Robert Maynard (right); Scarred, soulless monster (right)
Shorter Robert Maynard, Renoomurka
Is healthcare a human right?
ABOVE: B. Daniel Blatt, America’s Dumbest Homosexual™
Shorter Dan Blatt, The Gay Putz:
Obsession & Intolerance
*Cf.
ABOVE: Separated at Birth? Pigpen and Dough-Bob Loadpants (aka J-Load Doughberg)
Shorter J-Load Doughberg, America’s Shittiest Website™:
Chocolate City No More
Renew America’s Bryan Fischer has made the shocking discovery that the US Constitution’s ballyhooed First Amendment doesn’t protect the ‘right’ of Muslims to practice their religion:
Islam and the First Amendment: privileges but not rights
By Bryan Fischer
The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary.
A bold statement and it probably behooves us to look at the actual text of the First Amendment to see if Fischer’s on to something:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Holy Hannah, he’s right! We don’t see anything about ‘Islam’ in there, either. Whereas the part that specifically names ‘Christianity’ is right there between the lines!
Meanwhile, there’s nothing in the First Amendment that says the PRESIDENT can’t make a law ‘respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, even if Congress can’t. Not that the stealth Muslim in the White House would ever make a law prohibiting Islam — yeah, right!
Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.
Ironically, suicide pacts are themselves protected under the First Amendment. Or are they? It’s a question for the lawyers, but we’re guessing that Judas Priest-inspired suicide pacts are protected under the Constitution but Cat Stevens ones are not. To quote the great Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter, ‘If you want to sing out, shut the fuck up, raghead! PS durka durka bitchez!’
(Historical sidenote: If you play the First Amendment backwards you hear this.)
Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America …
True, but making a big fuss about Todd Palin’s past political affiliations is sort of tacky, right?
… but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam.
Oh, right. Forgot to stay on message for a second.
From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America.
Well, duh. Everybody knows that the First Amendment is trumped by the Ground Zero Amendment!
They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
And having the state ban certain types of religious speech is so totally not totalitarian! I’d say we’ve reached peak wingnut, but I’m still holding out for the ‘Obama: Member Of An Al-Qaeda Sleeper Cell?’ headline on WorldNetDaily.
Is it just me, or is Pam Atlas channeling Irvine Welsh in this bit on Dick Durbin’s Muslim rights hearings?
Muslims are freest in this country than any other country in the world and frankly no one gives a fig what they worship. The problem arose when thousands wee laughtered in the name of allah and the glory of jihad. We are entitled to our lives, Mr. Durbin. We are entitled to our security, Mr. Durbin. We are entitled to kee pur babies safe, Mr. Durbin. [emphasis mine]
Ken? We certainly don’t, but as long as we’re butchering Burns, might as well go all the way:
Tits, wha hae wi’ Nazis fed,
Tits, wham aften’s off her meds,
Welcome tæ John Bolton’s bed,
Or tæ Flirtini.
UPDATE: Pam’s fixed her typos, but just for the record and so’s nobody thinks we were making shit up:
If you are up to speed on blogospherical goings-on, then you will surely be aware that Ann Althouse paramour and Lord Protector of Hans Christian Heg Statues New Media Meade has been bounced from a blatantly liberal blog’s comments section by those candyasses at Lawyers, Guns and Money.
As Ann’s commenter Dust Bunny Queen put it: ‘Althouse has the class and courage to keep even the most derogatory and obnoxious comments from posters about herself instead of whining about it and deleting.’ She’s nothing if not thick-skinned, our Ann.
At any rate, we find this development deucedly unfair to Meade. And so we’d like to offer our own humbler Web-blog’s comment threads as friendlier cyberspatial confines … where he may feel free to post his obfuscations, grammar pedantry and gallant defenses of Lady Ann with no fear of deletion or reprise.
Please visit our shores, Meade! And to sweeten the deal, we’ve cooked up some cool new merchandising ideas for Ann’s blog that we offer free of charge (seeing as how there’s some kind of charity thing going on over there right now).
First up: A lovely Ann n’ Meade Screensaver – truly an inspiration for romance-challenged bloggers who dare to dream that true love may be found amidst retarded debate over the subliminal use of the N-Word in Democratic campaign ads:
Next: Now you too can own Meade’s favoritest Novelty T-shirt of all time! Who couldn’t resist walking hand-in-hand with a foxy Constitutional law professor while sporting this eye-catching number?
Finally, for the children: Educational Ann n’ Meade Missionary Position Puppets to scare the little rugrats out of playing doctor after hitting their parents’ box wine stash! Take it from Ann and Meade, kids — getting wood sounds plenty fun, but nobody wants a splinter!
Special Bonus: Our Missionary Position Puppets may be primarily intended for the youngsters, but that doesn’t mean grown-ups can’t get a kick out of them too! When you and your sex partner-slash-wingnutosphere trophy putz mix and match our patent-pending magnetized Ann n’ Meade Sex Fantasy Thought Balloons, you’ll get jillions of great ideas for what to think about when forced to do the nasty for appearance’s sake!
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
So please come comment on our blog, Meade. We would never ban you or delete your comments — and more importantly, we’d never ever never insult you or your wonderful bride.
ABOVE:Raphael, Ross de’ Docciacappellone
(1518)(soil on newspaper)
Shorter Ross Douthat, A Formerly Great New York Newspaper:
A Very Liberal Intervention
Above: Steven F. Hayward
Shorter Steven F. Hayward, America’s Shittiest Website™:
The Future of NPR: A Prediction
Shorter Steven F. Hayward, America’s Shittiest Website™:
Media Kudos and Brickbats
The wingnut message is basically that we should simultaneously expand our use of nuclear energy while shrinking government’s ability to regulate it.
That about right?
Charmin Neal Boortz. Best for bear bottoms
Shorter Neal Boooortz, Clown Hall
To America’s hot-to-protest college students
Earlier this morning, while perusing the recent output of the brain trust over at the American Thinker website, I saw a post by someone named Bill Flax titled “It’s Time for Gays to Get Married.” Surely, it’s a mistake, I thought, or the site has been hacked, or I’ve misread the title or something.
Gays have every bit as much right to get married as you or I. And in fact, they should.
What next? Is K-Lo going to announce that she’s started screwing black men and has had five abortions? Is Jonah Goldberg going to start bathing regularly and wearing unstained ironed shirts? Is Peggy Noonan going to reveal that at last she’s started attending AA meetings?
A homosexual man has an identical right to take a woman in holy matrimony as may any other man. Likewise, the rest of us have just as little right to take some guy and pronounce him a bride. This isn’t a question of differing rights. Our rights remain in perfect symmetry. Homosexuals are now and always have been permitted to marry.
And anti-miscegenation statutes didn’t discriminate either. Blacks had the same right to marry someone of their own race as whites did.
Of course, this is the American Thinker we’re talking about. Surely Flax isn’t simply going to repeat this tired old pseudo-gotcha and leave it at that. Certainly he’s going to put an extra-wingnutty spin on it, isn’t he?
Marriage is and must always remain one man and one woman. … Rather than seek to undermine such a foundational institution necessary for healthy society, homosexuals ought to get married. Marriage would temper their urges and channel their desires into something beneficial for both them and society at large.
Because that worked out so well for Rock Hudson.
ABOVE: Mark W. Hendrickson
Shorter Mark W. Hendrickson, Clown Hall:
A Tale of Two Union Disputes: NFL vs. Wisconsin Teachers
The New York Times published a pretty devastating article Tuesday pointing out the disconnect between Rep. Peter King’s jihad against American Muslims and the Republican congressman’s own well-documented ties to the IRA — ties that he refuses to sever even when pressed. Hypocritical, much? Well, yes, but for Jammie Wearing Fool, it’s not King who should be sweating in the face of the dreaded hypocrisy charge … but the Times:
So now to the New York Times the IRA is unequivocally a terrorist group. Not freedom fighters, not militants, the name typically reserved for Islamic terror groups. Their agenda is all too transparent: Peter King supports terrorists, therefore his holding hearing on radical Islamists in America makes him a hypocrite.
Well, yes, that’s pretty obvious … right? Not so, kvetchs the Fool:
Memo to the Times: The New York City and Boston areas are filled with Irish immigrants and the sons and grandsons of Irish immigrants, with a countless number who either had ties or sympathies with the IRA.
That such urban centers are now home to many Muslim immigrants does not occur to the Fool, who soldiers on with small regard for logic:
Yes, New York Times, a lot of people looked upon the IRA not as a terrorist group, but as those fighting for independence from Britain. Their actions and collaboration with radical leftists and terror groups — again, groups the Times openly has sympathized with over the years — left a bad impression upon many of us who later wanted nothing to do with them, family ties or not. The events of 9/11 also provided a stark realization for many: If we’re going to unequivocally denounce terrorism, you better be consistent. But for the Times, they prefer hypocrisy over consistency. [emphasis mine]
It’s a neat trick. The Fool readily admits that the IRA’s associations and the post-9/11 gestalt have combined to make sensible people reject the organization as a terrorist group if only just to be consistent. Furthermore, consistency — here defined by the Fool as the opposite of hypocrisy — demands that you do the opposite of what Peter King is doing if you want to ‘unequivocally denounce terrorism’. But calling out King for refusing to reject the IRA even as he holds his own hearing designed to force a non-Irish minority to ‘unequivocally denounce terrorism’ means that you are the hypocrite.
Here’s a news flash for the Jammie Wearing Fool — the New York Times is not the one conducting a witch hunt in the halls of Congress.
ABOVE: Newt Gingrich and his wife du jour
Shorter Newt Gingrich, The Brody File:
Newt Gingrich Tells Brody File He “felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness”
Miss Mrs. Anne Elk Applebaum, March 8th, 2011:
Why the Arab anxiety about American and Western help? Why the reluctance among our allies? The answer can be summed up in a single word: Iraq. Far from setting “an example for the entire region,” as Krauthammer put it, Iraq serves as a dire warning: Beware, for this could be the fate of your country.
Anne Applebaum, August 30, 2010:
I supported the invasion of Iraq, I think the surge was a success and I believe that an Iraqi democracy could be a revolutionary force for good in the Middle East. Yet even if violence abates, even if all American troops go home, we have still paid a very high price for our victory — much higher than we usually admit.
Anne Applebaum, July 17, 2007:
More troops? I hardly need to elaborate on what’s wrong with that plan, since so many in Congress do so every day. But for the record, I’ll repeat the obvious: More troops means more American casualties, maybe many more casualties. Worse, the very presence of American soldiers creates strife in some parts of Iraq — angering Iraqis, motivating al-Qaeda, sparking violence. Besides, we’ve tried the surge, and the surge hasn’t brought the results we wanted.
To recap for those scoring at home: Iraq is pretty much a mess (“this could happen to your country”), a mess that resulted from the US “victory” there. The surge, a success, was a really bad idea (obviously). The invasion of Iraq, a good idea supported by Anne, started this chain of events.
It follows then, logically, “All wood burns,” states Sir Bedevere. “Therefore,” he concludes, “all that burns is wood.” This is, of course, pure bullshit. that:
Good idea –> Invasion –> Victory –> Mess –> Victory
While wading through Don “Jim Bob” Surber’s shiite at his eponymous blog, it struck me that it is quite possible that Surber has done something most people would think impossible. He appears to be getting dumber. Like many, I had thought that Surber had dug himself to the bottom of the stupid hole, but I truly think that I was mistaken.
Let’s start with Surber on voter ID requirements, which, of course, he likes:
To buy a pack of smokes, you get carded.
Doesn’t matter how old you are.
To buy a pack of beer, you get carded.
Doesn’t matter how old you are.
…
Why should you not get carded to vote?
Apparently, Surber doesn’t get out of his trailer much and makes his common-law wife do all the shopping for his liquor and tobacco. How else could he think that everyone buying a pack of cigarettes has to whip out a driver’s license first regardless of how old they look? But let’s suppose that in Poca, West Virginia, this really is the case. Isn’t there perhaps a teensy-weensy difference between smoking and voting, other than, of course, the mortality rate? Maybe voting is like going to the movies, and you should have to pay $10 first. Or maybe it’s like going to college and you have to take a test first. Or having sex and you have to take your pants off first.
Then Surber moves on to crystal meth.Not surprisingly Surber believes that the right to manufacture crystal meth is more important than the right to vote. Surber is upset that West Virginia is requiring a prescription for Sudafed. So he takes another unfortunate gambol down analogy lane and, once again, steps on a rake and breaks his nose. Surber points out that in the oldey-timey days moonshiners use sugar to make moonshine
Which raises the question: If we had the same people in the Legislature then that we have today, would they have banned sugar?
That analogy might have more oomph if people sprinkle Sudafed on their morning oatmeal, stir it in their coffee, and make donuts from it. Or if Sudafed were being banned.
Next Surber moves on to the gays. Polishing up his Jim Hoft award for journalistic excellence, Surber refers to Bradley Manning as “the gay intelligence analyst who gave away all our secrets.” I would have thought that the U.S. perhaps had a few more secrets than could be found in the Wikileaks cables such as, say, our nuclear launch codes and whether Obama dresses left or right, but what do I know? According to Surber, Andrew Sullivan and Glen Greenwald are complaining about the treatment of Manning, and in particular the Army’s decision to take all of Manning’s clothes from him at night, because they are both gay, gay, gay, gay, gay and Manning is gay, gay, gay, gay, gay.
They can be gay all they want. Gay with each other. That is not the problem.
The problem is they are being less than honest.
You see, Gay Glenn and Gay Andy, because they are gay, aren’t mentioning that Gay Bradley joked that he could gay kill himself with his gay flip-flops and that is why the Army had no choice but to make him spend his evenings in his cell with no gay clothes. How someone can kill themselves with a pair of flip-flops is a problem that Surber has not bothered to consider. Probably he thinks that the gays have some secret gay flip-flop tricks that can be used in exigent circumstances and that Gay Glenn and Gay Andy are keeping these tricks secret to make straight people look bad.
Shorter Msgr. Ross Xavier Pius Douthat, S.J., O.P., O.F.M., S.S.J., Th.D+, The New York Fucking Times Pope-Ed Page
Why Monogamy Matters
*Cf.
ABOVE: Bob Owens
Shorter Bob Owens, Confederate Wanker
Everybody’s A Racist Now
