A Gentleman’s view.

The Enemies Within: The 20 Most Dangerous Conservatives And Their Organizations

America has enemies. Not just abroad, but within our shores as well. And our domestic enemies, as it turns out, are MORE dangerous and destructive than the terrorists could ever hope to be. Because while the terrorists want to destroy us, the following people and their organizations are doing far more damage.

1. Roger Ailes: The President of Fox News keeps the right-wing mouth piece biased and unbalanced. He literally proposed a right-wing news network as a propaganda tool to use during the Nixon Administration. And now, Fox News makes every effort to slander Democrats, lie to the public, and support conservative groups, activists and politicians at all costs.

Want to tell Ailes what you think of him? Feel free to contact Fox News Channel by mail, phone, or email.

FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-301-3000
Web: www.foxnews.com

2. The Koch Brothers: Yes, there is more than one Koch brother, but rather than jotting down the same paragraph twice, it makes more sense to combine the two. Charles and David Koch are the owners of Koch Industries, a private oil and chemicals company. They have spent big money in elections and have pretty much bought and paid for all of Republicans that sit on the energy committee. They also have ties to The John Birch Society, of which their father was a founding member, and several other conservative think tanks and organizations including, Americans For Prosperity which David Koch leads as chairman, the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the Cato Institute. They helped create and fund the Tea Party and have been very influential in the watering down of environmental laws and the destruction of unions. If you really want to see the scope of their influence look at what is happening in Wisconsin and in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I know you must be dying to contact Koch Industries to give them your opinion, so here’s how you can do that.

Koch Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 2256
Wichita, KS 67201-2256
Phone:316-828-5500
Fax:316-828-5739
info@kochind.com

3. Dick Armey: His FreedomWorks organization helped to create the Tea Party and he has worked closely with the Koch brothers. Armey’s organization seeks to deregulate and tear down reform. He opposed health care reform and is largely responsible for hatred, paranoia and anti-government sentiments displayed at town halls during the health care debate.

FreedomWorks
400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001
Toll Free Phone: 1-888-564-6273
Local Phone: 202-783-3870
Fax: 202-942-7649

4. Tom Donohue: The US Chamber Of Commerce President gained a hell of a lot more power in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. The Chamber is the largest conservative lobbying group in the country. Representing big corporations more than small businesses, the Chamber opposed health care reform and Wall Street reform. The group is in favor of tearing down any and every law designed to protect the American worker. Donohue once stated that “there are legitimate values in outsourcing — not only jobs, but work….” and once told unemployed people in Ohio to “stop whining”. So, not only is he for deregulation, he supports job killing policies. That is a double dose of dangerous.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000
Main Number: 202-659-6000
Phone: 1-800-638-6582

5. Tony Perkins: Perkins is the President of the Family Research Council, a hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Council opposes abortion for any reason, believes homosexuality should be against the law, believes in teaching “intelligent design” in schools, and believes global warming is a hoax. FRC was listed as a hate group after it falsely linked gay males to pedophilia. It basically lobbies the government to make laws that govern our personal and private lives. The Council is a Christian Right-wing organization that has a heavy influence on the Republican Party, hence all the abortion laws being proposed by them.

Family Research Council
801 G Street, NW
Washington DC 20001
Phone: 1-800-225-4008

6. Pat Robertson: Robertson founded the Christian Coalition in 1989 and claims to be non-partisan. The problem with this claim is that it’s a bunch of crap. The Christian Coalition passes out “voter guides” in churches and yet is granted tax exempt status. It clearly supports a conservative agenda and is associated with Christian fundamentalism. It is yet another group that believes that America should be a Christian state. They are a threat to the Constitution.

Mailing address:
Christian Coalition of America
PO Box 37030
Washington, DC 20013-7030
Phone: 202-479-6900

7. Edwin Feulner, Jr.: Feulner is the President of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that took a leading role in the conservative movement during the 1980′s and continues to push conservative ideals today. The Foundation has strong ties to many Republican politicians, and many Heritage personnel members have gone on to serve in senior governmental roles. Not only does it stand by supply side economics and tax cuts for the rich and corporations which led to the current economic crisis, it also believes in a strong defense which has become more and more expensive. Heritage Foundation is also a part of the Koch Foundation Associate Program and is perhaps the most powerful public policy think tank on this list. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has taken money from the organization. It has far too much influence on American policy and that influence must be brought to an end.

The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington DC 20002-4999
Phone: 202-546-4400

8. Arthur Thompson: Thompson leads the radical right-wing John Birch Society, which is yet another organization that has Koch family connections. Founded in 1958 by Robert Welch, Jr., the John Birch Society is an anti-communism group that has pretty much denounced every liberal person and policy as socialist. It opposes the Civil Rights Act, the United Nations, and believes in immigration reduction. It aims to dismantle the Federal Reserve System and wants to return to the gold standard. The group is a sponsor of CPAC and is no longer exiled from the mainstream. Another interesting fact is that Fred Koch, father of the aforementioned Koch brothers, was a founding member.

John Birch Society
770 N. Westhill Blvd
Appleton, Wisconsin 54914
Phone: 920-749-3780

9. Rupert Murdoch: Known as “the man who owns the news”, Murdoch controls a vast media empire around the world including Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal here in America. Advertising his media outlets as “fair and balanced” Murdoch and his News Corporation relentlessly push conservative talking points and provide campaign donations to many Republicans running for various positions. News Corporation now has to answer for hacking cell phones and impeding investigations. Long the mouthpiece for Republican propaganda, Murdoch is a threat to Freedom of the Press and the foundations that keep America free.

If you want to contact News Corporation and tell them what you think of them, here is their contact information.

News Corporation
1211 Avenue of Americas
New York, New York 10036
Phone: 212-852-7000
Web: www.newscorp.com

10. Grover Norquist: Norquist is an especially dangerous individual. In fact, at the moment, he has the most influence on Republican congressmen. Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy and Norquist and his group, Americans For Tax Reform, have made sure Republicans continue to do so. 235 members of the House and 41 Senators signed the Norquist pledge to not raise taxes and now our economic future hangs in the balance. Norquist is basically calling the shots and holding America hostage on behalf of the rich. And he isn’t even an elected official.

Americans for Tax Reform
722 12th Street, NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Office: 202-785-0266
Fax: 202-785-0261

11. David Bossie: Citizens United isn’t just a bad Supreme Court ruling. Citizens United is the conservative organization that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of in 2008. Founded in 1988, located near Capitol Hill, and led by President and Chairman David Bossie, Citizens United’s goals include withdrawal from the United Nations, and defeat of campaign finance laws, among others. They also produce “documentaries” that serve the conservative agenda. The group is mostly a threat because of their fight to allow corporate ownership of elections. The Koch brothers, and many conservative think tanks and organizations have flooded elections with cash since the ruling. The Supreme Court decision alone is enough to put this dangerous organization and Bossie on the list.

Citizens United
1006 Pennsylvania Ave SE
Washington, DC 20003
Office: (202) 547-5420
Fax: (202) 547-5421

12. Tim LaHaye and Kenneth Cribb: Once again, you’ll notice that two people occupy this spot. After some thought, I decided this was necessary to avoid repetition. Tim Lahaye founded, and Kenneth Cribb is the current President of, the Council for National Policy. The CNP is a conservative organization for social conservative activists. Described by The New York Times as a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” the organization is perhaps the most powerful group on this list. Members include many who are already on this list such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, and Edwin Feulner Jr. What makes this group particularly dangerous is that they support theocracy and Dominionism as national policy. They are also incredibly secretive and that’s scary all by itself.

CNP is apparently so secret that no address or phone number is available, so you’ll have to email them.
info@cfnp.org

13. Steven J. Law: Law is President and CEO of American Crossroads, a conservative organization that has raised and spent tens of millions of dollars to defend and elect Republican candidates to federal office, and was very active in the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. Basically, Law and his group are listed because they have taken advantage of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the most since the ruling. The Kochs and Karl Rove have connections with the group and are a major reason why the House is under GOP control.

American Crossroads
P.O. Box 34413
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: ( 202) 559-6428. info@americancrossroads.org

14. James Dobson: Dobson is the Family Talk radio personality and Family Research Council founder that contributes greatly to all the hate we see from conservatives. A frequent guest on Fox News, he is perhaps the most influential religious leader on the Christian-Right even though he has never been ordained. Dobson believes that women should only focus on mothering (and probably cooking too) and is totally against gay rights. He supports private schools and special tax privileges for religious schools. He opposes sex education and only supports abstinence as the only technique for pregnancy prevention. Dobson is on this list because he is the one that began all of the anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-education speeches that are now commonplace in the Republican Party.

Family Talk Radio
540 Elkton Drive
Suite 201
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
Phone: 877-732-6825

15. Phyllis Schlafly: She is the only woman on this list. Undoubtedly, you may have thought that Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin would be, but they are not. I consider Palin and Bachmann mere pawns compared to Schlafly. As founder and President of the Eagle Forum, Schlafly opposes feminism and equal rights for women. Eagle Forum promotes a pro-life, anti-gay, anti-sex education, and anti-vaccination agenda that has contributed to the current wave of social conservative extremism in the Republican Party. She believes women should remain in the home and that there is no such things as marital rape. She is certainly the most influential woman in right-wing activism and as such, the most dangerous one too.

Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909 eagle@eagleforum.org

16. David Keene: Up to now David Keene led the American Conservative Union, which is the oldest operating conservative lobbying organization in the country. The ACU runs the event known as CPAC and spends money on lobbying and political campaigns. Keene is still the current President of the National Rifle Association. Which is also a strong lobbying group that is virtually an arm of the Republican Party that glorifies guns and believes that people should be able to carry guns anywhere they go, even near the President of the United States. Keene is mostly on this list because of the NRA. The NRA used to actually serve a valid purpose but has since become a pro-Republican political organization that has mixed guns and politics. It makes them a danger to the political process.

The American Conservative Union
1007 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-836-8602
Fax: 703-836-8606

National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: 1-800-672-3888

17. Tim Wildmon: Classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Family Association is headed by Tim Wildmon. AFA is just like every other conservative Christian group. It opposes abortion and gay rights, as well as other public policy goals such as deregulation of the oil industry and lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. The group has actively boycotted just about any business that disagrees with them. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the AFA released a video in which “God” tells a student that students were killed in schools because God isn’t allowed in schools anymore and blamed the shootings on abortion and lack of prayer in schools. AFA is against all other religions and has an obsession with Christmas, often boycotting companies that do not mention Christmas in their advertising. AFA is here on this list because they represent one of the biggest threats to intellectual and personal freedom in America.

Want to boycott AFA? Send them a “friendly” letter.

American Family Association
P.O. Box 3206
Tupelo, MS 38803

18. David Barton: Despite not having any history or law credentials David Barton passes himself off as an expert in early American history. Most of his claims have been disputed and written off as false by real historians. Barton’s organization is Wallbuilders, which seeks to destroy one the basic foundations of American life: the separation of church and state. Barton’s mission is to revise history in an effort to turn America into a Christian state with Biblical law instituted as the law of the land. He has also created false quotes to justify his claims. Barton is a danger to the history of America, the Constitution, and education.

WallBuilders
PO Box 397
Aledo, TX 76008
Phone: 817-441-6044

19. Noble Ellington: American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC. The Council is basically a pay to play organization that carries the corporate agenda into state legislatures across the country. They work to end unions, end environmental and labor regulations, and end consumer protection laws. ALEC has been funded by the Koch brothers for two decades. The price for corporate participation is an ALEC membership fee of as much as $25,000. For that price, corporations are basically writing the legislation that you are currently seeing being proposed and implemented in Republican controlled states across the country.

American Legislative Exchange Council
1101 Vermont Ave. N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202-466-3800
Fax: 202-466-3801

20. Edward H. Crane: Crane is the founder and current leader of the Cato Institute. While they have supported some liberal policies and claim to abhor neo-conservatives, the Cato Institute does push many objectives that should make everyone cringe. Among the various policies that Cato supports, privatizing Social Security, abolishing the minimum wage, abolishing affirmative action, and some environmental regulations, are among them. Of course, it’s understandable why Cato holds these positions considering Charles Koch is chairman of the board and a major funding source. Even Rupert Murdoch had a place on the board at one point which connects the Kochs and the right-wing media.

Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone: 202-842-0200
Fax: 202-842-3490

And there you have it. All of these people and their organizations pose a serious threat to the American people. They target women, senior citizens, minorities, homosexuals, non-Christians, and American workers.   Edited By: Alexis Atherton

Why Nancy Pelosi is Right to Slam Obama’s War on Pot By Stephen C. Webster

Pelosi’s willingness to call out Obama over the huge gap between his administration’s actions and past pledges shows how important and popular an issue medical marijuana really is.

President Barack Obama’s emphasis on raiding medical marijuana dispensaries drew a rebuke from none other than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) this week, who warned in a prepared statement that she has “strong concerns” about her political ally’s policy.

Since President Barack Obama took office, “more than 200″ state-approved medical marijuana facilities have been raided, according to Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), who spoke to Raw Story on Thursday.

“That exceeds the number of raids his predecessor, George W. Bush, oversaw during his entire eight years in office,” he said.

The startling statistic wasn’t lost on Pelosi either, whose statement comes just days after she received a petition by marijuana patients in her district.

“I have strong concerns about the recent actions by the federal government that threaten the safe access of medicinal marijuana to alleviate the suffering of patients in California, and undermine a policy that has been in place under which the federal government did not pursue individuals whose actions complied with state laws providing for medicinal marijuana,” she said.

“Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of life for patients with cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and other severe medical conditions,” she added. “I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to medicinal marijuana, including the American Nurses Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, and the AIDS Action Council. Medicinal marijuana alleviates some of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and nausea. The opportunity to ease the suffering of people who are seriously ill or enduring difficult and painful therapies is an opportunity we must not ignore.”

“We applaud Pelosi’s leadership in urging President Obama to address medical marijuana as a public health issue,” ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer said in a media advisory. “Rather than defending a policy of intolerance, President Obama should end his unnecessary and harmful attacks once and for all.”

“The fact that a Democratic congressional leader like Nancy Pelosi is willing to call out a president from her own party over the huge gap between his administration’s actions and its previous written pledges shows just how important and popular an issue medical marijuana really is,” added Nate Bradley, a former California police officer and current medical marijuana patient who works for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “Hopefully other elected representatives from California and other medical marijuana states will soon call on the president to get control of his federal agencies and stop breaking his campaign promises. It sure would be nice to hear Gov. Jerry Brown finally stand up in defense of our state’s duly enacted laws.”

Pelosi, who has long supported medical marijuana, is not alone in rebuking the Obama administration’s medical marijuana raids, but she is the highest ranking official to do so thus far.

The San Francisco Democratic Party passed a resolution (PDF) last week calling for Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to curb the raids, and nine other members of Congress wrote the administration late last year demanding more respect for states’ rights with regards to marijuana. There’s also a bill in the house, put forward by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), that would allow individual states to set their own policies with regards to marijuana.

They’ve got the American people behind them, too: a Gallup poll last year found that a record high 50 percent of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol. When asked about medical marijuana in a prior Gallup survey, the approval rating jumped to 70 percent.

Despite all the pressure, Obama — who’s admitted to trying marijuana previously — has said repeatedly he does not support legalization.

Jan Brewer Continues Assault On Women’s Health, Signs Legislation Banning Funding To Planned Parenthood

By Deborah Montesano

Arizona’s liberal former governor, and former United States Attorney, Janet Napolitano—who fended off all attacks on women through the power of the veto pen—was whisked off to Washington in 2008 by the Obama administration. She left us with her evil twin, Jan Brewer, that is, the former Secretary of State and now governor, who—at least as far as human rights are concerned—is the wicked witch of the West.

In the same mold as Texas Governor Rick Perry, she just signed legislation that bans Planned Parenthood from receiving state funds. Never mind that it has been repeatedly pointed out that only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s activity involves abortion. Never mind that Arizona already bans the use of state money to fund abortions. Never mind that thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for their basic health care.

No, Jan Brewer—with her community college certificate for radiological technologist (she never earned a degree)—knows best when it comes to the health care of women and the clump of cells they may or may not (since an Arizona pregnancy now begins with a woman’s last period) carry in their bodies. Her vast concern for children and their families is no doubt the reason why, in 2011, she signed a bill that eliminated Kids Care—the program that provided healthcare to thousands of uninsured children. Children who already exist on the face of the earth, and within the boundaries of her state. Brewer recently did an about-face, of sorts, on Kids Care and decided to reopen it to 22,000 children. Never mind that nearly 137,000 applicants are now on the waiting list.

Skipping right past all the other human rights violations the wicked witch has recently signed—like the anti-immigration bill, SB 1070—it’s fruitful to take a quick peek at Brewer’s past. As a member of the state legislature, she was a staunch defender of former governor Evan Mecham when, in 1988, he became the first Arizona governor to ever be impeached.  Mecham, too, was a notorious opponent of human rights, cancelling the Martin Luther King holiday and bringing the wrath of the nation down on his head. As with SB1070, the consequence of his action was a significant loss of revenue for the state as the cancellation of events poured in (His insistence on calling black children ‘pickaninnies’ didn’t help). Jan’s kindred soul was impeached after only 15 months in office on an obstruction of justice charge and for the misuse of state funds which he funneled to his car dealership.

One of the most productive things Brewer ever did was, as a state legislator, to support the creation of the office of Lieutenant Governor in Arizona. Her argument was that, while the Secretary of State was next in the line of succession for the governorship, holding the Secretary’s position did not qualify a person to be governor. Furthermore, she thought the Lieutenant Governor should be of the same party as the Governor. Of course, Brewer’s proposed bill was defeated. In Arizona, progress is nothing but a dirty word.

Let me fast forward to the outcome: Jan Brewer was the Republican Secretary of State when the Democratic Governor, Janet Napolitano, vacated the office—and, thus, left Jan Brewer in charge. There are many of us who rue the day of that bill’s defeat.

Do I sound angry?  Of course I do. I’m a woman. I live in Arizona. I feel threatened and under assault. I, like many of my compatriots, long for the days when Janet Napolitano occupied the office of governor. Please, Mr. President, give her back!

Culture Wars: Episode 2 – Attack Of The Homosexuals Or ‘How To Pick Apart Conservative Talking Points About Same Sex Marriage’ By Justin “Filthy Liberal Scum” Rosario

And you are possessed by stupidity

Since posting the first part of this trilogy, I’ve received many comments; the most prevalent has been “This was written by a straight guy?!” My favorite has been that the “shellfish gambit” is old and worn out. First, I would like to assure you, dear reader, that, yes, I am straight. I just spent a lot of time learning the ins and outs (hur hur hur) of homosexual life. It’s a useful thing to know if you spend a significant amount of time with a significant amount of homosexuals. And second, I can repeat, ad nauseam, that the sky is blue for one hundred years and the sky will not be any less blue and bigots hiding behind religion will not be any less insincere in their “beliefs.”

But let us take a closer look at the arguments presented by conservatives against same-sex marriage (and homosexuals in general) and how to dissect and debunk the propaganda. The following is from the Family Research Council[i] (and, yes, it was just as painful to read as you might imagine)

1. Children hunger for their biological parents – This excuse ties IVF or surrogacy by homosexual couples to a void in the child’s life. Somehow, it fails to mention heterosexual couples having the same problem. It also skips over adoption in any form. Until they denounce these widespread and socially acceptable practices as well, this argument is debunked.

2. Children need fathers – This excuse suggests that fatherless children are more likely to get into trouble and, more specifically, that teenage girls are more likely to have sex at an earlier age. While it is true that, statistically speaking, children being raised by a single mother do have more issues, we’re not talking about a single parent, are we? It’s not the fatherless aspect that does the most damage, it’s the absentee parent. That tidbit is skipped over.

3. Children need mothers – “mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants.” As a stay at home dad, I totally agree with this assessment. I’m a bumbling moron just like they show on TV which is what these people have obviously based their “research” on. Anytime you want to show me how much better you are at taking care of MY kids, come on down, you miserable pricks!

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate – And? I’m sure the same could have been said about multiracial couples back in the 50’s. One of the kids resulting from such an insufficiently researched pairing is the current President. I predict that within 50 years, we’ll have a President from a same-sex household and the only people who will care will be the (small) leftovers from the conservative movement.

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders – If by “disorder” you mean that they aren’t afraid to acknowledge being gay (and that is exactly what this is referring to) then yes, they are. Teaching a child to not be ashamed of who they are if they happen to be gay is a good thing. Is this not blindingly obvious? It doesn’t make them more likely to be gay, it makes them less likely to hide from it and be miserable.

6. Same-sex “marriage” would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage – The most overly generous estimate is that roughly 1 in 10 people are LGB.[ii]  With a population of about 307 million that would mean there are 30 million LGBs in the United States. According to the argument, the problem comes from gay men in civil unions of whom only 50% believe in a monogamous relationship. Let’s say EVERY single gay male (roughly 15 million, again, the very high end of the estimate) gets married and that only half of them believe in monogamy. Are you seriously going to suggest that 7.5 million gay men will have more of an impact on the institution of marriage than Newt’s two divorces, Rush’s three and all of the various celebrity break ups so richly detailed in the National Enquirer? I didn’t realize all the gay men I know wielded such power! I can only hope they use their power for gay good, not gay evil…

7. Same-sex “marriage” would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose – This was a trend long before anyone even considered legalizing same sex marriages. There’s a delightful racist bend to this argument as the statistic of “replacement fertility rate” (2.1) being too low in some European countries and Canada is tossed in to strengthen the necessity of tying marriage to reproduction. Last time I looked, the world’s population was increasing pretty rapidly so what could they be talking about? OH YEAH! We’re talking about the white fertility rate not keeping pace with those of a, shall we say, darker complexion. What? You thought a conservative talking point wouldn’t have at least a little racism?

Also, this would invalidate any marriage where one, or both, of the intended are infertile for any reason. My father is on wife number four (just like Rush!!) and he’s had a vasectomy since number two (I was the last born. I slipped in under the snip, so to speak). Should he be banned from marriage? How about a woman who has hit menopause? What about a person damaged by disease or accident? Should we strip them of their rights? Any takers?

8. Same-sex “marriage” would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment – Again, we are dealing with the fallacy that same-sex couples should be viewed as a single parent. What this excuse is suggesting is that men would more easily be able to justify abandoning a child since a lesbian couple “proves” that kids don’t need a father. Why anyone would consider a lesbian couple to be akin to a single mother is not explained. Honestly, anyone who has to stretch it that far was going to leave no matter what.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles – Men should make the money and women should stay at home with the kids. You know what? Screw you. I’ve been getting that crap since my wife and I first decided I would stay home and raise our children. The 1950s are over and “Father Knows Best” was an embarrassment best forgotten. My wife comes home to a delicious home cooked meal, happy, healthy children, a relatively clean house (I’m working on that!) and takes a packed lunch with her to her well-paying, secure job with excellent benefits and a pension. Sure, let’s screw with that to fit an outdated and misogynistic model.

10. Women and marriage domesticate men – “Men who are married (to a woman) earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.” So…angry…must…control…liberal…rage…ahh, the hell with it. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH GAY MEN?! BY DEFINITION THEY ARE NOT INCLINED TO MARRY A WOMAN ANYWAY SO THIS IS THE WORST ARGUMENT IN THIS ENTIRE RIDICULOUS LIST!!

I wish I could say that made me feel any better but knowing that there are people right now reading that utterly transparent list, nodding their heads sagely and saying “I knew it!” makes me despair of ever reaching through the programming.

But that doesn’t mean I won’t try! Stay tuned for the epic conclusion – Culture Wars: Episode Three – Revenge of the Rainbow or “Things conservatives say about homosexuals and why you should laugh at them for saying it.”

Billboard Comparing Me (And Probably You) To Unabomber Is Gone

By Wendy Gittleson

The Chicago based think tank, the Heartland Institute, temporarily launched a new billboard campaign designed to associate believers in climate change to terrorists like Ted Kaczynski – the Unabomber, Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages in the Discovery Channel studios). What do all of these people have in common, other than the fact that they are pretty much universally despised? They have all, at one time or another, expressed concern about global climate change, as do 62% of Americans, most of whom, presumably, have no body count.

On their website, the Heartland Institute explains why they chose those particular people:

Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. They are so similar, in fact, that a Web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his “Manifesto” and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.

The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.

Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants. But the Climategate scandal and the more recent Fakegate scandal revealed that the leaders of the global warming movement are willing to break the law and the rules of ethics to shut down scientific debate and implement their left-wing agendas.

Scientific, political, and public support for the theory of man-made global warming is collapsing. Most scientists and 60 percent of the general public (in the U.S.) do not believe man-made global warming is a problem. (Keep reading for proof of these statements.) The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.

Heartland pulled the campaign within 24 hours.

The site then goes on to say that the majority of scientists are not on board with man-made climate change.

No, this is just a myth that gets repeated over and over by global warming advocates. The alleged sources of this claim are two studies. One is a survey that didn’t ask if global warming is bad or even how much of past warming was man-made. That survey also excluded all but 79 (not a typo!) of the thousands of people who responded to it in order to arrive at the 98 percent figure.

The other study reported the number of times global warming alarmists and realists appeared in academic journals, and found that a small group of alarmists appeared hundreds of times. That doesn’t mean they are more likely to be right. In fact, there are many reasons why realists appear to be published less often than alarmists.

A detailed analysis of these two studies appears in this essay: “The Myth of the 98%.”

More broadly, the claim that there is a “scientific consensus” that global warming is both man-made and a serious problem is untrue. Sources used to document this claim invariably fail to do so, while more reliable surveys and examinations of the literature reveal that most scientists do not believe in the key scientific claims upon which global warming alarmism rests. For example, most scientists do not believe computer models are sufficiently reliable to make long-term forecasts of climate temperatures.

That goes to the very heart of the alarmists’ predictions and worries. For a detailed analysis of the claim of a “scientific consensus” on global warming, see this essay: “You Call This Consensus?”

Then the page back tracks, sort of. Are they saying that the majority of Americans are tyrants and killers?

Of course not. But we are saying that the ethics of many advocates of global warming are very suspect. Consider two recent scandals that exposed the way they think:

Climategate was the leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England in 2010 and 2011. The emails revealed a conspiracy to suppress debate, rig the peer review process to keep out of the leading academic journals any scientists skeptical of catastrophic man-caused global warming, hiding data, fudging research findings, and dodging Freedom of Information Act requests.

Fakegate was the theft in early 2012 of confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute by Dr. Peter Gleick, a leading climate scientist and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. Gleick admitted on February 20 to using a false identity to steal the documents and then disseminating them – along with a fake memo purporting to be Heartland’s “climate strategy” – to sympathetic bloggers and journalists.

Megan McArdle wrote this about Fakegate in The Atlantic: “Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it’s no good to say that people shouldn’t be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?”

Robert Tracinski wrote this at Real Clear Politics: “The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal–James Delingpole calls it Fakegate–shows just how desperate they have become.”

Poor judgement … believing the ends justify the means … desperation. Now do you see why we really shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Ted Kaczynski, and other famous criminals believe in global warming?

Before I dive into debunking virtually everything the Heartland Institute says, I’ll give you a little background into who they are. For lack of a better term, they are in the business of being anti-science for business. They made their name in the 90s by trying to claim that second-hand smoke was safe. Their funding comes from tobacco companies, technology companies, pharmaceutical companies, Anheuser-Busch, Pepsi, General Motors and others. Their board of directors is heavy with big oil. All of these industries financially benefit from making people believe that climate change is a myth, which as the majority of people and the vast consensus of climate scientists know, it is not. So, the Heartland Institute spends a lot of money to spin climate change as a myth. The bulk of Heartland’s funding comes from a single anonymous donor, possibly Chicago businessman and associate of the Koch brothers, Barre Seid.

The two main arguments that the Heartland Institute uses against climate change are “Fakegate” and “Climategate.” The most famous of the two “scandals” is climate gate. In 2009, some emails between British climate change researchers were leaked. Skeptics took these emails as evidence of data manipulation. It turns out that although the emails were kind of dickish, there’s no evidence of falsification or manipulation.

The second scandal, Fakegate, turned the tables, but it didn’t generate as many headlines as Climategate, so I’ll go into a bit more detail. On February 14th of this year, Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick leaked memos to the press that he claimed belonged to the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute denies that the memos are real. Peter Gleick has stepped down from his post, at least temporarily, but the reason given by the Pacific Institute was his means of obtaining the memos, which he admits was deceptive, not the accuracy of the memos.

From Time Magazine:

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name. For its part, the Heartland Institute claimed that the documents hadn’t been leaked from inside the group but had instead been obtained by an outsider who had posed as a board member. The organization also said that at least one of the six documents — a short memo claiming to be a summary of Heartland’s work on global warming — was a fake, and threatened legal action against the bloggers posting the documents.

“It doesn’t matter what you believe about climate change, or if you’re a liberal or a conservative,” Heartland president Joseph Bast wrote in an e-mailed press statement on Feb. 20. “You ought to understand and denounce this unethical behavior.”

As it turns out, Bast may have a point. On the evening of Feb. 20, Gleick revealed that he had sent the alleged Heartland memos to the climate reporters and analysts, and that he had used deception in order to obtain some of them. Writing in the Huffington Post, Gleick said that at the beginning of 2012 he had received an anonymous document in the ordinary mail that appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate-program strategy. He said he did not know the source of the document, so he tried to confirm the accuracy of the information. In an effort to do so, Gleick said he “solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone’s name.” He said those new documents confirmed the information in the original memo, and that he made no changes to any of the documents before sending them out anonymously. “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate,” Gleick wrote. “Nevertheless, I deeply regret my own actions in this case.”

Was Gleick unethical? Yes, but when much of the right studied at the “Andrew Breitbart school of journalism,” it can be argued that fire needs to be fought with fire. Is this case reason to discredit climate science? No.

Brendan Demelle of DeSmogBlog obtained strategy and other types of documents from Heartland. He lists them here. In January of this year, a memo allegedly said this,

“We will also pursue additional support from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. They returned as a Heartland donor in 2011 with a contribution of $200,000. We expect to push up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to their network of philanthropists, if our focus continues to align with their interests. Other contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.”

The memos reference strategy, including efforts to brainwash children. They also mention the works of Dr. Gleick:

“Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.” (emphasis added)

DeSmogBlog runs this disclaimer:

**The Heartland Institute alleges that the 2012 climate strategy document is a “fake” and has threatened the DeSmogBlog with legal action. However, the organization has not provided any proof to support its allegations. We see no basis in fact or law for us to remove this document, and will leave it available in the public interest.

What about the scientists that are themselves climate change deniers? First off, the word, “scientist” is a very broad term. Climate change deniers like to quote meteorologists as their scientists of choice. Overall, meteorologists are skeptical of climate change, with a 2010 report showing that only 24% of them believed that humans were responsible. They also list astrophysicists and more importantly, Heartland paid scientists, often quite a bit, to deny climate change.

The other reason that they like meteorologists is that they have audiences. The average person would probably be hard pressed to name a climatologist, but everyone knows the names of their local weather forecasters.

The problem, of course, is that meteorologists are not climatologists. Climatologists typically have PhDs. Meteorologists often train on the job. Even the most educated meteorologists are trained to predict the weather, not the core of the earth and the temperature of the oceans. A good analogy might be to compare anthropologists to physicians. Physicians work with patients to diagnose specific conditions. Anthropologists study human history and sometimes make evolutionary predictions. Physicians, like meteorologists, work with a snapshot in time, the present, with data and knowledge from the past. Anthropologists, like climatologists, study time. Of course, this sort of denial of geological history could explain that many of the same people who are skeptical of climate change are also skeptical of evolution.

In 2008, an invitation to participate in a climate change survey was sent to 10,257 earth scientists, which they list as, “all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).”

The survey was intentionally short, just two questions, in order to prompt more people to respond. The two questions were: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

These questions are quick and to the point, but you can’t deny that they are the two questions that are discussed when discussing global climate change. Well, you can’t deny that those are the two questions unless you belong to the Heartland Institute. Oddly, Heartland concedes that even skeptics would agree with those two questions (even number two?). Their complaint is,

Even worse than the sample size, though, is the complete irrelevance of the questions asked in the survey to the real debate taking place about climate change. Most skeptics would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would.

At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net, and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing the human contribution will outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing it. The survey is silent on these questions.

So we should now be debating whether or not the fact that humans are changing the earth’s climate is a good thing? It seems to me, climate deniers, you have now lost the debate if that’s the best you’ve got. Secondly how would an earth scientist be able to run cost/benefit analyses? That is yet another scientific discipline.

But let’s get back to the methodology that Heartland is screaming about. The survey received a response rate of about 30% (3,146 scientists), which is pretty normal for that sort of survey. Heartland claims that only 5% of the respondents self-identified as climate scientists. That’s true, but it ignores the other relevant disciplines that were questioned.

With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Every one of these disciplines studies changes to the earth and to its oceans. The result of the study was that 90% of participants answered “yes” to question one and 82% answered “yes” to question two. Of the roughly 79 that specifically called themselves climate scientists, the answer was even more conclusive, 96% said “yes” to question one and 97% answered “yes” to question two.

The controversial billboard is now down. It might take a while to learn exactly why they took it down, but the fact remains, by comparing people like these scientists and the majority of the American people to notorious “bad guys” does nothing to help their cause.

Carmelo Anthony scores 41 as NY Knicks force Game 5 with Miami Heat; Dwyane Wade misses 3 at buzzer

KNICKS 89, HEAT 87

The longest streak is over, Baron Davis is done but the Knicks live to see another day. Barely.

Dwyane Wade came up short on a last-second 3-pointer as the Knicks, with Carmelo Anthony and Amar’e Stoudemire missing key free throws in the final minute, survived for an 89-87 Game 4 victory.

By avoiding the sweep, the Knicks won their first playoff game since April 29, 2001. They had lost an NBA record 13 straight postseason games. Game 5 is Wednesday in Miami at 7 p.m. No team in NBA history has ever come back from a 3-0 series deficit.

Anthony led all scorers with 41 points including the go-ahead 3-pointer with 54.5 seconds left that made it 87-84. Anthony was then fouled shooting a three but he missed two of three free throws and LeBron James answered with a three-point play with 20.9 seconds left.

Then after Stoudemire, playing despite a cut on his left hand, missed the second of two free throws to give Miami a chance Wade’s pull-up three over Landry Fields fell short. The Knicks, who are already playing without Iman Shumpert, lost Davis for the rest of the series when he suffered a dislocated patella in the third quarter.

Davis had to be carried off the court in a stretcher and his season is likely done. His replacement, Mike Bibby, hit two 3-pointers — including a corner three with 1:23 left that gave the Knicks an 84-81 lead before LeBron answered with a three.

It is unclear if Jeremy Lin, who has been sidelined since March 24, will be available for Game 5. A determination on Lin’s status won’t be made until at least Tuesday.

Stoudemire, who missed Game 3 after needed surgery to repair a cut on his left hand, finished with 20 points and 10 rebounds. Anthony made 15 of 29 shots and scored 12 fourth quarter points.

James led the Heat with 27 on 9-for-21 shooting. Wade added 22 and Chris Bosh scored 17. The Heat converted just 3 of 19 3-pointers compared to 5-for-22 for the Knicks.

After holding the Knicks to 30 points in the second half of Game 3, Miami kept them off the scoreboard for the first five minutes of the second period. Miami opened the quarter on a 12-0 run and led 30-20 before Josh Harrellson‘s ended the drought on a driving lay-up with 6:46 left in the half.

The quarter had no pace or flow as the game turned into a free throw shooting contest. Miami, which didn’t go to the line once in the opening period, attempted 19 in the second quarter compared to nine for the Knicks.

If it were a 3-point shooting contest, it would dead even. The teams were a combined 0-for-17 from behind the arc, which Mike Miller accounting for four of the Heat’s nine misses. Steve Novak failed to attempt a single 3-pointer as Miami refused to give the Knicks’ best long range shooter open looks.

The first 3-pointer didn’t come until there was 5:32 remaining when Smith stole a pass from Bosh and hit a turnaround from the corner. The basket capped a 10-3 Knicks run as Miami, which had led by 11, went nearly seven minutes without a field goal.

The Knicks lost Davis to a knee injury during the quarter and his replacement, Bibby, hit an open 3-pointer that helped the Knicks build a 64-58 lead before LeBron’s three made it 64-61 entering the fourth.

Wade’s lay-up with 2:27 to play gave Miami’s its last lead at 81-79 but the Knicks outscored the Heat 10-6 over the last 2:03, including six points from Anthony who was mostly guarded by Shane Battier down the stretch and not James.

BY FRANK ISOLA

AFA Spokesman Bryan Fischer Says Mitt Romney Will Be A Pushover As President

I almost feel sorry for Romney..Can you imasgine how hard it was to make it to adulthood being as clueless, spineless & mindless as him? On that note, let’s call the GOP, it’s supporters & Romney for what it really is this Campaign year:

Ted Nugent: Hitless

Massachusets: Gritless

The White House: Mittless.

It’s not often you hear an extreme right-wing talk show host slam the Republican Presidential nominee, but this time, Bryan Fischer made an exception for Mitt Romney. During his show on Saturday, Fischer bludgeoned Romney over his complete lack of leadership and tendency to become a pushover.

Fischer attacked Romney because of the forced resignation of Richard Grenell, the gay foreign policy spokesman hired by the Romney campaign. After taking heavy criticism from anti-gay conservatives, Grenell resigned after only two weeks on the job. Romney never once defended Grenell, nor did he offer any public support. He merely caved in to the demands of conservative groups, including Fischer and the American Family Association, which leads us to Bryan Fischer on Saturday.

Fischer was genuinely dismayed at how easy it was to control Romney like a marionette puppet, essentially calling him out for being a weak leader who could be led by the nose on the international stage by China, Russia, North Korea, and maybe even Iran.

According to Fischer,⁠

“If Mitt Romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, co-opted by a conservative radio talk show host in Middle America, then how is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin? How is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me? I don’t think Romney is realizing the doubts that this begins to raise about his leadership.”

As unlikely as it sounds, a hardcore religious right-wing conservative voice is casting doubt about Romney’s leadership ability. The man basically just admitted that if Romney can’t stand up to a radio host, he could certainly be intimidated by tough and dangerous foreign leaders. This is in stark contrast to President Obama, who has shown the ability to stand against his own party and be a world leader at the same time.

Earlier this year at CPAC, Grover Norquist said that conservatives should elect a President they can use as a puppet. Romney is clearly that guy. He’s that guy because he couldn’t even withstand a week or two of pressure by right-wing activists before allowing Grenell to resign. How does this make us believe that Romney has a mind of his own? When a guy as conservative as Bryan Fischer says Romney is too weak and too puppet-like, that’s definitely worth sounding the alarm for.

Humorists, politicians, writers, journalists, comedians, and even US Presidents have left us with many quotes about the right wing. Here are just 33 of them. If you’re a liberal, these are well worth book marking. If you’re a conservative, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

1. “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
~Barry Goldwater

2. “I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.”

~Alexis de Tocqueville

3. “Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals.”
~Mark Twain

4. “Conservatism discards Prescription, shrinks from Principle, disavows Progress; having rejected all respect for antiquity, it offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future.”
~Benjamin Disraeli

5. “Have you ever wondered why Republicans are so interested in encouraging people to volunteer in their communities? It’s because volunteers work for no pay. Republicans have been trying to get people to work for no pay for a long time.”
~George Carlin

6. “Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home–but not for housing. They are strong for labor–but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage–the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all–but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine–for people who can afford them. They consider electrical power a great blessing–but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They think American standard of living is a fine thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.”
~Harry S. Truman

7. “Republicans are men of narrow vision, who are afraid of the future.”
~Jimmy Carter

8. “Latins for Republicans – it’s like roaches for Raid.”
~John Leguizamo

9. “A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.”
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

10. “A conservative is a man who just sits and thinks, mostly sits.”
~Woodrow Wilson

11. “I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts.”
~Bill Clinton

12. “A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt.”
~Woodrow Wilson

13. “A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy.”
~Benjamin Disraeli

14. “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop!’.”
~William F. Buckley, Jr.

15. “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
~John Stuart Mill

16. “Even as someone who’s labeled a conservative – I’m a Republican, I’m black, I’m heading up this organization in the Reagan administration – I can say that conservatives don’t exactly break their necks to tell blacks that they’re welcome.”
~Clarence Thomas

17. “In the United States I have always believed that there was a big difference between Conservative and stupid. Boy is it getting harder to prove that one by the minute.”
~Rick Mercer

18. “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
~John Kenneth Galbraith

19. “When a nation’s young men are conservative, its funeral bell is already rung.”
~Henry Ward Beecher

20. “I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who’s hitting you? It’s about time that the people of America realized what the Republicans have been doing to them.”
~Harry Truman

21. “In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
~H. L. Mencken

22. “A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they’re dead.”
~Leo Rosten

23. “Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.”
~George Will

24. “The Republicans are looking after the financial interests of the wealthiest individuals in this country.”
~Edward Kennedy

25. “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”
~William E. Gladstone

26. “Republicans don’t like people who talk about depressions. You can hardly blame them for that. You remember the old saying: Don’t talk about rope in the house where somebody has been hanged.”
~Harry Truman

27. “You have to have been a Republican to know how good it is to be a Democrat.”
~Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis

28. “Brains, you know, are suspect in the Republican Party.”
~Walter J. Lippmann

29. “Herbert Hoover once ran on the slogan, “Two cars in every garage”. Apparently, the Republican candidate this year is running on the slogan, “Two families in every garage”.”
~Harry Truman

30. “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself.”
~Harry Truman

31. “Democrats legislate; Republicans investigate.”
~Lyndon Johnson

32. “A gathering of Democrats is more sweaty, disorderly, offhand, and rowdy than a gathering of Republicans; it is also likely to be more cheerful, imaginative, tolerant of dissent, and skillful at the game of give-and-take. A gathering of Republicans is more respectable, sober, purposeful, and businesslike than a gathering of Democrats; it is also likely to be more self-righteous, pompous, cut-and-dried, and just plain boring.”
~Clinton Rossiter

33. “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then get elected and prove it.”
~P.J. O’Rourke

The typical conservative is one who opposes all progress. They are paranoid, enjoy using fear to control others, and in most cases have no clue what they are talking about. They hate facts, hate government, and do not believe in contributing to society. Conservatives cling to the failed policies and traditions of the past and are willing to use the threat of violence at times to return to them. Many of these quotes were meant to be funny, but it turns out the humorous quotes were quite accurate. The rest of the quotes were just bluntly truthful. In the spirit of this list, however, I’d like to add a quote of my own that describes today’s conservatives to a tee.

Conservatives remind me of Yosemite Sam, Wile E. Coyote, and Elmer Fudd. They bring the guns, the stupidity, and of course, the failure.

Sorry conservatives, it had to be said.