Good Riddance, Lizard Brain

The tendency to occasionally succumb to our most basic emotional response is one we all share. We have stray thoughts. Sometimes we might even share our "lizard brain" desires with people most close to us who understand that we have no intention of going public. It can be cathartic. But this blog, written by the fellow pictured, which I have copied and pasted verbatim (with some editing of profanity) to avoid giving "hits" to this guy's site, is an example of lizard brain run amok.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012

The end of liberty in America: Only course of action now is to fight back, electoral politics not working

Time to tell any Democrats you know to f*** off and die

by Eric Dondero

This may be my last post here at Libertarian Republican for quite some time, possibly forever. I had a long discussion with my friend Jim "Right Guy" Lagnese last night. He has agreed, tentatively to take over this website. I cannot think of a better person to run things. He has a good head on his shoulders. He has the absolute right ideology, a Ron Paul Constitutionalist who recognizes the evils of Islam, and supports a strong military, defense of America and of course, our personal rights to gun ownership. Please give Jim all your support in the coming weeks, months, and possibly years.

Dr. Clifford Thies will still be contributing of course. Jim will take great care to publish all his numerous articles, and witty commentary. I am deeply grateful to my dear friend Clifford for all he has done to assist me since I started this website 6 years ago.

Now, that said. Firstly, I was wrong. I let my optimism get the best of me. I even lashed out at Thomas L. Knapp a time or two, saying he was nuts for his predictions. Tom was right. I was fantastically wrong. We were crushed last night at all levels, most especially in the Senate races. There is virtually no good news from last night's results for the libertarian wing of the GOP. I apologize Tom. I hope you can see fit to accept my apology.

Secondly, today starts a new course for my life. I've soured on electoral politics given what happened last night. I believe now the best course of action is outright revolt. What do I mean by that?

Well, to each his own. Some may choose to push secession in their state legislatures. Others may choose to leave the U.S. for good (Costa Rica, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Hong Kong, Israel). Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under communist rule' the Glenn Beck, grab your guns, food storage, build bunkers, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts.

Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who voted Democrat

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who votes for Obama? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

And start your boycott of your Democrat friends and family today. Like this morning. First thing you can do, very easy, is to un-friend all Democrats from your Facebook account.

Boycott Business who accept Welfare payments

Thirdly, I believe we all need to express disgust with Obama and Democrats in public places. To some extent I already do this. Example:  When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other libertarians and conservatives will eventually join me.

What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "EBT is for Welfare Moochers." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every convenience store or grocery store that has a sign out saying "EBT Accepted Here." I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "EBT is for Welfare Moochers," sign, and waving to passers-by.

If I meet a Democrat in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Democrats. You all are communist pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.

Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like "Democrats are Communist Pigs," or "Welfare moochers steal from hard-working Americans," "Only Nazis support Seat Belt laws" or "No Smoking Ban: Nanny-Staters go F*** Yourselves."

There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the communists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Jim informed and he can report on my activities here at LR.

For now, off to my first assignment: Telling all my friends and family who voted for Obama to "f*** off, don't ever speak to me again you slimeball mother f***ers." Wish me luck!

Fantasizing about doing these things for a few hours might be appealing when our side loses a big election. But writing it up in detail and publishing it on the internet? It doesn't make Eric look brave or strong, IMO. It makes him seem small, petty, angry and really immature.

We know Eric is capable of non-lizard-brain conduct. His apology at the top seems quite sincere. But he is advocating divorce (sanctity of marriage anyone?), family estrangement, and bullying in addition to secession from the country and violent revolution. (I pause to roll my eyes. Who would be the President of the Confederate States of Amur'ca? Newt?) 

I suppose Eric's lizard brain has not been allowed to control him completely. He is using his words, even if they are (1) hateful, (2) childish, and (3) meaningless. All he has done is show why a majority of the country rejected this redneck, "I'm right and you're a worthless, Godless, idiotic, mother f***er" (paraphrasing) attitude. Eric has not yet learned that people can have different beliefs and be passionate about them and not be divided between GOOD (Eric) and EVIL (people who disagree with Eric). 

I follow @kurteichenwald on Twitter. I learned about him during this election. I gather that he has a history with the GOP and considers himself more conservative that liberal, but I honestly haven't researched it that deeply. Anyway, here's a capture of some of his tweets today. He sums up my view as well. I recommend following him. He's rational, fact-based, and middle of the road as far as I can tell.

Until Eric puts on some big-boy pants, and can get Above His Raisin', I think a personal boycott might be best for everyone. I know that's what I prefer.

There Is No Depth To Which A Hypocrite Will Not Delve

Tennessee Congressman Scott DesJarlais (Republican), a physician, calls himself "pro-life" and wants to make abortion illegal. But that didn't stop him from pressuring his mistress (who was also his patient) into having an abortion to destroy the evidence of his hypocrisy.

To begin with, it is unethical for a physician to have a sexual relationship with a patient. So right off, I'm thinking this guy is a creep of the first order.

But more importantly, how can this hypocrite look all doe-eyed when discussing the "precious life" of a zygote in public, then treat the woman he slept with like a useless whore, and his "unborn child" like a disposable inconvenience, in private. Sickening.

Not sickening because he thought an abortion was appropriate in this situation. He was probably right about that. He had no intention of staying with that women, it was unplanned, he was trying to fix his marriage (as lame as that sounds).

It's sickening because he and his political party are trying to deprive women of the right to make decisions about their own bodies while he is secreting around pressuring the woman he unleashed his unsafe sexual practices on into having an abortion.

Congressman DesJarlais clearly does NOT think a fetus is a person. (If he does, then he is guilty of being an accomplice to murder according to his own moral construct.) Yet that is precisely what he and his cohorts argue to support their position that the government is the better choice for making a woman's health care decisions.

Here's what I think. I think Congressman DesJarlais and his judgmental/hypocritical colleagues are the ones who are not moral enough or smart enough to make these decisions. These decisions should be left to the women whose bodies are involved.

I don't know how Dr. DesJarlais can find away Above His Raisin'. Maybe just by keeping it either in his pants, or if he is incapable of that, thoroughly rubberized.

Throwing Shade on Arkansas

One of the things that I have always appreciated about human beings and human society is that, although it may take too long and require too much sacrifice, we are capable of moments of enlightenment through the intellectual exercise of reason.

Most human beings are taught a moral code based on religious doctrine. Writings considered by said humans to be sacred scriptures, and their interpretation, are used as the yard-stick for "right" and "wrong." Many of these moral standards are universal from one religion to another: Do not kill without certain, defined justifications. Do not have sex with those to whom you are not married. Do not steal. Do not cheat people out of money. You get what I mean. But every once in a while, we lowly humans decide - on our own - that there are moral principles NOT found in scripture.

For example, how a husband treats his wife. For many centuries, how a husband treated his wife was totally up to him. She was his. And if he decided she was disrespectful or - for whatever reason - he could beat her. (The saying "rule of thumb" comes from the English common law that a husband could only beat his wife with a stick as big around as his thumb.) And although you can probably quote some scripture that would suggest that God does not want a man to treat his wife this way, I bet you cannot find one that prohibits all physical punishment of a wife by her husband.

Or what about ending a marriage? The Bible says the only grounds for divorce is adultery. But very few people in our society would suggest making that our law. What if she refuses to ever have sex with him again? What if he takes all the money and loses it gambling? What if she beats the kids? What if he beats her? What if they just HATE EACH OTHERS' GUTS?

But the biggest and best example, IMO, is slavery. The Bible actually has rules on how a master is to treat his slaves, and rules for how slaves are to behave with respect to their masters.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah. 6 Do not do this only while you’re being watched in order to please them, but be like slaves of the Messiah, who are determined to obey God’s will. 7 Serve willingly, as if you were serving the Lord and not merely people, 8 because you know that everyone will receive a reward from the Lord for whatever good he has done, whether he is a slave or free.

9 Masters, treat your slaves the same way. Do not threaten them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Ephesians 6:5-9 So, on earth, slaves are to treat their masters like gods, but it'll all be OK when they get to Heaven because although the almighty is apparently OK with slavery on earth, we will all be equal in the afterlife.  Be a good slave and you'll get to go to Heaven! YAY!  (I'm being a little snarky, but really, isn't this offensive? It is to me.)

It is at this moment when you might think, "Well, yeah, but the Bible was written 2,000+ years ago when slavery was OK." To which I have 2 responses:

The first is: "EXACTLY! So stop freaking trying to impose its arcane moral code on modern people!! We have science now and we understand human beings down to their DNA molecules. We know that people born with epilepsy are neither "demon possessed" nor a "messenger from God." We know (at least those of us who believe in science know) that gay people are born gay. We know that rain is a result of atmospheric conditions, not dancing, praying, sacrificing goats or chanting. We know that men who beat their wives are douchebags. And we know that slavery is a horrific, evil thing. Stop ignoring the parts you have a problem with and enforcing the parts that make you feel holier than thou (or me). It only makes you look like a hypocrite."

The second is: "No, slavery has always been wrong, and the Bible's failure to say so is not a failure in us but a failure in the text."

Which brings me to the point of the blog (sorry it took so long). A man running for office in Arkansas thinks slavery is an OK thing because Jesus did not say otherwise. I don't mean a man who ran for office in Arkansas in 1857 thought this. I mean a mean running for office NOW thinks this.

I have to concede that this man's ignorance is an argument against evolution, but I suggest that not all members of a specie evolve at the same rate. This may be especially true of old, bearded white men in Arkansas. What's worse: there are actual GOP members and supporters who have endorsed him, including the NRA.

I know of no argument to persuade someone like Loy Mauch (R-AR) how wrong he is. I cannot use the Bible to persuade him, that's the book he's using to defend himself. And I sure as hell cannot rely on his own enlightenment. He is an embarrassment to Arkansas, to the US and to everyone who considers him/herself a Christian. All I can hope for, Arkansas voters, is that you will get Above Your Raisin' and vote against this racist, offensive man.

 

GOPAgain Island

In pursuit of the White House, the GOP again seeks to be the Captain and Crew of our national ship.

Comparisons of the Romneys to Thurston and Lovey Howell, and the Politico story about Gov. Romney referring to Paul Ryan as Gilligan, got me thinking. And playing with phot editing.

Hope you get a laugh. Also includes Ann Coulter as Ginger, Campaign Manager Fehrnstrom as Skipper, Michelle Malkin as Mary Ann, and Sean Hannity as the Professor.

My photo editing is weak, but you can at least tell what i was trying to do. HA!

Don't forget to register to vote. And steer clear of the SS Mittow!

Florida Man Shoots Own Penis

Photo is merely a photogrqaphic symbol of the Florida man's gun-shot-wounded penis. Not an actual penis.

While Florida tries to make people jump hurdles, pay fees, and figure out changing precinct hours and locations to exercise the right to vote, it allows any idiot to own a deadly weapon.

Like this Moron.

Get Above Your Raisin' Florida. Maybe a minimum "not a total freaking idiot" test prior to gun ownership?

And how about getting out of the way and letting people vote. It's not like that's going to hurt anyone's junk. Well, except for the  Florida Republican Party's.

Your Bigotry Is Showing, Salt Lake City

Boy am I glad I have the Mormon Church screening prime-time tv for me. Otherwise, I might think gay people were "OK" or "normal."

It has been reported that the LDS Church-owned KSL-TV (NBC affiliate) in Salt Lake City will not be airing NBC''s new sitcom, The New Normal this fall because the management found it unsuitable for family entertainment. Well, for whose family? And who are they to make that determination?

We have a whole federal agency assigned to rate and label shows to let viewers know what to expect. We don't need the owners of stations deciding what is suitable for us, do we?

The show is about a gay couple in LA who are using a surrogate to have a child. And the LDS Church-owned station KSL-TV thinks this is not OK for families to see.

I haven't seen the show. And since I live in Utah, I guess I won' get to. Because, you know, as a grown woman with a bachelor's and a law degree, I'm not capable of making that determination for myself.

Will & Grace was OK with KSL-TV, and anyone who saw it knows it was rife with sexual inuendo. My parents even commented at times that it was "raunchy" because of the lines Karen had. But both Jack and Will were mostly "safe" gays. They were single, alone, funny, and asexual. I'm guessing Mr. and Mr. Normal are going to have a NORMAL relationship. And that includes S - E - X.

I live here, and I have no particular problem with Mormons or any other person of any other faith so long as it is not being imposed on me.  In fact, when a recent incident occurred in Provo (a Dept of Transportation construction sign was altered to say "God Hates Gays) I did not make a stink or write a blog because there are idiots everywhere. I wrote an email to the state DOT about it and got a really nice response apologizing, explaining that the workers forgot to secure the sign and it was altered during the night, letting me know it was removed, and assuring me a police report was filed. I knew it would be handled that way. People here in Utah, as a rule, are respectful, kind, honest and caring, in part because of their faith. But what KSL-TV is doing is the very definition of imposition.

Younger Mormons (and that includes some my age, too) are not as homophobic as the church leadership and some have expressed to me their embarrassment and/or confusion at the LDS Church's leadership's attitude towards gay people. There's even a gay student club at BYU (the club is "active" but the students, not so much). So, I expect the passing of time will bring change. But spending $20 million in California to make sure gay people cannot get married is more than a passing interest. It's a campaign. This censorship is another part of that campaign.

I grew up in the south attending a pentecostal church. Although it was before my time, white southern churches were pretty notorious for advocating segregation, a shameful mark against them looking back. The racists endorsing segregation were not afraid of black people. They were afraid that black people being elevated to equality would diminish them, remove their position of authority.

Likewise, it's not that the KSL guys (and the LDS church leadership) fear gay people, per se. They fear that society will start to view gay as "OK" or "normal," and as that happens, their position as a moral authority will be diminished.

Ironically, the thing that diminishes the moral authority of a church is not the embracing of those who are different by society, but the exclusion and demeaning of them by that church. You'd think, after so many lessons from history, these guys could Get Above Their Raisin' and actually be moral leaders instead of the guardians of bigotry.

Legitimate Apes

I wish I could accuse Rep. Akin of being "fringey" or out of step. But he's not. America and the Republican Party are full of people who "believe" the same way he does. They do not "think" the same way, because there is little or no "thinking" involved. Thinking requires use of a muscle that is sadly atrophied in this link in human evolution.

And then there's Rep. Akin's spiritual brother in Idaho, state Rep. Winder, who thinks women just aren't sure if they know when they are raped. And, he's got a bill that will apparently take care of that by forcing women who choose to have a legal abortion to undergo not ONE but TWO medically unnecessary ultrasounds.

I can't ID all the individuals. Let's cut to it: The GOP platform opposes abortion in every case, with no exceptions. It'll be voted on in a few days and it'll pass. It has every year since at least 1976.

Don't act shocked at their lack of information. They are not interested in information, especially information about (A) sex and/or (B) women. Science is a threat to their faith and sex is a dirty thing that slutty women tempt men with to steal their souls. (Until they get married, then sex is their right as husbands.)

Pregnancy is what women deserve for having sex, which is convenient because that also means they can oppose any insurance coverage for birth control. To these neanderthals, women aren't allowed to have sex unless they are making children, and a woman exercising sexual freedom is more offensive than a Mapplethorpe photo expo.

Have you ever noticed that condoms can be bought over the counter, but there is not one form of female birth control that is available without a prescription? Not one.

Their attitude toward women is steeped in the objectification and hatred of women that is more cultural than theological, but it is justified by scripture. Since those bearded guys put quill to paper and decided to blame the fall of man on that amoral sex-kitten Eve, it has been this way. Women are talked about and subjected to male authority as if they are morally weak, untrustworthy temptresses that are determined to ruin well-meaning men who are just trying to get through the day without slipping and having their sacred penises accidentally fall into some cleverly positioned whores.

When one of these low-brows gets married, his wife is elevated from slutty temptress to useful tool and vessel. She is sex, socks and succotash. A uterus (and a vagina) that does the laundry and cooks the food. "Thag hungry. Thag horny. Thag want sons." (No way these knuckle-draggers are getting Above their Raisin' in this lifetime.)

Am I being too personal in my criticism? Is name-calling childish? Maybe. But it's infuriating to be talked about like I'm not in the room by men who (1) are completely full of crap, (2) genuinely believe these idiotic, mythological things about lady-parts, and (3) are also convinced that they have the microphone in their hands (not a euphemism) because God put it there. They believe they have moral authority because God placed them in leadership.

If you are reading this and thinking that I've gone too far, ask yourself this: IF THESE MEN THINK THAT WOMEN ARE MORE THAN AMORAL, UNINTELLIGENT VESSELS FOR SEX AND BREEDING, THEN WHY CAN'T WE BE TRUSTED TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS ABOUT OUR OWN BODIES?

If you are reading this and you (mostly) agree with me, then get out and vote in November, and show these Legitimate Apes where government authority comes from in a free democratic republic. It's not from God. It's from the majority.

In this country, that's a 51% majority of really pissed off sluts!

PS Based on comments, let me clarify that I do not think all Rupublican men are equal to these bafoons featured in this article. I assumed people would realize that.  Not everyone did. Nevertheless, a patriarchal policy that demeans women by controlling their bodies? Kinda cavemanish IMO.

Mississippi Shame

The First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Mississippi refused to perform a wedding for a couple who regularly attend there because they are African American. What's more, they told the pastor if he performed the wedding, he would be voted out.

The Pastor says he went ahead and performed the wedding at a different location because he didn't want controversy to interfere with the wedding.  But I think the Pastor was wrong. He allowed a racist minority of that church to bring shame on that entire congregation. He should have stood up for what is right and told those members of his church that they were wrong.

Is he the shepherd or just another sheep? Why should be allow a few ignorant people - who are clearly wrong - to control the decision?

The church was founded in the late 1800s and has never performed a wedding for a black couple. This would have been a quiet and wonderful historical event for the congregation, a way to demonstrate its growth beyond antebellum racism. Instead, it is another mark of shame on the American south.

Congratulations Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson. I hope you find a loving new church that has grown Above Your Raisin'.

Senator Jeff Sessions: GOAT?

Alabama's Senator Jeff Sessions got on a moral high-horse to defend the GOP's efforts to slash food stamps for poor Americans.

Is our national goal to place as many people on welfare, food stamp support, as we can possibly put on that program? Is that our goal? Is that a moral vision for the United States of America, just to see how many people we can place in a situation where they're dependent on the federal government for their food? I just ask that. I think we should wrestle with that question.

Senator Sessions was arguing against an Amenment to the Agriculture Bill sponsored by Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) to re-instate the $45 billion in the Food Stamp Program that the GOP had taken out. Apparently, feeding the poor is, in the eyes of Senator Sessions, a moral failing.

I've never met a liberal who thinks we need to keep as many people as possible on government assistance. On the contrary, liberals favor programs to educate and train people so they can get good paying jobs and be productive and self-sufficient. But to pretend that productivity and self-sufficiency will just happen if we take away poor people's food is equal parts cruel and stupid.

Proving that the GOP does not own all the copies of the Bible in DC, Senator Gillibrand took Senator Sessions to school - Sunday School, that is. She pointed out to Senator Sessions (and everyone else listening) that according to Matthew chapter 25, the first question we will be asked on Judgment Day is "Did you feed the poor?" Here's what Matthew 25 says.

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”

Matthew 25:31-46 (emphasis added).

So, you see, for believers in the Gospel, as Senator Sessions claims to be, if you care for the poor - feed them, quench their thirst, tend them in their sickness, clothe them - the Lord will regard you as a sheep (a righteous and faithful follower) and you will remain in the presence of the Lord. Not so for the goats. Those who turn their backs on the poor (the "least of these brothers and sisters") are condemned to eternal punishment. So, you see, Senator Sessions is, according to the Bible, advocating the position of the infamous GOATS.

I'm sure Senator Sessions is busy trying to find an Ayn Rand version of the Bible to justify his utter lack of compassion, some way to twist these words around and put the goats of higher ground (mountain goats?). Unfortunately, one does not exist. She was an athiest.

A Bible-a-thon as justification for policy is not a good idea. The Bible is arcane and is used to justify bigotry, misogyny, and many other ills. But I understand the need to hoist the GOP on its own petarb when they get morally indignant in order to justify making poor children starve. I applaud Senator Gillibrand for her Bible knowledge and her commitment to doing something to ease the suffering of the poor in this, the wealthiest country in the world.

If Alabama could get above its raisin' and remove Jeff Session from the US Senate, we would have one less GOAT to deal with. Unfortunately, in Alabama, there is a line of younger GOATS waiting their turn behind him.

Voter Suppression Is the Greatest Evil We Face

Of all the principles and beliefs on which we built and continue to reconstruct our republic, the fundamental truth that all government power comes from the people, for the people, and by the people is the cornerstone.

This principle is true in every society, even though we only think of it applying to democratically elected governments. But in fact, it is true in every dictatorship, every puppet regime, and in every theocracy as well. Sometimes, exerting the power of the citizenry to choose a government costs lives (the American Revolution, South Africa, India, the Arab Spring) but the government people have is the government they choose, either by active choice (revolution, voting) or by acquiescence. The free will of the citizenry in some countries have been suppressed by force (the Taliban, China), by religious ideology (Iran and the long-abandoned idea of the divine right of kings), and in our country, by operation of law.

Government power is granted and exercised by the consent of the people. Look at what the people of Florida have chosen. Despite the absence of a voter fraud problem, the GOP state officials are trying to remove people from voter rolls with the stated purpose of removing "non-citizens." But when 20% of the first purge resulted in the removal of registered, legal citizens from voter roles, forcing them to petition and fight (again) for the right to vote, the Department of Justice stepped in.

Again, there is no voter fraud problem in Florida. I defy anyone reading this to find proof of voter fraud in Florida or in any state that amounts to anything close to being significant enough to affect outcomes. It just doesn't exist. This entire campaign is an effort to remove minorities (in Florida, primarily Hispanics) from the voter roles because the GOP knows they vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates.

In discussing this with a colleague, he agreed that we need to know how much voter fraud is occurring and then decide whether these actions are necessary. He suggested that if the voter fraud exceeded 100,000 bad votes, and the "remedy" only prevented 10,000 legitimate voters from voting, then the numbers say we should enact the remedy to prevent fraud. What?!

I was aghast! Would gun advocates (which my colleague is, BTW) agree to remove all guns from private ownership because to do so would reduce deaths in the US by HUGE numbers? Do we lock up innocent people in this country to prevent the guilty from going free? Did I fall into bizarro America when I fell asleep last night?

In this country, we do NOT take away people's fundamental rights to prevent abuse of rights by others. WE DO NOT! We let guilty people go free to protect against innocent people wrongfully losing their freedom. We protect private gun ownership even though the result is many unnecessary deaths. The very idea that we can just casually take away someone's right to vote in order to protect against voter fraud by someone else is about as unAmerican an idea as I've ever heard.

The DOJ has filed a lawsuit to stop what is happening in Florida, but the Governor and the Secretary of State insist they are not going to stop. The people of Florida elected these yahoos, and they are getting what they deserve.

If you vote for a party that advocates voter suppression, you are voting for tyranny, not democracy. I don't think this is an exaggeration. It isn't. Everything our free society is built on depends on the equal and free right to vote in elections. An attack on people's ability to vote is an offense far worse than lying, than fiscal irresponsibility, even than blowing up a building, because it is not an attck on Americans, but an attack on the American experiment that Lincoln talked about in his Gettysburg Address.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Lincoln's fear for America was even more profound than the unholy scurge of slavery. It was the fear that America, as it was envisioned, would cease to exist. This was the burden he carried.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us— that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

From 1775 until now, people have given their lives so that we can vote and choose who governs us. In every century since then more have died to protect that right. Constitutional amendments were passed to extend the right to people of all races and to women. Voting is the most important thing we do as citizens. And there are people in elected office trying to take that right away from us.

If you live in Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania, your citizenry's right to vote is under attack. Get Above Your Raisin' and put a stop to it.

I'm Not a Criminal Attorney, But...

The Daily Beast is reporting a few new facts about the Trayvon Martin killing. They printed a fairly clear report of what Zimmerman supposedly told the police after the shooting.

As has been reported, Zimmerman told police officials that he lost sight of Martin and went around a townhouse to see where he was. Then he claimed Martin confronted him and punched him, knocking him down.

According to The Daily Beast’s source, Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin. (The autopsy report on Martin has not yet been released.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.

(Martin’s father told reporters last month that police had told him his son’s last words were, “You got me.” Benjamin Crump, the family’s lawyer, said he doesn’t believe either account.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.

Because I just like analysis, let's take a look at some of these allegations.

(1) Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him. Smother him with what? He didn't say "choke," which would have left scratches, bruises, or some kind of red marks on his neck. He said "smother."

Years ago I took the deposition of a guy who hit and ran my client (who was an off-duty policeman who stopped to offer assistance because Mr. Hit and Run's car was stopped on the side of the freeway). In his deposition, Mr. Hit-and-Run testified that he was fearful of my client who was approaching his car at night. (My client was not in uniform, but was wearing his badge on his belt and shone the flashlight on it, then stood in his headlights so Mr. H&R could get a good look at him.) "What about him made you so afraid?" I asked. A: "He looked to me like he was holding a weapon." Q: "What kind of weapon?" A: "I don't know." (This was starting to sound fishy.) Q: "Tell me what it looked like." A: It was white and it extended from the hand he had raised by his ear down past his waist." (Huh?) Q: "That sounds like the beam of his flashlight. Is that what you are describing?" A: "No. It wasn't that." Q: "I'm confused. What kind of weapon looks like (what you described)?" A: (long pause) "A rag."

A rag. That was the scary weapon he thought my client had. Here's a clue for you non-attorneys: he never thought my client was threatening him with a rag. He was lying. We don't know why he was parked on the side of the freeway when his car worked perfectly well. We may never know. But a good guess: it was for something illegal, because when he saw my client's badge, he sped off, hitting my client, leaving the scene and speeding along the freeway where he was pulled over in the next county. Do I know that with 100% certainty? Of course not. But his ragaphobia? Not credible.

So what was Zimmerman being smothered with? We don't know because the police (apparently) didn't ask. I wonder if it was a rag (though no rag was found at the scene as far as we know.)

(2) Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin.

***

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.


So Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, straddling him, beating him, smothering him. Zimmerman shot him. He utters some strange phrase twice, "then turned and fell face-down on the ground." WHEN DID HE STAND UP?

This is either a complete fabrication, or there is a scene missing from this episode. Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman, beating him, got shot, then turned and fell face down. But Zimmerman does not tell us when he stood up. Did he get up and then get shot? This would explain the lack of blood on Zimmerman's clothes in the video, but it also means it was not self defense, IMO. Did he get fatally shot in the chest and then get up? Does that seem plausible to anyone reading this? And if it happened that way, Zimmerman should have blood all over him. But no blood in the police video.

(3) According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.

He was shot, then he turned and fell face down on the ground, but Zimmerman did not think he was "seriously injured." Does that pass the straight-face test?

Do you know what common sense tells me? This is mostly speculation, but here's my take.

Zimmerman is a cop-wanna-be. That much is clear. His numerous 911 calls, his neighborhood watch work, his concealed weapon permit all add up to being an unofficial Dudley Doright. He was out of work and bored, so he spent an inordinate amount of time "finding" "suspicious characters" in his neighborhood.

If you've heard the 911 call, you know that the dispatcher told him NOT to follow Trayvon. "We don't need you to do that," he said. Zimmerman said OK, but consider these factors: Zimmerman was frustrated that those "assholes always get away." It's on the tape. And Trayvon's girlfriend reported that he told her on the phone at the time this started to go down that "some guy" was following him. She told him to run. He said he'd walk faster. The fact that the man and teenager ended up in the same place means one had to go towards the other. We know Zimmerman wanted to catch Trayvon (from the tape) and we know that Trayvon wanted to get away from the man pursuing him (from Trayvon's girlfriend). My conclusion: Zimmerman followed Trayvon, maybe even chased him, to keep him from "getting away."

I also think Zimmerman pulled his gun on Trayvon to try to get him to stop "getting away." There is no video or eye-witness of this part of the confrontation, but it makes sense. I think Zimmerman simply wanted to make Trayvon stop and wait for the police. But to Trayvon, this strange man who was following him pulled a gun. So I think Trayvon ran. And then I think Zimmerman tackled him. This makes more sense to me than an unarmed teenager who is not breaking the law attacking Zimmerman from behind. And it is more consistent with other evidence.

Other eye witnesses have IDed the man in the white T-shirt as the man "on top" of the other person She looked out her window and saw the man in the white T-shirt on top.

And Trayvon ending up face down? Imagine this scenario: Zimmerman speeds up to catch up with Trayvon and is perhaps even calling to Trayvon to stop. Trayvon goes faster, not know why some guy is after him. Zimmerman pulls his gun and pursues, tackling Trayvon from behind. But his gun is in his hand underneath Trayvon's abdomen/chest. There is a struggle with Trayvon trying to get away, shouting "Help! Help me!" In fact, the funeral director says Trayvon's body showed no signs of a struggle, contradicting the allegations that he was beating on Zimmerman. In the struggle, Zimmerman fires the gun either intentionally or unintentionally.

Zimmerman and his father are known to the police in Sanford. But for whatever reason, they decide that Zimmerman is not a criminal and deserves their help. They label Trayvon a John Doe and send his unidentified body to the morgue where he lays three days unclaimed, with his family wondering what has happened to him. But they put his name, date of birth and other vital information on the police report. Why?

In an absolute sense, no one "knows" what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. But we have brains and knowledge and logic at our disposal. We know enough to know Zimmerman has not been honest.

He lied when he told the dispatcher he was going to stop following Trayvon.

He lied about being the one calling for help.

He lied about the nature and severity of his injuries.

And we know the police and perhaps other officials have been assisting Zimmerman in trying to simply "get past" this homicide. As far as we know: They failed to "bag" Zimmerman's shoes, clothes, and hands for forensic testing (he is seen in the police video wiping his feet on the rug in the doorway). They failed to confiscate and ballistics test Zimmerman's gun. (It was returned to him when they released him early that same morning.) They did not test Zimmerman for gunshot residue, just questioned him and took his statement.

Perhaps they believe this was an accident by a good-intentioned neighborhood watchman. Whatever the reason, they never intended to prosecute any criminal action against this man who shot and killed a non-offending, unarmed teenager. But we do not have police officers and laws in place to protect individuals with police-fantasies from prosecution after pursuing and killing unarmed teenagers. The law and law enforcement exist to protect us all from zealots with police-fantasies.

A judge and jury will decide Zimmerman's fate, as they should. I am not endeavoring to try him here. I just enjoy the analysis and the quest for answers.

"No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required..."

Article VI paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I've heard a lot of preaching and ranting from the Tea Party about the CONSTITUTION and how our President has somehow violated it. I still don't know how. Neither do they. They just know they don't like Barack Obama, so ergo, he must have violated that confounded document they hold so sacred. Blah blah blah.

Those screaming the loudest about the Constitution are treating it the same way they treat the Bible. Here's what I mean.

They say: Gays are unnatural, sinful, and they should not be allowed to marry because of the Bible. But you don't see them protesting legal divorce. Or starting a foundation to end the weaving of wool with linen. They pick and choose the parts of the Bible they think are important, and simply discard - or ignore - the rest. And they do the same with the Constitution.

Obama has been called a Muslim, a secret Muslim, an atheist, an atheist Muslim, a secularist, and has been attacked because of things his former Pastor, Rev. Wright has said. All this despite the Constitutional mandate that

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So, whack jobs ranting about imagined interfaith political rumbles, clearly you do not abide by or support the Constitution of the United States. Should we try you for treason?

How about you, Mittens? Here's a link to Mitt Romney questioning Obama's religion and accusing him of considering the establishment of a new religion. A completely fabricated allegation and an UNCONSTITUTIONAL religious test.

Mitt was asked why he thought Obama wanted to require insurance to cover birth control. The obvious answer to any sane person: So that women can have better and more affordable access to birth control. Duh. Mitt's answer: Scary Barry is trying to destroy real religion and force us to practice secularism. (Paraphrased obviously)

And then, when Lawrence O'Donnell says some bad things about Mitt's Mormon religion, the National Review jumps to Mitt's defense. You can begin to see the wisdom of our founding fathers as this attack and counter-attack spirals into utter stupidity.

The Salt Lake Tribune's headline today is "MORMON MOMENT" with a picture of Mitt Romney. Here's a link to the article online. It has a different headline than the printed version. But, NO, it's not a Mormon Moment. It's not a Mormon Moment any more than Kennedy's election was a Catholic Moment or Nixon's election was a Quaker Moment. It's a political moment. That is all.

By the same token, the idea of NOT voting for someone because of their religion - or lack of religion - is about as unAmerican as anything you can put on a list. It is a fundamental principal dating back to our country's founding that our elected officials not be subject to a religious test. Period.

Politics are nasty. And they are made even more nasty by the moral positioning and God-claiming that candidates engage in. Morality and politics are about as foreign to each other as integrity and politics.

Religion and politics? They have been shacking up and fornicating in this country for far too long, despite the Constitutional prohibitions. Look at the bastard candidates that relationship has produced! Sadly, I see no end in sight to this corruption of our elections. The Constitution only has the power we give it, and it only has the authority we submit to. Until the theocrats get out of politics - or are forced out by Americans who truly respect and honor our Constitution - we will never get Above Our Raisin'.

So Many Embarassements, So Little Time to Blog

Since work got back to normal, my blogging has been lagging. Sorry. I'm re-committing to get back to pointing out people cavemanliness and moronitudes.

So, to catch up, here's who should be embarassed for not getting above their raisin' in recent weeks and months.

Mitt Romney - It might be more accurate to say he needs to get "beyond his raisin'." He is so hopelessly clueless, uncomfortably stiff, and shockingly dishonest that he is truly re-defining American politics. Someone should let Mittens know that everything he is saying is being recorded and much of it is on YouTube. Some nice Democrats have put this video together. Yes, they have an agenda, but the video is still shocking, and includes some FoxNews peeps calling him a flip-flopper. Check it here. Character? He is a character, but I doubt he has any character. Is there nothing he believes in with conviction? He seems to be a man of faith, but refuses to answer questions about that at all. His plan for winning seems to be that he is not Barack Obama. But his approval numbers are actually lower that POTUS's right now.

Sanford Police Department and George Zimmerman - Whatever delusions of posse-style grandeur Zimmerman may have been suffering from, Zimmerman's pursuit, confrontation, and killing of Trayvon Martin is inexcusable and shocking. Only slightly more disturbing is the apparent cover-up and complicity of the Sanford City Police. It is never OK for an armed man to pursue, confront and shoot someone who was doing nothing illegal. NEVER. There is no explanation, excuse, defense or dumb-ass law that makes this OK. Period.

Justice Scalia - His questions at oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act were from the Tea Party website, ie broccoli and cell phones. It's not like I'm a fan of Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts, but at least they act like they once went to law school, instead of mocking and snorting like some petulant redneck. And he laughed outright at the very idea that either he or his clerks would be expected to read the law in question. It is 2700 pages long. I get it. But you know what? They get paid a load of money, they cannot be fired, they get government health care and pensions, and they only rule on 75-80 cases per year. With the help of law clerks. Yes, we do expect our Supreme Court justices to read the laws they are reviewing. By the way - not one mention of broccoli, cell phones, or the corn husker kickback (it was taken out before passage) is in the law, Justice Scalia.

Men, both political and religious, trying to prevent insurance coverage of birth control. IT WAS NEVER GOING TO BE FREE. That's just a lie. The ACA provision required that birth control be in the definition of "preventive care" so that it would be available without co-pay from our private insurance carriers. We pay for it WHEN WE PAY OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS! There was no provision requiring tax dollars to pay for anyone's birth control. Ignorance makes us susceptible to any lie. This was a notorious one. The fact that health insurance was not required to cover birth control before now is a scandal. The fact that supposedly celibate bishops had a hissy-fit because insurance coverage of birth control meant some employers would have some tangential relationship to their employees getting "the pill" is also a scandal. Re-igniting the debate about the safety and propriety of women even having access to birth control is a scandal of unimaginable size and scope. WTH? Did I just step out of a time machine? Listen, all you small government Ayn Randian wonks, and you theocratic moral policemen, who have no real clue that for a woman, freedom requires the ability to determine when we get pregnant: Get your policy and your theology out of my veehayhay. It's none of your business.

The New Orleans Saints - They put a bounty on the opposition, rewarding players who injured opposing players. This is not Thunderdome (or for a more modern reference, the Hunger Games) you neanderthals. It's freaking FOOTBALL. It's a GAME. Played for fun and entertainment. Treating it like it's life or death is not only stupid, it's barbaric. No penalty is too big for you.

Tea Bagging Alabama Fan - An Alabama fan, apparently drunk in celebration hours after Alabama won the BCS National Championship in January, took advantage of a passed out LSU fan at a Krystal restaurant in New Orleans when he dropped trou and tea bagged the unconscious tiger supporter's face. It was filmed on a smart phone and posted on YouTube. Charges have been filed. I'm a Tide fan myself, but this was appalling. Is it the same as rape? No. But it is in the neighborhood.

Rush Limbaugh - On general principal, but also because he (1) told big fat whopping lies about the birth control provision of the ACA and (2) vilified a Georgetown Law School student who advocated for insurance coverage of The Pill. Slut. Whore. The usual misogyny from Rush. Advertisers fled but he's like a cockroach. He will not go away.

People who anonymously post the most hateful garbage imaginable in the comment sections on the internet - The concept of wishing people harm or death because they are a different race, political persuasion or sexual orientation is completely lost on me. I don't understand this any more than I understand vandalism. It is pointless, harmful, and destructive.

Do I ever have violent or derogatory thoughts when I get angry? Sure. But what separates me from the animals is that my lizard-brain is controlled by my walking-erect brain. Most of us are able to push down the angry 2001 Space Odyssy bone-weilding primate inside us and let other's be - whatever and however that want to be. People who view anyone different as a threat, and lash out at them with violence or hatred, are still being controlled by their lizard brains, and are doomed to never get above their raisin'.

The Disgrace for the Cure (Leadership at Komen is a Cancer)

(Photo is of a breast cancer cell)

The Komen Foundation learned about the impact of overreaching this week. They hired a right winger to be their VP, and she went to war on science and women's health. Karen Handel (the aforementioned right winger) resigned from Komen today, but not before her efforts to impose her political and moral belief seriously tarnished the non-profit's reputation and standing.

Komen announced last week that it would no longer provide grant money to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, earning it the new unofficial slogan, "The Disgrace for the Cure." Although breast cancer screenings (a physical exam, not mammograms) account for only about 15% of what planned parenthood does (and abortions only 3%), it is estimated that the Komen money paid for screenings last year that caught 177 cases of breast cancer. That's 177 women who might be dead now if not for the Komen money. (You have to hand it to the right wing. That is one sure way to reduce poverty: just let poor people die of curable diseases by cutting off their charitably donated health care.)

I saw a headline yesterday that Koman was also planning to stop finding stem cell research.

Am I the only one that thinks (1) reducing breast cancer screenings for poor women and (2) ending research funding for cancer cures are the opposite actions that Komen should be taking? What is Komen, anyway? Is it a cancer charity? Or is it the evangelical morality police?

Komen subordinated its raison d'etre to subjective political and religious preferences, and it lost credibility. Here's what that decision got Komen.

(1) Loss of supporters and donations. I for one will not be donating to them. Instead, I sent a donation directly to Planned Parenthood, who raised over $5 million since the Komen rejection last week.

(2) Komen had to reverse itself. Now it not only can't be trusted to actually reduce cancer deaths, but it waffles as much as Mitt Romney. It's inevitable when you taint yourself with politics.

(3) This morning Handel resigned. But in many ways it's too late. The head of Komen went all over TV telling people Handel was not behind the Planned Parenthood decision, only to have Handel confirm, in her resignation letter, that she was. So, Komen's leadership is a bunch of liars. There are many cancer charities. We don't need to support Komen.

The leadership at Komen is a cancer not because they are evil. They aren't. (BTW, neither is actual cancer. It's just cells growing out of control.) Like real cancer, the Komen powers-that-be went out of control, and now they must be eradicated, otherwise the organization will die. Handel's resignation is not enough. This is a non-profit medical charity. There can be no perception of dishonesty, nor of being anti-science. Anyone at Komen who agreed with Handel, or who lied for her, has to go. Otherwise, we should expect nothing more or less than a relapse. For a complete remission, there must be complete excision of the cancer.

One day Komen might win back my trust. But it will take a while. En masse resignations is a good place to start.

Oh No, Idaho! (With Some Shame on Liberty U Too)

Some nut-job from Idaho thought he'd travel to DC and kill the President.

That may seem shocking to some of you, but I've heard and read some of my fellow Americans praying for, wishing for, and expressing a desire for the President's death. (Just FYI, rednecks, it's not OK to root for your President's death just because he's African American. He was duly elected. You live in a democratic republic. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.)

On November 11, 2011, Oscar Ortega-Hernandez, 21, traveled to DC, drove to the White House, got out with a semiautomatic rifle, and fired shots at the White House breaking windows and damaging the wall.

And he is a nut-job. First off, Obama was famously out of town. It was broadcast all over the news that Obama was not in DC for days prior to this lame effort.

Secondly, he didn't just shoot at him to assassinate a President he disagreed with. Nope. According to people who know him, he believes Obama is the Anti-Christ. I guess he thought he was going to thwart God's plans for humanity by simply shooting the Anti-Christ. Moron.

I'm grateful the guy is a moron. I don't want my President assassinated, and not just because I agree with him, but because I'm an American. If I were Idaho, I'd be embarrassed.

For some reason religious nuts resort to homicide to fulfill their whacky missions. So when I see people on my Facebook feed, who consider themselves devout Christians, bitterly rooting for someone to kill Obama "as soon as possible," I wonder just how close they are to making the trip themselves and becoming a headline.

Some of the fine "Christians" I have heard and read pleading for Obama's death - including at least 2 graduates of Liberty University - are sufficient proof to me that they are more about bullying people than loving them. Somewhere along the line, their dogma became about judgment rather than grace and persecution rather than charity. It became about winning elections rather than saving souls. But really, what's the difference between the Liberty nut-jobs and Oscar, aside from Oscar's possible mental illness?

And, finally, here's a news flash, religious creeps: the Anti-Christ is more likely to come out of Liberty University than Harvard Law School. Otherwise, how would he convince fools like you to become his disciples?

Not Everyone in New Hampshire Is Up to Speed

There are 160 people in New Hampshire who voted for Herman Cain last night. HE'S NOT IN THE RACE ANY MORE!

If you're going to bother going to vote, you should probably vote for someone actually running for office. For example, Governor Perry is almost as unqualified to be POTUS as Herman Cain. You could have voted for him.

Admittedly, the far right's commitment to anti-intellectualism is getting harder to stick to with withdrawals by Cain and Bachman. But they've still got Perry. And they've got Santorum too. (Can the Tea Party vote for a Catholic?)

Oh, let's not forget Ron Paul, who finished second last night. His ascension to prominence in the GOP primary is proof of the extremism that has taken hold in the party. The man thinks civil rights legislation is unconstitutional and that our economic problems are the result of abandoning the gold standard. I give him credit for having principles. The problem with having such strong convictions arises when you are wrong. Do we really want to go back to toting around bags of doubloons and segregated restaurants? Apparently, some New Hampshirians (New Hampsters?) do.

My dad always said, "A little learning is a dangerous thing." Right now, I'd be grateful for a "little learning" among the GOP primary voters because IMO, they are already about as dangerous as they can get.

Footnote - Just found out: 300 GOP primary voters in New Hampshire voted for Barack Obama to be their nominee. I think that's kinda funny. And fantastic!