John Fugelsang Destroys The Bible-Thumping Republican Candidates In 2 Minutes

In this hilarious clip, political comedian John Fugelsang calls out the Republican presidential candidates for constantly praising Jesus Christ but hypocritically ignoring His words when it comes to social issues and legislative policy.

As the child of two ex-clergy, Fugelsang is perfectly equipped to discuss “Mom’s first husband”: “I love the guy, but the fan club scares me.”

He then ridicules the Republican mass of candidates and recommends that Jesus of Nazareth would be a good choice for the GOP ticket. “The GOP would love to get behind a guy who was a peaceful radical, a non-violent revolutionary, who hung around with lepers, hookers, and criminals, who never spoke English, was not an American citizen, a man who was anti-capitalism, anti-wealth, anti-public prayer, anti-death penalty, but never once remotely anti-gay!”

#JesusNeedsaJet

From the website of Creflo Dollar: 

“We are asking members, partners, and supporters of this ministry to assist in the undertaking of an initiative called Project G650. The mission of Project G650 is to acquire a Gulfstream G650 airplane so that Pastors Creflo and Taffi and World Changers Church International can continue to blanket the globe with the Gospel of grace. We are believing for 200,000 people to give contributions of 300 US dollars or more to turn this dream into a reality—and allow us to retire the aircraft that served us well for many years.”

Dollar has a personal wealth in the tens of millions and lives in a multi-million dollar mansion. But Jesus needs a $65M jet.

Please share using hashtag #JesusNeedsaJet

FDA: Protecting blood supply from AIDS might “offend” straight people

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said this week that it will not ask potential blood donors about their high-risk sexual behavior, even if the questions would help ensure the safety of the nation’s blood supply from HIV/AIDS, because heterosexual donors might find the questioning “offensive.”

This, after decades of the FDA asking male blood donors if they are gay, and then asking the gay ones whether they have had sex with men at any time since the late 1970s.

Philadelphia NPR station WHYY-FM has the FDA’s incredible comment:

“Assessment of high-risk sexual behaviors would be highly burdensome on blood donation establishments and potentially offensive to donors,” the agency wrote.

The new FDA statement comes on the heels of last week’s change in the agency’s long-standing gay-ban on blood donations. Previously, no man who had had sex with even one man since the late 1970s could donate blood. Now, under the new policy, the FDA asks male donors if they’ve had sex with another man in the past 12 months.

“Does this closet look small on me?”

via Shutterstock

There have been protests against the new FDA policy, arguing that it’s outdated because blood tests can now detect HIV within weeks of exposure — so asking gay men to be celibate for a year before donating is unreasonable and unnecessary.

The protesters also asked why the FDA isn’t asking all donors about their high-risk sexual behavior — behavior that raises the chances of contracting HIV — regardless of whether the act is opposite- or same- sex. That last question is what precipitated the FDA’s new response about offending straight donors.

So to recap, the FDA believes that a total stranger asking a man if he’s gay — a highly personal, and for some embarrassing, admission that could get you fired from your job, and disowned by your family — is not “offensive.”

This Is How Republicans Responded To Harry Reid Breaking His Ribs And Face

In a statement Friday, the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said that the Senator broke “a number of ribs and bones in his face” after an accident that occurred while he was exercising at home.” He is expected to make a full recovery, but had to stay overnight at the hospital as a precaution.

The full statement from his office:

On Thursday, Senator Reid received treatment at University Medical Center in Las Vegas for injuries sustained in an accident he suffered while exercising at home in Henderson. A piece of equipment Senator Reid was using to exercise broke, causing him to fall and break a number of ribs and bones in his face. Senator Reid will return to Washington this weekend and be in the office Tuesday as the Senate prepares to reconvene. His doctors expect a full recovery. Senator Reid was first brought to St. Rose Dominican Hospital in Henderson by his security detail. He was then transferred to UMC for further testing, where he was admitted overnight as a precaution.

When a 75-year-old man falls and breaks bones, it’s a rather serious matter. The specifics of the injury aren’t the issue. The issue is that an old man fell and was seriously injured. It doesn’t matter if he’s a powerful Senator. Unfortunately, that’s not how Republicans on Twitter saw it. As you can imagine, they were quite happy with the Leader’s unfortunate accident.

From Fox News’ official Twitter feed (these Republicans REALLY show us how Christian they are):

Ark Encounter: Kentucky Is Discriminating Against Us For Our Discriminatory Hiring

Earlier this month the state of Kentucky announced that it will be denying $18M in tax incentives to the Ark Encounter because its employment application stipulates that prospective staffers must be fundamentalist Christians. Today Answers In Genesis, the creationist parent organization of the Ark Encounter, claims that their religious freedom to discriminate is being discriminated against.

In addition to refuting the myth that tax dollars will be used to build our life-size Noah’s Ark in Williamstown, Kentucky, Answers in Genesis has had to spend considerable effort rebutting another myth: that it is illegal for the Ark Encounter to hire only people who can sign its statement of faith. Yet the state, in its letter to AiG last week (and simultaneously leaked to the press), is illegally denying the Ark the opportunity to benefit from the Tourism Development Act (TDA) due to hiring issues. Kentucky is demanding that AiG check its religious freedoms at the door if it is to receive TDA benefits.

It is interesting to note that the state and activist secular groups can point to no specific law or statute that would deny a religious organization like AiG or Ark Encounter the right to hire staff members who agree with its mission. Indeed, why should we give in to the state’s demand and give up our rights to hire people of faith? Nobody seems to want to force the group American Atheists to hire Christians (and we do not advocate it).

The demand by the state to have the Ark Encounter surrender the hiring rights it has under state and federal law in order to benefit from the TDA—otherwise made available to all other qualifying parties—imposes a huge burden on the Ark Encounter’s freedom of religion and smacks of overt religious discrimination. We have assured state officials many times that the Ark Encounter will follow all applicable federal and state laws in operating our theme park, and the state has no basis to demand otherwise.

Have American Atheists requested $18M in tax breaks to build a for-profit amusement park?

The Conservative Media Displays Blatant Hypocrisy Over The Murder Of NYPD Officers

Without fail, conservative politicians and conservative media have jumped all over the recent murder of two NYPD officers to further their narrative that those of us who want reform and better training in law enforcement are fomenting anti-cop violence.

Just this morning, Fox News ran a segment asking if America had lost respect for police officers – and you guessed it, they blame President Obama and New York mayor Bill DeBlasio, among others. Rudy Guiliani was on Fox News yesterday pushing the same message that protesters and politicians critical of the corrupt police officers were the problem, not the corrupt police officers and departments themselves.

It is worth pointing out that there’s a little truth to what they’re saying, although it is most certainly unintentional. There are some anti-government types, including members of Cop Block and Open Carry Texas such as Kory Watkins, who are most certainly trying to hijack a legitimate cause for their own political gain. These people have a very vested interest in making sure that distrust and hatred of all branches of the government burns high through slandering good cops so that they can then use the good intentions of protesters to erode government functions in a manner they can take advantage of. In other words, they’re wolves in sheep’s clothing, hoping for others to do their dirty work for them.

Tales of political deceit and subterfuge aside, no protester in their right mind should be celebrating, encouraging or even attempting to legitimize violence against police officers. My friend Chad R. MacDonald explains in this piece for Big Appled:

The actions of a few bad cops do not justify the death of anyone else, especially other police officers. The actions of a few hooligans should not cast aspersions on demonstrators against police brutality. Especially if a madman from out of the city wants to make a name for himself by killing New York cops. This after he shot his ex-girlfriend. 

Blaming protestors for the killings of these officers is shortsighted, as good and moral people are outraged by both of these recent and tragic incidents. You cannot blame the Mayor, or anyone else, for actions they were not involved in, just as you cannot blame all police officers for the death of Eric Garner. To say the protestors are to blame for subsequent violence against the NYPD is illogical. The true protestors are demonstrating against violence, not advocating for violence. To say otherwise is dishonest and/or ignorant. (Source)

Yet, that’s exactly what the conservative narrative is – that the very people who are demonstrating against police brutality are also encouraging lone wolf madmen to assassinate police officers. Legitimizing or trying to encourage violence against members of law enforcement – why does that sound so very familiar? Oh right, remember the Cliven Bundy incident earlier this year? Remember how Sean Hannity and other conservative pundits fawned all over the guy, right up until he made the “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro” remark? Yet despite his statement, Hannity still went on to say that Bundy’s cause was legitimate, racial language or not.

Don’t believe me? Here it is straight from the transcript of the show, from the Fox News website itself.

However, I also want to say this. The ranch standoff that took place out in Nevada was not about a man named Cliven Bundy. At the heart of this issue was my belief that our government is simply out of control. Now, to me, this was about a federal agency’s dangerous response to a situation that could have resulted in a catastrophe, and that means people dying and people being shot, kind of comparable to what we saw in Waco, Texas. 

It was about hundreds of armed federal agents and snipers and sharp shooters surrounding a family, and not because that family posed a threat to anyone else, but because their cattle happened to be grazing on the wrong patch of grass, and they were eating government grass. 

In other words, when I believe government officials, when they overstep their line, I think it’s my job to call them on it. And make no mistake about it, I’ll continue to do just that. (Source)

So we’ve learned that when a white, conservative rancher’s family and supporters in Nevada resist arrest and threaten government agents over land they haven’t paid grazing fees for in decades, it’s the government allegedly overstepping their boundaries. When right-wing, anti-government types kill innocent police officers, they’re completely ignored by conservative media as Media Matters pointed out.

Yet when a black man passively resists arrest for selling untaxed cigarettes in New York City, and dies as a consequence of being placed in a chokehold, the ridiculous argument from the folks over on the right is that he shouldn’t have resisted. According to them, it’s also the fault of us peaceful protesters and of course, President Obama when a lone madman guns down two cops and expresses anti-police rhetoric on the internet. Does anyone else see this as ridiculous and even racist, or just par for the course from the usual hypocrites over in the world of conservative media?

The Mormon Church’s odd explanation for Joseph Smith’s polygamy

Last week, the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints announced that its founder, Joseph Smith, had as many as 40 wives.

The news itself isn’t that surprising, and subsequent assertions in the media that this was the first time the LDS Church had admitted to their founder’s plural marriages are a bit of an exaggeration.

After all, the Church had said many times before that not only did Smith practice polygamy, he received a revelation commanding him to do so in the early 1840s.

And, of course, Mormon President Wilford Woodruff received a similar revelation commanding the faith to cease practicing polygamy in 1890 — not too long after the practice was outlawed in the United States.

So the question one has to ask in light of the recent announcement shouldn’t be whether the Church has already acknowledged its history with respect to plural marriage. Instead, we should be asking what’s up with these new “revelations.”

Last week’s announcement includes the word “revelation” thirteen times, the first of which comes in the second paragraph:

After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration — for Joseph personally and for other Church members…Few Latter-day Saints initially welcomed the restoration of a biblical practice entirely foreign to their sensibilities. But many later testified of powerful spiritual experiences that helped them overcome their hesitation and gave them courage to accept this practice.

Anonymous: We Spotted Very Anti-Gay Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) At DC Gay Bar

The above Anonymous Twitter account with 1.3 million followers claims to have spotted Tea Party hero and US Senate candidate Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) in the crowd at the popular DC gay bar JR's. I've looked at the photos of Cotton that come up on Google Image and just can't tell from the shot posted to Foursquare. According to Wikipedia, Cotton married a woman early this year and is expecting his first child in the spring.

Earlier this week an NRA endorsement of Cotton appeared on Grindr, but the NRA claims that the ad is fake, so perhaps this Anonymous claim is part of some bizarre campaign to malign Cotton, who has all of the usual far-right Tea Party positions and strongly opposes same-sex marriage. He is considered likely to unseat Sen. Mark Pryor and currently leads in the polls by seven points.

Anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera becomes victim to his double standard

By now, no doubt, you all are aware that anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera has been detained again in Canada. Earlier this year, he was detained, released, and then arrested for distributing anti-gay and anti-abortion material at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan and not leaving when asked to by campus security.

LaBarbera

LaBarebera was returning to Canada for the trial based upon the above incident. This time when he was detained, his computer, laptop, and other materials were searched thoroughly. According to LaBarbera, Calgary Border Service agents confiscated a DVD of a Russian anti-gay documentary entitled Sodomon the grounds that it could be hate propaganda, which is in violation of Canadian law.

Naturally, LaBarbera is milking the incident. In a press release, he raged about the supposed lack of free speech in Canada:

In Canada and across the Western world, laws based on homosexuality-based ‘rights’ have ushered in tyranny against people of faith who affirm historic, Judeo-Christian morality and man-woman marriage. It is outrageous for a major public university to ban opposition speech on this issue in the name of ‘protecting’ students—who should be allowed to hear ALL sides of this, or any, debate. “Today we will see if Canada upholds its professed Charter commitment to free speech and religious freedom. But this much is clear: the Western world’s war against faith and biblical morals in the name of homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism) is not a model that many nations across the world want to follow.”

Poor Peter. I would feel sorry for him, except for a couple of things. One - he pushes some of the most vicious anti-gay lies. Two - he is a hypocrite.

LaBarbera feels that Canada shouldn't have the autonomy to decide its own laws when it comes to free speech. However, he also feels that countries such as Uganda and Jamaica should have the autonomy to persecute lgbts. In June of this year, he defended these countries and actually spoke against the United States' attempt to stand against anti-lgbt persecution.

According to Right Wing Watch:

VCY America’s flagship radio show “Crosstalk,” Peter LaBarbera expressed outrage over Joe Biden’s recent remarks in support of LGBT rights, accusing the vice president of “neo-imperialism.” LaBarbera, the head of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, defended draconian anti-gay laws in Uganda and Jamaica: “The American government has embraced a neo-imperialism where we arrogantly override the beliefs of countries like Jamaica and Uganda and other countries with the idea that we, America, know what’s best for the world.”

I'm sure that if he is ever questioned on his lack of consistency with regards to foreign laws, LaBarbera will think up a good excuse to explain away his double standard. In his mind, at least.

But the bottom line is all about that old adage of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

If LaBarbera is all about defending the autonomy of foreign countries to persecute their own gay citizens, then he should show that same support of foreign countries deciding their own laws regarding free speech. Even if the latter demands that he is to be punished for violation of those laws.

Guns vs. Ebola: The Great Republican Hypocrisy

Since the dawn of conservatism, the one belief that’s been a constant is their staunch anti-government stance. This nation fought a Civil War because southern conservatives believed that their states had the right to own human beings as property. These Confederate states seceded from the United States over what they claimed was an “illegal” push by the federal government to end slavery and grant slaves their freedom.

And whether it’s been their opposition to women’s suffrage, desegregation, civil rights, interracial marriage, gay rights or women’s rights, these same states, supported by conservative ideology, have held the constant belief that the government is bad and our Tenth Amendment (states’ rights) matters more than federal law.

When it comes to guns, most conservatives are very anti-government regulation. In fact, if it were left up to most conservatives, we would have little or no regulations on guns. After all, according to many of these people, the reason why gun violence is such an issue in this country is because we need more guns. 

Apparently over 300 million guns aren’t enough.

Any time there’s any mention from anyone at the federal level that we need sensible gun reform (universal background checks, limits on magazine size, the banning of certain kinds of military-style semi-automatic rifles) conservatives and their NRA brethren go berserk. Perhaps their most famous line is the one that makes absolutely no sense – “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” The theory behind that seems to be that once a “bad guy” shoots someone with a gun, then the “good guy” can stop them. This rarely ever happens of course, nor does it help the first victim claimed by the shooter, but why let facts or reality stand in the way of some good old fashioned right-wing gun-loving propaganda?

But when it comes to guns, and the 8-10k American lives lost every year due to gun related homicides, conservatives don’t want the government anywhere near this issue.

However, have 4 people within the United States get diagnosed with the Ebola virus (with only one death among the four), and suddenly many of these same anti-government conservatives can’t get enough of the federal government. In fact, not only can they not get enough of the federal government, they’re wanting the government to do more to regulate travel.

Who would have ever thought, conservatives feverishly pushing for the government to implement more regulations.

Between 8-10k Americans die every year due to gun violence, but we shouldn’t do anything to try to regulate guns. Four people get diagnosed with Ebola and all hell breaks loose.

But here’s a fun fact: Every single American - every single one of us - is more likely to be killed by a handgun today than to catch Ebola. In fact, around 25 people die every single day from gun related homicides.

Look at the right-wing panic following four cases of Ebola (with only one death). Now imagine if 25 Americans per day were dying from Ebola. And with over 300 million guns in this country, don’t even tell me we have a “lack of guns” problem that’s allowing gun violence to run rampant.

Now, are these two situations exactly the same? No. They’re two different threats. One is actually killing 25 Americans every day, whereas the other is a disease that’s typically very hard to transmit unless you’ve been in direct contact with the infected bodily fluids of someone showing signs of having the virus.

Though what I’m trying to do is point to a glaring hypocrisy from the right. They claim the government is worthless and too regulatory – until it’s something they want the government to regulate. Then suddenly they’re big fans of the federal government. Take same-sex marriage for example. Conservatives would love a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

And while it’s rational to be cautious about Ebola, the outrageous and irrational fear-mongering being pushed by many conservatives is laughable. But again, between Ebola and gun violence, which one will claim more American lives today?

Ebola: 0

Guns: 25

In fact, if you look at the over 4k people who’ve died from Ebola in Africa, that’s about on par with how many Americans have died since March (when this outbreak began) from gun violence.

And we won’t even get into heart disease or cancer, which kill over 1 million Americans every year. Two problems that could be greatly reduced if every American had access to health care – another issue conservatives vehemently oppose.

Just imagine how much greater this country could be if we didn’t have to constantly deal with Republican ignorance and propaganda.

Wendy Davis Ad Slams Greg Abbott For Hypocrisy As Republicans Cry Foul

Texas Republicans are whining about the latest Wendy Davis advertising campaign that shows how hypocritical Greg Abbott has been towards others while seeking justice for himself.

In 1984, the current GOP Texas gubernatorial candidate was out jogging during a storm when strong winds blew an oak tree over, which fell on Abbott. The freak accident partially paralyzed him. And what did this “personal responsibility” preaching Republican do? Did he blame himself? No. Did he blame the storm? No. He blamed the homeowners whose yard the tree had been growing.

So he sued them in 2002, even though the tree falling was no fault of their own and the fact that Abbott was the one who chose to go jogging in the middle of dangerous weather. And he won a settlement of $10 million. Abbott and his Republican cohorts accuse poor people of being moochers when he had the gall to sue people for millions of dollars because of his own stupidity. He’s also been a major hypocrite when it comes to helping others find justice.

That’s why Wendy Davis’ campaign released an ad highlighting how big of a hypocrite Abbott has been over the years as Attorney General.

“A tree fell on Greg Abbott. He sued and got millions,” the ad begins. “Since then he spent his career working against other victims.”

Official Police Report About Palin Brawl Exposes Their Hypocrisy and Embarrasses Family

Before I even start I know what many of you are going to say, “Who cares about the Palins?” While many people feel that way (and I completely understand that sentiment), there’s no denying that the family, particularly Sarah Palin, still has a lot of influence over conservatives.

Whether or not liberals like her really doesn’t matter, because conservatives (especially “the base”) still do listen to what she has to say. Which is why I’ve found this whole “drunken brawl” situation so interesting. Because, as most of us know, a big “calling card” to Palin’s propaganda is this idea that she’s a representative for “good, wholesome, Christian values.”

Which makes me curious how a late night drunken brawl at a party in Alaska, along with her daughter Bristol (who famously had a baby as a teenager out of wedlock and was apparently the most violent person at this party) qualifies the Palins as representatives of “good Christian values.” Not that I am judging them. But it’s interesting that she’s rallied against several issues (such as abortion and same-sex marriage) based on her belief in “good Christian values,” yet this is how her family behaves.

Well, according to the newly released official police reports, this little brawl was quite the scene.

Here are a few details reported by the Alaska Dispatch News:

• Officer Justin Blake described arriving to find a group of people heading toward a long white limousine parked in the street. Blake noted a strong smell of alcohol coming from the group. Track Palin, shirtless and bloodied, was being led into the limousine by several others, who appeared “intent on keeping him away from me,” the officer wrote.

• Korey Klingenmeyer [the homeowner where this event took place] told police that a fight had broken out in the cul-de-sac in front of the home, and he had asked guests not to get involved. A few minutes later, Bristol and Willow Palin came around the back of the house, and Bristol looked like she wanted to start a fight, Klingenmeyer said.Klingenmeyer asked her to leave, he told police. “Who the fuck are you?” she responded. He told her he was the homeowner, and she responded that he didn’t own the house and she would “kick his ass.”“He says then that she hits him in the face. He says he then tells her to hit him again if it makes her feel better and she does. He says he lets her hit him 5-6 times in the face and that she was hitting pretty hard. After about the sixth punch he grabbed her fist as she punched again and he pushed back and she falls down. He says she gets up and tries to punch him again and he grabs her fist again and pushes her away and she falls down again.”

• The fight escalated as Track and another man began swinging punches at Klingenmeyer, the homeowner told officer Benjamin Nelson. At that point several men stepped in to help him, Klingenmeyer told Daily.“A fight broke out and the Palins ended up losing. (Klingenmeyer) said after it was over that Bristol came up and tried to hit him again but he didn’t let her.”

• Matthew McKenna told police that during the fight he picked Bristol up, carried her into the street and put her down. “At that point, Todd and Sarah Palin were there asking what happened and he told them to leave. Nobody listened and yet another fight started,” officer Adolf wrote.Officer John Daily described Bristol Palin as “heavily intoxicated and upset.” She told Daily that Klingenmeyer had pushed her to the ground and dragged her across the lawn after she had attempted to confront a woman about hitting her younger sister, Willow Palin.

• At least two fights appear to have broken out during the party, according to witness statements: a fight involving Track and Todd Palin, and one involving Bristol Palin. Seven witnesses verified Klingenmeyer’s account of being punched in the face repeatedly by Bristol Palin.

Mind you, this all happened around midnight. Again, I am not judging this behavior. But then again I’m not part of a family where the mother is often seen on television telling Americans what is or isn’t “morally acceptable.”

And I’m not exactly sure where I see “wholesome Christian values” in a drunken brawl where parents and children are out together until around midnight, and the adults are so intoxicated that police reported “a strong smell of alcohol coming from the group.”

Not slight, or moderate – strong. Meaning that this family wasn’t out late at night just having a few adult beverages. They were out cruising in a limo fairly intoxicated.

My gosh, what would Jesus think?

But, by all means, I would love to see Palin show up on my television screen here soon to tell me how Americans need to follow “good, Christian family values.” Please.

BUSTED: Wealthy North Carolina Republican Nailed for Welfare Fraud!

A North Carolina state senator has just cemented his re-election bid by proving that welfare queens do exist — because he is one. While this will likely be written off as a liberal plot to destroy Wesley Meredith, documents have surfaced showing that he and his former wife applied for Medicaid and food stamp benefits in the 1990s — while the politician was pulling in a six-figure salary.

His opponent Billy Richardson, over whom Meredith enjoys a hefty lead in the polls, released a load of Meredith’s public and private financial and public assistance documents, according to ABC 11 — all showing that he and his former wife Elizabeth Meredith received public assistance while pulling in an income most dream of.

Cumberland County GOP chair Linda Devore said the party is awaiting a refutation of the claims. “These are serious matters, and we expect that Senator Meredith will be considerate of the impact of the issues raised by these allegations on the women, children, and families in our community, by addressing them completely and without delay,” Devore said in a Wednesday statement.

Devore said that if the allegations are true, the party expects him to repay the stolen funds. “Should the allegations prove true, we will call on Senator Meredith to accept responsibility, repay the funds, and apologize to the taxpayers of this county and state,” Devore said. “However, if Senator Meredith is being falsely accused for political purposes, we challenge voters to hold his opponent, Mr. Richardson, responsible.”

“The public deserves to learn the truth from men asking for our trust. Character and integrity matter, and our families deserve to know that those elected to represent them share their values,” Devore added.

The North Carolina Republican Senate Caucus called Richardson’s revelation”desperate and despicable” and has already jumped on the opportunity to defend its hero. “The only thing surprising about Billy Richardson’s wild accusations is that he didn’t stand on his desk and hurl them at the media. Less than 24 hours after the first public poll in this race showed him trailing by an insurmountable, double-digit margin, Richardson decided to drive his campaign into the gutter – the same place where he’s spent much of his professional and political career,” said the group.

While the GOP defends Meredith, his ex-wife says the allegations are true. “Wesley and I went to DSS and applied for Medicaid,” she said in a statement. “I did not become aware of any potential wrongdoing until my domestic attorney later brought it to my attention many years ago,” she said.

Hypocrites Much?

Christian Groups Beg Public Universities to Subsidize Their Anti-Gay Discrimination

Based on the hysterical conservative response to this move—which suggests that being a Christian at Cal State now resembles being a missionary in a country that bans Christianity—this “de-recognition” is fairly minor. InterVarsity will not be banned from campuses, nor will students be discouraged from joining. The group can preach on campus and distribute evangelical literature. Actually, this “catastrophic” threat to religious liberty will mean only one thing for InterVarsity: No longer will the group be permitted to receive benefits (namely, funding) from the public school system.The catalyst for this latest outcry comes from California, where an evangelical Christian student group called InterVarsity Christian Fellowship was recently “de-recognized” by California State University. Under California law, any student group that receives funds from a public university is forbidden from excluding LGBTQ students. Because InterVarsity insisted on refusing membership to all gay students, Cal State was legally compelled to revoke its recognition as an official student group.

Supporters of the campaign to rebrand anti-gay discrimination as “religious liberty”claim they are merely trying to protect religious people from government interference. This assertion always seemed dubious, given the crusade’s disregard for actual infringements on religious freedom that don’t fit their persecution complex. But its latest battle is even more egregiously hypocritical: Not only do some conservative Christians want a special right to discriminate against gay people; they also want the state to fund that discrimination.

A law that forbids public funds from supporting a club that openly discriminates against gay people might seem like a reasonable compromise: Anti-gay Christian groups can continue to exclude gays, while taxpayers can rest easy knowing their money isn’t supporting discrimination. But in 2010, the Christian Legal Society argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that, in fact, evangelical clubs at public universities have a First Amendment right to discriminate against gays. The justices didn’t buy it, ruling that a policy requiring clubs to accept all interested students—even the gay ones—is “reasonable” and “viewpoint neutral.” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately to emphasize how discrimination policies at universities inhibit “vibrant dialogue.”

Christian clubs like to complain that, if they aren’t allowed to discriminate, allreligious college groups might be overrun by atheists. At oral argument in the Christian Legal Society case, Justice Samuel Alito and his fellow conservatives expanded upon the hostile takeover hypothetical, suggesting that a nondiscrimination policy would allow Islamophobic students to sabotage a Muslim student group:

But these agitated speculations are really too fanciful to take seriously. Not a single religious group at a U.S. university has experienced the kind of takeover that Alito so fears. Quite the contrary: The vast majority of Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, and mainline Protestant groups at universities across the country have happily complied with nondiscrimination policies. Some chapters of Hillel have even elected non-Jewish students to the board—and contrary to Alito’s fears, none of these gentiles have yet to sneak pork into the latkes at a Hillel Hanukkah party.

The truth, of course, is that all these thought experiments are just a distraction. There’s only one issue truly in play here: whether anti-gay student groups can force public universities to subsidize their discriminatory behavior. The answer today is the same one the Supreme Court gave in 2010: Absolutely not. Advocates of religious liberty profess to support freedom of religion from government interference. But groups like InterVarsity aren’t asking for less government involvement—they’re asking for more. If these groups simply disentangled themselves from the state, they’d find shelter under the First Amendment. But so long as Christian clubs demand money from the government, they’re going to have to play by some of the government’s rules.

In 2014, a Virginia Town Is Still Battling Witchcraft, Magic, And ‘Gypsies’

As the rest of the world focuses on homelessness, immigration reform, terrorism, and other important topics (for better or worse), one Virginia town is keeping its sighs squarely on what truly matters: the threat posed by witches, gypsies, and fortune tellers.

For decades, the small town of Front Royal has had a code that prohibits fortune telling and the practice of magic arts — but questions regarding the legality of the restriction and the use of offensive terms like “gypsies” has caused the ban to be the subject of a heated debate.

More than fifty residents had nothing better to do last week than show up at a hearing to voice their concerns for or against the ban after a local tarot card reader was told to stop practicing her art because it is in violation of the archaic law.

Councilman Bret Hrbek said he was “outraged by the whole conversation.” He said that the code contains language that is “pejorative and insulting.” He also criticized the law for claiming that fortune tellers are “pretending” to read the future.

“You and I, as Christians, may not agree with that practice,” Hrbek said. “But for us to write in the law to say … these are the facts, that is disturbing to me and it should be disturbing to every American who believes that we have liberty.”

“I feel like we’re in the movie Footloose, but reversed where kids wanted to dance, but the state said they couldn’t and here we are, the folks in the community saying ‘please impose our moral viewpoint on everyone else,’” Hrbek said.

One resident, Elizabeth Poel, asked why town council would act in a manner that benefits Pagans, who make up a small percentage of the population.

According to NVDaily,

A UGANDAN PASTOR SSEMPA IS ACCUSED OF DEFILEMENT OF MINOR

A man by the name of Martin Ssempa has apparently been held by police in Iganga, Uganda, accused of allegedly “defiling” a 17 year old girl in Uganda.

The term defilement is used in Uganda to describe rape of a young under-age person.

There are two Martin Ssempa’s (urgh imagine that) and we hear that the accused is not the infamous pastor who is known for his Bible punching hate of gays. But this is a different Ssempa and now ‘Mr Eat Da Poo Poo’ Ssempa will get a taste, through name confusion, of what it feel like to be outed by Uganda’s Tabloid Red Pepper. A mechanism of persecution he has laughed at and condoned through social media bantering for years.

Sometimes Karma rushes in like a tidal wave….

The Red Pepper Report notes as follows:

Iganga police are holding a pastor accused of defiling a 17-year-old girl during a healing prayer session. 

Pastor Martin Ssempa (who happens to share the same name with the famous Martin Ssempa of the the anti sodomy campaign) , of The Church of God Healing Centre located in Iganga on Tiptop Hall reportedly took advantage of his 17-year-old victim a student at Comprehensive Senior Secondary School in Iganga district when she approached him to pray for her to during night prayers. 

According to the minor whose identity has been withheld, the pastor took her inside his room where he repeatedly defiled her and asked not to reveal the matter to anybody.

She says Ssempa promised her school fees in order not to talk about the matter. A medical report shows that the minor was indeed defiled. 

Betty Nankwanga, the mother of the defilement victim says that she was nearly tricked into having sex with the same pastor. 

Nankwanga says Ssempa convinced her that she had been bewitched by her mother-in-law. Ssempa said Nankwanga’s mother-law wanted to break up her marriage. He then offered to pray for her. 

She says she became suspicious when during the prayer session, Ssempa started touching her breasts and private parts. 

Mathew Otuur, the Iganga police Investigations chief, says that they have subjected the pastor to a medical check up to establish his mental status before he can appear in court on charges of defilement. 

This is not the first case of a pastor being accused of sexual harassment. 

In April 2014, Pastor Martin Kahira, of Rwandan nationality reportedly defiled a 14-year old girl who had sought his help. The Sazinga Primary School pupil in Mitooma district had wanted Kahira to pray for her recovery from epilepsy.

In October 2012, the infamous anti-gay Martin Ssempa and five other individuals were convicted in Buganda Road Court of conspiring to tarnish a rival pastor’s reputation by falsely accusing him of engaging in homosexuality. The guilty verdict stemmed from a May 2009 incident in which Ssempa and the others engaged in a conspiracy to coerce a male church member at Robert Kayanja‘s Rubaga Miracle Center Cathedral to claim that he had sexual relations with Kayanja. The six individuals, including Ssempa, were sentenced to a fine of one million shillings each (about US$390) and one hundred hours of community service.

17-Year-Old Daughter of Idiot GOP Abstinence Advocate is Pregnant

Yet another GOP abstinence advocate somehow has managed to conveniently set aside his professed ideals to support his unwed, pregnant teenage daughter. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Congressman who is attempting to capture a Senate seat and co-sponsor of the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act of 2013, has disclosed that his little girl’s baby is due later this summer.

Among other things, the AERA focuses on abstaining from teaching children about sex until the age of twelve – the age at which many children have already begun to have sex, with low income children losing their virginity at an average of age 12 (and many beginning much sooner). Of course, after many children are already sexually active, the legislation focuses on ” teaching the benefits of refraining from nonmarital sexual activity, the advantage of reserving sexual activity for marriage, and the foundational components of a healthy relationship.”

The average age at which girls lose their virginity across the country is 17, which is exactly how old Cassidy’s daughter happens to be. According to NOLA.com Cassidy is going to be a proud grandpa after his precious little snowflake ignored daddy’s beliefs and got herself knocked up.

“Earlier this year, Laura and I learned we will become grandparents this summer. Our children have been the greatest blessing of our lives and we welcome our grandchild as a joyous addition to our family. Our daughter now faces a more challenging future than her peers. She has our unconditional love and support,” Cassidy said of his daughter’s pregnancy. He says that his daughter faces a “more challenging future” now that she has shown, like numerous studies, that abstinence-only education does not work. In fact, teen pregnancies are highest in states that employ abstinence-only education.

We look forward to her future joining Bristol Palin in hypocritically pushing for the right to deny girls and women the ability to easily and affordably obtain a full array of birth control options. Should be a blast.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Votes Against VA Bill, Voted For Both Wars

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Image credit: www.ap.org

This one is going to be a doozy, y’all and you’ll have to excuse me for being a little bit more angry than usual. From the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot files: 3 Republican senators. Bob Corker, Ron Johnson and Jeff Sessions were the only senators that voted against a bipartisan veterans’ benefits bill earlier this week. Yes, out of all the senators voting, these three were the only ones who had a problem with the bill which was introduced by Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), and John McCain (R-Arizona).

So what was the reason that they chose to oppose it? Perhaps the bill didn’t go far enough, or maybe it didn’t have some special earmarks for their districts? Maybe it didn’t have an amendment for completely repealing the Affordable Care Act or perhaps they just couldn’t go on record as voting for anything that the president would sign? Nope, it was the cost.

Here’s what Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) had to say:

“This bill is moving back to the House where I hope they will more thoughtfully address the serious issues that have been uncovered in the VA and ensure the bill is paid for in a way that does not burden future generations with crushing debt so I can support it when it comes back to the Senate.” (Source)

And here’s some of Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) defense of his “nay” vote:

“…just the first two years would cost $35 billion, and every year after that $50 billion.”

“Hopefully, we’ll come up with a bill that actually fixes the problem, that doesn’t mortgage our children’s future further…” (Source)

Yes, you heard that right and no, that isn’t the 2nd Friday afternoon margarita messing with your head. They actually thought that taking care of our veterans would be too costly. Seriously, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Here’s the most hypocritical of them all, and I’ll tell you why in a little bit:

Before passing the bill, senators voted 75-19 to turn aside objections to its cost raised by Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama. “I feel strongly we’ve got to do the right thing for our veterans. But I don’t think we should create a blank check, an unlimited entitlement program, now,” Sessions said. (Source)

So how much was this “unlimited entitlement program” expected to cost? $2 trillion dollars with the final sum of up to $6 trillion over the next 4 decades? Yeah, that could really be expensive and I can see why a strong fiscal conservative might want to see how we could offset the spending with cuts elsewhere or raising additional revenues but… oh wait, that’s the cost of the Iraq War that Jeff Sessions voted for in 2002. But surely as a fiscal conservative, wouldn’t Senator Sessions have made sure we paid for that war, especially since we were already involved in Afghanistan? That’s going to be a big negative ghostrider. You see, he voted for the Bush tax cut in 2001,voted to authorize war in Afghanistan, and then voted again to authorize yet another war without funding. Ok, so perhaps after voting to lower taxes during a war and then voting to put yet another one on the credit card Senator Sessions would finally come to his fiscal senses? Again, negative ghostrider. In 2003, he voted for yet ANOTHER round of tax cuts.

But what about Senator Corker or Senator Johnson? While they’re certainly the scum of the earth for opposing a bill to fix the very VA hospital issue they wanted to turn into yet another scandal to pin on President Obama, they didn’t vote for the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Although I’m sure they would have gladly voted for any military action (not anything sanctioned by President Obama, of course) at the drop of a hat, they weren’t in Congress at the time – but Senator Jeff Sessions was. Don’t get me wrong, their votes were reprehensible as well but the Senator from Alabama voted for 2 tax cuts and put two wars on the credit card, yet he has the unmitigated gall to vote against the VA bill which would help fix the problem he criticized the president for in the first place.

For this blatant hypocrisy and absolute disregard for our veterans, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Asshole) is the inaugural recipient of my weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? award. You’ve certainly earned it, Senator.

What can you do to express your outrage? You can make sure to vote this coming November, and here’s what’s at stake:

—All 435 seats of the U.S. House of Representatives

—33 seats in the U.S. Senate

—46 State Legislatures

—38 State and Territorial Governorships.

If you’re tired of people like Jeff Sessions and others who put obstruction of the President above the needs of American veterans, then don’t just complain about it, spread their shame and get out the vote in November.

Tea Partier Who Compared Poor People to Animals Didn’t Pay Staff Enough to Feed Families

In April, failed Senate candidate Annette Bosworth compared poor Americans to wild animals. “There has to be a way that you begin the conversations. I've been in this race for ten months and it’s the first time someone has slowed down to say talk about food stamps, talk about what that program does to people, so if that’s what it took I’ll take the heat,” Bosworth said in May, while defending the comparison.

Soon after, she found out she lost her election bid in a painfully awkward FOX News interview. The following day, Bosworth was arrested for perjury following allegations that she circulated nominating petitions while on vacation in the Phillipines.

Now, a former employee has come forward to tell the world that the good Doctor Bosworth didn’t pay employees enough to feed their families. LeAnn Batiz once supported bosworth’s Senate run. However, after her experiences as an employee she can’t stomach throwing her weight behind the Tea Party politician.

“Someone who I can’t trust to pay her employees I don’t want to be making decisions for me in Washington,” Batiz explained.

“I did not get paid what I was promised or enough to survive,” Batiz said. According to Batiz, Bosworth promised a salary of $80,000 per year–but proceeded to pay her just over $10,000 in a six month period. “Ten-thousand in almost six months. Almost six months, so you figure that out and that turns out to be about $24,000 a year. That’s a long way from $80,000 a year,” she said.

Batiz was shorted so much on pay that she was forced to become one of the “animals” about which her employer spoke. She and her family were forced to rely on food stamps–in fact, Bosworth’s office even helped her enroll!

“But instead says, ‘Hey, I want you to keep working for me. I don’t want to have to pay you. Instead we’ll help you get on welfare,’ and then to turn around and say people who are on welfare are bad people, people who are on welfare are dependent people that was just the end,” Batiz said.