Tag: Rant of the Week

It’s all about the money.

Rachel Maddow calls out Politico for not reporting ‘real news’

Partial transcript below h/t TheCallUp @ FDL

Sadly, we have come to this: voting for the lesser of two evils.

Cops Negotiating with Bank Robbers

Imagine the cops busting a bank robber who made off with millions and then writing him a parking ticket and telling him to have a nice day. That is essentially how the Feds treated the man behind one of the biggest frauds in American history.

New Rule: The Only Difference Between DeMint and Fred Phelps is DeMint is Afraid to Carry the Sign

h/t Video Cafe @ Crooks & Liars

Rube Goldberg, himself, could not have designed a more convoluted method to, in fact, fuck us. . . . .

Thank you, President Obama. You know it’s crazy when getting back to square one feels like a victory

The Word – Original Spin

Justice Scalia: “A lot of stupid stuff is perfectly constitutional.”

   You know what else is insane folks? All the special rights minorities are asking for these days. Gay Americans want the right to be married in California. Mexican Americans want the right to drive through Arizona. And Muslim Americans want the right to be Muslims.

   But if we keep giving the rights, there will be fewer rights left for us. That’s just mad. Well luckily there is a way to preserve our rights and it brings us to tonight’s Word-Original Spin.

   Folks, these bogus rights are being dished out by activist judges who claim the Constitution is a “living document” that’s transformed every time society shifts its views on an issue, like gay rights, or how many fifths of me a black person is worth.

   To them, it just magically changes, as if James Madison wrote the Constitution on an Etch A Sketch. But I say… I say a document should never change its meaning unless it’s your health insurance policy and you just got sick.

   Now Supreme Court and shaved walrus Antonin Scalia agrees with me on this. He’s what’s called a Constitutional originalist saying “I interpret (the Constitution) the say it was understood by society at the time.”

   I’ve always said a good Supreme Court Justice is a Constitutional scholar first… a time traveling mind reader second. And as an originalist Scalia argues that the idea that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment protects women’s’ rights is a “modern invention” because he says in 1868 when it was written “Nobody thought it was directed against sex discrimination.”

   Evidentially back then women hadn’t been invented yet. Plus the 14th Amendment was created to protect the rights of newly freed slaves. That’s why it strictly limits equal protection under the law to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

   So all Scalia is saying is that women aren’t persons. […]

   And gays, you don’t have any protections from sexual discrimination either. Back in the 1860’s there were no gay people.