Gays aren't supposed to quote the Bible are they?

Moral outrage from fake Christians.  It’s so fascinating.  I’ve stumped myself trying to understand the stark hypocrisy of the many false Christians who trumpet the bible as justification for their bigotry toward homosexuals, and same sex marriage.  Why would Christians, who clearly must believe in the scriptural tenet judge not, lest ye be judged, indulge in this fanaticism?

I’ve marveled at the sheer nuttiness these Christian revisionists engage in across this country.  They’ve claim a God none of us recognize, if they believe their wicked intolerance is acceptable in an intelligent world.  Perhaps they’re not really Christians?

H/T Maggie

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And it’s about time too.  Via Brown Man Thinking Hard:

August 17, 2010

Dear Republican Colleague:

We are writing to you today as loyal Americans who are active members of the Republican Party. We also happen to be proud of our Arab American and Muslim American contributions to the Republican Party.

We are deeply concerned by the rhetoric of some leading members of our party surrounding the construction of the Muslim Community Center in downtown Manhattan. These comments are not only constitutionally unsound, they are also alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party – individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.

As you know, our party has had a long history of inclusion – beginning with our great President Abraham Lincoln, whose leadership on the slavery issue was monumental, and continuing through President George W. Bush whose public statements and actions on the differentiation between Islam and the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were critically important. We are particularly proud to note that President Bush appointed more Arab Americans and Muslim Americans to his administration than any other president in U.S. history.

That being said, it perplexes us as to why some vocal members of our party have chosen to oppose the construction of a cultural and religious center on private grounds. Not only does the First Amendment to our Constitution protect the right of these private citizens to worship freely, it also prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Our party and the leaders in our party should not be engaged in judgment issues of the location of a cultural center and a house of worship in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

While some in our party have recently conceded the constitutional argument, they are now arguing that it is insensitive, intolerant and

American Muslims free to practice their faith.

unacceptable to locate the center at the present location: “Just because they have the right to do so – does not make it the right thing to do” they say. Many of these individuals are objecting to the location as being too close to the Ground Zero site and voicing the understandable pain and anguish of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. In expressing compassion and understanding for these families, we are asking ourselves the following: if two blocks is too close, is four blocks acceptable? or six blocks? or eight blocks? Does our party believe that one can only practice his/her religion in certain places within defined boundaries and away from the disapproving glances of some citizens? Should our party not be standing up and taking a leadership role- just like President Bush did after 9-11 – by making a clear distinction between Islam, one of the great three monotheistic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity, versus the terrorists who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and who are not only the true enemies of America but of Islam as well? President Bush struck the right balance in expressing sympathy for the families of the 9-11 victims while making it absolutely clear that the acts committed on 9-11 were not in the name of Islam. We are hoping that our party leaders can do the same now – especially at a time when it is greatly needed.

While we share the desire of all in our party to be successful in the November elections, we cannot support victory at the expense of the U.S. Constitution or the Arab and Muslim community in America. As President Lincoln so eloquently stated in his famous speech: “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

As proud and patriotic Americans, we are grateful for all the rights our U.S. citizenship allows us, and we will always do our best to not only protect our rights but the rights of all others as well. May God Bless our nation, our freedoms, and our party.

David Ramadan
Vice Chair, Ethnic Coalitions, Republican Party of Virginia

Sherine El-Abd
President, New Jersey Federation of Republican Women

Randa Fahmy Hudome
Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, Bush Administration

George Salem
Solicitor of Labor, Reagan Administration

Suhail Khan

Chairman, Conservative Inclusion Coalition.

The ball’s in your court Newt, Sarah, et al.  Are you still zealous defenders of the Constitution, or are you hypocrites?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Are Americans this fucking stupid?  Is this the type intelligent discourse they crave?  Why do some of us presume to be more enlightened than others?  Clearly we are not, judging by this idiot’s disrespectful banter.  [editor's note:  I have broken my unbreakable vow not to comment or post anything about the messiah Glenn Beck.  I feel so cheap.]

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

“An enormously complex and emotional issue — but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen. Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone,” - Michael Gerson, former speech-writer for George W. Bush.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

David Jungerman does not want Democrats to keep getting money for nothing.  He’s now gone so far as to advertise his sentiments on his property.

The Raytown farmer who posted a sign on a semi-truck trailer accusing Democrats of being the “Party of Parasites” received more than $1 million in federal crop subsidies since 1995. [...]

After a story about Jungerman’s trailer ran in Sunday’s Star, however, some readers called him a hypocrite for criticizing others for getting government help while taking government subsidies paid for by taxpayers.

Jungerman said he put up the sign to protest people who pay no taxes, but, “Always have their hand out for whatever the government will give them” in social programs.

Mr. Jungerman believes that since he pays taxes, he is entitled to the subsidies.  Fair enough.  But he is still engaging in those parasitic socialist policies he abhors so much.  And if he truly feels Democrats, and those who support them are parasites, he should take a hard look at the party he professes his loyalty to.  Conservatives are beholden to special interests, and handcuffed to an ideology that supports giving money to the rich and entitled.  In other words, they’ve also cornered the market on bastardizing subsidies, and fostering parasitic behavior.

This blog will continue to spotlight hypocrisy from both sides of the aisle.

H/T: Think Progress

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Colbert King lambastes Limbaugh, Gingrich et al., in this Father’s Day themed meme regarding real family values:

Family, marriage and the contribution of fathers come together as topics for reflection on Father’s Day. So I’d like to know why Barack Obama, a husband and a father in a family structure that encompasses bonds deemed essential to our society, is constantly and savagely attacked by conservative leaders whose personal circumstances undermine the family values they espouse?

Consider Obama: Raised by a single mother in a middle-class family where hard work and education were watchwords, Obama graduated from two of the top schools in the country, Columbia University and Harvard Law School. His legal scholarship was recognized when he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He married and, equally important, has stayed married to Michelle Robinson, a Princeton graduate and Harvard Law alumna. He lives with his wife, two children and his mother-in-law. Obama: constitutional law professor, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, U.S. senator, 44th U.S. president, family man.

Now let’s turn to Obama’s foremost critics: Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, Newton Leroy Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

Limbaugh and Gingrich have said too many negative things about Obama to count. “I want him to fail” (Limbaugh) and “secular socialist” (Gingrich) are just two of their attacks. Yet two of the nation’s loudest proponents of family-values issues are serial husbands. Between them, the two men have had seven wives.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It’s been a great week for hypocrisy and lies.  I’ll delve into the Richard Blumenthal conundrum later in the week, but I couldn’t pass up this ditty from TPM regarding Rep. Mark Souder’s affair:

Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) had an affair with a part-time staffer named Tracy Jackson, Fox is reporting. Jackson played the role of interviewer for a Souder Web video show on the issues of the day — including one on the value of abstinence.

Dubbed “Congressional Update with Congressman Mark Souder,” the show hit on issues like intelligent design and fencing the border.

In the November 2009 abstinence video, Jackson introduces Souder this way: “You’ve been a longtime advocate for abstinence education and in 2006 you had your staff conduct a report entitled ‘Abstinence and its Critics’ which discredits many claims purveyed by those who oppose abstinence education.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

HT: Media Matters

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Hypocrisy Watch:  Health Care Reform

Great information piece done here by Think Progress, deflating Senator Lamar Alexander’s argument against the reconciliation process.  Now while the senator from Tennessee claims that the “senate will come to an end” if the process is used, it did not stop him from using reconciliation on several occasions.  Those included:

– 2003 Bush Tax Cuts: The Congressional Budget office, Bush’s tax cuts for the rich increased budget deficits by $60 billion in 2003 and by $340 billion by 2008. The bill had a cost of about a trillion dollars. [Alexander voted yes.]

– 2005 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: The bill cut approximately $4.8 billion over five years and $26.1 billion over the next ten years from Medicaid spending. [Alexander voted yes.]

– 2005 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005: The bill extended tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and the alternative minimum tax. [Alexander voted yes.]

– 2007 College Cost Reduction and Access Act: The bill forgave all remaining student loan debt after 10 years of public service. [Alexander voted yes]

I don’t believe the senate came to an end on those occasions.  As pointed out here by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reconciliation has been used 19 times.  It’s even been used for other forms of health care reform legislation.  This is not uncharted territory despite what some would have you believe.

Based upon Senator Alexander’s previous history using this “senate ending procedure,”  his rhetoric falls inaccurately, inconsistently flat.  This is what we call a clear case of hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy on steroids.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Bloomberg’s got it:

Alabama Republicans Jo Bonner and Robert Aderholt took to the U.S. House floor in July, denouncing the Obama administration’s stimulus plan for failing to boost employment. “Where are the jobs?” each of them asked.

Over the next three months, Bonner and Aderholt tried at least five times to steer stimulus-funded transportation grants to Alabama on grounds that the projects would help create thousands of jobs.

They joined more than 100 congressional Republicans and several Democrats who, after voting against the stimulus bill, wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood seeking money from $1.5 billion the plan set aside for local road, bridge, rail and transit grants. The $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed last year with no Republican votes in the House and three in the Senate.

Bonner said opposing the stimulus doesn’t mean he shouldn’t help Alabama projects compete for grants. “It is my role to ensure that their request is considered by the federal agency,” he said in an e-mail.

When are more people going to figure out who the real frauds are?

Read more of Bloomberg’s got it

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.