Puerto Rico

I can't even put into words my reaction to Trump's reaction to the disaster in Puerto Rico. And now he's finally making a visit and it's even worse. Digby has a good look at the nightmare that is Trump.

Basically, he convened a meeting of local officials and then sat at a table and patted himself on the back and then complimented al the people who work for him and allowed some of the locals to tell him how wonderful he and all the federal officials had been. It was a circle jerk.

And he was the only one in the circle.

He's just disgusting.

Hard Call

It's really difficult to decide whether Robert Jeffress deserves the Tony Perkins Award for lying as a reflex or the Through the Looking Glass Award for inhabiting an alternate universe. From an appearance on Fox & Friends:

There is a better way to protest social injustice without disrespecting our country or disrespecting our country's leaders. I mean, for example, a few years ago, you had those Oregon Christian bakers who were almost driven into bankruptcy for practicing their faith. That's injustice. But they didn't respond by calling then-President Obama a "bum." Or this football coach you all have covered who was fired for voluntarily praying. He didn't respond to that injustice by failing to stand for the national anthem. I think what these players are doing is absolutely wrong. These players ought to be thanking God that they live in a country where they're not only free to earn millions of dollars every year, but they're also free from the worry of being shot in the head for taking a knee like they would be with the were in North Korea. And I think tens of millions of Americans agree with President Trump when he says they ought to be called out for this. I know this president. President Trump is not a racist. For President Trump, this is not about race, it's about respect of country.

Lie #1: Those "Christian" bakers made off with a cool half million over and above the amount of their fine.

He's lost me on the football coach -- I missed that story.

Lie #2: Donald Trump most certainly is a racist, and proud of it. This is a man (and I use the term loosely) who comes down on black athletes for protesting racial injustice in law enforcement while making it easier for the police to do worse.

Alternate universe: "They're also free from being shot in the head. . . ." No, they can be shot in the head in lieu of a speedding ticket. Or for walking down the street in the wrong neighborhood. Or even in their own neighborhood.

At any rate, he certainly is a disgusting person.

PS: This is the cherry on top:

You know, Ainsley, many of these players claim to be strong Christians, and I believe they are, and I think they ought to remember what Jesus said. Jesus said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. Jesus said we have a responsibility toward our government. We owe our government just not our taxes, but we owe them our respects and our prayers. And I think that needs to be kept in mind in all of this discussion.

Jesus said a lot of things that Jeffress routinely ignores. Let's start with Matthew 25:31-46 (my favorite). (And I don't see Jeffress, or Tony Perkins, or James Dobson, or any of the Wildmons leading efforts to help out in Puerto Rico, or welcoming refugees, or feeding the hungry, or sheltering the homeless.)

And what about what the government owes us? Like respect for our exercise of our fundamental rights.

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Donald Trump, In His Own Words

This -- well, just read it:

I'm speechless.

Via Balloon Juice.

Coming Attractions, Part II: North Carolina Was Just a Warm-up (Update; Update II)

Who needs ethics, anyway?

House Republicans have gutted an independent ethics watchdog, putting it under their own control, in a secret ballot hours before the new Congress convened for the first time.

The unheralded vote severely weakens the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which was set up after a lobbying scandal in 2008 to investigate corruption allegations against members of Congress. The move, led by the head of the House judiciary committee, defied the Republican congressional leadership and was reportedly supported by several legislators currently under OCE scrutiny.

The amendment was voted through by the House Republican conference over the New Year’s holiday with no prior notice or debate and inserted in a broad rules package the House will vote for on Tuesday. It turns the formerly independent OCE into the Office of Congressional Complaint Review, a subordinate body to the House Ethics Committee, which is currently run by the Republican majority and has a long history of overlooking charges of malfeasance by lawmakers.

The new body will not be able to receive anonymous tips from members of Congress or make its findings public.

The ineffectiveness of the House Ethics Committee was the major reason for the creation of the OCE to begin with. Take this as a pre-emptive move: the Republicans control Congress and are not going to waste any time cashing in.

I mean, look at who their shining example is going to be -- President Pay-for-Play.

Update: And it takes Kellyanne Conway, Trump's Obfuscator-in-Chief, to turn it into something really, truly surreal:

Conway, who ran Trump’s campaign and now serves as a senior advisor, complained Tuesday morning on “Today” that the Office of Congressional Ethics had been “overzealous” in investigating “consumer complaints” since its creation in 2008.

“If a constituent has a complaint, they can still lodge that complaint,” Conway said. “They just can’t do it anonymously.”

One can only conclude that Trump's staff is just as ignorant about the government as he is.

Update II: Well, that didn't last long. Via Joe.My.God.:

So much for Kellyanne Conway’s “mandate.” CNN reports:

House Republican leaders have pulled a proposal that would gut its independent ethics panel, amid widespread criticism of the plan, multiple lawmakers tell CNN. The decision comes less than two hours after President-elect Donald Trump criticized the timing of the vote, which was scheduled for the first day of the new congressional session.

The Through the Looking Glass Award

Jeb Bush published an Op Ed in WaPo that -- well, this is just the beginning:

Eight years of the divisive tactics of President Obama and his allies have undermined Americans’ faith in politics and government to accomplish anything constructive. The president has wielded his power — while often exceeding his authority — to punish his opponents, legislate from the White House and turn agency rulemaking into a weapon for liberal dogma.

In turn, a few in the Republican Party responded by trying to out-polarize the president, making us seem anti-immigrant, anti-women, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker and anti-common-sense.

The result has been the vanishing of any semblance of compromise or bipartisanship in our nation’s capital. Simple problems don’t get solved. Speeches happen; the important stuff doesn’t. The failure of elected leaders to break the gridlock in Washington has led to an increasingly divided electorate, which in turn has led to a breakdown in our political system.

Obama's "divisive tactics"? Seriously? I don't need to remind anyone which party it was that first, proclaimed that its priority was to make Obama a one-term president, and second, refused to consider any legislation that might actually have a positive effect on the country as a whole. This is just Jeb Bush flipping reality on its head, a specialty of the GOP.

(There's one commenter at the article that does it even better:

Republican voters, and anyone who cares about the country on the Right, from libertarians, to religious conservatives, to fiscal hawks, to reasonable Democrats, is concerned about establishment Republicans' so called "compromise" and "bipartisanship." For Democrats, compromise means Republicans give them everything they want. For Republicans, compromise with Democrats means giving them everything that they want.

Words fail me. Read it, if you can stand it.

Idiot du Jour: Another WTF? Moment

I realize that Texas is not all sagebrush and teabaggers, but you have to hand it to them: they've elected one of the wingnuttiest state governments in the country (and when you consider the competition, that's saying something).

And now, in the wake of the Dallas attack, Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick:

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called protesters who ran away from the hail of bullets that rained down on Downtown Dallas on Thursday night "hypocrites" during an interview Friday on Fox News.

"All those protesters last night, they turned around and ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to protect them. What hypocrites!" an audibly emotional Patrick said.

Somehow, I doubt that the thought uppermost in the protesters' minds was "The police will protect me." I'm sure it was more on the order of "Get me outta here!"

As Gov. Greg Abbott issued on open letter calling on Texans to calmly unite and come together, Patrick took a more combative tone. He blamed Black Lives Matter protesters for the violence against police and said people "with big mouths are creating situations like we saw last night."

Sorry -- I should have warned you to turn your irony meter off. And it is, of course, BLM's fault, because reasons. Or something.

If you want a take on just how unhinged Dan Patrick is, there's this little tidbit:

AUSTIN – Today, as acting governor, I am directing that the Texas flag be immediately lowered to half-staff in honor of the lives and public service of our slain officers and victims of yesterday’s tragic and senseless event.

I ask that you keep the brave men and women in law enforcement in your thoughts and prayers.

Apparently, no one told Gov. Greg Abbott that he'd been replaced.

I think Dan Patrick deserves a Through the Looking Glass Award.

Via Crooks and Liars.

Orlando: Compare and Contrast

From Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national Executive Director, in reaction to Orlando:

We offer condolences to the families and we pray for recovery of the survivors. This is a hate crime, plain and simple. We condemn it in the strongest possible terms. It violates our principles as Americans and as Muslims. Let me be perfectly clear. We have no tolerance for extremism of any kind. We must not tolerate hateful rhetoric that incites violence against minorities. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of our beliefs as Muslims and as Americans. Today, we must stand united.

For many years, members of the LGBT community have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Muslim community against any act of hate crimes, Islamophobia, marginalization and discrimination. Today, we stand with them shoulder to shoulder. The liberation of the American Muslim community is profoundly linked to the liberation of other minority groups: blacks, Latinos, gay, Jewish, trans and every other community that has faced discrimination and operation in this country.

There are statements from local and state chapters of CAIR at the link.

And from the Archbishop of St. Petersburg (Via Box Turtle Bulletin):

Second, sadly it is religion, including our own, that targets, mostly verbally, and often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people. Attacks today on LGBT men and women often plant the seed of contempt, then hatred, which can ultimately lead to violence.

Those women and men who were mowed down Sunday were all made in the image and likeness of God. We teach that. We should believe that. We must stand for that.

Even before I knew who perpetrated the mass murders at Pulse, I knew that somewhere in the story there would be a search for religion as motivation. While deranged people do senseless things, all of us observe and judge and act from some kind of religious background. Singling out people for victimization because of their religion, their sexual orientation, their nationality must be offensive to God’s ears. It has to stop, too.

From the Anti-Defamation League:

We must remember that Americans should not blame all Muslims for the actions of one individual. Whether citizens like the individual suspected of committing this act or war-torn refugees seeking safety, we must remember that we do not define people by their faith. We are deeply concerned that this attack could lead to a backlash against American Muslims. We urge all Americans to not fight hatred with hatred, but rather to come together around our common values of decency and respect.

At this time of sadness and tragedy, we express our full solidarity with members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community. During this time of year when we celebrate Pride, they should know that they are not alone. As we mourn the victims and extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those lost, we will redouble our resolve to fight against the forces of hatred and extremism that led to this barbaric act of hatred.

And then there are the "Christians". Pastor Steven Anderson, another of the "kill the gays" contingent:

The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles. That’s who was a victim here, are a bunch of, just, disgusting homosexuals at a gay bar, okay? Obviously, it’s not right for somebody to just, you know, shoot up the place, because that’s not going through the proper channels. But these people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government that would have tried them, convicted them, and saw them executed.

There's more. It's even worse.

And I'm noticing a thundering silence from most of the anti-gay leaders, give or take the Republican politicians who have made statements without naming names. Surprisingly, the AFA has issued a statement, but no telling which community was targeted from their press release:

“This is a time when a nation must come together, reminding that God loves all people, and all are His creation, made in His own image,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “All lives are precious, and because the American Family Association is known for its commitment to family values, we deeply mourn when lives are lost due to senseless violence. We know there are millions praying for the families and friends of the victims, and we ask all to join together with them and for those who are wounded, that a healing of both the body and the community will be reality.”

Ah. Thanks to Joe.My.God., Perkins speaks. It's his usual exercise in turning reality on its head, but this is absolutely astonishing, even for him:

What a stark contrast to Christianity, which believes that everyone is made in the image of God and has intrinsic value, regardless of the choices they make. And yet Christianity is the faith Obama won’t tolerate — a religion that teaches people not to confront sin with violence but to love people into the kingdom by speaking truth.

One wonders when Perkins is actually going to start practicing the Christianity he describes. And do note, it's all Obama's fault. Perkins and his fellow travelers had nothing to do with creating the climate that makes something like the Orlando shooting not only conceivable, but inevitable.

Hogwash du Jour

Remember Robert P. George? One of the authors of the Manhattan Declaration, a document purporting to be a call to "Christians" to stand against the assault of their rights (whenever that might happen). He's come up with a new one, ostensibly from his American Principles Project, a "think tank" that seems to be diametrically opposed to anything recognizable as American principles. Via Joe.My.God., with parsing and commentary by me:

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out: First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care.

Uproveable assertion buttressed by an outright lie: The first point is questionable, at best: it's a typical "argument" couched in broad, nebulous terms ("Society will be harmed" has no real meaning, when you stop to think about it). The "strengthening" is untrue: there is no evidence that supports the contention that "children fare best" etc., especially since "best" is not a term that a responsible researcher would use in summarizing results.

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union—the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.

No. Just, no. "Vilified", possibly (and let's make sure to use the scariest language possible -- what he really means is "criticized"), but that's just people exercising their right to free speech, which George would be among the first to defend. (And if you believe that, I can get you a real deal on a bridge in New York.) "Legally targeted and denied constitutional rights"? That hasn't happened yet, and it's hard to see a case where, under our legal system, it could. The only cases where people have been sued or had courts find against them have been cases where they have violated existing anti-discrimination laws and, in the case of the county clerk who shall not be named, violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. There are penalties for breaking the law, no matter what your excuse is. (And the excuses seems to revolve around the idea that, as "Christians," these people are above the law, which isn't an American principle I've ever run across before.)

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Obergefell did not examine the definition of marriage, which is and has been more or less fluid throughout history, although a good, concise definition is one I ran across from Joseph Campbell: "Marriage is the recognition by the community of the establishment of a new household." I don't see how Obergefell alters that at all. Of course, what George is referring to as "the" definition is a secttarian religious definition that has no bearing on American civil law.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.

Fundamental rights are not subject to popular vote. How a court decision affirming the rights of a minority affects democratic deliberation eludes me. (And that, by the way, was the tack taken by the majority in the Sixth Circuit decision that brought the marriage issue to the Supreme Court and was overturned.)

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

The "evils" brought about by this decision haven't happened and are not likely to, but I guess George felt it was time for another scary word. And the basis of the decision is quite plain: the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the law and equal access to its benefits. If George can't understand that, he shouldn't be teaching constitutional law.

I think he deserves a Through the Looking Glass Award for turning reality on its head -- although he's not as good at it as some others.

Through the Looking Glass

And the award today goes to Sen. John Thune (R-WTF?), for what is perhaps the most jaw-dropping tweet ever:

Via Joe.My.God.

Over the Top and Through the Looking Glass

It's time for the Through the Looking Glass Award, and we've got a couple of candidates this morning.

First, the "Family" "Research" Council, on Day Four of their twenty-one day prayer and fasting vigil leading up to oral arguments in Obergefell et al. before the Supreme Court. This one's good:

Today, we must pray for each member and the collective court:

-- May those Justices who fear God, prepare and rule in the fear of God (2 Sam 23:3),

-- May the literal fear of God fall upon those Justices who do not fear Him.

-- May the Fear of God be upon each member’s staff: their clerks, their assistants, their friends, their families and all who influence them.

-- May they collectively sense the very power and presence of God hovering over them, warning them of his righteousness and justice; warning them that they must give an account to the Supreme Judge of the World for their actions.

-- May they receive visions and dreams like Abimelech, Pharaoh, Pilate’s wife, Belshazzar; Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, warning them of what will come to pass if they rule wrongly in this important case. May they be shown the consequences of their decision.

-- And finally, may they, like Balaam, who was warned by God’s voice not to take an assignment from Balak, to curse the Jews, be rebuked supernaturally as Balaam was, by a dumb donkey speaking, and an angel of the Lord, his sword drawn, ready to kill Balaam. When he met Balak to fulfil his contract, he could only speak the words God commanded him – to “bless and not curse” the Jews. May that power fall upon the entire court, in such a way that those who now lack the fear of God will be moved by the fear of God to vote in a way they would not otherwise have voted. Take the time to read 1Samuel 22-24, and God will stir you to pray. Read all of Hebrews 11 and He will give you faith to believe for Him to move upon these men and women in miraculous ways.

Prayers like we’ve always prayed will not do today, this is life or death. In Acts 4:23-31.

God has supernaturally intervened to save America at crucial moments throughout our history, and had he not, our nation would not even exist today.

I have to say, a religion founded in fear doesn't really inspire a lot of respect -- at least not from me, but then, I don't respond well to authority.

But, "God has supernaturally intervened"? I'd really like to see some evidence of that -- and I don't mean one of David Barton's fantasies.

And just exactly how is someone else's marriage a matter of "life or death"?

And if you want to do some interpretation of the story of Balaam, which group is a better fit for the Jews?

And, again regarding Obergefell, et al., another amicus brief, from a group of "religious organizations". This section is just overflowing with something:

Representative democracy matters to religious organizations and people of faith.

Unless the vote doesn't go their way, in which case, they run to -- you guessed it -- the courts. (I understand someone's still trying to overturn same-sex marriage in New York.)

Their capacity to build communities where their values are respected and their ways of life protected depends on the plu­ralism that our democratic institutions foster and secure. The fundamental liberty of religious believers to participate with other free citizens in deliberating about and shaping the character of their common destiny has been protected by this Court’s determina­tion to read the Constitution as a charter for “people of fundamentally differing views.”

Considering the lack of tolerance on the part of these organizations for "fundamentally differing views," this is beyond laughable. We are talking about denominations that have spend a great deal of energy and resources attempting to deny equal rights to others throughout their histories.

To de­clare an unprecedented constitutional right to same-sex marriage would deny people of faith who support traditional marriage the liberty to participate as equal citizens in deciding which values and policies will govern their communities.

First, I have to ask whether any of the groups filing as amici on this side of the question have any capacity for reading comprehension at all. This is not about whether there is a consitutional right to same-sex marriage, but, as the Court quite plainly stated, it's about whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples in regard to marriage laws. As to their liberty to "participate as equal citizens," see my previous comment.

We urge the Court to trust the people and their democratic institutions to resolve the marriage issue, as it has on other divisive issues so many times.

Right -- just the way those democratic institutions resolved the divisive issues of slavery, segregation, voting rights, women's rights, interracial marriage, stuff like that.

I'm hard put to decide which of these efforts is more deserving of the Through the Looking Glass Award. Care to offer an opinion?

"Confusion" in Florida

Florida has managed to make a circus of the legalization of same-sex marriage, thanks to AG Pam Bondi and the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, which, as counsel for the clerks' and comptrollers' association, initially issued an opinion advising clerks against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Come the New Year, and Judge Robert Hinkle issued a clarification of his initial ruling at the request of the Washington County clerk.

The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants. But as set out in the order that announced issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Constitution requires the Clerk to issue such licenses. As in any other instance involving parties not now before the court, the Clerk’s obligation to follow the law arises from sources other than the preliminary injunction.

(Emphasis added.)

AG Bondi is bowing to the inevitable, in her own mealy-mouthed way:

"This office has sought to minimize confusion and uncertainty, and we are glad the Court has provided additional guidance. My office will not stand in the way as clerks of court determine how to proceed."

Lest you're inclined to take this at face value, let me point out that Bondi's office was one of the main contributors to the "confusion."

Greenberg Traurig has done a 180 on this one:

“Judge Hinkle’s order states that any clerk refusing to issue a license could be subject to civil damages and liability for the plaintiffs’ fees and costs,” Bass said. “Greenberg Traurig has advised the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers that clerks should follow the judge’s ruling for all marriage-license applications or face the consequences identified by Judge Hinkle.”

And the clerks are falling into line, with one office (Palm Beach, of course) opening at 10:30 pm on Monday, January 5th, to take applications:

So as of the wee hours of Tuesday morning, same-sex marriage in Florida is a done deal -- unless the 11th Circuit, where the case is on appeal, overturns Hinkle's decision. I'm making no guesses there: the pros are clear-cut and formidable; the antis are specious, at best, but this is the circuit that ducked the Florida same-sex adoption suit a couple of years ago, finding that the legislature should be the ones to decide. If the panel does reverse Hinkle, that's just another circuit split headed for the Supreme Court. A new wrinkle, which I just discovered: The Florida Solicitor General has informed the 11th Circuit that the defendants will not submit a reply brief in the case. Sounds like throwing in the towel to me, and boosts the chances of a favorable ruling.

The best reactions come from none other than Liberty Counsel and Florida Family Policy Council. From John Stemberger, head of FFPC:

Judge Hinkle's ruling is being widely misinterpreted. It clearly says that only the clerk Washington County is required to issue a marriage license and only to the two persons in that case. Judge Hinkle has no jurisdiction outside of the Northern District of Florida to bind any clerk outside of North Florida. Clerks outside of North Florida are required to obey the current law and are still subject to all the penalties of a first-degree misdemeanor for violating it.

Stemberger obviously has a problem with reading comprehension. The day's first Through the Looking Glass Award goes to him.

And from Liberty Counsel:

In a highly anticipated ruling to clarify an August preliminary injunction in the federal case Brenner v. Scott, the district judge agreed with Liberty Counsel that the injunction does not require Florida clerks of court outside Washington County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on January 6. Indeed, the new order clarifies that the injunction is limited to the plaintiffs in the case, expressly holding, “The preliminary injunction now in effect thus does not require the [Washington County] Clerk to issue licenses to other applicants.”

Well, Liberty Counsel are not really lawyers, they're propagandists, and propagandists edit reality for a living. Yes, the injunction itself does not require clerks to issue marriage licenses statewide; the part that their statement left out is the part I bolded in the above quote from the ruling: the Constitution requires it. Second Through the Looking Glass Award of the day goes to them.

I can hardly wait to hear how Brian Brown configures this "victory."

Drive-Bys

I don't know if I will make this a department here, but this morning I'm running into a bunch of things that deserve note, even if I don't have any real commentary to go with them.

First, the Tony Perkins Award for bald-face lies goes to Megyn Kelly at Fox News. Here's Rachel Maddow with the story:

Yep -- they just made it up.

(Digby also has some comments on the right-wing "voter fraud" hysteria.

And there's always something on the "traditional values" front. Here's a nice little story about traditional family values. The punch line, after the parents threw their son out:

This kid has no car because he sold it to help out his parents a few months back when they needed money. Ah, gotta love the ones with 'real' family values. Mom and Dad, you can go back to watching Fox now. Your work is done.

He should demand his money back.

And more nonsense from the "traditional values" crowd. I think this one deserves a Through the Looking Glass Award for the "history lesson."

A former aide to President Ronald Reagan is calling for southern states to secede from the union and form a new conservative nation called "Reagan" where citizens wouldn't be forced to compromise on "traditional values" like marriage.

I wonder if anyone's ever pointed out to this jerk that democracies work on compromise.

And finally, a story with an upside: Family Circle, the venerable "woman's magazine," published a story on two gay dads and their daughters. Given the readership, while there was a lot of positive response, the conservative backlash was tremendous. To the magazine's credit, they weren't having it.

Vice President and Editor-in-Chief Linda Fears has also responded to backlash saying: 'We are certainly not the first magazine or media brand to share the story of gay parents. But we will also publish stories on single parents, multi-racial couples, and unmarried couples with kids. People may not like those either, but they are all representative of American family life today.'

Here's the original Family Circle story, with reader comments.

Had enough? Well, I have.

Today in "Liars for Jesus"

 

Well, it's Bryan Fischer, so you know there's no point of contact with reality.

What actually happened was that the subpoenas, which were seeking information on the role of pastors and churches in giving instructions for petitioning for a referendum on the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, were prepared by outside attorneys.  As filed, they requested a lot more information than that. 

(What exactly the pastors said, and what the collectors knew about the rules, is one of the key issues in pending litigation around whether opponents of the law gathered enough signatures for a referendum.)

"There's no question, the wording was overly broad. But I also think there was some deliberate misinterpretation on the other side," Parker said at a press conference Wednesday. "The goal is to find out if there were specific instructions given on how the petitions should be accurately filled out. It's not about, 'What did you preach on last Sunday?'"

To reiterate: The mayor's office is not interested in what they preached, or how the pastors feel about Parker or her sexual orientation. (Those things are all well protected under the First Amendment, as they should be.) All officials want to know is what kinds of instructions the pastors gave out with respect to collecting petition signatures, and whether what they said agrees with what they're arguing in court while appealing the referendum.

Needless to say, Anti-Gay, Inc. went ballistic.

In the real world,Mayor Parker and the City Attorney were not aware of the actual wording of the subpoenas until they were issued, and immediately withdrew them to examine and, if necessary, reword them, which was done.

 

Mission accomplished. And Bryan Fischer gets a twofer today: The Tony Perkins Award for reflexive mendacity, and the Through the Looking Glass Award for his adversarial relationship with reality.

Oh, and about that "Gaystapo" thing: that's an example of Fischer being clever. Seems to be about the best he can do on that score and comparing gays to Nazis is a constant refrain from him, as well as the rest of the anti-gay bigots. One has to wonder, why do they find Nazis so appealing?

Through the Looking Glass Award

Goes to Breitbart, for this headline:

Here's the real story:

More than 300,000 people marched through the streets of New York City on Sunday in what organizers called the largest climate-change demonstration in history.

With banners, flags, floats and drums, protesters at the "People's Climate March" overwhelmed midtown Manhattan in flocks of vivid color, demanding action ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit this week.

Via Joe.My.God.

Part of me is encouraged by the demonstrations, which are part of a world-wide effort, and part of me is wondering if the world leaders gathered for the summit are actually going to do anything. It's a toss-up, as far as I'm concerned. Consider what position the oligarchs running the oil-producing countries are going to take when faced with the possibility of cutting off the cash flow to their Swiss bank accounts.

And This Is a Surprise?

Gee -- the Republicans in the Senate are blocking a vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United:

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and other Supreme Court rulings dating back to 1976 that invalidated restrictions on money in politics.

The party line vote was 54 in favor, 42 against, falling short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster and proceed to a final vote.

I'm actually surprised that there were no Democrats joining the Republicans on this one, but they probably figured they were safe. Oh, and Ted "Obama Will Censor SNL" Cruz didn't bother to show up for the vote.

And the Through the Looking Glass Award goes to Mitch McConnell:

"I have to say it’s a little disconcerting to see the Democrat-led Senate focusing on things like reducing free speech protections for the American people," he said before the vote. "This is what they chose to make their top legislative priority this week. Taking an eraser to the First Amendment."

There you have it: in the Republican lexicon, corporations are "the American people." What does that make the rest of us?

Hysterical

This, from Sara Espinoza of the Florida Democratic League (which has nothing to do with the Florida Democratic Party -- quite the opposite, in fact), after the third decision in about two weeks finding Florida's anti-marriage constitutional amendment violates the US Constitution, as quoted by Joe.My.God:

In yet another incident of judicial corruption and lawlessness in South Florida over the last 18 days, today, Broward County Circuit Judge Dale Cohen overthrew Florida’s voter-approved Constitution and denied Floridians their fundamental voter rights. Millions of Americans died fighting in battlefields around the world to defend the constitutional rights Judge Cohen has denied Floridians todays. He has violated his Oath of Office and the Code Judicial Conduct. This is a racist ruling that destroys public confidence in the judiciary and inflicts irreparable harm to respect for the Rule of Law. Cohen’s lawless decision to overthrow Florida’s Constitution, violate constitutional separation of powers, and deny fundamental voter rights is in brazen contempt to the legally binding precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Windsor. In so doing, Mr. Cohen has also offended basic human decency, violated his Oath of Office, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Florida Bar Canons of Ethics. Cohen has forfeited his legacy and his right to remain on the bench.

Just for fun:

"lawlessness" -- This is a particularly nonsensical characterization that's become part of the bigots' rquired vocabulary over the past few months. Can someone explain to me how a judicial decision can be lawless? I think the technical term for that is "oxymoron."

"overthrew Florida's voter-approved Constitution" -- No, the Florida constitution is still there; there's just one illegal amendment that's been nullified.

"denied Floridians their fundamental voter rights" -- Neither Floridians nor anyone else has the right to vote on the civil rights of minorities. That's a well-established principle of American law, and the rationale behind the Bill of Rights: to remove that question from the vicissitudes of the popular whim.

"Millions of Americans died fighting in battlefields around the world to defend the constitutional rights Judge Cohen has denied Floridians todays [sic]." The first WTF? moment. Judge Cohen didn't deny anyone's constitutional rights -- he affirmed them.

"This is a racist ruling that destroys public confidence in the judiciary and inflicts irreparable harm to respect for the Rule of Law." The second WTF? moment. Racist? Excuse me? And I'd like to point out that the right has very little respect for the rule of law. Those of us who actually know how this country is supposed to work are fine with this decision.

I'm sorry -- it degenerates into pure babble, none of which makes any sense. I'm sure this woman's been taking English lessons from Sarah Palin.

And to repeat: The Florida Democratic League bills itself, according to Joe Jervis, as the "largest Hispanic-led Democratic voters' organization." They're about to be sued by the state Democratic party for misrepresenting themselves. They are not Democrats.

This one certainly deserves a Through the Looking Glass Award.

Oh, and Sara Espinoza must be really hysterical now -- a judge in Palm Beach county just ruled against the state, bringing the total to four decisions against the anti-marriage amendment in less than three weeks.

Up Is Sideways?

I haven't given a Through the Looking Glass Award in some time, but I can't think of a more deserving person than Buddy Smith of the American Family Association. You may have heard that Mississippi has passed what we shall call "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act," because that's it's name -- it's the Mississippi version of Arizona's license to discriminate bill, the one that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed.

No, that's not the Through the Looking Glass part. It could be, but believe me, this gets better.

Well, some business owners in Mississippi have responded to the "restoration" of some people's "religious freedom" by creating a nice little blue and white sticker that incorporates a rainbow stripe:

This was apparently too close to being thrown to the lions for Mr. Smith:

Buddy Smith, executive vice president of Tupelo-based American Family Association, offers his take on the sticker campaign.

"It's not really a buying campaign, but it's a bully campaign," he says, "and it's being carried out by radical homosexual activists who intend to trample the freedom of Christians to live according to the dictates of scripture.

"They don't want to hear that homosexuality is sinful behavior – and they wish to silence Christians and the church who dare to believe this truth."

Smith offers a word of caution for those who do business with facilities posting the decal supporting homosexual activism. "If you do that, you are agreeing with these businesses that Christians no longer have the freedom to live out the dictates of their Christian faith and conscience," he tells OneNewsNow.

Please don't ask me how Buddy Smith got from a sticker displayed by businesses that don't discriminate to a bullying campaign against Christians -- excuse me, I mean "Christians," because I don't have an explanation. I doubt there is one, except maybe that, like other anti-gay "religious" groups, AFA is seeing its donations tank.

Couldn't happen to a better group of people.

No, I am not going to link to OneNewsNow, but if you want to see Timothy Kincaid's take on this story, it's here.

And you may congratulate me -- I didn't leave a comment at OneNewsNow -- I don't have time these days to engage in flame wars with a bunch of -- well, I'm not going to call names. I don't think I need to.

Staggering

Via Digby, this rant from Kevin McCullough at Townhall (where else?). A few choice bits:

We have a media complex that reports the administration's view on almost all things without much variance. The handful of actual outlets that report actual facts that vary from the administration's talking points are isolated and marginalized.

You mean like Fox News, a/k/a the propaganda arm of the Republican Party? Or the Fox News wannabes at CNN? The Wall Street Journal? None of which lets a fact stand in the way of a ginned-up scandal.

Through the fundamental transformation that has seen a complete dismantling of the private healthcare industry, while simultaneously eroding individual rights of religious practice, and the destruction of an economy encouraging private small business growth--the payroll of government jobs--beholding to the administration and its "great leader" have been the largest sector for jobs growth in six years.

So much bullshit in one paragraph. Complete dismantling of private health-care? In which insurance companies are getting millions of new customers? You mean that dismantling? Or is it that they actually have to pay for their customers' health care, rather then cutting them off when they get sick?

Eroding individual rights of religious practice? You mean, like the right to enforce your religious beliefs on everyone else? Those rights?

The destruction of the economy? You mean, the economy that's shown small but solid growth over the past five years, in spite of everything the Republicans could do to stop it? Government jobs? You mean the million plus that have been lost because of the deficit reduction nonsense?

While preaching tolerance to those who do not accept their views, the political, theological, and cultural left are the least tolerant people on the planet.

And while they demand that you yield your beliefs in order to carry favor with them. You must always accept what they believe as absolute truth.

OK -- that's just pure projection.

And guess who takes the gold in the Through the Looking Glass Awards.

America the Beautiful

You know, you can always count on someone to be offended by the commercials run during the Super Bowl. I'm starting to wonder if anyone watches the game any more.

Well, this year's hands-down winner in the controversy department is this one, from Coke:

Nice idea, right? Celebrate the diversity of our country by having Americans singing "America the Beautful" in the language of their heritage. What could be more American?

Apparently not. This is just a sample of the reactions from "real 'Murricans'":

That last one is a real WTF? moment.

Speaking of which, here's a reaction from Breitbart that I think deserves a Through the Looking Glass Award:

Executives at Coca Cola thought it was a good idea to run a 60 second Super Bowl ad featuring children singing America The Beautiful – a deeply Christian patriotic anthem whose theme is unity – in several foreign languages. The ad also prominently features a gay couple. Conservatives instantly lit up social media with objections, with many vowing to boycott the soda company's products. The lyrics of the song, written in 1893 by Wellesley College Professor Katherine Lee Bates, ask God to grant America 'brotherhood / From sea to shining sea.' As far as the executives at Coca Cola are concerned, however, the United States of America is no longer a nation ruled by the Constitution and American traditions in which English is the language of government. It is not a nation governed in the Anglo-American tradition of liberty. It is instead a nation governed by some all inclusive multi-cultural synthesis of the various forms of government in the world, as expressed by the multiple languages used in the Super Bowl ad to sing a uniquely American hymn that celebrates our heritage.

And last but not least, there's Glenn Beck:

“Why? You need that to divide us politically? Cuz that’s all this ad is. That’s all this ad is. This is to divide people. It’s an in-your-face… and if you don’t like it, if you’re offended by it, then you’re a racist. If you do like it, well then you’re for immigration. That’s all this is, is to divide people.”

Well, consider the source.

One thing that has struck me repeatedly about this whole flap: note who are calling this commercial "divisive": people who seem to think that they have an exclusive right to determine what is "American" and what's not, culminating in Beck, whose whole career is built on divisiveness. (I should note, by the way, that the comments at YouTube are overwhelmingly positive.)

Maybe it's something in the water.

The Through the Looking Glass Award

I haven't done this in a while, but we have three strong contenders today, so I thought it was time.

Second Runner-Up: Tony Perkins, for this tweet:

He's referring, of course, to the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the most respected civil rights groups in the country. Apparently, in an army training session, the session leader referred to the American "Family" Association as an extremist group, based on their designation as a hate group by the SPLC. Perkins has taken umbrage. He usually tries to maintain some sort of connection with reality in his deceptions, no matter how tenuous, but not this time. He's losing his touch -- looks like the buzzwords have taken over.

Via Joe.My.God.

First Runner-Up: The ever-reliable Brian Brown:

We are encouraged by the Supreme Court's putting the brakes on the lawlessness in Utah this week. By its unanimous decision to grant a stay, the Supreme Court shows that the Justices recognize when the rule of law is being flouted and when judicial activism has run amok — even those liberal Justices who voted for the flawed majority decision in Windsor! The granting of this stay changes the momentum in a very real way and slows the stampede of rabid same-sex marriage bullies who are willing to trample over the rights of everyone else in order to get their way. There's no telling how many true constitutional rights these radicals would run roughshod over to gain their prize of a faux right to genderless 'marriage' and a regime under which Christians and others are relegated to second-class citizen status. We must take advantage of this momentum shift and petition Congress today calling for decisive action for the protection of our fundamental liberties. Surely the Justices on the Supreme Court are not the only ones in Washington who have noted the absurd arrogance and brazen overreaching of the deceptively-named 'marriage equality' movement.

The mind boggles. Brown has completely lost touch with objective reality -- not to mention the fact that he displays all the arrogance of a true "Christian." A decision by a federal judge based on the requirements of the Constitution is "lawless"? Really?

Maybe I should institute a new award, in honor of the Caterpillar from Alice in Wonderland -- you know: "Words mean what I say they mean, no more, no less."

Again, thanks to Joe.My.God.

And The Winner: Ben Shapiro, editor of Breitbart (of course):

What is the moral case for capitalism? It lies in recognition that socialism isn't a great idea gone wrong -- it's an evil philosophy in action. It isn't driven by altruism; it's driven by greed and jealousy. Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don't give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution. Socialism violates at least three of the Ten Commandments: It turns government into God, it legalizes thievery and it elevates covetousness. Discussions of income inequality, after all, aren't about prosperity but about petty spite. Why should you care how much money I make, so long as you are happy?

It takes some sort of talent to turn reality on its head like that. I guess you just have to paint everything in black and white then flip it. Shapiro has it down cold.

And once again, thanks to Joe.My.God.