Your own personal [Muslim] Jesus

So yea, I may have enthroned Steve King on the Throne of Racism, but yet another Throne was open, the Throne of Islamophobia. I say was, because that seat is now filled  

The other night FOX news "religion correspondent" Lauren Green interviewed a religion scholar named Reza Aslan who just wrote a book on the life of Jesus.....and well you can see the results for yourself (as well as my snarky comments naturally)


Green: Reza Aslan was a Christian but converted back to the faith of his forefathers, Islam. He has now written a book about Jesus. The book has become controversial, as it calls into question some of the core tenets of Christianity. The book is called “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.” And Reza joins me now from Los Angeles. Welcome!

Aslan: Thank you for having me.

Green: This is an interesting book. Now, I want to clarify: You are a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?

Aslan: Well, to be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who also just happens to be a Muslim. So it’s not that I’m just some Muslim writing about Jesus. I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions. I have been obsessed with Jesus…

Green: But it still begs the question: Why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?

You know what, i gotta be honest, I think I'm on Ms. Green's side here. People should never ever attempt things outside their experience. I mean an expert in Religion writing about a religion he's not a member of makes no sense at all.

In fact its almost as illogical as a Beauty Queen trying to become a reporter. The Beauty Queen should just stick to her own area of experience.

By the way, would this be a bad time to mention that Lauren Green was Miss Minnesota, and the 3rd place runner up in the Miss America Pageant in 1985?

On the other hand, Ms. Green is 55 years old. So she's definitely still using her experience at looking hot as hell especially for her age.

In that same vein I should point out that as FOX's "religion correspondent" Ms. Green has reported on Mosque construction, the generally held political views of Muslims, the influence on the Boston Bombers, the so called Ground Zero Mosque and many other issues.  Oh yea by the way, she is also a devout Christian.  By her own standards, she needs to be fired and replaced because she cant report on those kinds of Islamic stories.....after all she wouldnt know anything about them.

Anyways, back to the interview

Aslan: Because it’s my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament. That’s what I do for a living, actually. It would be like asking a Christian why they would write a book about Islam. I’m not sure about that. But honestly, I’ve been obsessed with Jesus for 20 years. I’ve been studying his life and his work and the origins of Christianity both in an academic environment and on a personal level for about two decades. Just to be clear, this is not some attack on Christianity. My mother is a Christian, my wife is a Christian, my brother-in-law is an evangelical pastor. Anyone who thinks this book is an attack on Christianity has not read it yet.

Ok folks. I want you to pay attention to that last sentence. It wasnt meant this way but its actually a very good example of the literary device called foreshadowing......

Green: I want to read you some quotes from some people who are criticizing you , one from John Dickerson, who has written an op-ed piece on FoxNews.com. And he says, It’s not an historian’s report on Jesus. It’s an educated Muslim’s opinion about Jesus. He says its conclusions are long-held Islamic claims — namely that Jesus was a zealous-prophet type who didn’t claim to be God.

Translation: I dont actually know enough about the book to have an opinion, so let me repeat what other people have said.  (By the way, no this isnt the foreshadowing I was talking about....keep reading)

Aslan: That’s actually not what Islam claims about Jesus. My book about Jesus overturns pretty much everything that Islam thinks about Jesus as well. And to be clear, I just want to emphasize this one more time. I am an historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions. This isn’t a Muslim opinion. This is an academic work of history, not about the Christ or about Christianity, for that matter. It’s about an historical man who walked the earth 2,000 years ago in a land that the Romans called Palestine.

Yea......That first sentence kinda burns. Shows the difference between a real religious scholar and a pastor (Dickerson) that only knows one religion. And the ultimate irony is, by Ms. Green's own definition, Aslan has to be right and Dickerson has to be a moron. Because you can only be an expert in your own religion and Dickerson isnt a Muslim so knows not of what he speaks. If he does, the entire premise of the interview is flawed.

So yea, you cite your own expert and then your own rules turn him into an idiot.....OOPS

Which is probably why Ms. Green switched to plan B, which actually shockingly are at least pseudo journalist....

Green: How are your findings different from what Islam actually believes about Jesus?

Aslan: Well, Islam doesn’t believe that Jesus was crucified, first of all. Islam believes in the virgin birth. Jesus was most definitely crucified. And my book does question the historicity of the virgin birth. So again, I mean, I know that we’ve mentioned this three times now. I’m not sure what my faith happens to do with my 20 years of academic study of the New Testament.

Ok, on the one hand the point of the book is actually more about the difference between what Christians believe about Jesus and what history shows us....but that said, thats actually a pretty interesting, if not relevant question.

Green: I’m just trying to bring out what some others are claiming at this point. And I want you to answer to those claims…

Aslan: Well, it’s pretty clear that there are those that do not like the book, who are are unhappy with its general arguments. That’s perfectly fine. I’m more than willing to talk about the arguments of the book itself, but I do think it’s perhaps a little bit strange that rather than debating the arguments of the book, we are debating the right of the scholar to actually write it.

True enough. I mean lets be honest, she has yet to ask him a single question about the book beyond, "but wait your not christian WTF?"

But maybe there's a reason for that? Keep reading and we will find out....but until we do, Ms. Green reverts to plan A (again being well outside her experience of being totally bangable she really doesnt know what else she can do) of discrediting the author.....the very issue he just said misses the point of the book.

Green: Well, let me give you some other quotes from Dr. William Lane Craig, who is a Christian philosopher and theologian. He’s written a lot of books and done a lot of debates about science and religion. He said, Reza Aslan merely repeats bygone claims about the historical Jesus that have since been abandoned and refuted. What do you say to that?

Aslan: Well, I would disagree. I have 100 pages of notes and about a thousand books that I use in my discussions, and of course, in any scholarly discussion of Jesus, as with any discussion of any ancient figure, there are going to be widespread differences, but my 100 pages of endnotes cites every scholar who disagrees with me and every scholar who agrees with me. And I would suggest that anyone who actually wants to comment on the argument of the book read not just the book but also the endnotes to figure out where my scholarly argument about Jesus comes from. And I’m sure you’re going to find people who disagree with me.

Green: We’re not just talking about just people who disagree with you; Scholars — many scholars — disagree with you as well.

Yea ok, everyone caught that right? She literally just took the very thing he just said and said it back to him and thinks somehow shes made a valid point he didnt just answer.

Anyone else think she could be replaced by a trained parrot at this point? assuming of course the parrot was a Muslim so it could actually report on Islam.

Aslan: Absolutely….

Translation: This woman is a fucking idiot.....I just said the same thing she did.

Green: I want to get to the heart of…What are your conclusions about Jesus?

Aslan: Well, my conclusions about Jesus start by placing him in the world in which he lived. So I start with one fundamental truth that everyone agrees on with Jesus and that was that he was crucified. You have to understand that crucifixion in first-century Palestine was a punishment that Rome reserved exclusively for crimes against the state, like sedition or rebellion or treason or insurrection. The thieves who were crucified alongside Jesus were not thieves. The Greek word “lestis” means “bandit.” And “bandit” was the most common term in Jesus’s time for an insurrectionist. What I say is that if you know nothing else about Jesus except that he was crucified, you know enough to understand what a troublemaker this guy must have been. The movement that he started was such a threat to the political stability of the empire that they actually had him arrested, tortured and killed for it. So I start with that fundamental fact, and then I take the claims of the gospels, as every single biblical scholar for 200 years has done, and look at them in light of the history of this world that we know. And what’s interesting about Jesus’s world is that we know a lot about it, thanks to the Romans, who were very good at documentation. And the picture that arises from this is a real political revolutionary who took on the religious and political powers of his time on behalf of the poor and the meek, the dispossessed, the marginalized, who sacrificed himself in his cause for those who couldn’t stand up for themselves and whose death ultimately launched the greatest religion in the world.

Holy shit! a legitimate question about the book itself. And an actual journalist one too. And she let him give a full answer. Maybe this interview can finally be saved and start actually getting somewhere.

Green: My question, yeah, I wanted to ask — actually there’s another chat coming, and I wanted to get this on before we end this interview. [A critic] just says so your book is written with clear bias and you’re trying to say it’s academic. That’s like having a Democrat writing a book about why Reagan wasn’t a good Republican. It just doesn’t work. What do you say to that?

Aslan: It would be like a Democrat with a PhD in Reagan who has been studying his life and history for two decades writing a book about Reagan. Again, I think that it’s unfair.

No wait nevermind. The legitimate journalism is over. We now return to your regularly scheduled Christian Beauty Queen turned Reporter on Islam wonders why people reach outside their personal experience. Not to mention she is doing so on a network that has a Republican bias and spends its whole day explaining why Obama, whos a democrat, is also a bad president. She just said "it just doesnt work" when you do that. 

And still note the total lack of self awareness of the irony of her own position. That actually does take serious talent.

Green: Why would a Democrat want to promote democracy by writing about a Republican?

This is actually my favorite line of this entire interview, even if is also the least relevant to anything.

The first time I read it I passed it off as the usual "Republican Good, Democrat Bad" bullshit that FOX always spews. But then I realized I missed something.

Again according to her own premise, the Democrat who is writing about the Republican in this situation would be writing how the Republican was bad.

So apparently even writing bad things about Republicans spread Democracy.  It's almost as if just writing the word "Republican" increases democracy around the world.

And honestly I hope shes right. I mean as often as I write the word Republican in this blog I have to be responsible for at least 3% of the democracy on this planet, even if I do usually follow it with words like "idiot" "moron" "bigot" "racist" "fucktard" or even occasionally "racist fucktard".

GO ME!!!!

Aslan: Ma’am, may I just finish my sentence for a moment, please? I think that the fundamental problem here is that you’re assuming that I have some sort of faith-based bitas in this work that I write. I write about Judaism, I write about Hinduism, I write about Christianity, I write about Islam. My job as a scholar of religions with a PhD in the subject is to write about religions and one of the religions and one of the religions I’ve written about is the one that was launched by Jesus.
Translation: I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore your last comment, its irrelevant and thinking about it too long give me a headache. And instead I'm going to go back to pointing out how your original assumption is asinine.

Green: You’re not just writing about a religion from a point of view of an observer. I mean, the thing about it is that…

She's actually right. I mean he's a practitioner of religion, so he cant be a detached observer. But then again so is she.

Which means, as the one and only atheist in this conversation both of you shut up and let me tell you about Jesus. 

Oh wait I cant do that. Because the premise of this interview assumes you can only talk about your own experience, therefore you actually dont want an observer. Unless you get shown up and panic like Ms. Green.

Aslan: Why would you say that?

Green: …you’re promoting yourself as a scholar and I’ve interviewed scholars who have written books on the resurrection, on the real Jesus and who are looking at the same information that you’re saying. To say that your information is somehow different from theirs is really not being honest here.

2 things. One, um the real Jesus who is the subject of this book wasnt resurrected. People dont do that. That would be the religious Jesus. I guess sometimes even in your own personal experience, you can be proven a moron.

Second. Actually yea, as Mr. Aslan is about to point out, taking the same facts and drawing differing conclusions is kinda EXACTLY the way academic and historical scholarship work.

But then again, props for actually doing a really good job proving your key point Ms. Green. Clearly you are well outside your personal experience and therefore have no clue at all what your talking about. 

Aslan: Ma’am, my information is not different from theirs at all. I’m afraid it sounds like you haven’t actually read my book or seen what I’ve said about the resurrection or about Jesus or about his claims. I think you might be surprised in what I say. And there have been thousands of scholars who have written about this very same topic. Many who disagree with me, many who agree with me. That’s the thing about scholarship, is that it’s a debate about ancient history and I am one of those people making that debate. I think it’s unfair to just simply assume because of my particular faith background that there is some agenda on this book. That would be like saying that a Christian who writes about Muhammad is by definition not able to do so because he has some bias against it. And frankly every book, almost every book that’s out there is by Christians…

Remember what I said way back about Foreshadowing? yea well you just saw some more of it....

Green: He can do so but I believe that you’ve been on several programs and never disclosed that you’re a Muslim, and I think that’s an interest in full disclosure.
And in about 11 more words your about to see Ms. Green actually prove that yes, being a reporter is well outside her personal experience as a Beauty Queen.

Aslan: Ma’am, the second page of my book says I’m a Muslim. Every single interview I have ever done on TV or on print says I’m a Muslim. You may not be familiar with me, but I’m actually quite a prominent Muslim thinker in the United States. I’ve written a number of books about Islam. It’s just simply incorrect to say that media isn’t saying that I’m a Muslim. I would actually encourage you to actually try to find media that doesn’t mention my biography, which by the way, again, is on the second page of the book.

And BOOM!. There is is. First sentence. Yea, she didnt read the book as Mr. Aslan kept guessing at. Which actually explains a lot. Like why the only question about the book she asked about the book itself loosely translated to "so tell me about the book". It also explains why all the criticisms she had were from 3rd parties. It's hard to critique something you dont know anything about.

Then again, maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe she actually did read the first page. I mean that is kinda standard operating procedure at FOX:

Turned out the part of the Verdict upholding the mandate was on page 2...seriously.

Although at this point, I must admit, I am now a firm believer in the idea you really shouldnt operate outside your own personal experience, lest your bias show and your professional credentials get challenged. Although I dont think using herself as the example was quite what Ms. Green had in mind.....

Green: All right, Reza, I want to thank you very much for coming on. The book is called “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.” I want to thank you for coming on “Spirited Debate.” Thank you.

Translation: Shit! I just got outed as being totally clueless about the book. MAYDAY MAYDAY!

Aslan: Thank you.

Translation: "Fuck you". Or "Thank God thats over" I'm not sure which.

Now it turns out their is a silver lining in all this (beyond me having more material to mock FOX with) for Mr. Aslan. Because of this interview his book has shot to the top of Amazon's Best Sellers list. So not only is he making a killing, he also using the free market to prove many people clearly do believe (correctly) that this is a book worth reading that has a lot of new and interesting information and isnt just a Muslim incorrectly commenting on Christianity.

And lets be honest, getting pwoned by the Free Market, is something the republicans at FOX should appreciate and approve of.


Now as a special bonus for those of you who only clicked the link because of the Depeche Mode song, and yet still read thought all of that, here you go:

Your Welcome.

The King of the GOP and the throne of racism.

So maybe everyone remembers a few months back the GOP released an autopsy saying in short they really really need to reach out to minorities, specifically Latinos, if they want to survive as a party. And of course they've been having a few problems, but I guess with any major shift that's to be expected.

Well bad news for the republicans, as of last week, their problems just got King sized, specifically Iowa Congressman Steve King,

See Congressman King was trying to explain why he would be against an immigration bill that would include the "Dream act", which is a piece of legislation that basically says if you were illegally brought here as a minor (15 and under) by your parents, you can stay in the country and gain citizenship by either graduating college or serving in the military for 2 years.

And this was his excuse:

"For everyone who's a valedictorian, there's another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they're hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,"

Now there are several small problems with the original statement (beyond the obvious racism):

1) those are some strong ass kids. I mean they are basically carrying 60% of their body weight across a desert.....Look my hats off to them, I couldn't do that, my guess is no one reading this could either
2) Those are also some big ass calves. Normal cantaloupe is about the size of a Human head. Go ahead, put your head between your legs, and see how many people you've seen with calves that big. I'm gonna guess Zero.....
3) apparently all drug dealers are Latino.

5 wrongfully accused drug kingpins arrested in Flordia in April. Not being Latino, or 130 lbs they should be set free

4) and this is kinda the obvious one. Even if Rep King was right, those people wouldnt be covered anyways. Remember the qualifiers about needing to be in school?

Actually Steve King does. See after his first quote surfaced, King tried to defend it by saying that he stood by it saying:

"This is real, We have people that are mules, that are drug mules, that are hauling drugs across the border and you can tell by their physical characteristics what they’ve been doing for months, going through the desert with 75 pounds of drugs on their back and if those who advocate for the DREAM Act, if they choose to characterize this about valedictorians, I gave them a different image that we need to be thinking about because we just simply can’t be passing legislation looking only at one component of what would be millions of people.”
To be fair, King is kinda right, you do have to be willing to look at everyone who will be affected, not just one group.  And the DREAM does apply to multiple groups, Students and Soldiers.

Well congratulations to all the Latino's in the Military, your now all suspected drug smugglers.....unless youre fatter then 130 lbs, in which case your weak ass couldnt survive in the desert or even carry 75lbs.

Nor did King stop there. The next day he tried to defend himself from all his detractors on the floor of the House and well shit got real crazy:

'As you remember, Mr. Speaker, the high priest said to Jesus, did you really say those things? Did you really preach those things? And Jesus said to the high priest, as the Jews were watching, ask them. They were there, they can tell you. That was, Mr. Speaker, the assertion by Jesus that he had a right to face his accusers. That principle remains today in our law that we have a right to face our accusers. And when he said ‘ask them, they were there, they can tell you,’ he’s facing his accusers and demanding they testify against him rather than make allegations behind his back. And what happened when Jesus said that? They believed and the high priest believed that jesus’ answer was insolent, and the guard struck Jesus. And Jesus said, ‘If I speak wrongly you must prove the wrong. If I speak rightly, why do you punish me?’ He asserted his right to be innocent until proven guilty before a Roman court. Those two principles remain today in our law, a right to face your accuser, innocent until proven guilty, you face that — proven guilty, you face that jury of your peer. you need a quick and speedy trial. they didn’t have that then. the punishment came quickly whether right or wrong.
To translate: Steve King has the right to face his accusers. And they must present evidence he is wrong, or else its assumed he's not. Because in this story, Steve King is Jesus.

Which is actually kinda ironic when you think about it, given that most people I've ever known named Jesus were Latino......

Nor does the crazy stop there. Believe it or not Rep King found a way to top even comparing himself to Jesus the next day, when he was asked by FOX news of all places how exactly he had such an exacting description of the majority of DREAMer's

His answer, He actually caught them himself. No I'm not even remotely kidding.

"That description comes from many days down on the border, riding and sitting with the border patrol and without them at night, no night vision, watching the shadows come across the border, picking people up personally with my hands, unloading illegal drugs out of a vehicle with a false bottom under the truck, I mean this is a personal experience, and I sit there at night and border patrol agents would come to me one at a time in their civil clothes and talk to me clandestinely."

Now I know what your asking, and the answer is No Rep. King has never worked for the Border Patrol.

And No, Iowa doesnt border Mexico. And no, none of the committees King sits on have anything to do with the Border Patrol.

So there is no real reason at all for King to have actually ever sat on the Mexican Border. I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming Rep King just got a bit confused. Maybe he sat on the Iowa border and caught some Nebraskans illegally crossing into Iowa.....it would explain why none of this so called border patrol agents were wearing uniforms, its just the locals who live on the Iowa state line trying to figure out what the crazy guy is up to this time.

By the way, King's still not done. See he went back on FOX the next day to defend THOSE comments about sitting on the border. And it appears his friends at the Border Patrol, none of whom wish to be publicly identified (always the problem with invisible friends), had a message. According to Mr. King

“I got a call from them yesterday, and I said, ‘Did I need to come back down and refresh myself?’ They said, ‘No, you’re spot on with what you’re saying but maybe you got the weight ten pounds up."

Well congratulations, it only took a week but we finally got a walk back.........but just of being incorrect about his precise bigoted  delusions. But on the upside all the non existent cantaloupe calved 130lbers are breathing a sigh of relief.....but all the 120lbers just went into hiding.

But it turns out all of this is only the icing on the cake of the Steve King problem for the Republican Party.

See publicly all the Republicans have been disowning him and disavowing his comments. Of course as he lives in his fantasy world, King doesnt really accept that.

In fact he said:

"My colleagues are standing by me. They come up to me constantly and talk to me and say, you’re right, I know you’re right, Is the description such that they have to go out to the press and do a press conference or can they come and tell me, I know you’re right, I support you? They can do that privately, You know, they have a lot at stake here. There is a leverage within the House of Representatives and they all need to be concerned about their own leverage, so I’m not asking them to step forward, I wouldn’t ask them to step forward. I don’t want them to take repercussions."

Now of course from a guy who thinks he's spend a lot of time on the border that no one else can account for, and also may or may not think he's Jesus, it would be very very easy to dismiss this as yet another delusion of a bigoted mind.

And actually Republican's would love for you to do just that.

See back at the start of June, the House voted on an amendment to the Homeland Security spending bill. This particular amendment would eliminate the policies the DHS can currently use to NOT automatically deport DREAMer's. In short it would force DREAMer's to be deported, even if they dont actually remember any other country or speak the local language.

And the amendment passed, with all but 6 republicans voting for it.

And the author of the Amendment? Yea, Rep Steve King.

So actually it looks like at long last, Rep King accidentally said something true.

And the fact that people are now looking this up,and releasing what the Republicans supported, even though they all now claim they never agreed with the moron with the Jesus Delusion who believes in cantaloupe calved illegals, is the real Republican Steve King problem. They dont want you to know what they actually WILL vote for, at least not after someone says anything about it in public.

So much for the rebranding and outreach......back to the drawing board (Again).

This week in bad excuses: its not as bad as you thought....its worse.

So for a long time now we have been hearing stories about how the 112th congress (the one that went from 2010-2012) was the least productive in history, and now we are hearing the same things about the current 113th Congress.

Well at least one member of both of those congresses has had enough, and he's not going to take it anymore.

That man is John Boehner, Speaker of the House for the 112th and 113th congress.

Well, now what does Speaker Boehner say to reports the 112th congress was the least productive ever?

"That's just total nonsense, Now listen, we made clear when we took over, that we weren't going to be doing commemorative legislation on the floor. A lot of changes. In addition to that, most Americans think we have too many laws. And what they want us to do is repeal more of those. So I reject the premise to the question."
Now look I do actually want to be fair here, the first sentence is absolutely true. John Boehner did pledge not to bring up so much commemorative legislation and kept that promise. For example traditionally 64 pieces of legislation are passed every March, one commemorating each and every team that made it into March Madness that year. That didnt happen under the 112th congress.

So that's 128 less pieces of legislation right there.

And the 112th congress only passed 238 bills. Compared to say 383 by the 111th, or 460 by the 110th.

And if we just add the March Madness numbers back to the total count, the 112th would have passed 366 bills. Still the least productive congress ever, but really not by much especially compared to its direct predecessors

And I'll be honest, I have no idea how much other commemorative legislation the Congress usually passes. So if Boehner had stopped right there, theirs a very good chance he would have had a good and perfectly acceptable excuse. But he didnt, and because he didnt he ran into a problem.

And its a problem he cant seem to get away from.

Take his answer as to why the Congress has only passed 15 bills this entire year so far, which he gave on Face the Nation this morning.

First he said that Congress "should not be judged by how many new laws we create." pointing out that in his opinion the US already has "more laws than the administration could ever enforce." therefore Boehner believes that "ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal."

This the second time in a row John Boehner has mentioned that what the "American people want" or what "Congress should be judged on" is repealing laws.

And that right there is his on-going problem.

It's not that he's wrong, that's the problem. I'll even grant the premise for the rest of this blog that yes the only thing the American people want is to have laws repealed.

The problem is a mechanical one. You know how you repeal a law?

It's not a hard process, you just pass a bill repealing the previous bill.

So basically its a subcategory of passing bills.

And believe me Speaker Boehner knows this. After all his House is currently working on the 38th piece of legislation they are trying to pass that would repeal Obamacare.

So even repealing laws requires passing bills.

Now I admit I dont have the time to look up all 238 bills the 112th Congress passed, but I know we didnt repeal 238 laws. But I do have plenty of time to look up the 15 bills this Congress has passed. 0 of them repeal a law.

Which means if we use Speaker Boehners own criteria, he keeps answering  questions about why he (and the rest of Congress) suck at their jobs and he's excuse it "no, please your giving us too much credit....we actually suck way way way more then you think we suck."

Points for honesty, but its still a horrible excuse and a horrible answer.....maybe its time to try something different?

Behind every great man is a great woman......except in the GOP.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so with that in mind, let me go ahead and "say" 3,000 words:

Now look, you can make up whatever words you like to use up those 3000 words, except their is one word you really wont find anywhere. Women. Because (excluding the back of a head) they arnt in the pictures.

Which is kinda a problem, given that every single one of those pictures deals with abortion bills.

The first is the famous "all male contraception panel" that was convened last year and kicked off the whole "War on Women" line against Republicans. Now you'd think they would have learned from that to at least include a women in the damn pictures.

Nope, that brings us to the second picture, That would be a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee debating a 20 week abortion ban. Now in fairness to Republicans the subcommittee kinda had to be all male, because the ENTIRE  Judiciary Committee is male. (After all, a woman's proper place is in the kitchen....and she's not likely to need to know any laws there). That picture by the way was taken in June...as in last month.

Like the first picture it also touched off a lot of outrage....so much so that when the bill was finally brought to the full house for debate the bills original male sponsor was pulled off the bill and replaced by a women, who knew nothing about the bill because shes not actually on the committee that created it. Oh and who also wasnt actually put in charge of the bill even on the floor, until the original male sponsor made a comment about how unlikely it is for rape to result in pregnancy (speaking of things the GOP doesnt learn from....paging Todd "legitimate rape" Akin and Richard "God wanted you to be raped" Mourdoch.....)

Now you'd figure, since they did put a woman as the public face of the bill (even if she didnt actually know anything about it), that was a sign they learned their lesson. Not so.

That brings us to picture 3, taken at the beginning of July. That is Governor John Kasich of Ohio, signing his states budget. Now I know what your thinking, "how does a budget have anything to do with Abortion?" Well normally it doesnt. But the republican legislature in Ohio added 5 abortion restricting amendments, making Ohio at the time, the most restrictive state in the country for Abortions.

Now to be fair, usually when something like that happens, ESPECIALLY with a budget bill, the idea is to use the budget to "protect" very very unpopular legislation from being vetoed. After all vetoing a budget just as a general rule causes massive headaches and isnt worth it except in the most extreme circumstances.

BUT, the Governor of Ohio actually has a line item veto, that is to say he can veto any part of a law he wants then sign the rest. In fact Governor Kasich did that 22 times with this budget.....just not for any of the abortion related stuff.

See this time around the controversial legislation was shoved into the budget at the request of the governor, the idea being that YOU the voter wouldn't see it or notice it in there. Which may be why no women were invited to the signing, they do have a pesky habit of reading things and then not shutting up about what they didnt like in the things they read.....

Oh, and these are not the ONLY examples of all male groups signing abortion related laws, this has been going on for AT LEAST a decade.

See, here's George W, Bush signing the 2003 ban on partial birth abortion: (that to be fair no one really noticed was "all male" at the time....)

At least that picture has a couple of boobs in it (Bush and Santorum), but still no women.

So the question remains, after a decade of making the same mistake over and over and over and over again can republicans finally learn to at least find a women for the photo ops???

To find out, we turn to Texas, which just passed a bill that usurps Ohio as being one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the county.

And the official signing photo:

Wow, I guess you really can teach an old elephant new tricks. There are women EVERYWHERE in that photo. Problem solved right?

Actually not so much. The caption kinda illustrates the problem:

"Gov. Rick Perry, who signed House Bill 2 on Thursday, shakes hands with Sen. Glenn Hegar, R-Katy, the Senate sponsor of the omnibus abortion legislation."

So its a HOUSE Bill, but Perry is shaking the hand of the SENATE sponsor. I guess the House Sponsor/bills author/originator of the idea was unavailable right?

No actually, that person is actually also in the picture. HINT: its the blonde woman in bright red who Rick Perry has his back to.

So yea basically he signed this woman's bill into law then promptly shakes the hand of the MAN who assisted her.......(to be fair, he did shake her hand.....later, as the cameras were pulling away.)

And the rest of the publicity went just as badly. Check out the official press conference video (from the Texas Tribune obviously), where Perry, surrounded by his closest advisers, talks about how great a bill this is for women.

Notice anything missing....like say Women? I mean yea they were clearly around for the photo op, and he even touched one at the last second) but yea, basically for the majority of the video, its kinda a sausage fest.

Now to be fair, maybe he had his reasons to not really want to be seen anywhere near the only woman who had anything to do with this bill, the aforementioned lady in red, state rep Jodie Laubenberg. Now why would he want to avoid her? well see shes a moron in the Todd Akin/Richard Mourdoch mold.

After all, it was Rep Laubenberg who, when defending the lack of a rape exception in this very bill said 

“In the emergency room they have what’s called rape kits where a woman can get cleaned out, The woman had five months to make that decision, at this point we are looking at a baby that is very far along in its development.”

Yea see, she seems to be suggesting rape kit's provide abortions and/or stop pregnancy. And they dont. If you dont believe me just watch any random episode of Law and Order SVU, CSI:, CSI, Miami, CSI: NY, Criminal Minds, Cold Case, or well pretty much any of the other 100 or so police procedurals that have been on TV for the last 2 decades. What a rape kit is/how it functions isnt really an obscure fact.....

So congrats to the GOP, it took 10 years and you FINALLY figured out to work with a woman AND to put one in the picture......even if you total ignored her.

Maybe in another 10 years you'll figure out to actually acknowledge the woman's existence in the photo op.

And maybe in another 20-30 you'll figure out you might want to try working with a woman with a fully functional brain.......although call it a hunch, but by the time that happens something tells me you wont be passing these kinds of insane style abortion bills.

I guess its true what they say, for some people learning really is a very slow process.......

Dont believe the hype, the GOP candidate for Governor in VA, doesnt want to make it illegal for your wife to blow you.

Ok it might come as a shock,  I'm about to actually and legitimately call out liberal propaganda as bullshit.

Now hold on, before you have a heart attack, I'm not defending the republicans either, its just that on this one, the liberals are actually making shit up to scare you.

Ok for the last few days liberal websites have been full of headlines like this:

"Virginia GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Wants To Outlaw Oral Sex, Even For Married Couples"

 or 

"Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Wants to Outlaw Oral Sex—Yup, That Includes Between Married Couples"

Well see heres the thing, thats an outright lie, thats not at all what Ken Cuccinelli wants.

BUT Ken Cuccinelli is also lying to you.

See he's claiming that the law in question here, the "crimes against nature statue" is to protect kids from pedophiles and ONLY for that purpose. He even has a Website dedicated to that claim.

Now how do I know both sides are lying?

Well I'll start with Cuccinelli. In his case I know he's lying because I can read.

See heres the law in question

"A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony [1 year in jail], except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who performs or causes to be performed cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus or anal intercourse upon or by his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother is guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least 13 but less than 18 years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent is guilty of a Class 3 felony.

C. For the purposes of this section, parent includes step-parent, grandparent includes step-grandparent, child includes step-child and grandchild includes step-grandchild."

Now clearly section B and C do help protect children from sexual abuse by SOME their own family members....but only by SOME of their own family members, not from random strangers/unrelated persons or even creepy uncles.

But the big issue for Cuccinelli is in Section A. Note the second and third word "ANY PERSON". And note the total lack of "age" in that sentence at all.

There is no restriction on Section A at all, it applies to ANY PERSON.

Oh and one other thing, in 2004 a proposed amendment was made to the law it would have added these words to the end of Section A.
"The provisions of clause (ii) of this subsection shall not apply where all persons are consenting adults who are not in a public place and who are not aiding, abetting, procuring, engaging in or performing any act in furtherance of prostitution."

The amendment didnt pass, and one of the people who voted against that change was then State Senator Ken  Cuccinelli.

So not only is he well aware that the law he's talking about actually does apply to all, he made damn well sure it did.

He just doesnt want you to know that. He's hoping that if he lies to you about what the law will do you will support it and help him further his true goal. Now what is his true goal? well to get to that, I actually have to explain how the liberals are lying to you.

Ok so you may have noticed I keep changing my tense in relation to the bill, most of the time I use a future tense, suggest this is something Cuccinelli wants to do, but then I mentioned a 2004 vote that already happened.

You see thats the first part of the liberal lie. This isnt a new law Cuccinelli is proposing, its already on the books, and its been on the books FOR YEARS. It just hasnt been enforced.

What Cuccinelli wants to do is enforce it.

Which itself is a problem, see enforcing that law would be illegal. In 2003 the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence V Texas, that your right to privacy extents to consensual sex acts, basically overturning any existing law (which all 50 states had at some level) restricting legal types of sex acts. Some states took their laws off the books, some didnt bother (VA being one of those).

The 2004 amendment was a bipartisan attempt to basically make the law apply where it legally still could....to pedophiles.

However because the law is still on the books, Cuccinelli can try to enforce it (and clearly wants to), even though doing so would spark a legal challenge. Which is what Cuccinelli wants so he can try to overturn Lawrence, which itself overturned a previous SCOTUS case Bowers v. Hardwick, a case that said basically your right to privacy didnt include sex acts.

But that brings us back to the original liberal lie. You see despite the above paragraph Cuccinelli's target isnt married couples at all, or even unmarried heterosexuals. It's gays.

First think about this, under the Virginia law which is already on the books, pretty much everyone reading this would be in jail, I know me personally, I likely wouldnt be getting out till near the year 4000, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Hell I'd bet money that Cuccinelli is one of those who would be in jail himself, he and his wife.
Yet no one's ever heard of this law before is also my guess. Its not one anyone lived in fear of thats for sure, including those sexual active in Virginia before 2003 when the law was still enforced.

Because no one ever intended to enforce it on straight people, and really unless you get caught giving head on a park bench, doing so would be more or less impossible anyways.

There is a legal concept called "probable cause" which the police need to arrest you. Basically it means the odds are better then 50/50 the law is being broken. Using the aforementioned park bench blowjob, the odds are clearly 100% since the cop can see you.

But what about other times? Lets say I take a woman back to my place and we head to the bedroom. 3 things could be happening; oral sex, anal sex, or vaginal sex, and that last one (which would still be legal) is still by far the most likely for any random couple.

But what about gay folks? Well as a rule, they dont have both sets of parts needed for vaginal sex. So by default it would have to fall under oral sex or anal sex. I realize there are some exceptions (especially for lesbians) but still as a general rule, it kinda holds.

So if anyone sees 2 men making out on the street/in a bar/whatever, and sees them go home together and the bedroom light goes out.....well odds are pretty close to 100% they are having some form of illegal sex, because they cant have the legal kind.

So they call the cops, and report illegal sex, and the cops can come and arrest the people, because again if they are having sex, by definition it has to be the illegal kind if your gay. (and yes, that has happened back before all these laws were overturned)

So how do we get from that to "Cuccinelli wants to make it illegal for your wife to suck you off"?

Well thats easy. See Cuccinelli is hiding his true objective in part, because he presumably believes that people really arnt that opposed to gay sex AND because he KNOWS people wont know enough about the law to know they cant be targeted/believe even they as straights will be targeted.

Liberals meanwhile also presumably believe that people really are that opposed to gay sex and gay marriage (at least in Virginia) BUT agree with Cuccinelli on straights being basically too stupid to know the law wont apply to them. That and on paper at least (the law itself) they are technically correct.

So yea, to sum up, if you hear about how your about to lose your right to a BJ in VA, its a lie, unless your gay. But here's the thing, if liberals really are going to stand up for gay rights for the sake of standing up for gay rights, this would be the perfect place to start.
They fact that your gay friend (and hell we all have them) is going to lose his right to a BJ should be more than enough to motivate liberals. Yes mention the truth that it is technically possible it would apply to straights in very small situations, and add that as proof its a badly designed law. But dont push with that. Grow a pair and push with the "attacking the rights of gays" line and embrace it. To do otherwise is just an act of political cowardice and bullshit, and leave those to Mr. Cuccinelli, and call him on his bullshit.

A tale of two Murders.

So this week the internet is teeming with people who want to express their opinions on the George Zimmerman verdict.

Some believe the verdict is a gross miscarriage of justice because their is no way Zimmerman is innocent. Some believe the verdict vindicates Zimmerman, who probably never should have been on trial in a fair system.

Both sides actually missed the major issue in the Zimmerman case, and missed exactly how broken the justice system is in Florida.

To understand the underlying issues here we actually need to look at, and compare, the killing of Jordan Davis by Michael Dunn to the killing of Trayvon Martian to George Zimmerman.

For those unfamiliar with the Davis case, he was shot and killed in a car at a gas station parking lot when Dunn approached him and 3 friends also in the car and demanded they turn their music down. An argument broke out, and Dunn fired 8 shots into the car killing Davis. Dunn later claimed he saw a shotgun in the car, hence why he opened fire. Police investigation turned up no evidence of a shotgun, or any gun, in the car.

Now for the comparison portion

First the victims:
Both Martian and Davis were 17 years old at the time they were killed. Both were black. Both lived in Florida. Both had every reason to be where they were the night they were killed. Both were approached by their killers (by both their killers admission). Both were unarmed. Both were killed in 2012 (Feb for Martian, November for Davis)

Now the shooters:
Zimmerman and Dunn are both older, Zimmerman is 29, Dunn is 46. Neither is Black. Both live in Florida. Both had some reason to be where they were the night they killed.  Both were approached their victims (by their own admissions). Both were armed.

Now the differences, and as most of the differences in the victims were explained in the summery we will pass over that and head straight for the shooter:
One (Zimmerman) was assumed to be operating under "Stand Your Ground" law, and therefore not arrested because of the law. The other (Dunn) was arrested as soon as identified and charged with 2nd degree murder.

One (Zimmerman) never invoked "Stand Your Ground" law at trial, and in fact took steps specifically to have it excluded from his trial/not allowing the needed trial to be called. The other (Dunn) has been claiming a "Stand Your Ground" Defense since he was arrested, has yet to be allowed to introduce it into his trial. In fact his charges were upgraded to 1st degree Murder, and 3 additional counts of attempted murder.

One (Zimmerman) still had instructions on "Stand Your Ground" delivered to his jury by the judge, despite his specific decision not to invoke the law, and according to one of his jurors was acquitted because of those specific instructions. The other (Dunn), who admittedly is still only part way though the legal process has not yet been allowed to call for the hearing needed to invoke a "Stand Your Ground" defense.

And lastly, One (Zimmerman) was friendly and known to local law enforcement, the other (Dunn) was basically an unknown to local law enforcement.

Clearly, there is a major problem here. One shooter (Dunn) is being denied the right to even try for the defense he wants, the other (Zimmerman) was railroaded into taking a defense he didnt want.

Now I admit a slight bias in picking the Davis case for comparison as opposed to any of 100's of other cases I could have picked, but the reason for its selection is because of how similar the cases are, it eliminates any "racism angles", differences in state laws,  ageism, difference in commission of crime, ect in the way the case was handled and instead leaves only the difference in the way the justice system handled two close to identical cases

The 6th amendment of the United States Constitution gives you the right to a fair trial in federal courts, and the 14th amendment (and related court cases) apply MOST of that to state trials as well. Specifically the right to choose your own defense is applied at both levels, and that is the key problem in both of these cases.

Now what the Constitution does not have is a right to be protected against your own stupidity/own bad decisions, anywhere in the legal process.

It is possible, and likely, based on the comments by Juror B37, that had "Stand Your Ground" not been applied to Zimmerman he would have been found guilty by the court.  Now despite that, and not knowing that fact, during the trial Zimmerman, in consultation with his lawyers decided not to invoke it, as is his right. If that results in a guilty sentence, so be it. He would have picked the defense he believed best served him, and clearly in hindsight, he would have been wrong.

But that's his right. He has a right to be wrong and pick the wrong defense, he just has to deal with the consequences.

There are  thousands of court cases everyday where, perhaps, had a different approach been tried by the defense the outcome might have been different. None of those cases had both police or judges trying to insert what they believed was a better defense in lieu of the one the defendant wished to use.

Meanwhile, Dunn, who would really like to use a "Stand Your Ground" defense has yet to be allowed to call for the needed hearing to invoke it. Now to be fair, maybe he wont qualify and therefore wont be able to use it at trial, but he does have the legal right to make the attempt.

Which raises another point. How is it that, as both shooters will agree to, that you have to qualify to have "Stand Your Ground" applied to your case, but one of the two shooters was assumed to have qualified from day one and never actually attempted to qualify and the other was assumed to be disqualified from day one and is begging to be allowed to qualify?

Also how is it that, apparently you cant qualify to use the law until your trial, but if the law is found to apply to you you cant be arrested. Yet you wouldn't go to trial unless your arrested for something. So why does the law actually affect something that happens before your able to invoke the law?

Look no matter if you support Stand Your Ground or oppose it, and no matter what you think of the guilt or innocence of either shooter, this is clearly not a fair and equal application of the law.

And speaking of unequal and unfair applications of the same law, one other similarity, neither shooter has yet to sue the police department who arrested him for incorrectly following the law/false arrest. I can only take from that that both shooters, and their lawyers, believe that despite the vast differences in how they are being treated under the same law, nothing either department did actually breaks the law.

It seems in Florida, unlike the other 49 states, including the 30 others that have similar but not identical Stand Your Ground laws, its not the law that determines how you'll be treated and what, if any, legal protections or rights you have, it seems to be how well you know the police officers and local law enforcement.  If they like you, they will give you much better treatment and afford you much better rights and protections under the law then if they dont know you.....and apparently, it's all legal.

Turns out having your student loan debt double is a good thing, no really.

So yea, everyone watched the clip right? if not go do it or your gonna get horribly lost.

First I must say I kinda enjoyed the irony of the first 2 minutes of so of the clip. You see the Obamacare provision they are explicitly talking about, as explained by the professor, hasnt actually gone into effect. Of course they kinda forgot to mention that part, but thats because they have to mislead on that.

You see for 4 years FOX news has lied to its audience about the negative effects Obamacare *is* having on the economy. Now of course for much of that 4 years NO part of Obamacare was actually in effect, and none of the parts they are specifically citing are yet in effect.

So instead of getting to crow about this delay, which could easily be spun as a massive massive win for FOX news/the right wing, they really have no choice to stick their fingers in their ears and lie as hard as the can.

I mean think of all the great chances they could have had to attack other parts of Obama's economic addenda they just had to pass on. The increase in taxes earlier this year might have caused this. Or because Obama's not cutting enough spending and we are overregulating, maybe that caused this. or Congresses inability to pass a budget.  Or maybe its just that Obama is getting distracted by issues like the DOMA win, or vacations to Africa, the fact the IRS is corrupt or what have you.

All of these other attacks, equally as false, but still much more current, and each with a chance to actually focus on something much more current and even maybe attempt to damage Obama from a new not tried to death angle.

But they had to miss out on that chance, and the giant "delay" victory parade, simply because they can never actually publicly admit to their audience that they have lied to them non-stop for 4 years. Instead its apparently easier to try to twist everything to fit your preexisting lie.

So i guess given that, maybe its not so shocking the level of stupid this reached in the last moments.

Here's the money quote for those who didnt listen to me about needing to watch the video

"Morici: The president has been buying lower unemployment rates by essentially providing very cheap student loans and keeping people out of the labor market.

Carlson: Exactly. So, cheap student loans keep people out of the labor market. This is a dangerous spiral."

See, it turns out the reason you cant get a good paying full time job is because you dont have enough debt.
If only you owed more money to more people, you would have an easier time getting a job.

Now how exactly does that work logically? Honestly I have no fucking clue, but if I had to guess, I think what they are saying is that your just a lazy little shit.

I mean as long as your student loan debt is a "manageable" 200 thousand or so, you just dont have the impetus to get your lazy ass off the couch.

Now if we doubled that to say 400 thousand or even 800 thousand in student debt, well I'd bet you'd get off the couch then now wouldnt you?

Of course that would actually also imply their are actually plenty of full time jobs out there, just that no one's applying to them. Which would kinda undercut the lie about the effect the non existent provision in obamacare is currently having due to a reverse chrono side effect thats ripping the space time continuum in half, so that clearly cant be the answer.

So maybe what they mean is that our benevolent corporate overlords will actually just magically create a job for you by waving a wand once your debt rises above a certain level.

Well except that would kinda suggest a giant national debt would be great, see that way we could pass the threshold on a national level and our overlords would just create jobs for everyone, yet for years conservatives have been telling us to pay down the debt to create jobs. Of course maybe they've just been lying about that too.

So I guess that really only leaves us with two possible explanations of what they meant by bigger student debt being a good thing. The first is that, after all this time, FOX still doesnt actually understand how money works.

The second is that, like Rush Limbaugh, Fox News suffers from "Obama disagreement reflex" and since Obama said the student loan doubling was bad they are compelled, even at the expense of everything they have said previously, to take the opposing side.

Actually on second thought, its likely a combination of both of those two things.

So that leaves only one point left to address. Yes, Peter Morici is actually a professor at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, Logistics, Business and Public Policy at the University of Maryland in College Park.

Which is kinda shocking, since apparently he is an idiot. After all he did say cheap student loans keep people out of the job market, and blamed the whole thing on a not yet existent provision of Obamacare.

Well it turns out, he's not actually an idiot, he literally just plays one on TV for the right price. If you dont believe me, check out his own blog.

See this is part of his most recent article on why the economy is in such bad shape, its the part where he lists the problems and what needs to be done:

"More rapid growth requires importing less and exporting more—dealing with the $450 billion trade deficit on oil, by drilling more offshore and in Alaska, and with China, by addressing its undervalued currency and protectionism.

Faster growth also requires right sizing business regulations to make investing in new jobs less expensive and time consuming. Regulatory enforcement is needed to protect the environment, consumers and financial stability but must be delivered cost effectively and quickly to add genuine value.

Overall, more jobs require trimming back on tax increases and spending cuts, and more pro-growth trade, energy and regulatory policies."

Notice what's missing there? How about a link to Obamacare.....or even a suggestion of raising student loan rates. In fact pretty much everything he said on FOX is missing.

Now look, I admit Economics really arnt my strong suit, but I have a feeling prostituting yourself and your credibility in order to make a cheap buck isnt really the economics lesson that would be most beneficial to teach your students, especially the guy with the masters degree working at starbucks and living with his parents.....he might need something a little more useful as a lesson.

And the award for having no sense of Irony or Shame goes to.......

.....Rush Limbaugh, who on his radio show this week said this

"Now, if the president can decide, "We got a law [Obamacare] here but, you know what, implementing it and enforcing it might not help me," so if he can just delay Obamacare, what else could be delayed that he doesn't like? Maybe all these new Border Patrol agents in the Hoeven-Corker amendment. Maybe they can be delayed, too, after the law has been signed into law. It can be enforced, delayed, or ignored on the whim of the presidency. What is the reason we go through the legislative process if, when it's all over, the president can pick and choose what he's going to allow and what he isn't going to allow, what he's going to permit and what he isn't gonna permit, what he's gonna implement and what he isn't gonna implement. Why even go through the legislative process? You know, we thought Egypt was a country in trouble. Obama just canceled the game. He didn't want Obamacare to play out, so he canceled it, for now. He'll play the game, we'll go back to it when he's got the Congress in his back pocket. Then he'll reschedule the game.

I mean, folks, this is the stuff of banana republics. Laws have no meaning. You remember when the president said the Congress was in recess when they weren't so he could appoint some people who otherwise couldn't make it? Remember when he rolled the bondholders of General Motors when he took over the car companies? The bondholders are due money; they're first in line to get paid. He called 'em "greedy." He told 'em to get the hell out, to eat it for the country.

Remember when he refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act? The regime just decided, "You know what? We don't like this bill, and we're not gonna defend it in federal court." Remember when he unilaterally granted amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Just snapped his fingers, just did it. And, of course, his campaign spent millions falsely calling Mitt Romney a tax felon and a murderer.

But laws come and go at the pleasure of a corrupt regime. The IRS serves as the president's goon squad. His cabinet secretaries buy off businesses and industries one by one. We don't yet know what the NSA is doing at his behest and I don't really know what degree of cooperation the Federal Reserve has with Obama. One thing we do know the Fed is doing is bailing out banks left and right.[...blah blah blah, rant careens off topic]"


Yep you read all of that right, Rush Limbaugh just went on a multi minute tear, absolutely furious that president Obama isnt going to actually enact Obamacare when he said he would.

And yes that is the same Obamacare Rush has been begging the president to repeal and/or refuse to implement for years now, because implementing it would be forcing it the american people.

So yes, the president basically just granted Rush's request.

So this should be a massive win for Rush.....BUT he honestly cant bring himself to agree with the president on anything.

So without the slightest hint of shame or irony, Rush just sold out everything he's been saying for the last 5 years.

See stopping Obamacare will no longer save the country. In fact stopping Obamacare is illegal. After all, only in a corrupt regime do laws "come and go". If Obama was actually an uncorrupt president he would have implemented Obamacare the day after it was signed.  So why the delay? well Duh, cause the presidents corrupt and never wants to do the right thing for the country......like forcing socialized medicine on them.

And of course since Obama never wants to do the right thing for the country, he "just canceled the game". And because of that "Why even go through the legislative process?" if the President can just do what he wants anyways? Cause lets be honest, President Obama NEVER supported Obamacare.....the similarity in the two names is a random fluke.

And of course, this refusal to allow the American people to have their Obamacare is something we should have seen coming.....after all its as immoral as having the NSA spy on you, or giving your hard earned money to the evil banks that crashed the economy, or takes away your cars.......

I'm also on a personal level, kinda amused by the comparison to DOMA.

Again lets follow the logic train here. Ok so the president refused to defend DOMA, and his refusal to do so likely led to the downfall and overturning of the law.  Now according to Rush, thats the same thing Obama just did to Obamacare.

Which should mean Obama's refusal to do his duty with Obamacare should lead to the downfall and end of Obamacare. Which again was what what Rush had been asking for for year....at least until the Obama disagreement reflex kicked in.

I'm telling you the dude really really cant help himself. Rush Limbaugh's rules of life seem to be as follows

1) Rush is right on all issues
2) Obama is never right on any issue
3) Rush and Obama can never have the same side on any issue
4) if Rush and Obama agree on any issue.......Change Rush's position to uphold the rules.

But you gotta at least admire a guy who can sell out pretty much everything he has said in half a decade in a 3 minute rant and not show even the slightly hint of shame or self recognition of the irony of what he's doing.

Lets be honest, that level of shameless obliviousness takes some real talent. And I'll even go as far to say that in that respect, Mr. Limbaugh is probably the single most talented individual the world has ever seen.