Do not get me wrong – religion can be a beautiful, wonderful thing. It’s something that is very personal to every single person, and can be an awesome source of good.
But some candidates use religion more as a weapon against others. Just look at how religion was used by Christians in the 1900s to keep interracial couples from getting married, and up until just recently to keep LGBT couples from getting married. Or look at Islamic extremists that kill anyone who doesn’t follow their chosen religion in the Middle East.
A bunch of elected officials here in the United States, including Senator and Candidate Ted Cruz, have pushed to get 1,000 preachers to run for office here in the United States, and Cruz is even speaking at the event. Why the push? Because they want elected officials to push for a Christian evangelical dogma when it comes to shaping our nation’s laws. Laws like Indiana’s Religious Freedom law that was designed to use religion against LGBT people’s rights. Or the new law in North Carolina that allows civil magistrates to not only turn away LGBT people from marriage, but “any union they object to” – which can include a divorcee, an interracial couple, or an atheist couple, just to name a few examples.
Meanwhile, Rick Santorum is calling Iran a country run by “religious theocrats that can’t be trusted.” This is probably the most ironic thing out of Santorum’s mouth, since he would like nothing more than to establish the United States as a theocracy.
Teabagger darling Scott Walker is literally taking money away from kids to give to millionaires and billionaires. Don’t believe me? Check this article out.
Basically he’s taking $250Million in public funding from the University of Wisconsin so that he can give it to the millionaires and billionaires that want a new stadium built. What’s worse, he has pledged to go after those that have unpaid debts to the state so that he can throw that money into the pot.
Scott Walker may be good for the 0.1% of Wisconsinites, but he’s bad for the other 99.9% of the population.
There’s an excellent piece by the New York Times that everyone should read if they’re interested in Marco Rubio. It talks about how he has, time after time, been so bad with money that he’s caused things like a house to be foreclosed.
And this man wants to try and run the country?
In a stunning display of ignorance, Rick Santorum equated the fact that women who are on welfare are being abused, and that abuse stops when they get married.
To a group in South Carolina, Santorum said:
Does Santorum even understand what women on welfare go through? Or that the majority of women that are being abused are actually married to their abusers, 98% of which use financial abuse to keep the woman from leaving?
Rick Santorum doesn’t understand women, much less domestic violence.
Lindsey Graham is an opportunistic obfuscater. What do I mean by this?
He’s a liar.
Graham has said multiple times that he is a US Military Veteran of the Gulf War. And while he did serve in the Air National Guard, his service never took him out of South Carolina.
What is wrong with a man that he feels the need to lie about his past like this?
You know, it’s really sad when people don’t understand another group of people. There are examples everywhere, like radical Islamic followers who don’t understand people of the West. Or Christians who push hate instead of love towards gays and lesbians.
But Mike Huckabee brings transphobia to a whole new level.
Not only does Huckabee not understand people who are transgendered, but he’s gone off on a rant against them. Worse yet, he basically let them boil down to a masturbatorial fantasy, saying about when he was in school:
“I’m pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said: ‘Coach, I think I’d rather shower with the girls today.’”
Huckabee is as tasteless as he is clueless.
There are several buzzwords that the Right uses when it comes to decisions they don’t agree with. We’re all familiar with “activist”, as in an “activist judge” when it comes to the Right losing a lawsuit, whereas when there is a decision that comes down on the Right’s side, they do nothing but praise the justices for their work (like the NRA’s espousing of the “historic ruling” by the US Supreme Court in Columbia v. Heller).
So take the recent article on the ABC News website about the “Delicate Path for Gay Marriage in Red States“. Mixed throughout the story are quite a few conservative terms/allusions. In the very first sentence, Evan Wolfson from the Freedom to Marry Coalition, is labeled an “activist”. And it’s not until the 9th paragraph that it’s even mentioned that Wolfson is from an official organization. Then it goes on to mention Wolfson is “forcing social change” on other states in the second paragraph. They even mention Wolfson several times, but don’t quote him at all until the end of the article – but they sure get quotes in from marriage equality opponents early on in the article.
The final straw, for me is this bit:
Wolfson’s group, Freedom to Marry, is scouring Oklahoma and Utah for same-sex couples who can put a human face on the new rights.
Scouring? Because what – there isn’t a single gay couple in Oklahoma or Utah that wants to get married? I think Wolfson has the couples that have brought the lawsuits which have ruled bans against marriage equality are unconstitutional. Sure, they may be looking to add to that list of couples, but they’re not having to “scour”.
It’s articles like this that really leave a dirty taste in my mouth for what passes as mainstream media reporting these days.
I’m just wondering, after reading the latest from the NRA, if there is anything they’re not capable of doing, and any occasion they’re not capable of sullying?
The latest, of course, is that Martin Luther King, Jr. may not have been killed if he had been carrying a gun. How can someone with a straight face actually say that? King was standing out in the open, on the balcony in front of his room at the Lorraine Motel when the gunshot rang out without warning.
Someone please tell me – without some sort of warning shot or notice, how in the hell is it that if King had a gun, that he “might not have been killed”? Sorry, that’s just not going to happen. That’s the NRA, trying to write a pretty version of revisionist history in an effort to get their message across.
Next someone’s going to try and tell me that the NRA said something crazy like, if teachers at Sandy Hook had been armed, the tragedy may not have happened. Wait, what?
I admit I didn’t watch the entirety of ABC’s This Week Sunday show with Mary Matalin, just a clip. All I needed was her little excerpt, and that was enough to get me riled up. What was it that she said? This:
“All of my gay friends think he looks so buff in his shirtless publicity photos.”
What made it worse was the fact that everyone around the table seemed to have laughed, and not a soul really called her on it. That is not only bullcrap, but is massively offensive as well.
Why do I say offensive? Because Matalin basically just reduced every single gay person as only being concerned with a person’s physical appearance, and nothing else. And the fact that she wasn’t corrected was even more offensive.
If I, as a gay man, started saying, “Maybe Mary Matalin needs to worry about staying home and pleasing her man,” or “Mary Matalin needs to go home and make a nice brunch for her husband,” or even, “Mary Matalin is a woman, and therefore, she shouldn’t even be listened to – Colossians 3:18,” then I would be absolutely vilified by the people on that panel. That would be so enragingly offensive, that I would never hear the end of it.
But somehow it’s okay for Matalin to reduce the entire gay community to just a sex-crazed, shallow group that cares about nothing but themselves and physical appearance.
Well screw that.
If there was any doubt that this man is going to run for President of the United States in 2016, this quote – or should I say Freudian slip – from his press conference today kills it.
Emphasis is mine.
So there we have it; the first non-declared official candidate for 2016.