Operation Yellow Elephant
Search Site
Our Sponsor
Reviews of This Blog
"It's ridiculous to compare you to a douche bag; douche bags serve a purpose."
"Pollutes most of what it touches"
"A blog you should be reading for up-to-the-minute news on wingnuts"
"Very funny"
"Shrill"
Online Store
Click here to enter store.
Media Links
Blogroll
100 Monkeys Typing
A Chicken Is Not A Pillage
A Lie A Day
The American Street
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Cloyce's Coffee Klatsch
Correntewire
Dependable Renegade
Elementropy
Jon Swift
Princess Sparkle Pony
The Republic of Dogs
Sadly, No!
Why Now?
World O'Crap
Wingnut Wide Web
Internment Spa Lady
Fat Andy in P-Town
Clown Hall
America's Worst Law Student™
Gipper's Nippers
Freepers Creepers
Feeds
Credits
Site Statistics
Archive for October 2006
America’s Most Ridiculous Newspaper™
Posted by Clif on 10/31/06 at 7:45 am
Category: Wankers
Apparently concerned that the Moonie Times would retain the banner as America’s Most Ridiculous Newspaper™, the Cincinnati Enquirer engaged in a preemptive strike by endorsing Jean Schmidt. David Wells (pictured at right), the Enquirer’s editor, conceded that Schmidt has a “tendency to step in it,” citing her falsified resume, her Murtha attack, and her plagiarized op-eds. But still he gave Schmidt the paper’s endorsement because:
The bottom line here is that Schmidt is a better legislator, advocates for her district’s residents well, and is showing growth in her still-new job.
If Wells truly thinks that Schmidt advocates well for her residents, he ought to back away from the all-you-can-eat fried food buffet just long enough to read his own newspaper. The day after the endorsement, the Enquirer reported that Jean Schmidt supports a proposal to consider storing nuclear waste in her own district.
Now that’s what I call being a strong advocate for your local constituents. If Schmidt would also advocate placing a few halfway houses for child molesters next to elementary schools in her district, why, the Enquirer would probably name her Politician of the Year.
Michael Steele May Love Puppies, But He Hates Stem Cell Research
Posted by Clif on 10/30/06 at 9:29 am Category: Lying Republicans
Puppy-loving Republican lap-dog and Senatorial candidate Michael Steele has just launched an ad in which his sister (who suffers from MS) says Michael Steele “does support stem cell research.” Um, not so much:
Q Where are you on stem cell research?
STEELE: . . . I can tell you straight up what my concern is. I’m very concerned when we start tinkering around with life and we’re not careful and we get ahead of ourselves and that’s the concern I have with embryonic stem cell research. I have members of my family who would definitely benefit . . . but my ethics and my conscience tell me that sometimes man can get a little bit ahead of ourselves. . . .
I am very concerned about the destruction of life. . . . This is a very slippery slope . . . and I’m concerned. Look, you of all folks know what happens when people decide they want to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool. I know that as well from my community and our experience with slavery.
This was an answer given during an interview with the Baltimore Jewish Council so the “you, of all folks” refers to the Jews and the experiments refer to Dr. Mengele and friends. Okay, so if Michael Steele is “in favor of” something he compares to Nazi horrors, what’s his comparison for something he opposes, like gay marriage?
I am very concerned about the destruction of marriage. This is a very slippery slope. We all know what happens when people engage in the human sacrifice of babies, then eat their bloody, steaming entrails while dancing naked in the moonlight and singing hymns of praise to the pagan god Baal.
Let’s also focus on another loathsome little bit in Steele’s statement “in favor of” stem cell research:
I have members of my family who would definitely benefit . . . but my ethics and my conscience tell me that sometimes man can get a little bit ahead of ourselves. . . .
The members of his family referred to by Steele would be his sister who made the commercial. Steele says she would “definitely benefit” from stem cell research but still doesn’t want to support it because he compares it to the Holocaust. With brothers like that, who needs Republicans?
(Cross-posted at The American Street.)
Dunkin’ Tony
Posted by Clif on 10/29/06 at 11:50 am Category: Lying Republicans, Terrorism
After Dick Cheney confessed that waterboarding people was a “no-brainer” for him, the entire White House has been running away from the statement faster than a Republican congressman runs from a U.S. Attorney.
Heading up the parade of denials was Lynne Cheney in her now-infamous Wolf Blitzer interview. According to Lynne:
This is complete distortion; he didn’t say anything of the kind.
That was right before she denied writing a lesbian potboiler, so you can take Lynne’s denials for what they’re worth.
The Vice-President himself took a slightly different tack during a press availability on Air Force Two:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say anything about water boarding. Those were all his comments. He didn’t even use that phrase.
Q He said dunking in the water.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn’t say anything, he did.
Of course, the whole “I didn’t say anything, he did” defense sounds more like something coming from a third grader in the principal’s office than from the Vice-President of the United States.
But the obfuscation award clearly goes to Tony Snow:
MR. SNOW: I understand that. I’ll tell you what the Vice President said. You can push all you want, wasn’t referring to water boarding and would not talk about techniques.
Q Let’s back it up here for a second, because what we’re saying is — and I’ve got the transcript — “Would you agree a dunk in water is a ‘no-brainer’ that can save lives?” Vice President: “It’s a ‘no-brainer’ for me.” Tony –
MR. SNOW: Read the rest of the answer.
Q What could “dunk in the water” refer to if not water boarding?
MR. SNOW: I’m just telling you — I’m telling you the Vice President’s position. I will let you draw your own conclusions, because you clearly have. He says he wasn’t talking –
Q I haven’t drawn any conclusions. I’m asking for an explanation about what “dunk in the water” could mean.
MR. SNOW: How about a dunk in the water?
Apparently Tony thinks that one of the methods of interrogation techniques used by the CIA is to threaten a few laps in the pool at Guantanamo.
“No, sir, not that! Spare me!! I’ll tell you everything. Just don’t make me go swimming again!”
The Gay Patriot and the PedoFoley
Posted by Clif on 10/27/06 at 2:36 pm Category: Wingnuts, GayPatriot.net, Pedophilegate
Over at the double-wide trailer park, er, blog run by Bruce Carroll, a/k/a the Gay Patriot, Bruce has weighed in on PedoPhilegate. With his usual clueless verve, Bruce has, in one preposterous post, shown that no one in the blogosphere, gay or straight, can outdo Bruce for simple, breath-taking, jaw-dropping, slap-your-forehead, “did he really say that” idiocy.
Of course, you know that Brucie’s bottom line — no double entendre intended — is that PedoPhilegate is a dirty political trick and that this dirty trick is way worse than a 50-year old man running around the halls of Congress asking male pages to measure their dicks for him and to describe during internet chat sessions how they masturbate. But Bruce puts his own patented whack-job spin on it and goes one step further to blame the whole affair on the Human Rights Campaign, which is rather like blaming the Monica Lewinsky scandal on Planned Parenthood, but there you have it.
According to Bruce, it was the HRC that leaked the goods on Foley. Then he says this:
I think the HRC needs to come clean and fully explain to those of you who give them money exactly what the hell they are up to. This entire matter has put every gay American into a bad light by equating child predators with being gay. The HRC has a responsibility to tell us what they know and when they knew it. They are now directly responsible for the anti-gay atmosphere that has emerged from the scandal that one of their own employees helped launch.
Yep, you read that right. HRC should have kept the stuff about Foley secret and allowed him to continue passing out rulers at page events because protecting gay pedophiles is less likely to create an anti-gay backlash than exposing them is.
Actually I think Bruce needs to come clean and tell us what the hell he is up to. His post puts every gay American in a bad light because anyone who reads Bruce’s post might think that all gay people are as stupid as he is.
Boortzish Behavior
Posted by Clif on 10/26/06 at 9:25 pm Category: Wingnuts, Iraq
What makes the smarmy Neal Boortz so amusing is that he clearly, and delusionally, fancies himself as something of an intellect even though he probably trades stock based on spam stock tips. His recent appearance on Larry King Live showcased his jaw-dropping stupidity.
When asked whether there was a “civil war” in Iraq, Boortz came up with this:
BOORTZ: A civil war is when two factions are fighting for control of the same government. These factions are fighting to establish their own governments, therefore, by definition, it is not a civil war.
KING: . . . [B]ut didn’t Jefferson Davis want to take control of a government?
BOORTZ: No. . . . He wanted to establish a separate government of the confederate states. That wasn’t a civil war, either.
KING: But he was calling that, Neal.
BOORTZ: It was the War between the States.
Heaven knows where Boortz dug up that definition. Frankly, it sounds more like a definition of the electoral process than of a civil war. Using Boortz’s definition, it’s not even clear that there has ever been a civil war, since the warring factions in a civil war all want to establish their own government.
Later on Larry King asked Boortz if he was a moron:
BOORTZ: A moron is someone who thinks he isn’t right when he is. I think that I’m right when I’m not so, by definition, I am not a moron.
Yikes!
Posted by Clif on 10/24/06 at 10:14 pm Category: Gay Issues
Although there are many gems in the recent New Yorker profile of Christopher Hitchens, I found this little excerpt to be particularly amusing:
[Christopher Hitchens] does not remember ever having met Bill Clinton, his Oxford contemporary, but he told me that there was a student who, at different times, was his girlfriend and Clinton’s, before she began a lifetime of lesbianism.
Can you really blame her after that?
All Animals Are Straight, But Some Animals Are More Straight than Others
Posted by Clif on 10/24/06 at 2:51 pm Category: Politics
Nathan Tabor has heard about teh gay penguins and he’s pissed. More accurately, the North Carolina wingnut and columnist for Alan Keyes’s website Renew America has heard about an exhibition at the Oslo Natural History Museum about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. So he’s penned a column to debunk the “liberal fairytale” that all animals aren’t straight before some liberal zookeeper in North Carolina hears about it and sets up a gay disco for the giraffes.
You might ask yourself how a salesman in his family’s soybean business knows so much about zoology to take on the University of Oslo and it’s Natural History Museum. Well, let’s just let Nathan speak for himself:
The nation of Norway has now given us the first museum exhibition that claims that the birds, the bees, and other animals may be homosexuals.
The Oslo Natural History Museum exhibit is just one more example of propaganda invading the scientific world.
In one exhibit, two stuffed female swans are depicted on a nest — a clear effort to promote the “Heather Has Two Mommies” school of thought. Meanwhile, a photograph shows a male giraffe mounting another giraffe — supposedly in expectation of sex.
“Supposedly”? Nathan apparently thinks that the giraffe was mounting the other giraffe in expectation of a better view.
Having made the obligatory “Heather Has Two Mommies” remark, Nathan now pulls out his PhD in zoology from Animal Planet U:
One Reuters report conceded that researchers haven’t paid much attention to animal homosexuality. The Reuters report concludes the disinterest might be the result of “distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule.”
But perhaps the real reason for the disinterest is because it doesn’t pass the laugh test. If homosexuality were truly strong in the animal kingdom, there would be no animals left, since they would be unable and unwilling to reproduce.
Which is also why there aren’t any gay people, either, because if there were, then guys would spend all their time having sex with other guys and the human race would die off.
Nathan also has a masters in genetics:
For years, homosexual activists have tried to make the case that there’s a special homosexual gene hiding in the gene pool. Yet, that simply doesn’t explain why one human twin might pursue a homosexual lifestyle and another would not.
Or why one identical twin might be left-handed and the other not.
The trouble with museum exhibits like this one is that they try to sell children on the idea that homosexual sex is not an aberration — a claim that can lead to justification of same sex marriage. With liberals such as these running scientific exhibits and some schools, we can fully expect a version of the beloved storybook “The Three Little Pigs” to give rise to “The Three Gay Pigs.”
Which really wouldn’t be such a bad idea because each of the gay little pigs would build fabulous loft spaces in Chelsea and would grill the wolf with garlic, rosemary and lemon rather than simply boiling him to death.
(Recycled from an earlier posting of mine at The American Street, because I’ve been too busy at work to keep close track of the wingnuts.)
Party Like There’s No Samarra
Posted by Clif on 10/22/06 at 9:59 am Category: Politics, Loathsome Republicans, Iraq
Tucked into the Defense Department Appropriations bill passed a few weeks ago was, get this, an appropriation for a $20 million party in Washington, D.C. as a “commemoration of success” in Iraq. Apparently this “party hearty” clause was inserted by — hold your breath — GOP leaders in the Senate. I imagine that if we look hard enough we’ll find a similar Congressional appropriation to provide an award to the inventor of a perpetual motion machine.
The clause was the dead-on-delivery brain child of Mitch McConnell and first appeared in last year’s defense appropriations bill. Since there hasn’t yet been a victory in Iraq, GOP leaders decided to give themselves another year for their planned hoopla in DC and extended the appropriation in this year’s bill.
The best part is that McConnell is responding to criticism of his foray into the party planning business by, natch, blaming it all on the DemoRATS:
McConnell’s spokesman, Don Stewart, said he thought the finger-pointing by Democrats was silly because the provision was added last year by unanimous consent.
“Apparently they were for honoring the troops before they were against it,” Stewart said.
Stewart apparently takes us all for macacas. Unanimous consent to a defense appropriations bill doesn’t mean that the minority party agrees with everything in the bill, particularly given that any “no” vote would have been touted by McConnell and his ilk as a “vote against the troops.”
Leon Plays Lawyer
Posted by Clif on 10/20/06 at 5:49 pm Category: Gay Issues, Wingnuts, Stupid Republicans
Leon H. Wolf, probably the dullest knife in the RedState drawer of damaged cutlery, has been playing amateur lawyer and is screaming for the criminal prosecution of Mike Rogers. Rogers should go to jail, according to the pudgy Wolf, for outing Senator Larry Craig from Idaho.
Mike Roger’s crime? Uh, extortion, or more specifically violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(d) which Wolf quotes (in two separate posts, here and here). Leon jumps up and down and waves the statute about with the glee of a ten-year-old who’s found a rhinestone and thinks it’s the Hope Diamond:
(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. If such a communication is addressed to a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official who is covered by section 1114, the individual shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
According to Wolf’s razor-sharp legal analysis, Rogers committed a crime when he threatened to out gay Senators who voted to confirm Alito. Leon’s gloss of that on the statute is that the “thing of value” is the Alito confirmation vote and the injury to reputation would be the revelation that the Senator was gay.
Oooooh. I guess that’s it for Rogers. He’d better start getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit. Or not.
Happily for Mike Rogers, and sadly for the dim-witted Mr. Wolf, the statute that Wolf cites is for mailing threatening communications. Oops. You see that phrase in 876(d) which says “so deposits or causes to be delivered”? Well that’s a reference to section (a) of the statute which says:
Whoever knowingly deposits in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service or knowingly causes to be delivered by the Postal Service according to the direction thereon, any communication . . .
The statute only applies to things sent through the mail. That, perhaps, is why it is referred to by the U.S. Attorney’s Manual as the “Mailing of Threatening Communications Statute.” And my guess is — just a thought here — that Mike Rogers, who is a blogger, didn’t mail anything to Larry Craig.
So here’s a word of advice for Leon: Sitting around all day watching reruns of “Law and Order” in your underwear isn’t enough to make you a lawyer.