Tag Archives: Michele Bachmann


Just a thought …

just a thought crackers

1 Comment

Posted by on August 3, 2013 in Humor, Racism, Tea Party


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conservatives prove once again why we have protections under the First Amendment

Thank You Republican/Tea Party types for making my point as to why DOMA and Prop 8 were unconstitutional; if your opposition to same-sex marriage and banning it by law is based on your religious values then those laws are clearly unconstitutional under the separation of Church and State provisions of the First Amendment.

Bill Armistead, Chairman of the Republican Party in Alabama


“I am disappointed to learn that SCOTUS has struck down DOMA and will now require that federal benefits be extended to homosexual couples.  This is an affront to the Christian principles that this nation was founded on.  The federal government is hijacking marriage, a uniquely religious institution, and they must be stopped.  This is a nation founded on Christian values and the Bible is very clear on marriage – one man and one woman.  Alabama’s state law banning gay marriage will prevent these benefits from being extended in Alabama, but our tax dollars will still go to support a lifestyle that we fundamentally disagree with.”

Of course any student of the Bible knows that Armistead’s views on marriage being between “one man and one woman” are not even close to true. In Genesis chapter 16 we read that Sarai gives her hand maid Hagar to Abram as his wife; Sarai was Abram’s first wife and by giving him Hagar she created a plural marriage.

In Genesis 25 we learn that Abram – now Abraham – takes another wife, this one’s name is Keturah. Let’s see, so far that makes three wives in this plurality.

In Genesis 30 Jacob marries Bilhah and Zilpah after already being married to Leah and Rachel. Seems like the Biblical definition of marriage being between “one man and one woman” isn’t quite so clear, now is it? Perhaps Mr. Armistead should pay a little more attention in Sunday school.

In Deuteronomy 21 the inheritance rights of children born into a plural marriage are established.

In Samuel 2 we read how David took his two wives, Ahinoam and Abigail with him when he went to Hebron.

In 1 Kings 11 we learn that Solomon had 700 wives – 700!

In 2 Chronicles 13 we can read how Abijah had fourteen wives.

FOX Huckster Mike Huckabee


“My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: “Jesus wept.”

And this would be? Jesus wept because the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Constitution? Of course He did Mike, of course He did; whatever. If Jesus is weeping it’s more likely because of the hate being spewed in His name by so-called Christians like yourself, and less likely based upon the Court’s decision to allow people freedom of choice in whom they will marry.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachman



This decision is one that is profound because the Supreme Court not only attacked our Constitution today, they not only attacked the equal protection rights of every citizen under our Constitution, they attacked something that they have no jurisdiction over whatsoever, the foundational unit of our society, which is marriage.

“That is something that God created. That is something that God will define. The Supreme Court, though they may think so, have not risen to the level of God.”

How did the Court attack the Constitution? Was it by upholding it?

Marriage, by-the-way Congresswoman, IS regulated by the state, and hence the Court certainly DOES have jurisdiction over it.

And, since laws in this nation aren’t supposed to founded on the religious whims of fanatics like the soon to be retired Bachman, pointing out that her views of the legality of DOMA and Prop 8 are strictly religious in nature she helps make both mine and the Court’s point.

Senator Rand Paul

rand paul

“If you change one variable — man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman — you cannot then tell me that, you can’t logically tell me you can’t change the other variable — one man, three women.  Uh, one woman, four men…. If I’m a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I’m an American citizen, that I can’t have multiple marriages?  I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further.  Does it have to be humans?”

Attacking the rulings from the point of view that it might lead to polygamy, and of course the inevitable far-right white bread Christian leap that it will lead to people marrying animals, which is such a leap it doesn’t deserve to be answered. But of course he couldn’t resist the dig at Islam, throwing out the fear card that this will lead to a Muslim state of polygamous Shariah law. His fear of course is that the First Amendment would, and in all reality should, protect the right of the Islamic belief of plural marriage, being a religious tenant. Funny how religion in America to these types only extends to their own narrow views of Christianity.


Posted by on June 27, 2013 in Constitution


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Government to limit family size?

According to news reports former Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s warning women the government’s going to start telling American families how many children they can have, and it’s all part of what’s really behind President Obama’s contraception mandate; and where did she make this astounding claim? On the only network in the country where such things could be made, Glenn Beck’s network, GBTV, on the show “Real News From The Blaze.” No doubt her newest claims worried the dozens of viewers watching the program.

“I think that it is a mistake for us to get caught in a trap that the left would love to have us dance in,” she said, adding that the “war on women” was an appeal to a “group.”

“Women have a lot to lose under ‘Obamacare,’ and I’ll give you an example,” she continued. “If you want to go into specifics, what the government can give, the government can take away. It certainly isn’t beyond the pale to think, in light of Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary — she said that it’s important that we have contraceptives because that prevents pregnancy, and pregnancy is more expensive to the federal government.”

But wait, there’s more; once she got into her groove she kept following her own twisted theory to its conclusion. “Going with that logic, according to our own Health and Human Services secretary, it isn’t far-fetched to think that the president of the United States could say ‘We need to save health care expenses. The federal government will only pay for one baby to be born in the hospital per family, or two babies to be born per family.’ That could happen. We think it couldn’t?”

When anchor Amy Holmes asked if she was really suggesting the government might one day advocate a one-child policy like China, Bachmann replied.

“What I’m saying is that now that we know the president of the United States, unilaterally, can tell insurance companies, ‘You must offer the morning-after abortion pill, you must offer sterilizations, you must offer contraceptives free to the recipients of those products, because we tell you to’ (which means they’re effectively setting the price, as well), that says that whoever the health care dictator, could conceivably make that order, as well,” she said.

Bachmann’s clearly been missing the spot light she had during her failed presidential folly and now she’s pandering to the farthest of the far right, hence appearing on Beck’s “thriving” internet network; it’s the only place “Krazy” is welcomed these days, and falling back on tried and true conservative tactic of fear, gloom and despair.

No one’s going to dictate to American families how many children they can have, and no one’s going to force sterilization or contraception on women; this is just more of the same Bachmann we’ve all come to know and love.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 7, 2012 in Women's Rights


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Newt says he’ll lower gas prices to $2 per gallon and turn lead to gold

According to the Associated Press (AP) Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential candidate Newton Leroy Gingrich is pulling a page from former candidate Michele Bachmann’s playbook claiming he’ll make gas prices drop to as low as $2 a gallon if he’s elected.

The promises were flowing deep as Gingrich campaigned in Oklahoma hoping to capitalize on the latest GOTP fear and gloom tactic that gas prices will rise sharply this summer and Newton is pushing if he’s elected he’ll enact relaxed regulation on domestic oil production which will cause the gas to flow like water.

What the Newtser isn’t saying is that Presidents have extremely limited, if indeed any, power to affect prices of a global commodity like oil. Why does the most powerful man in the world have such limited influence? Because such costs depend largely on supply and demand, hence as the country’s economy improves, demand could rise, putting extra pressure on prices.

Gingrich’s been playing the oil exploration card hard as he tries to resurrect a dead campaign slamming the President for delaying a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline even though the building of the pipeline wouldn’t affect one single penny of the short-term gas prices; Gingrich however is not one to play on reality, and claiming the President is hurting the oil and gas industry plays well in states like Oklahoma which depend heavily on those industries.

“With Gingrich policies, what we know is we will dramatically expand our independence in the world market, dramatically expand our capacity to produce energy without regard to our foreign potential enemies and in the process prices will clearly be a lot lower,” Gingrich said. “Now, I picked $2.50 as a stabilizing price for capital investment reasons. It could easily go down to $2.”

Newt waxed nostalgic, boasting that gas cost was as little as $1.13 per gallon when he led the House and that the national average was below $2 when President Obama was inaugurated.

Newt’s memory is a little off, the average cost of gas when he was speaker ranged from $1.41in 1995 to $1.34 in 1999, but if President Obama’s responsible for rising gas prices now, then wasn’t President Clinton responsible for lower prices then, and not the Speaker of the House? How exactly would the Speaker affect gas prices anyhow? What Newt failed to mention during his litany of Obama bashing was how the price of gas capped out at $4.21 near the end of the Bush/Cheney era in 2008.

This is good old fashioned conservative fear mongering plain and simple; if we re-elect the President gas prices will sky rocket, Iran will destroy Israel, the Constitution will be torn to shreds, dogs and cats will live together … blah, blah, blah. Truth is the price of gas has increased because the U.S. economy is doing better, raising demand for gas along with everything else, and that’s good – not bad; the only way someone like a (God forbid) President Gingrich delivers $2 per gallon gas is if the economy tanks again. Of course the average Tea Party voter doesn’t care about facts, they care about hating the President, and that’s what Newt’s counting on.


Posted by on February 21, 2012 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

No more lap dances

While Republican Tea Party (GOTP) members of the House and Senate are licking their collective political wounds after approving the payroll tax cut bill extending unemployment benefits through 2012, former GOTP presidential hopeful, Congresswoman Michele “Krazy” Bachmann’s doing her best to spin it as a win, crowing how conservatives have put an end to recipients using their debit cards to receive lap dances.

“They’re extending unemployment, too, but the big thing that we get is no longer can a welfare recipient walk into a strip club and get money out of an ATM machine to pay for a lap dance,” she told conservative radio host Mark Levin. “Now, I’m not making this up. That’s the big thing that we get out of this bill.”

That’s right folks, with all the issues we’re dealing with in the economy the GOTP House and Senate members in the Congress have taken the time to ensure welfare recipients won’t be able to use government-issued debit cards to get cash through ATM’s at strip clubs, casinos or liquor stores.

“Welfare recipients across the country have been using their welfare cards — they look like credit cards, it’s a debit card. They get these debit cards, they can walk into a casino, they can walk into a liquor store, they can walk into a strip club and if there’s an ATM machine in there, they can use their welfare card, draw down the money and use it to pay for gambling, lap dances,” Krazy claimed.

Bachmann called the issue “unbelievable.”

“People need to be outraged by this, because we are literally going into hock and reducing our standard of living to keep this kind of ridiculous spending up,” she said. “That’s a problem.”

We’re going into hock because a few welfare recipients might have taken their benefits and gone to a peep show or a casino? No, someone needs to explain to Krazy that we’re in “hock” because we were thrown into two wars without raising taxes to pay for them – instead, the uber-conservatives gave us tax cuts for wealthy and a devastated economy. It’s time for the Congresswoman to get a new brain captain; hers is either dead or asleep at the wheel.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 17, 2012 in Federal Budget


Tags: , , , , , , ,

New Hampshire Tea Party Conservative Urges Married Couples to Return to Puritanism

A New Hampshire Republican Tea Party (GOTP) lawmaker has suggested that married couples who should practice abstinence instead of using birth control pills.

State Representative Lynne Blankenbeker made the proposal saying abstinence is available “over the counter” along with condoms. She made her outlandish statement during a legislative committee hearing on a resolution urging the Obama administration to drop the birth control requirement for non-profit organizations providing health care insurance to their employees.

“People with or without insurance have two affordable choices, one being abstinence and the other being condoms, both of which you can get over the counter,” she said.

The comments came at the same hearing where another GOTP Rep. Jeanine Notter, sounding remarkably like a Michele Bachmann knock off, claimed that birth control pills lead to prostate cancer. She does understand that it’s the women who take the pills?

According to the Huffington Post, “Blankenbeker was engaged in a dialogue with Sylvia Kennedy, a New Hampshire doctor, who was testifying in support of Obama’s plan. Kennedy urged the coverage of birth control and responded to Blankenbeker that condoms are not a foolproof means of contraception, and also suggested that abstinence does not work all the time, a notion Blankenbeker disagreed with”.

“Abstinence works 100 percent of the time,” she said.

How many married couples under the age of 100 practice abstinence?

Blankenbeker also asserted that condoms and abstinence offer married couples a wider range of family planning options than oral contraceptives.

And it offers wider range how Ms. Blankenbeker?

“If you decide you want to get pregnant you can refrain from abstinence,” she said.

I understand things are a little provincial in New Hampshire, but asserting married couples practice abstinence is one of the more obtuse things I’ve ever heard, second only to suggesting birth control pills cause prostate cancer; yep, they sure know how to pick em’ in New Hampshire.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 17, 2012 in Contraception


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Michele Bachmann thinks she was the “Perfect Candidate”?

The Huffington Post’s reporting that former Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential “never had a prayer of being the” candidate Michele “Krazy” Bachmann is trying to stay relevant weighing in on the remaining horses in the GOTP race declaring she – above all the others – “was the perfect candidate,” even after having her political butt handed to her in every debate and in every primary,

Asked by Bloomberg TV’s Al Hunt who of the remaining four candidates was the “most conservative,” Bachmann responded by including herself in the mix.

“I was. I was the perfect candidate,” Krazy answered absolutely straight faced. “America had their chance with the perfect candidate. But any of our candidates are going to be acceptable to the American people, and more than acceptable, because right now, if you look at the Gallup map that came out this week, President Obama is in big trouble all across the country.”

Clearly she hasn’t bothered to take the time to look at any honest electoral map, or she wouldn’t be so fast to say that, but then again this is Krazy, and she declared over and over again how any of the candidates could beat the President.

Bachmann also said she was happy with what the remaining candidates were saying on the issues she’d tried so hard to promote during her ill-fated run for the prize.

“Well, all of the candidates that remain — there’s four candidates that remain, and they are all for repealing Obamacare. They’re all for repealing Dodd-Frank. And I’m very grateful that they are.” she said.

Bachman’s crazy, she’s a loon and like Palin has no real credentials to have ever thought she belonged in the big leagues; she’s a mediocre Congresswoman who isn’t playing with a full deck, and her shrill voice isn’t missed on the debate stage.

If you’re feeling the need for the equivalent of water-boarding your brain, here’s her complete tortured interview:

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 7, 2012 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Why would your wife make a good First Lady?

With all the problems facing the United States today it was such a comfort to turn on the CNN debate last night and to see Wolf Blitzer was the moderator, and what’s more to see him ask such valid, timely and thought provoking questions. My particular favorite was the question which came right after Rick Santorum complained about the nonsense questions being asked. And what was this question? Wolf wanted to know why the candidate’s wives would make a good first lady.

Riveting Wolf, riveting … did you fall out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way to the ground? A young woman who was unemployed with no health insurance had just minutes before asked the so-called candidates what they would do for her – of course none of them answered her question; I’ll bet she was waiting on pins and needles to find out the answer to that truly valid question.

I suddenly found myself wistfully wishing Michele Bachmann was still in the race.

Of course we got to hear all the wonderful qualifications of the candidate’s wives, how they’d raised hundreds of children while still finding time to establish world class music schools, baking cookies for orphans and working down at the USO Stage Door Canteen; and of all the husbands no one was more gushing over with praise than Newt for his current spouse (number 3), and former paramour, Callista.

All I could think was, “First Mistress anyone?”

I’m sorry, but Newt’s former concubine turned wife as First Lady?

I know, perhaps they could hire Heidi Fleiss to be her social secretary?

Enough of Newt pretending his concern about “family values” and how much he’s a devoted husband, and how his past indiscretions should be forgotten because he’s found religion and is now a good boy – at least as long as Callista stays healthy.

This isn’t only about Newt’s infidelity it’s also about a former staffer (Callista) being the Speaker’s mistress before he “made a proper woman out of her”. Both of their morals leave a great deal to be desired, and women who sleep their way to the top – sort of speak – are not called “First Lady,” a term which implies, well, first and foremost, that they’re a lady.

This isn’t “Pretty Woman” where the young call girl is turning tricks to survive and can be forgiven as she is introduced to the finer things in life and over time becomes a lady; this is about a Congressional staffer who graduated cum laude from college knowing exactly what she was doing when she became the modern day Madame de Pompadour to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the person second in line in succession to the President.

Yes sir, Newt and Callista, quite the poster couple for fidelity and family values.

One last thought on this happy couple; why is it Republicans have no issue with a former Speaker who was having not just one, but multiple affairs – in the capitol – with staffers, while serving in office as a “family values” conservative, but they pilloried – and continue to pillory – President Clinton for having an affair in the Oval Office, with a staffer? “It’s not about his affair, it’s that he lied about it” is what conservatives say when asked. Bunk; it’s about the double standard of the conservative Christian right, the “family values” party. I have a problem with someone who is, or who has been, an adulterer holding any public office because they’re untrustworthy; it’s as simple as that; wedding vows are an oath, a covenant every bit as binding as an oath of office. If a man can’t keep one oath why should he be trusted to keep the other?

Hypocrisy thy name is the Republican Tea Party; Newt was a dreadful Speaker he would make an equally horrendous President.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2012 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

And then there were six

Republican Tea Party (GOTP) never had a snow ball’s chance presidential hopeful Michele “Krazy” Bachman has ended her Quixotic bid for the White House; during a press conference Krazy said her last-place Iowa caucus was essentially the nail in her political coffin. Of course anyone with half a grain of common sense understood from the beginning that Bachmann never stood any chance whatsoever of winning the nomination much less the White House, she’s certifiable, and that finally caught up with her; the longer the race dragged on the more opportunities she had to let her Krazy shine through.

Of course with Bachmann gone, that leaves her supporters with only one logical choice in the continuing GOTP contest, and that choice is Ricky Santorum; the very same Ricky who’s trying to establish himself as the one clear conservative heavyweight in the GOTP race, as Mittens is not now, nor ever has been a conservative.

Santorum essentially tied with caucus winner Mitt Romney (the margin was eight votes) thus suddenly becoming the non-Romney contender for the presidential nomination. But will his rise be for real or merely the latest in a long list including Perry, Cain and Gingrich? Look for Santorum to begin to receive increased funding from the evangelical right, and to begin to draw attention to the stark political differences between Mittens and himself. Of course, odds are he’ll quickly implode now that he’ll be receiving the full media attention of a “front runner”.

As for Bachmann’s departure; at least we’ll all be spared her continually petulant whinny voice; but never-the-less we’ll miss her – to use Mitt’s word – zany antics. Good-bye Krazy, adieu, auf wiedersehen, farewell …

1 Comment

Posted by on January 4, 2012 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m Not a Politician!?

Huffington Post is reporting that Republican Tea Party (GOTP) presidential doormat Michele “Krazy” Bachmann is repeating over and over again that she’s “not a politician”.

“I am not a politician. I am a real person. I don’t even know how to be a politician,” she said outside a high school in Grundy Center, Iowa, according to CNN.

“I’m not a politician, I’m just drawn that way,” her Toon Town alter ego declared.

Krazy – the “non-politician” – is in her third term in the U.S. House of Representatives and served in the Minnesota state Senate before that from 2001 to 2007.

She added, “That is why I am in trouble all the time in Washington, D.C., because I am constantly fighting the establishment in Washington, D.C.” She repeated the “not a politician” line at another campaign stop, writing it on a cafe wall.

Of course the fact she’s dumb as a stump, and makes completely off the wall comments has nothing to do with her being in trouble “all the time in Washington”.

Bachmann’s been done for months, and just keeps gasping on like a fish in a tidal pond slowly running out of water.

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 20, 2011 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , , ,