So... I happen to know someone who knows a certain holier-than-thou beauty pageant contestant who says... that said holier-than-thou contestant got together with her stepbrother....
That's all I'm gonna say.
This shoe will drop eventually, you heard it here first.

So- we all know that the greenhouse effect is real, and that it is causing climate change.  I remember environmental scientists back in the mid-90s trying to get the enlightened to say "climate change" instead of "global warming" because they worried that exceptionally cold winters, drastic floods, etc., would seem to undermine the theory in the minds of the public if the phenomenon was referred to as "global warming." 
(My opinion is that awareness of the problem of the ozone layer was helped by the term "hole in the ozone layer," and that some in the environmental community felt that "climate change" was too tame to get people actively solving the problem.)
Are those who mock climate science unaware that an exceptionally cold winter actually HELPS PROVE the hypothesis?  Or do they know that they are advancing nonsense but don't care as long as it improves their credibility with the scientifically ignorant?

The always absurdly stupid Erick Erickson is today's clown:
www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/19/links-for-2009-10-19/
(In which the low temperature in Macon, Georgia is taken for evidence against climate change.)
I have been watching this for a while and I really am confused.  I mean, conservatives do tend to hate science, so maybe they really don't know... I thought I'd put this out there and see what you think.

An interesting piece in a conservative faux-watchdog site attempts to take Maddow to task for having the audacity to correct Dick Armey's oft-debunked falsehood regarding the "Hitler" ad someone made for MoveOn.org.  Armey clearly accused the website of "RUNNING those ads that compared Bush to Hitler."  Gregory should have interrupted him, but since he doesn't know what he's talking about, Maddow did.
Newsbusters attempts to do damage control over the shellacking their Republican puffball had to endure:

As such, this disgusting piece was indeed displayed at MoveOn's website for an undetermined period of time, but never ran on television.

Who's right: Maddow or Armey?

Uh... well, since Armey said that "MoveOn.org RAN those ads," and hmmm, let's see your own analysis says that the ad was "displayed...for an undetermined period of time but NEVER RAN,"  that would suggest that Armey was uh... wrong.... by your own reasoning....

Am I missing something or is this Noel Sheppard a pathetic hack?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/17/maddow-armey-squabble-over-bush-hitler-ad

Cnn ran a BBC report on an MP who, upon attending a constituent's wedding at the London Muslim Center, was told he and his wife would have to be separated for the service.  The MP decided not to attend, Breitbart embedded it, and a story on the complex issue of multicultural pluralism becomes a story of...

(Selected from a total of 21 comments)

Trent   August 15th, 2009 - 9:23 am

This is the result of the lies told to Whites by primarily J3ws that everyone is the same. This is used to lull Whites to sleep about massive non-White immigration. Funny that these non-Whites don't want to go to other non-White countries.

Craig Allen   August 15th, 2009 - 11:11 am

cecil91 says, "the lefty Brits expect"

Apparently it hasn't dawned on you that the errant founding fathers of these United States made muslims a protected class in this nation!

Protected by the contstitution.

And NOW, the likes of Sotomeyer can look the other way when they enforce sharia law, since it is a practice of their religion. Thus, sharia law, and it's enforcement, is protected, by the United Snakes constitution.

Check and Mate!

Satan loves the constitution of the United Snakes, and he knows how to use it!

Adam   August 15th, 2009 - 6:44 pm

More disturbing is why this Scottish fool is a Member of Parliament for Canning Town - which is about 350 miles from Scotland.

The Scottish have effectively executed a complete takedown of the United Kingdom. Revenge perhaps for their subjugation.

I'd like to see the Farming Minister and his wife in Burkas sooner rather than later. They asked for it by letting in all those deranged Muslims.

Norm   August 15th, 2009 - 7:43 pm

Wait till numb nuts finds out that by leaving early he subjected himself to Islamic Law and is now legally married to the bint himself.

SenatorMark4   August 15th, 2009 - 10:17 am

At least this MP showed that he has some small beliefs. The issue is whether or not he would support the separation of children in the schools when that inevitably arises. These believers do not understand democracy or the rights of man and believe that however their mullah interprets the "Word of God" can be IMPOSED on everyone as soon as they are in the majority in any area. If not the majority, bomb the majority until they tire of your whining and decide that knuckling under is safer than standing up. Somebody should propose a law that every public meeting involving muslim issues be segregated and FORCE a court review if it passes. That will finally force our leaders to fall off the fence and we'll finally know what they believe...freedom or their phoney-baloney jobs.

cecil91   August 15th, 2009 - 10:22 am

Yes, whatever did the lefty Brits expect? For decades they have been intent on changing the culture of their once great country with mass immigration from Muslim countries. You did it to yourselves, now live with it.

Harry   August 15th, 2009 - 10:35 am

This is very old. It's a 7th century religion being practiced in the 21st century.

www.breitbart.tv/british-mp-walks-out-of-islamic-wedding-that-segregated-men-and-women/

.Can big media start calling these people out, please?

Still, I would contend that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda are not as dangerous as America's liberals. The Islamic terrorists can only kill so many people, but those on the Left are doing everything in their power to eviscerate America. Cap and Trade can destroy our industrial might; Obama's trillion dollar stimulus programs combined with his delusional health care plan will not only bankrupt our nation, but lead inevitably to a rate of inflation that will impress even Jimmy Carter; and the budget cuts directed at our military and our missile defense system will make us increasingly vulnerable to our various enemies.

townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/08/10/the_straight_talk_on_islam

In case you were wondering how the low-hanging wingnuts over at RedState were handling the non-story about Obama's legitimacy... Yesterday...

I think Barack Obama is a natural born American citizen because his mother was indisputably an American citizen. I think he meets the residency requirements. And I think that Justice Scalia himself would not throw the President out of office now that he has been sworn in.

The issue is moot.

Not.. "The president was born in Hawaii in 1961" or anything like that... simply "it's moot."

December 4 2008:

      [In re Birth certificate non-issue:]

Now that it is making legitimate headlines, let me offer my very firm opinion on the matter.

(1) There is reasonable doubt on the issue...

So perhaps there is some blowback from on high at the RNC,  and perhaps the oh-so-patriotic folks over at Redstate are trying to shut up their mainstream fringe, but they still can't just say "these people are nuts."  It's "there is doubt, but we should ignore it because it's a distraction."  (And they want to lecture us on civic and community values...So I guess even Ann Coulter has more sense than Erick Erickson.  Bravo, Ann!

World Net Daily breathlessly recounts all the legal attempts to force the President-elect to "prove" his natural-born-citizenship.  The details of the New Jersey case:

In {case}, retired attorney and New Jersey resident Leo. C. Donofrio asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay on Nov. 3 prohibiting three candidates from appearing on New Jersey's ballots: Republican candidate John McCain, Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Socialist Worker's Party candidate Roger Calero.

Donofrio claimed the candidates are not "natural born citizens" as enumerated in Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which states, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

He wrote, Obama is not eligible for the presidency "even if it were proved he was born in Hawaii, since ... Senator Obama's father was born in Kenya

and therefore, having been born with split and competing loyalties, candidate Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' ..."

So... anyone whose parents were born outside the US is ineligible for the presidency now?

Some guy named Burt Prelutsky writes:

What amazes me is that in spite of Barack Obama's having close ties to the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, most Jews will happily march out on election day and vote for the man. It simply amazes me that for two thousand years, my fellow Jews insisted that there was no messiah and, suddenly, they've decided there is one. And oddly enough, that he's a junior senator from Illinois.

The level of inanity is overwhelming.  A 20-page essay could be written about the stupidity of this.  I'm not going to write that essay, but I thought TPMers might agree that this is, even for this election, an amazing piece of asshattery. The mind reels.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/10/31/11408_a_day_of_infamy

 

Over at RedState, some dude is arguing that Obama is "ashamed" of Biden....

Even in the masthead, Biden is placed behind Obama and smaller.

While McCain gives his running mate PROPER billing...

in the masthead, Palin is photoshopped behind McCain, but close to him and the same size.

So... apparently it's bad for Obama... that... he's the focus of his own presidential campaign.  REAL candidates for Prez... are overshadowed... by their running mates.
Thought I'd share the nuttery.  I think that the Palin-love has made our opponents, oh what's the word- crazy.

If:
A) liberals are socialists/Marxists/communists; and
B) The above are "anti-capitalists," and
C) The media is run by "corporations," and
D) The above are "pro-capitalists,"
Then....
How can "media" = "liberal"?
I've listened to Rush for fifteen years and I still can't figure it out....

Please respond without the use of the words "Hollywood" or "New York."

Here is the only explanation I can come up with:

GE is secretly run by communists.
Any others?

So many people overposted and clogged the feed that I'm selfishly putting this back up....

Brainstorming exercise:
You are Karl Rove.  Your candidate has no appeal and you will lose an election soon unless one of your trademark low-blow "Swiftboat"-style rumors stuns your opponent.  Some of your previous work includes: whispering campaigns accusing Ann Richards of being a closet lesbian, accusations that John Kerry faked his bravery in the Mekong Delta, and insinuations that your current (!)candidate rears illegitmate children of color. The problem is that many of these types of attacks have already been leveled at your opponent and yet his reputation remains intact.
Is there a Swiftboat-style attack that has not yet been used against Obama/Biden?
How can your candidate use their VP choice to make this attack?

SO- that's my line of reasoning.  Just throwing my answer to the above brainstorm up the flagpole and seeing who salutes.  Again, I hope I'm wrong.

  American presidential candidates with unorthodox Protestant backgrounds have generally been immune to religious attacks on the campaign trail.  Lincoln's irreverent attitude toward organized religion, Taft's Unitarianism, and Obama' s relationship with Wright are all examples of bases for religious-based attacks on Protestant presidential candidates.  Nobody really cared in the end that Taft was a Unitarian or that Lincoln liked to mock revivalist preachers for swinging their arms as though "they were fighting a swarm of bees."  Obama's Wright fallout has been significant but similarly dismissed as an inappopriate attack on a candidate's relationship with his pastor.
However; as 2004 showed us, pro-choice Catholics are more susceptible to a religious-based attack.  Conservative media is busy hyping Biden's pro-choice views and the the denial of communion by some priests  to pro-choice politicians.  The current pope has shown his willingness to hamper Catholic Democrats' election chances and some bishops are even hinting at excommunicating pro-choice churchgoers.  As I recall, there is ample evidence that such tactics worked against Kerry's share of the Catholic vote significantly in the last presidential election.
So we must assume Biden's pro-choice views and his relationship with his church must be dealt with delicately for Republicans have shown that they consider this a valid line of attack, despite its consequences to the social fabric of our society.
Enter Sarah Palin.
I believe that Sarah Palin will be used by the McCain campaign to exploit this. 
It's the one swiftboat-style attack left against the Obama/Biden camp and I think the McCain people consider her to be the perfect person to deliver it.
It will be mostly through surrogates such as Hannity, of course.  Her job will basically be to convince Catholics that they will, uh... go to hell if they vote for Obama while encouraging the perception that Biden is anathema to his own church.  Anyone reading this knows what I'm talking about and what kind of evidence will be proferred to show Palin's superior morality and reverence for life.
Long story short, Biden better be ready for a direct and viciously insulting attack on his relationship with the Catholic Church TO HIS FACE during the debate.
It will be delivered by a smiling, young, attractive, female governor of Alaska whose relationship with the Almighty cannot be questioned.
That's one way it could go down.

Brainstorming exercise:
You are Karl Rove.  Your candidate has no appeal and you will lose an election soon unless one of your trademark low-blow "Swiftboat"-style rumors stuns your opponent.  Some of your previous work includes: whispering campaigns accusing Ann Richards of being a closet lesbian, accusations that John Kerry faked his bravery in the Mekong Delta, and insinuations that your current (!)candidate rears illegitmate children of color. The problem is that many of these types of attacks have already been leveled at your opponent and yet his reputation remains intact.
Is there a Swiftboat-style attack that has not yet been used against Obama/Biden?
How can your candidate use their VP choice to make this attack?

SO- that's my line of reasoning.  Just throwing my answer to the above brainstorm up the flagpole and seeing who salutes.  Again, I hope I'm wrong.

I am not doing research for this post, but basically:  American presidential candidates with unorthodox Protestant backgrounds have generally been immune to religious attacks on the campaign trail.  Lincoln's irreverent attitude toward organized religion, Taft's Unitarianism, and Obama' s relationship with Wright are all examples of bases for religious-based attacks on Protestant presidential candidates.  Nobody really cared in the end that Taft was a Unitarian or that Lincoln liked to mock revivalist preachers for swinging their arms as though "they were fighting a swarm of bees."  Obama's Wright fallout has been significant but similarly dismissed as an inappopriate attack on a candidate's relationship with his pastor.
However; as 2004 showed us, pro-choice Catholics are more susceptible to a religious-based attack.  Conservative media is busy hyping Biden's pro-choice views and the the denial of communion by some priests  to pro-choice politicians.  The current pope has shown his willingness to hamper Catholic Democrats' election chances and some bishops are even hinting at excommunicating pro-choice churchgoers.  As I recall, there is ample evidence that such tactics worked against Kerry's share of the Catholic vote significantly in the last presidential election.
So we must assume Biden's pro-choice views and his relationship with his church must be dealt with delicately for Republicans have shown that they consider this a valid line of attack, despite its consequences to the social fabric of our society.
Enter Sarah Palin.
I believe that Sarah Palin will be used by the McCain campaign to exploit this. 
It's the one swiftboat-style attack left against the Obama/Biden camp and I think the McCain people consider her to be the perfect person to deliver it.
It will be mostly through surrogates such as Hannity, of course.  Her job will basically be to convince Catholics that they will, uh... go to hell if they vote for Obama.  Anyone reading this knows what I'm talking about and what kind of evidence will be proferred to show Palin's superior morality and reverence for life.
Long story short, Biden better be ready for a direct and viciously insulting attack on his relationship with the Catholic Church TO HIS FACE during the debate.
It will be delivered by a smiling, young, attractive, female governor of Alaska whose relationship with the Almighty cannot be questioned.