Here comes the worst introduction to a debate by a major national politician I can remember.

Sure, all sorts of people, the mortals, will geek in the middle of a debate when they’re trying to recall certain facts, numbers and statistics. When an opponent attacks, sometimes you might frustratingly freeze while searching for the vital ammo you need to fight back. All the pressure, the lights, the cameras, the endless amounts of esoteric info — they take their toll.

But the intro?! Your own self-prepared statement?

She couldn’t manage “Hello, my name is Jan Brewer, and I fight for the people of Arizona”? Or “Arizona is a leader in business, technology and innovation”?

A professional politician can’t begin with anything better than this? . .

“I have, uh . . . . . . . . . . done so much, and I just cannot believe that we have changed everything since I be-ha-come your governor in the last 600 days. Arizona has been brought back from its abyss. We have cut the budget, we have balanced the budget, and we are moving forward. And we have done everything that we could possibly do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *laugh* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We have, uh . . . . did what was right for Arizona. I will tell you that I have really did the very best that anyone could do. We have pushed back hard against the federal government, we have filed suit against Obama healthcare, and, and, we have passed Senate Bill 1070, and we will continue to do what’s right for Arizona. I ask for your vote, thank you.”

“I have really did the best that anyone can do”? That’s the person that will end up as Governor of Arizona? C’mon, being Governor is a very big deal — governorships are where Presidents are born. Governor Ronald Reagan, Governor Jimmy Carter, Governor Bill Clinton, Governor George W. Bush.

It’s one thing to end up in the office by default, but to be voted in by the citizens? Jan Brewer? Wow.

Some poor soul named Jade dared to call the Dr. Laura show with a complaint of racial stupidity: my white husband’s friends keep coming by and dropping ‘How do you black people like doin’ this?’ And ‘You black people like doin’ that.’

Genius Dr. Laura pegs Jade for hypersensitive. Jade, look, my bodyguard’s black, gee he’s a dear friend. I know that black guys say “nigger.” Is that racist? Nigger nigger nigger.

Jade thinks about it over commercial break. Y’know, I don’t like hearing you say “nigger,” Dr. Laura.

Dr. Laura: Jade, you loser, if you’re too sensitive to hear “nigger” coming from white people, you shouldn’t have married one of us:

Epic.

Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation
by A.W.R. Hawkins
06/03/2010

. . and one thing all human rights activists are perpetually ready to jettison is the right Americans enjoy in keeping and bearing arms.

Ironically, this right, summarily stated in the 2nd Amendment, should be the lynchpin of any honest pursuit of human rights. Thomas Jefferson made this clear when he equated a government-backed prohibition against defending one’s self with a government-backed denial of “the most basic of nature’s rights.”

Thomas Jefferson sure as hell didn’t equate, say or write anything like that. You, sir, are a big fucking liar. I said that. It’s nothing more than the motto of a gun-nut website: RKBA.

When one reads Jefferson’s statement in light of his many writings on nature’s laws and the benefits of private gun ownership . .

. . GAH. Sure, I’ll take a crack at that. On the 99th of Horseshituary, two-millie-vanillion-and-bazoolie.

. . it’s clear he was implying that the denial of the right to self-defense with a firearm is essentially a denial of one of the core aspects of what it means to be human.

Not gonna back down from this total bullcrap, eh? Don’t give a fuck if the world thinks you’re publicly demonstrating the brains and integrity of a thief? Awesome.

So, if I decided against having a gun, wouldn’t it be essentially the same problem? One of self-denial, but the same disaster? T’would be a “denial of one of the core aspects of what it means to be human”? Hmm, that sort of cement-headed logic just doesn’t sound like Thomas Jefferson. Sounds like an overwrought web-logger who makes shit up because, well, he doesn’t know what else to do.

By the way, what it means to be human would probably entail experiences like communicating through language, feeling empathy for others and coming to self-consciousness. I don’t see how owning a gun compares, it’s just a fancy tool.

In other words, gun control actually steals part of our humanity.

How much worse of a human rights violation can exist than one that actually separates the “human” from the “rights”?

What a comedian. ‘You took my bullet ejaculator! I’ve been reduced to scratching fleas and humping the vacuum cleaner! WOOF!’

Hawkins also believes that any ‘right’ he deserved that someone messed with would be a “Human Rights Violation!” If you gave him a jaywalking ticket, he’d scream “I have the right to cross the street! This citation is a Human Rights Violation!” Screw the crosswalk! Call The Hague!

None of this is hard to understand if we just imagine a woman who lives alone, and is being stalked by a dangerous man. She goes to a gun store to buy a handgun with which to protect herself, but because she lives in Chicago, Mayor Daley will not allow her to purchase a gun. Thus she goes home, and hopes the lock on her door will hold.

When he’s ready, the stalker becomes an intruder who breaks the door open, assaults the woman, and then leaves with a smile on his face.

Join my ‘I Like Rape’ Facebook page!

After reflecting on the matter he realizes the woman has no means with which to defend herself, so he goes back for more, and in time, as his callousness increases, he goes back more frequently. He knows the woman is helpless to stop him because she has been denied that “most basic of nature’s rights.”

No, she is helpless to stop him because:
1.) ‘She’ is clearly your twink blow up doll.
2.) ‘He’ has the keys to his own fucking apartment.
3.) ‘He’ is you.

In this scenario, how long would it be before the woman felt less and less like a woman and more and more like a dog? How long would it be before she had a thorough understanding of what Jefferson meant when he coupled gun control with the denial of a core aspect of what it means to human?

WELL, let’s ask her:

” . .grrrRRROWRRRRRrrrrrrrRRRROOOWWWRRR . . “

WHOA! DOWN SCOOBY!

. . it won’t be long till you feel like the woman who sat in her apartment staring at the door, hoping the lock would hold up under pressure because it was the only line of defense she had against her assailant.

Gun control could just be the ultimate human rights violation.

And if we ever give up our guns in this great nation, we will ultimately give up our humanity.

I imagine it’s safe to say that clumsy, anti-immigration Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is no media genius. It’s probably safe to add that she’s no political genius, either. But it’s certainly now safer to say she’s neither after the release of this silly commercial.

She and her staff thought it’d be a good idea to go after her national liberal detractors through the viral and social media. Unfortunately, this was the best they could do: a dirt-cheap frog fist-puppet, an amateur voice-over (likely a staffer or hack production assistant) so poor that it’s unintelligible, and a 3-line tune devoid of anything resembling rhythm or rhyme. All against a backlit-only background that our Mexican Home Depot locals could’ve painted and pounded out in 90 minutes. This is a statement by the people “driving the debate” on our national immigration policies:

Thanks to Think Progress, Media Matters and Michael Moore.

More Fox scumbaggery to pass along. The President addressed West Pointers graduating on Saturday, and the media recorded it.

Fox News tried to edit and air the clip to make the President look bad, but got caught red-handed:

Obama’s particular praise for the Armed Forces begins around 11 seconds in, and the ridiculous audio edit cuts in at 31 seconds. The echoing of his address is clearly audible until then:

The second half of the clip, coming after the one minute mark, is the whitehouse.gov recording of the same speech.

He needed somebody to go to Europe and push his “luggage” around:

Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with “rent boy”
By Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp
Thursday, May 6 2010

The pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his “smooth, sweet, tight ass” and “perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)” and explains he is “sensual,” “wild,” and “up for anything” — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

On April 13, the “rent boy” (whom we’ll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy’s client and, as it happens, one of America’s most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. “I had surgery,” Rekers said, “and I can’t lift luggage. That’s why I hired him.” (Medical problems didn’t stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.) . .

I heart Samson . . ite

For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes. In 1983, he and James Dobson, America’s best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation’s extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there. (The Family Research Council would not comment about Rekers’s Euro-trip.)

Dr. Rekers’ website:

***MISLEADING INTERNET REPORTS ABOUT PROFESSOR GEORGE REKERS***

“A recent article in an alternative newspaper cleverly gave false impressions of inappropriate behavior because of its misleading innuendo, incorrectly implying that Professor George Rekers used the Rentboy website to hire a prostitute to accompany him on a recent trip . .”

“Contrary to Internet stories based on this slanderous article, following medical advice Professor George Rekers requires an assistant to lift his luggage in his travels because of an ongoing condition following surgery. His family, local friends, and even another university professor colleague have offered to accompany him on trips to lift luggage. Professor Rekers was not involved in any illegal or sexual behavior with his travel assistant.”

National Review’s clown-prince of ‘epistemic closure,’ Mark Levin, demonstrating his now-famous chops:

. . which links to this:

An Earth Day tradition: George Carlin on the intellectual bankruptcy of “saving the planet”
By: J.P. Freire
04/22/10 11:27 AM EDT

As Carlin put it: The planet is fine.

And just exactly how is the planet fine? Because Homo sapiens will surely die off, and the Earth won’t even notice. Which is certainly an option, to do absolutely nothing on our behalf to intervene in the goings-on around us, the environment included. Just let the chips fall where they may, if we all die, we die.

But that’s the last thing that the Conservatives would actually choose to do, their lives being more sacred than the Earth itself. Until they’re forced to make a decision about the environment, they’ll say that the Earth is perfectly fine for us and for all human life forever because, well, I don’t know. Because The Lord said we’re so special? Carlin’s take is the opposite: we’re nobodies and we’ll probably be wiped out sooner than later. Not that they were ‘open’ to hearing and remembering it.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Pelosi: “After We Pass This Bill, Being A Woman
Will No Longer Be A Pre-Existing Medical Condition”
Posted by: Greg Hengler at 2:38 PM

“What on earth is this woman talking about?”

This:

MAN, that takes me back.

When you want to accuse Obama of mindless healthcare fear-mongering, perhaps you should avoid this line of attack:

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Obama Evokes Fear, Calls for Courage
by Debra J. Saunders

As a candidate for president, Sen. Barack Obama rejected “the politics of fear.” Well, he won. So now he’s playing the fear card to the hilt.

He’s been taking the fear card from his scabbard and burying it in your back? Bastard. He produced a deck of playing cards and told you to pick a sword, any sword? “The jack of excaliburs, sir — was this it?”

He does he do that? It’s a mystery.

Monday, President Obama went to Strongsville, Ohio, to warn that unless his ObamaCare passes, middle Americans should be very afraid of the day when they (Fear No. 1) lose their job or income, then (Fear No. 2) fall seriously ill and then (Fear No. 3) receive the health care they need, but lose valued assets.

Obama’s intended prop was Natoma Canfield, a 50-year-old cleaning woman and cancer survivor who dropped her private health care policy after Anthem Blue Cross raised her premiums some 40 percent to $708 per month. In December, Canfield wrote to Obama telling him that she was going to drop her insurance rather than lose the home her parents built in 1958. Alas, Canfield could not attend, as she since was diagnosed with leukemia and was in the hospital Monday . .

YIKES.

The fear is not that if you are sick that you will be denied health care. Canfield is in a hospital, and according to Obama, “She expects to face a month or more of aggressive chemotherapy.”

And the fear is not irrational — as everyone knows that worst trifecta could befall many working Americans through no fault of their own.

. . hullo? Hellllloooooooo?

Premiums will go up if insurers have to cover more sick people. Costs will go up if the government subsidizes more Americans . .

And Americans are supposed to trust this bunch to curb costs? Buy me a T-shirt and call me stupid.

Fine. You’re welcome.

Conservative Comedian Monologues the Oscars and Rahmbo
by Evan Sayet
03/09/2010

All sorts of history was made this week at the Academy Awards with Kathryn Bigelow becoming the first woman to ever win the “best director” award. That is, if you don’t count Woody Allen.

SNARF! He’s a wuss.

Another interesting sidebar is that Bigelow was married to Avatar director, James Cameron for two years, which makes that the longest lasting marriage in Hollywood history.

Aw shit! That’s TRUE!

Has it ever struck you how the Hollywood award season is kind of like a woman aging? It starts with the Golden Globes, goes to the SAG awards and finishes with Grammy’s.

Women, pfffh . .

Lindsay Lohan, a person famous for doing absolutely nothing other than club-hopping faux-bisexuals and mountains of coke, feels like she’s been used. Punchline.

Okay: Lindsay Lohan, a young woman famous for baring her genitalia, doesn’t appreciate the unwelcome exposure that a new . . advertisement . . aaaaannnnnd CUT.

Take 3: Lindsay Lohan Is Grandiose And Greedy.

Lindsay Lohan wants $100M over E-Trade ad

Lindsay Lohan is suing the financial company E-Trade, insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, “milkaholic” baby in its latest commercial — who happens to be named Lindsay — was modeled after her. And she wants $100 million for her pain and suffering, The Post has learned.

“They used the name Lindsay,” Ovadia said. “They’re using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn’t they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message.”

Not any more, congratulations. Lindsay officially sees herself as a drunken tramp.

And didja ever think maybe Madonna and Oprah have that ‘single name recognition’ because they don’t share their weirdo names with anyone else? Cher, anyone? Elvis, hello? Englebert?

If she pulls this off, watch every celebrity in the universe tear the Big Book of Baby Names into a million proprietary pieces. Watch Michael Jordan and Michael J. Fox battle the estates of Michael Crichton and Michael Jackson for Total Mike Supremacy. Watch Dick Van Dyke sue Dick Cheney for defamation. Watch Dwyane Wade have nothing to do.

Why No Push For Gay Reparations
by Michael Medved

Leftwing activists love to make the case for gay rights by associating the struggles of today’s homosexuals with the long, heroic battle for racial justice in the Civil Rights movement. Most of these same politically correct advocates also look with favor on demands for reparations for slavery and Jim Crow, so their insistence on the black-gay comparison raises an uncomfortable question: why don’t they push for similar reparations for homosexuals?

An answer to that riddle not only exposes the ridiculous nature of equating African Americans with homosexuals as similarly suffering victim groups, but also reveals the dubious nature of any reparations drive for long-ago crimes . .

From 1787 until 1920, women didn’t have the right to vote. Why not reparations for that?

Because they didn’t labor for centuries in the hot sun and pouring rain without compensation, thus denying generations to follow any of their economic birthright? Estates of astronomical worth stolen by their slavemasters?

Well, if women don’t deserve it, neither do black people.