I went off on a tangent involving Glenn Beck, and now I seem to be stuck in another rut.  And what a scary rut it is. I know, usually I'm laughing at or feeling sorry for Beck. I also lament the near cult-leader like status he has among many of his fans. But this week, Beck has unwittingly peeled back one of the scarier corners of right-wing world.

It all started after the Saturday attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, after somebody realized that Giffords had been on Sarah Palin's creepy "target" list.  Bloggers wagged a finger (me included), and the news started reporting it. Though most of those who mentioned it couched it in the context akin to "we don't know if the shooter even knew about the Palin graphic, but she still ought to be ashamed of herself" if they editorialized at all. No matter, the right instantly accused the left of "politicizing" the tragedy (something they'd never do, of course), and said that the left was blaming Palin for the shooting. Did some bloggers or commenters blame her? I don't doubt it. But I've gotta say, most people weren't blaming her. I know I wasn't.



Sorry, a little levity is required here.

Anyway, in this back-and-forth flame war, Palin's name has come up an awful lot, and along with her, Beck. So naturally, Beck had a discussion with Palin (via emails) on his radio show. So far, nothing too alarming, right? But in his kiss up/suck up to Palin, Beck slobbered the following: "But please look into protection for your family. An attempt on you could bring the republic down."

When I heard that, I rolled my eyes, and delivered a Kristin Wiig Aunt Linda impression: "Oh, brother!"  But later in the day, I decided to look up the topic on the far-right internet outpost, Free Republic. And there, oh, brother doesn't come close to covering it. Now, remember, this is a group that is in defiant denial that their side espouses extremist, dangerous rhetoric.  To them, Jared Loughner was a disturbed individual who was not influenced by Palin, Beck or anyone else on the right. . .but maybe he got some ideas from the left.

And yet, these FReepers took Glenn Beck's suck-up scenario to heart, and spewed forth some of the vilest, scariest, most out-of-scale stuff I've ever read there. And that is saying something, let me tell you.  Here's just a sampling:

"They'd better hope it never happens. It would make Fort Sumter look like a Kindergarten classroom."

"The bullet that would bring down a Palin or a Beck would be the first bullet in Revolution II, They would be Martyrs and heroes with their faces on the New Gold Backed Dollars. Lots of people would die and the nation ripped to pieces in the process. Lets pray this never happens to our great land. Still, I am starting to believe that this land needs to be purges of her sins, as in the Civil War."

[Paradoxically, the same person who wrote that second quote finished with this:] "Let us work to heal the nation—not divide her more!"

"If ONE hair is harmed on Sarah Palin’s head, Glenn is right, it is the end of our republic..of course the leftist media would be celebrating. . ."

"The ultimate insanity! The left have closed themselves up in cities with no food and no guns.  The right controls all of the food, all of the fuel, most of the water, and virtually all of the guns and the knowledge to use them.  Bad situation to initiate hostilities!"

There is a lot more, and to be fair, there is a bit of dissent there too. But the big thing I wonder (among many others) is why the FReepers think that Loughner was just a kook, but if a kook just like him went after their hero, they'd start a war against liberals? And they think liberals were overreacting? 

I'm not sure I can recommend checking out the source material, but if you're so inclined, it's all there at: FreeRepublic.com

Repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Has Freepers Freaking Out

When anything goes the Democrats' way, you can count on a collective shriek rising from Right-Wing World, particularly from internet outposts like FreeRepublic.com.  FR is kind of like Sophia from The Golden Girls, minus the humor. Sophia was said to have had a stroke which removed her "tact" filter. She said whatever came to her mind, whether or not it was fit for public consumption. FReepers are more likely than most right-wingers to speak without a filter. This is because if you don't toe their line, you'll be ejected from the forum.

An example of FReeper humor, from source

Xenophobia, racism and especially homophobia are rampant at FR. Worse is their shocking, seemingly willful ignorance on the subject of homosexuality, and their "11-year-old bully" senses of humor.  So, I knew that when word came down that the end of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is virtually assured, I knew that there would be rage among the FReepers. Remember now, this is one of the most frequented right-wing sites on the web, not some obscure little blog. Take a look.

"This will destroy the US military, just as it has destroyed the Israeli, UK, Australian, Canadian and Germnan armed forces."

EDITOR: Yep, everyone knows those militaries just crumbled. Especially Israel's. Idiot.

"So now that this has passed, I think they should make separate platoons of only openly homosexuals. This should be the first platoon in, as no one else would want to be in front of them."

EDITOR: An example of the oh-so-developed right-wing sense of humor. Can't stop laughing, can you?

"The utter demolition and incineration of the Republic and its institutions continues unabated thanks to ZERO supposed 'checks & balances.'"

EDITOR: Hyperbole much?

"By voting to repeal, it can probably be assumed that you are condoning consenting sexual encounters in the shower or the barracks. . .It means that the gay lifestyle language and physical mannerisms may be displayed while in uniform and that ‘flippy’ salutes must be tolerated. . ."

EDITOR: This is the type of ignorance I'm talking about. Apparently, gay people do not--in this person's view--have any control over their attractions or behavior. And rules against sexual behavior already in place won't apply to gay people. What? The rest of this person's statement (and there is more) is as utterly ridiculous.

"Second, sorry Dingy [Harry Reid], our precious country was not founded on queers and fagots. [sic]"

EDITOR: And here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of bigotry and ignorance (or is it stupidity?). If you're going to type an insult, at least learn to spell it. Idiot.

"Kinda gives new meaning to never leaving your buddies behind......"

EDITOR: Ha, ha, ha, ha! Not.

"This isn’t about gays or rights. This is the liberal agenda telling regular Americans that our value system of family, God, country, and hard work is outdated and must be abolished in favor of the new."

EDITOR: Ah, yes. The alleged "ulterior motives" of the "gay agenda." I still want to know when and where the meetings were held, when it was decided how we were going to go about destroying America. And why I wasn't invited. This was entirely about rights. Idiot.

"Time for a BIG tea party."

EDITOR: Yeah, 'cause that doesn't sound even a little bit gay. . .

"Well, there goes the shelf price for Vaseline petroleum jelly over at every AAFES worldwide!"

EDITOR: What gay guy (or gal) uses Vaseline? Do they even still make it? Fails as comedy, because it has no relevance.

"The end game is the deconstruction of the military. The left is using the gay issue as a tool just as they use the environment as a tool, race as a tool, gender as a tool, children as a tool, food as a tool ..."

EDITOR: More feverish delusions. This guy really thinks that the left collectively set up a plan to "deconstruct" the military, and apparently America using diversionary tactics that only he and other FReepers have deduced. Yeah, as though Democrats had the ability to plan something that in-depth and secretive. Tell me another one.

"One look at Fairy Reid tells you he is a FAG."

EDITOR: Facepalm. . .

"Men and women can now hold hands on base
Men can now dress as women on base.
Chaplains will be targeted.
DOMA will now be asked to be overturned.
Feds now recognize homosexuality.
Homosexual parties can now happen on base.
Homosexuals can now kiss each other on base.
Homosexuals can now have their queer flags on the wall on base.
Homosexuals can now say and do anything in a shower , in their room etc
The list is endless and the ignorant pro commie homosexuals lovers.supporters say no big frigging deal.
Will we also see homosexuals parades now?
Will homosexual assaults happen?
Will homosexuals be promoted of their homosexual boyfriend or girlfriend?
If anyone thinks this is not the end then wake the hell up as they have done more than enough damage with their ignorance


EDITOR: This person has done entirely too much thinking about "teh gay," and thinks that the Uniform Code of Military Conduct won't apply to gays for some reason. He/she is an idiot. And probably a little gay.

There is more, and tons have been added since I started typing this. They're foaming at the mouth about this, and it is all supposition of what might happen. As you can see by the selections above, these folks are all id, with no particular reasoning ability, nor are they hampered by actual facts or logic. And they are thankfully now just noise. If you really want to see what else they have to say, I can't stop you from going to FreeRepublic.

UPDATED: I just had to add this one quote, because it sort of blew me away. . .

"To add, homosexuality is incompatable with military service, and starting today, military service will be incompatible with Christianity. From this day forward, I’ll have no respect for anyone enlisting or re-enlisting."

EDITOR: Wow. Just wow. So, for eight years it was "support the troops" or you were un-American. But now that a gay person will be allowed to serve without hiding? Not so much. Why is this attitude not considered un-American?

IF IT'S ON THE INTERNET, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

Lordy, there's a lot of stuff that conservatives believe that. . .well. . .defies belief.  And look, it's right there on the internets! I read it, it's true, don't you understand?  Ugh. But wait, aren't there things on the internet that liberals might believe that are distortions or outright lies? Probably. But liberals don't have the megaphone of FOX "News" or right-wing talk radio, to turn absolute idiocy into full-blown news stories.

And the weirdest part? These stories can be utterly debunked, blown apart, and laughed about by the rest of us. And if you go onto FreeRepublic.com three years from now, they'll still go on about each of these stories as if they are true.  Hey, did you hear about President Obama's trip to India that cost six million, billion, trillion dollars a day???  IT'S TRUE!!!

Islamophobia Goes Around the Bend: It's in the Numbers!

We've seen a disturbing rise in anti-Islamic sentiment lately, in the far-right's quest to get us afraid of and/or hating just about everybody (Latinos, immigrants, gays, "radical" blacks, the list goes on). That's not news. But when the outrage-du-jour escalates to "hidden codes," numerology and other conspiracy nut territory, it has either played out, or it is about to get even worse.  I'm not taking bets. 

Just check out the article excerpted below.  After the (not at) Ground Zero (not exactly a) mosque, named Cordoba House changed its name to Park 51--to head off other conspiracy rumors about the name "Cordoba"--you'd think they'd be in the clear, at least as far as the name goes. But no.  Somebody has hit the Qu'ran, assigning meaning not only to the "51" part, but the actual address of the property as well.  And wouldn't you know it?  They cobbled together the translations that suited their purpose, and have concluded that it's an evil Islamic plot, just as they've been saying!  Of course! 

Image from source, Infidel Blogger's* Alliance
(*This is hard for me to type, with the apostrophe in the wrong place)

[Excerpt]

Why Did Cordoba Project Change It's Name To Park 51, When It's Address is 45 47 Park?

Cordoba House changed its name to Park 51 which is odd since the address of the location is 45 47 Park Place.



Look to the Koran-the book of islamic conquest Qur'an CHAPTER 51, Verses 45-47 explains all. . .

Have a shot of bourbon, and read on at: Infidel Blogger's Alliance


But wait, there's more!  Once one of these conspiracy theories gets rolling, people of like mind tend to pile on, to make it even better.  Here are just a few quotes in the comments section on FreeRepublic, where I found the above excerpt in the first place. . .

"This is bone-chilling."

"Fascinating article, thanks for posting. Islam must be destroyed."


"4+5 = 9

4+7 = 11
So 4547 = FU America."

"Finally, some math I can understand!"

Idiots.  Much more here: FreeRepublic

When Partisanship and Homophobia Lead to Paranoid Delusions

Image from Progressive Nation

I know the blog has been more top heavy of late with the gay, and that's of course because the subject has been in the news a lot this summer.  Also in heavy rotation has been the odious conservative web site FreeRepublic.com.  That is because whenever a divisive issue hits the news, there is no better place to find the boiled down, uncensored, unvarnished conservative counterpoint.  They're like Sophia on The Golden Girls, if she were a slightly older Ann Coulter.  They're all id and no filter.

While perusing their reaction to former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's big "coming out," I stumbled into a related area.  I'm not going to pick apart the article they were jabbering about--a conservative's argument against same-sex marriage--because while it would be easy, it would also be very time consuming. Maybe later.  Anyway, what inspired this post was a single comment from a FReeper. One so incredibly paranoid, so blindingly stupid, that you would think it was an aberration.  Here it is (emphasis mine):

"The real motive is the complete destruction of the institution of marriage. This then completes the leftists' attack on this institution. The lefties had to get rid of the structure of the American family because it stood in the way of people being dependent on the government. "Gay marriage" is the last nail in the coffin. If marriage can mean ANY type of coupling, then it means nothing at all. And, that is the point." --LibertarianLiz

This is--amazingly enough--a typical FReeper mindset on this subject and many others. It assigns a motive to a group they see as "other," a motive they don't have any more way of knowing than they do about the others themselves.  I'm one half of an actual married gay couple.  I have never had as a motive the "complete destruction of the institution of marriage." I've never met another gay person with that motive. In fact, I've never seen such a motive alleged anywhere outside of a forum like FreeRepublic.

It takes a special kind of paranoia to actually believe that gays are monolithic and diabolical enough to get together and frame issues, present them to the public in a deceitful way, and keep it all secret. Not to mention that this Gay Squadron is only one piece of the "Lefty Legion." The gays are one cog in the greater Lefty machine, playing their part to destroy marriage, and then the WORLD!!! I can't comprehend when and where they think this all happened.  Who led the rally? Are there membership cards?  Am I supposed to get a gift or recognition from "gay central" for playing my part?

It's a lot like conservatives who say that President Obama's end game is to "destroy America." Really? He set out to get the job with that as his goal?  And they say this with an utterly straight face. 

The worst spats I've ever had with friends or family have all stemmed from the assumption of motivation.  "He didn't call me because. . ." or "Well, she said one thing, but what she really meant was. . ."  Assigning motivations to other people without really knowing what their actual motivations are is almost never a good idea.

But in the world of FR, especially when it comes to what they call "The Homosexual Agenda" is that all gay people are lying, and only rigidly anti-gay conservatives really know what's going on.  I'm here to tell them here and now: your assumptions are wrong.  And paranoid. And delusional.  And if you're this wrong about this subject, how much should anybody trust your other opinions?  'Nuff said.

Read more of the delusional "insights" at: Free Republic