Jay, probably the least educated of the StopTheACLU.com bloggers (not an easy achievement), recently returned from some sort of vacation and wasted no time in re-establishing his laughable bias, flair for blatant lying, and far-flung hypocrisy.

Perhaps the best example is this post, in which Jay expresses outrage over the ACLU of Eastern Missouri's lawsuit against South Iron Schools. The suit alleges that the school district should not allow Gideons to hand out Bibles and proselytize during class time, as the Gids have been permitted to do here for years. Clearly the ACLU is in the right here -- and there's even a local legal precdent, as the ACLU expunged Gideon operatives in Smithville, Mo. two years ago -- but Jay, what with his desire to wrap his lips around the long-dead cock of Christ and his refusal to acknowledge the realities of the Establishment Clause, is naturally tweaked. Here's his reasoning:

"If the school decides to remove a communist propaganda book from the library shelves you can count on the ACLU to fight it crying “book ban”. If students are being required to take Muslim names, play jihad games, and bow down in the direction of Mecca you can count on the ACLU to be silent. But when it comes to a tiny New Testament being distributed to students the ACLU think it is unconsititutional."

As usual, he's completely full of shit. (That Jay will never, ever figure out that "ACLU" is singular is another matter, but testifies to his galactic stupidity.) The book he refers to as "communist propaganda" is anything but, but Jay -- in accordance with his nonexistent standards regarding fact-checking -- never bothered looking into the case, preferring instead to trumpet the same bullshit he saw on other fucktard-operated sites. Furthermore, he doesn't acknowledge the difference between making something available for independent student review and Christians reading from their own religious text during class.

His example concerning Islam is equally shoddy for two reasons. One, teaching about a religion is not synonymous with promoting it. And two, while I think such a curriculum is indeed sketchy, Jay's claim that students were "required" to do any of the things he said they were is more bullshit, which is to be expected when an incurious mongoloid relies exclusively on Wingnut Daily, Bill O'Reilly, and the Thomas More Law Center for background information.

But for all his ignorance, Jay is still fun to watch in action because of his eagerness to jam his own feet in his mouth. A great example is his asking (with no question mark) "Do (liberals) really hate America or are they just that stupid" just before writing a post that -- content aside -- contains an amazing plethora of spelling and usage errors. Dude, no one is going to attempt the impossible and force you to learn English or to think rationally or critically. But for cunt's sake, have some pride and don't call anyone else stupid anymore. Every time you do you, it's as though an Islamic suicide bomber is calling others crazy for putting stock in their horoscopes.

UPDATE: At a quarter to eleven on Wednesday night I left the fellas a trackback to this post. Let's see how long it survives Lobo's fundie-fuck comment hatchet.


Every Sunday, StopTheACLU.com posts a "funny" cartoon that spuriously attacks a liberal straw man of some sort. Drawing inspiration from this example, I offer a graphic of my own.

Also, be sure to watch for Carolyn Hileman's response to the comments from one Pablo Sanchez beneath another rhetorical piss-puddle from the one 'n' only Texas Cunt. In case she deletes Pablo's comments, they read, with the Cunt's original words in quotes:

“don’t worry about people retaliating against you, they wouldn’t dare that would be considered intolerant.”

Funny — I thought the very reason the U.S. has been waging a costly, ineffective war for several years now was to retaliate against terrorists (who aren’t in Iraq after all, but who cares, right?).

“they can spit on our Bible, tear out the pages, burn it and no one will stand up and stop it.”

Perhaps because it’s not against the law, oh lover of liberty, democracy and the American way?


Dearest Carolyn,

Well, just as I'd decided you couldn't possibly present yourself as being any dumber, you go and impress me with a series of egregiously mindless blog entries. I have some questions pertaining to these, which I'll list below.
  • In this burst of mawkish, ersatz patriotism, you quote the lyrics of the final stanza of "The Star-Spangled Banner" thusly: "Ore the land of the free and the home of the brave." Now, perhaps our national anthem has some connection to the mining industry I'm not aware of, but I always thought that the correct words were "O'er the land of the free...", "o'er" being a poetic form of "over." I'd like your scholarly thoughts on this.
  • In the same entry, you state that "You [meaning Americans] were granted by God almighty the wonderful chance to grow up free, without being afraid of bombs going off in the market and busses exploding in the street." I'm wondering why you failed to mention skyscrapers and jetliners, which "God almighty" evidently doesn't give a rip-roaring fuck about.
  • Later in the same entry, you write: "We owe respect to that old flag that hung outside your parent’s house for it has seen them through times we cannot even begin to imagine." I'm wondering why it is you believe that your readers have only one parent apiece. Do you figure everyone has only a mother or do we each have only a father? Or perhaps there's an equal split between the two? Do share.
  • The theme of this entry seems to be that not enough Americans are willing to fight for what our forebears have given us. I'm just wondering -- other than sitting at home with your thumb up your snatch and writing blog entries at a third-grade literacy level, just what the fuck are you doing to ensure the safety and sanctity of our fair nation, other than assiduously avoiding all forms of scholarship (an evil tool of Liberalism)?
  • In an earlier entry outlining the guaranteed treachery of Democrats vis-a-vis the November elections in your wasteland of a home state, you urge people to "Print out leaflets to give to the people as they are leaving that show where they stand on the illegal immigrant’s situation." I'm just wondering who the illegal immigrant in question is and whether you expect him or her to be apprehended soon. If we can get that one immigrant out of the goddamned country, thousands of high-school dropouts from the Lone Star State will be able to reclaim their rightful jobs, because that immigrant has stolen them all. Please keep us updated on the situation.
  • In a still earlier entry, you implore your readers to "Tell {your state government leaders) you want your state to be an English only state." I'm curious as to why you would desire such a thing, given that English is clearly not your native tongue, with guttural sounds and loudly expelled "queefs" (cunt-farts, for those not in the know) no doubt serving as your primary means of "linguistic" communication. Perhaps you meant you wish certain states to be occupied only by residents of certain parts of Great Britain?
  • In an August 15th entry titled "Just My Rambling Mind," you write, "I believe God gave us a brain and he expects us to use it." Frankly, I'm wondering, given your own composition, how you could possibly place any faith in this bipartite belief.
I have other questions, but these should suffice for now. I look forward to your sage replies.


Beaming Visionary


Chances are good whether or not you possess a cunt that you've heard of "Plan B," a form of birth control that prevents the release of ova from ovaries. ("Ova from ovaries...sheeeeeeeeeeeit, that could be the title of Frank Zappa CD.) Naturally, America's sizable cross-eyed and cross-waving element has heard of it, and they want you to know the scoop. Well, their repackaged and enfuckled version of it, anyway.

In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) elected not to allow over-the-counter sales of Plan B, a progesterone-only compound which exerts its effects by blunting the luteinizing hormone (LH) "surge" that triggers the release of ova from ovaries. (Hot piss, but that really is melodic.) Right-wing religious organizations all but creamed their undies over this decision; for example, Focus on the Family, uberfucknut James Dobson's Colorado Springs-based band of toxic lunatics, crowed about the FDA's rebuffing of "radical feminists" (these prickslappers and their benighted adherents never tire of cliches) and, in a howlingly ironic yet typical inversion of reality, claimed that the FDA's decision somehow represented a triumph of health policy over political ideology. This from the same brick-brained motherfuckers who don't want a cancer-preventing vaccine administered to children as a requirement for entry into public schools because the vaccine summons forth images of the use of the human snatch outside the realms of marriage and baby-making.

Two weeks ago, the FDA agreed to reconvene with the makers of Plan B and re-evaluate its present unavailable-over-the-counter status. Oooh! Aaah! Religious groups immediately began spewing their expected propaganda, distortions and general bullshit which, upon cursory inspection, fail as miserably as the rest of the fucktardery these rabid assclowns continually attempt to peddle. An editorial in the Providence Journal hits the highlights, as it were, regarding the arrantly stupid claims of the begodded, while noted science and culture blogger P.Z. Myers dismantles any notion that Plan B is what wingnuts say it is (and digs up a glittering, shittering example of the lies being pumped into the public by Plan B opponents).

Anti-abortionists' opposition to Plan B underscores several things, chief among them being that people such as those involved with Focus on the Family are as fucking stupid as they appear. Rather than apprise themselves of how Plan B actually works and the fact that it may prevent as many as 1.7 million unwanted pregnancies and 800,000 abortions a year in America if made widely available, they screech and yammer about the evils of what Focus on the Family calls the "pro-abortion forces" (you know, all those women out there knockin' boots unprotected just so they can later enjoy the unrivaled pleasure of having a bloody growth scraped out of their whatzits).

Plan B has no effect on an already implanted ovum and therefore can be directly and indirectly regarded as an anti-abortion measure. But look up "knee-jerk" in any dictionary and you're apt to see a picture of some fuckheaded, leering Godidiot or one of his followers, who upon hearing the term "birth control" automatically assume that rampantly slutty teenagers and their absentee parents are involved in a Satanic conspiracy to oppose the dick-faced Lord's will in terms of sexual conduct. Never mind the fact that teenage girls undergo fewer than 1 in 6 elective abortions performed in the U.S. and that most women using oral contraceptives are involved in monogamous partnerships, with many of them married. If some chick who's already mothered five kids and takes great care of the yowling little shits doesn't want a sixth, is her using birth control still an abomination in the eyes of our limp-peckered, chancre-covered Creator? That's a bitch.

The bottom line, as usual, is that these deluded fucksticks want nothing more than abstinence from non-procreative banging and think this can actually be accomplished -- this despite reams of statistics proving that yes, even good little Christian girls are just as apt to wind up with their legs splayed wide and their toes pointed skyward so that their tender twats can receive a nice stiff cock. "Oh God!" is right. (A lot of them like it in the ass, but that's a story for another day.) It just scares the bejesus out of Bible-scrumpers that non-abortive options are available to women who want to get laid without getting knocked up, since with abortion a non-issue they can't invoke the same pathos and play the same public heartstrings as they do when the A-word's involved. When it comes to matters relating to human reproduction -- including, of course, stem-cell research and abortion itself -- these worthless cumbags are anti-science and anti-progress across the board, a predictable consequence of cherishing a misogynistic and mythical text which by definition has remained static and errant for about two thousand fucking years. Maybe when that multiply punctured piece of scrawny shit finally gets off his ass and descends from Heaven like he's supposed to have done already, and sends the rest of us to an eternal mass incineration, the God-fellators can have their way. Until then, ya scripture-flinging douche bags, get used to reality, because it's comin' at ya like a fuckin' freight train driven by Darwinists and carrying a payload of frozen embryos and synthetic hormones.


Not that further testimony is necessary, but Highboy is officially among the dumbest motherfuckers on the Internet:

...atheists accuse us Christians of stupidity when the best alternatives they can come up with are endless theories and hypothesis.

Yes, that's right. All of that bold-faced evidence for the existence of Godshit surely shoots down the arguments of atheists. Yep, Godshit presents itself constantly and irrefutably. To the satisfaction of people as tree-stump dumb as Highboy, anyway.

Christ. I'm just grateful I wasn't born into this guy's mentality.


Opines Highboy, on the subject of abortion:

"I'm sorry, but 'Dumb Feminists' is about as Christ-like as I can be when discussing some of this garbage."

Christians are such fucking hypocrites. "Christ-like," my ass. Here we have one being as righteously critical as any areligious person and tacking on a lame disclaimer in order to justify the lameness. It also doesn't help that the substance of his post is crazy awful. A typical pro-lifer, he refers to embryos as "babies" and to the elective termination of pregnancy as "murder." Why such mentalities persist in 2006 I have little idea. I mean, this:

If she isn't ready for motherhood, she should keep her damn legs closed.

Is as parochial as it gets. And that's being kind. It's just a shame. Everyone is born an atheist and only comes to belief thanks to human tomfuckery. Highboy is just one more victim of the process.


The fucknut blogger at "Christ Matters," who goes by the moniker apostle at StopTheACLU.com and whose nom de guerre at his own shitblog is "Highboy," has slapped up a wreck of a response to my dismantling of his bullshit. He speaks of a "Decleration of Human Rights" and of "privelages," doesn't distinguish between "it's" and "its" or "too" and "to," and in general lives up to his brain-free nature. Anyone convinced that Anne Coulter didn't pimp the work of others in penning certain passages in her shitbook believes in surreal levels of coincidence, is a fucking idiot, or both. And you have to love it when someone asserts, a priori and in the utter absence of evidence, that God is in charge of this mess. His position that people have no rights is as skull-shatteringly ignorant as it gets; he simply refuses to acknowledge that as self-governors in a democracy, we in the U.S. have indeed established what our rights are, with the same applying to other nations.

Highboy is seemingly convinced that the fact that humankind morally and ethically fucks itself up stands as proof of the existence of a higher authority, because his infantile mind can't discriminate between wishful thinking and reality. I mean, who writes trash like this...

"I love atheism. Its lack of substance makes it so easy to kick around."

...with a straight face? Pointless though it would be, it would be sort of fun to quiz Highboy on the nature of his belief in Godshit. It's virtually assured that the only reason he has any use for Godshit is because it was hammered into his little pin head at a very young age. Same story as with practically every other fuckbrain of faith, and none of 'em will admit it. They all pretend to have come to belief of their own accord. I almost feel sorry for the pernicious little douche bags.


The jabbering fuckstick calling itself Jay is in typical form, following in the footsteps of fellow mongoloid Gribbit and condemning a book he's never read shelved in a school district he's probably never visited. What the fuck is a "libray," anyway? And will Jay ever settle the issue of whether he thinks "ACLU" is singular, plural or both? If Jay had any insight as to how stupid and hapless he truly is, I suspect he'd have to defenestrate himself or eat a gun. I know I would.

I'm glad these clowns have started a radio show because, although I wouldn't have thought it possible, they're making themselves look even dumber. Check it out; they're like a bunch of post-pubertal third-graders, sniveling and stumbling over their words as they try like hell to read from pre-existing articles (the bulk of their "show"). Unreal.


Did some spelunking after visiting Don't Stop the ACLU tonight and came across this impressively short-sighted essay on rights. I wouldn't expect someone caught in the jaws of Godelusion to write anything different, but it's still fun to kick to shitsville and back.

Highboy in this essay is questioning the concept of "universal rights," spurred on by the article he links to that opens with the unsupported claim that "The growing consensus in the West is that human rights are universal." This aspect I don't care so much about as there's clearly no such thing except in la-la land -- you're always going to find societies in which practices which appear to be atrocities to you are perfectly acceptable within the society in question. What's concerning is Highboy's idea that an absence of a universal code of conduct somehow implies that rights are God-given. Highboy begins with this:

"I could never figure out the idea that people think any human has a right to anything apart from God."

This bit of perniciousness I don't doubt, and it's clearly gotten in the way of his ability to think. I don't have a right to be free of torture, rape, murder? Just a right to "God" itself?

The syllogism appears to be:

1. If humans create universal rights, everyone has those rights.
2. Not everyone has the same rights.
3. Therefore, God creates universal rights.

This schema has a few obvious problems and I'm glad this dumb motherfucker's not running the show. This is why we have laws, and why other nations have laws of their own. I can't think of a single country in which murder or stealing are expressly legal, so obviously there are some concepts which, while not guaranteed or punished equally, are regarded as critical for the maintenance of a workable culture.

As I wrote in a comment that I was surprised to see approved, it's always cute when people attribute concepts developed by people to celestial cops in order to imbue them with added importance and compel people outside a given culture to recognize them. If I write up a set of rules to live by and you choose other rules, I have no real basis for insisting you play my way. But if I pretend that some invisible and silent yet all-powerful overlord invented the rules, I can be as rabid as I like about the need for everyone to play my way. With this fucked-up ethos firmly in hand, not only can I assault your gender, sexual orientation, or other personal traits, but I can justify imposing my nation's will, culture and religions on you (hello, IEire!) and even slaughtering you. Yes, appointing gods as legislators, ethicists and probation officers has been a real boost to humankind.

Highboy writes:

Universal rights, defined by man, is a great argument for one world government, one world economy, etc.

There's no move afoot that I'm aware of to create a global constitution-style document, but even if there were, this is a leap devoid of all logic. Declaring that people the world overhave certain rights would hardly be an argument for a single central government or economy. If we could convince Middle Eastern nations to quit treating their women like desert sand, how would this imply a compulsion to merge resources?

From the acme of his cluelessness, Highboy asks:

"What authority does man have to decide what is a "right"? If we recognize no god, and give the power to determine human rights to fellow, corruptible, and fallible man, we really have no rights that cannot be removed later, at the whim of the same corruptible and fallible men. As biological accidents of science, not created by God, we have no rights, privelages, there is nothing natural or unnatural, there just is."

What authority? How 'bout his own? What kind of crippled-to-fuck mentality does it take to sugest that humankind should abdicate authority over its own actions? That's Christianity for you, though. A powerful shedding of responsibility masked as devotion to a necessary cause.

The fact that we can in fact be regarded as biological accidents -- no being or force consciously "wants" us to be here -- does not diminish our importance. It doesn't matter how we got here, or that there's no cosmic purpose underlying our existence; it is still incumbent upon us to do right by one another, whatever that means.

And yes, humans are fallible. That can't be helped and is cause for neither giving up on ourselves or pointing toward the fucking sky with one hand and covering our eyes with the other as a means of absolving ourselves of the reality of the human condition. It is also not a justification for deciding, ad hoc, that there must be a better determinant of "rights" out there somewhere. This is readily expanded to encompass the whole of goofyfuck religious thought: This place is pretty fucked up and so's my life, so there's got to be a skilled mechanic at the end of the line if only I wish hard enough for it, that wish being expressed by prayer, "accepting Christ," and other senseless displays of piety.

Declares Highboy:

"The very reason the founding fathers of the U.S. talked of our natural rights given to us by God is because those rights cannot be taken away when supplied by our Creator."

There we go again, with the "man-creates-something-gives-it-to-God-and-pretends-he-never-saw-it" idea. Name one "right," folks, that has never successfully been wrested from someone. Know anyone who's immune to imprisonment? Murder? Theft? Labeling a right "God-given" in an effort to guarantee its ability to shepherd the rightholder safely along in the journey of life is an incredibly transparent example of wishful thinking.

The very fact that different societies have vastly different ideas of "right" and "wrong" (witness the treatment of women in the Muslim world vs. in the West) is clear evidence that rights don't come from God; they're derived by and from within human societies, with a predictably broad range in terms of what constitutes a "right."

It should be clear that any agglomeration of human beings has to develop codes of ethics in order to survive as a unit and as individuals. Because of this absolute necessity, it is superfluous to layer the "God" idea over it. Not necessarily harmful, but clearly not necessary.

It is stupefying that some people have terrible trouble figuring out that the tools we use are of our own creation. The same people who readily accept the fact that we have developed technology, language, and other systems just can't accept the fact that more abstract entities just as surely are of human creation.

For further examples of this guy's briliance, read here about his contention - made in the face of a mountain range of contrary evidence -- that Anne Coulter, known plagiarist, is no "plagerist." How people like Highboy even manage to breathe without being reminded I have no fucking idea.


The ACLU has the United Nations Human Rights Committee's back in the latter's criticism of various U.S. policies, and believe it or not Jay over at StopTheACLU.com, that fine and righteous patriot, is incensed. Angry to the point at which he seems a little paranoid about the ACLU's motives and can't write clearly or spell properly...wait, never mind.

Anyhoo, America is above reproach, and here come these commie motherfuckers and subversives telling us we're not perfect! Jay is so addled by rage that he spouts in the throes of apoplexy:

"The ACLU, and the U.N. are the two most dangerous organizations in the world."

More dangerous than al Qaeda? The PLO? Hamas? And even...GLAAD??? This whimsical outburst calls to mind Pat Robertson's famous declaration that federal judges pose a more serious threat to America than Islamofascists.

Jay goes on to muse:

"I also wonder if their accusation to 'abuse' of women in prison would be not providing them with abortions at the expense of taxpayers."

See, this is an example of why the man should table his blogging career for a while and take remedial English. A country with adults who express themselves this poorly deserves a good ripping from an objective source. I think Jay meant to write something like, "I wonder if the alleged 'abuses' of women prisoners include denying them taxpayer-funded abortions," but don't take my word for it.

Ya gotta love his heartfelt description of the United States: "the beacon of liberty that so many have come to escaping from tyranny and the bonds of oppression." That's right. Practically everyone in America was born in a communist country or a dictatorship under a cloud of oppression and found safe haven on our shores. Looks like Jay's softening his stance on immigration!

I love it when people whose cognitive faculties consist of little more than reflex arcs get angry. Hoo boy.


What with all the focus on the pissbrained exploits of Jay, Kender and Gribbit, other StapTheACLU.com idiots have been slighted here. Thus I call your attention to an unfuckingbelievable display of flagrant, icepick-through-the-head moronicism perpetrated by noted God fellator and lover of exclamation points! loboinok ("Wolf in Oklahaoma," I guess), the moderator most fond of deleting my posts and presence.

The obvious money quote:

“It may not be politically correct to say that all Muslims are Terrorists, but it is true that all Terrorists are Muslims.”

I don't know how this could be simpler -- the presence of just one non-Muslim terrorist group (say, the IRA) gives the lie to this dreck, to which meatbrain rightfully responded, “And that is a demonstrably false statement.” Yet loboinok, evidently busying himself with deleting meatbrain's posts only to respond to them, somehow sees fit to demand, "Then demonstrate it!" This is akin to demanding that someone explicitly demonstrate that a bear is not a tree.

Maybe StopTheACLU.com is actually an elaborate parody site run by clever people engaged in a contest to outdo each other in terms of unbridled fucking stupidity. More likely, however, is that loboinok is simply one more assbrained Jesus freak from dustbowl territory, consigned to a life of self-deception and absent critical thinking skills.


Some people's inability to see more than one-tenth of the variables in a given situation is stunning. Here, Jay laments what he feels is legal homocide:

The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a decision by a district court in Missouri allowing women prisoners in the state to access timely, safe, and legal abortion care.

"I just want to stop here for one second to note how it absolutely annoys and disturbs me that they are using the word “care” to describe the murder of an innocent unborn."

One paragraph later, he serves up the same basic complaint:

"Prison officials can no longer ignore the medical needs of women prisoners seeking abortions,” said Diana Kasdan, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

Just take note of their terminology using words like “need” for an elective killing procedure, and once again the word “care.” It sickens me.

Jay is seemingly too daft to draw air or feed himself. The care is being administered to the one with medical needs -- the mother. The ACLU is not referring to what happens to the foetus as "care." Blind fuck. I won't bother correcting his use of the word "murder."

Even a rabid pro-lifers should be able to see that a pregnancy is not a foetus floating around on its own and that a woman with distinct medical needs is always involved, and moreover, that no one gets off on the procedure. On a couple of side notes: How goddamned medically safe could a prison pregnancy be? And what's with religious pro-lifers always referring to the foetuses they take to be people as "innocent"? According to the Bible we're all sinners, even as embryos, so long as embryos are people. WHEEEEEEEEEEE!


...because they tend to stand in the way of his desire to see certain people he doesn't like deprived of constitutional protection.

Ol' Literary Jay covertly epitomizes the odious position of homophobes everywhere in claiming to support the House of Representatives' failing to pass by a wide margin an explicity anti-gay-marriage amendment today. He links to someone quite inaptly called "Ace" who can write better than he can, but, perhaps for different reasons, implicitly expresses the same errant stance.

What Jay longs to see as he gazes through the lens of Ace is the question of gay marriage taken on an end run around the legal and judicial systems, with the slavering rabble put in charge instead. Here's the scheme these Bible-thumping assholes somehow expect others to (pardon the pun) swallow :

Don't let the federal courts decide who can and can't marry; let this decision go to the states. Within states, don't allow judges to settle the issue either. Let the entire matter become a matter of popular vote. When the dust settles, then we'll know whether gays should be able to marry, for Jethro will have spoken.

What IDIOTS. This "vision" is nothing new. The ONLY reason these dent-headed shit-eaters want to decentralize gay marriage is because they're finally realizing that even a conservative Congress is never going to pass a no-gay-marriage amendment. Were it not for this realization, they'd be all FOR the legitimacy of same-sex marriage being decided at the national level. What they're saying now is that popular opinion alone should determine the fate of a beleagured minority group, because they know this is ultimately their only chance to keep the uppity faggers in their rightful -- and thus rightless -- places.

Think about this. If the vote of the people alone were allowed to determine laws, with the Constitution rendered moot, fuckbeater states like Alabama and South Carolina would widely embrace solecisms such as lynchings, incest, and forced Bible study; no woman south of Virginia and east of Bakersfield would hold any sort of executive job. The poor people of the South would be even more hapless than they already are, assuming this is somehow possible, and blacks would find daily life a living hell.

In order to prevent some people from being deprived of liberty, property and even life -- and fucks like Jay are theoretically champions of the Constitution tat defends these rights -- certain matters simply have to be taken out of the hands of the mob. There are simply too many shitheads in America to allow key issues to be kept from goverment oversight. Even presidential elections are not decided by popular vote, thanks to the electoral college and Katherine Harris.

The funniest, most revealing thing of all is Ace insisting that the country "drop the language defining marriage" (because this suits the set-up phase of his "clever" plan), then going on to use the term "gay marriage" in a less-than-supportive sense numerous times thereafter. How grandly fucking symbolic. Jay's support of Ace's idea is one hundred percent typical wingnut advocacy: Scream that Congress should not have command of something when such a state scuttles winger objectives, but turn around and cheer when a legislature full of theocrats reinforces a nutjob position. And I'd love to see one of these dickless wonders provide a single, Christ-free example of how their own lives would be adversely affected by gays being permitted to marry.


Guys like this are my muse.


...from this point I refuse to invest in any more irony meters, because they never last more than a day or two. Today Gribbit complained about an "ignorant moonbat" blogger who he says uses "threatening language" and advocates violence; this from a guy who recently threatened to break Captain Rational's jaw.

Gribbit, who invariably deletes comments from dissenters, also says that this moonbat "monitors her comments and I doubt my comment will be approved." Finally, the same cretin who is clearly obsessed with his (perennially weak) site ranking claims that certain lefties have been harassing him in an effort to "drum up traffic to their weak blogs." (Evidently he fails to grasp the concept of titillation for titillation's own sake.)

What should we expect next from this guy? Taking people to task for their atrocious spelling and grammar and for being bald?


Carolyn Hileman continues to make railing against illegal immigrants her raison d'etre. (Warning -- loading her blog may freeze or otherwise fuck up your browser.) The irony here is that plenty of folks essentially regard illiterate backwater fundamentalist Lone Star State Christians as illegal immigrants when they deign to wander into any of the other forty-nine states, where they can do nothing but harm.

Another, related source of amusement is Carolyn's screeching about the preponderance of Spanish-speaking people in her blighted neck of the woods. She claims that there exists in America a "necessity in our society now demands [the ability to speak Spanish] if you are to get a job or be able to communicate."

Here's some news for you, Carolyn: You don't speak a recognizable form of English or Spanish. Don't worry about those pesky domineering thieving bilinguals when you yourself are alingual. (Side note -- I love how this self-described uberconservative is ripped that her retired father isn't getting more handouts then he is from the federal government.)

Finally, Carolyn offers us this gem: "Our founding fathers used GOD’s word and teachings to establish our Great Nation and I think it’s high time Americans get re-educated about this Nation’s history." I guess in Carolynspeak, a "re-education" is the same thing as "revisionist history."

I'll give her dubious credit for writing at least one entry that may not be riddled with factual errors. It's an interesting change of pace and explains a few things.


The addled pile of biomass calling itself Gribbit is back with another example of how the ACLU is attempting to turn America into a bastion of communism. This time, he's focusing on a book, Vamos a Cuba, used in the Miami-Dade County school district and aimed at second- and third-graders. The travel-oriented book represents an effort to depict life in, you guessed it, Cuba.

This spring, in response to complaints from parents who emigrated to the U.S. from Cuba, the district voted to pull the book from school shelves. The ACLU is involved in a suit claiming that the book was removed without due process. A federal judge recently decreed that the book must stay until he can issue a formal ruling, which is scheduled for this week.

Gribbit doesn't approve. He offers his usual variety of witlessly paranoid observations about leftist subversives and throws in an impassioned and wonderfully irrelevant coda about China, North Korea, Vietnam and Russia, but the best part is when he states:

"The left cannot win by playing by the rules. They run to the courts in order to further their ends."

That's interesting. I wonder, though, how he can reconcile this observation with the fact that the only reason the book was pulled from schools in the first place was because some wounded whiners went running to the school board with the arbitrary claim that the book was inaccurate. Are "the rules" different for conservatives?

Cuban-Americans in South Florida are, as one would expect, notoriously anti-everything related to Cuba under its current regime. They are famously opposed to anything that does not openly vilify Fidel Castro. This isn't necessarily wrong as an ethos, but does it grant anyone the authority to start censoring literature? Is personal political aversion a legitimate rationale for doing so? At the very least, I can see why the ACLU believes that the situation deserves further scrutiny.

Gribbit waxes agitprop in making this claim:

"This book is attempting to white-wash a Communist dictatorship. A failing dictatorship at that. It’s goal is to brain-wash children into the socialist mentality. This is indoctrination of 5 - 7 year old children in hopes that they grow up to be good little liberal voters."

Sure, lardass. Anyone wanna bet Gribbit has no idea of the book's actual content and is, in the finest tradition of StopThe ACLU.com whiz kids, merely parroting something from another right-wing source? And besides, even if he were right, is this grounds for removing the book from schools? Well, sure, if you're the kind of assclown who thinks that it's okay, even desirable, to go running to the courts in order to further certain ends.

The simple truth is that Gribbit thinks suppression of free expression -- however illegal -- is fine and dandy as long as such actions appear to support wingnut causes. He needs to pay attention to this passage from the Post article:

JoNel Newman, a University of Miami professor and ACLU lawyer, said school districts are limited in what they can legally remove from library shelves.

"You can't discriminate on the basis of content, or make political decisions on what you take out of a library," she said.

He would also do well to read Carl Hiaasen's column on the matter.

Once again, this miserable Stop the ACLU turd fondler makes a complete ass of itself and exposes itself as ignorant, uncomprehending, loony and a champion of double standards. He obviously doesn't get it and would be well advised to not make his words publicly available unless he enjoys making a spectacle of himself.


One of the StopTheACLU.com whiz kids has crafted a post titled "ACLU Against English." Maybe he simply forgot to include the "Stop The" at the beginning.


I had to go and scan StopTheACLU.com after a two- or three-week break. I think I just lost about 45 verbal IQ points. Here are some recent gems from Jay (forget the context, he's just been in his usual form -- posting entire newspaper articles and appending his typical bullshit):

"My initial reaction of shock and disappointment were later calmed somewhat..."

"...the ACLU don’t have the same problem."

"It is also quite a humerous story."

"The Democratic Underground are ecstatic as the celebrate!"

"...things have escalated into full out war for Israel."

"...the administration are really taking it in the pants this week."

"It won’t take long for the ACLU to applaud this decision followed by how many other things they still have to work on."

"...the ACLU are sueing for prisoners’ 'right' to have access to porn."

Keep in mind that these brilliant tidbits were all posted in the space of a single day.

Also, with regard to Iran, he writes, "After all they do want to usher in the apocalypse." This is coming from a committed Bible-humping Christhead; evidently, even though he remembers all of the material about fag-hating and so forth, he's forgotten how the whole dumbfuck story is supposed to end.


On the direct heels of my giving Kender credit for ousting Gribbit from the shitbird seat along STACLUeless personalities, Gribbit has surged back into the top spot with a mind-boggling open letter to Ed Brayton, an ejaculation of Category 5 drivel so conprehensively, violently insane that I'm wondering if I might have hacked into Gribbit's account and written the motherfucker myself. A truly poignant piece of work it is!

Ed has already responded, and for now Gribbit hasn't fucked with Ed's comments in Gribbitland, although I expect this exercise in restraint -- and perhaps the entire post -- to dissolve shortly. I downloaded a copy of the page in case Gribbit alters anything.


Since Kender is now a devotee of this pigsty and is jealous of the attention I've given Gribbit lately, I should point out that he's again been caught with his tattered, shit-stained skivvies down around his ankles. Read and enjoy.


...or "Stop the ACLU Excellence in Literacy and Essays Shining Star," goes to the king of consanguineous patriots himself, Mr. John "Jay" Stephenson, formerly of Alabama, currently of the inside of his own ass, for this triumphant tidbit from this morning's first salvo:

It is going to be a major shocker and a huge blow to the already terrible credibility of many liberal blogs, especially “truth out” who were reporting that Karl Rove’s indictement was immenent over three weeks ago.

Let's see, in just three dozen words, you gotcher subject-verb mismatch, yer one-comma subordinate clause, yer misspelled words, yer wrongly chosen personal pronoun, your uncapitalized proper nouns, and -- as always -- yer balls-to-the-wall laughin'-our-sweet-fuckin-asses-off irony. What's the consensus on the credibility of question-dodging, Christ-crunching blind bumpkiny fucktards these days? Stratospheric, I'm sure! Beat that shit with a stick, brotherfuckers!


at the address listed in this worn-out twatrag's post, because you never know what these people will do. As much as I like to harass the shitpoke element, I can't even account for this burst of irrelevance, which I turned up here. For all I know Ms. Hileman has already taken a sojourn from Texas and smeared her filthy, begodded smedge all over the exterior walls of the Hurricane State domicile in question.

All I can say is that Carolyn Hileman's intelligence sources are about as useful as Dubya's Iraq WMD information squad.

UPDATE: Hold the phone, Moonbatman! I get it now. Carolyn was a-prayin' to the Lord of lords for my faggotry-endorsin', immigrant-welcomin', Bible-incineratin', abortion'-lovin', gun-thievin' pacifist Marxist ass to be wiped out by a hurricane. Seeing as how the only one of those seems to have just swept through the Florida panhandle, just to be on the safe side she appended a request to ship me off to Tallahassee to her prayers. BOO-YAH!


...blanks. Again.

First, Gribbit dedicated a post on his shitblog to my demolition of his claims about the popularity of his and some of his favorite piss-haunts. He goes on at length about how Technorati's and Alexa's requirements for being included in its rankings are similar to those of The Truth Laid Bear. I didn't address this earlier because it's irrelevant. I'm not sure how Gribbit manages to ignore a critical fact, which I will repeat: Technorati ranks 782 times as many blogs as does TTLB. If Gribbit, armed with his accounting background, really believes that blog rankings drawn from one non-random sample reflect the true state of the blogosphere as well as a sample nearly 800 times larger, well, I suppose that's his opinion. One might just as readily believe that an entertainment survey of one's drinking buddies conducted at the local BPOE as accurately reflects the nation's television viewing habits as do the Nielsen ratings. Fuckin' yeeeeeeeee-HAW!

And on the subject of opinions, Gribbit goes on to complain, evidently free of the knowledge that he is merely shooting his webbed feet off, that his blog merely reflects his opinions, the logical inference that follows being that he's not especially concerned with accuracy. He even provides a handy dictionary definition of "opinion" for those of us in the dark. Well, fuck a duck! He makes shit up? Who knew?

Also, for what it's worth, which is exactly fuck-all, I didn't create this blog in order to argue with him. Maybe he thinks that the fifty or so posts here preceding any mention of that fragile-egoed cocksucker or his StopThe ACLU.com co-whorts somehow reference him or them in some prophetic, even Biblical way. In a sense this is true, since most of these posts address similarly stupid people. Also, I virtually never visit either the ACLU's home page or Daily Kos. One need not do so or be a "lefty" in order to recognize blithering fucktardation for what it is.

Finally, RealTeen, as usual, argues vehemently against a straw man, posting this on his own chaotic cuntpile of a blog:

"Has Gribbit Lied? Go read the post and find out. He’s a Conservative so I’ll give you a clue to what the answer is…. NO. Some lefty loser wants to argue about his comment policy."

This is a florid example of how the members of this loosely coordinated ragtag band of delusional dickslappers shamelessly generate and then mindlessly propagate dishonesty. It's a sine qua non of committed wingnuts. I never once took issue with Gribbit's comment policy and could give a shit how he operates his little nutball refuge. And it's telling that instead of slapping his so-called rebuttal into a comment field here, he chose to post it in a spot that is safely sheltered from opposition he, for all his vigorous bluster, knows he can't reasonably combat.

So to sum up, here's how a representative assclown responds to a damning series of facts:

If you choose to believe the ignorant rantings of a ACLU loving - Daily POS butt buddying lefty, fine, I could care less.

That's his argument in a nutshell. And to answer his question: Yes, despite claiming to be "the world’s worse [sic] liar," you lied. And not for the first or the last time.

I have chosen not to engage people like him to begin with.

I have not [sic] intention in debating this mental midget.

Except here, that is. I'm also still curious about Gribbit's claim that he had to shut down a free blog because he couldn't afford the hosting costs.

I'd say "nice try," but these guys can't muster up anything even resembling one.


Much of what I've written below originally appeared in comments to a post on Gribbit's blog that was also posted to StopTheACLU.com, material which Gribbit -- as if it must be noted again -- has, in large part, deleted. (I won't bother posting the screen shot of the page as it appeared before my observations were nixed.)

That different earthlings inhabit different realities is nowhere more evident than in the output of, you guessed it, the bloggers at StopTheACLU.com. The latest but of fuckery is Gribbit's complaint that the sinistriberal New York Times had given righty bloggers the short shrift in stating that "blogging is nowhere near the force among Republicans as it is among Democrats."

Gribbit listed the top ten blogs as ranked by The Truth Laid Bear, along with his own brief editorial comments:

1. Instapundit.com (4850) details - somewhat right when he wants to be.
2. Michelle Malkin (4595) details - right.
3. Daily Kos: State of the Nation (3827) details - far left.
4. lgf: put your foot on the rock (3206) details - right.
5. Captain’s Quarters (2977) details - right.
6. Power Line (2902) details - right.
7. Stop The ACLU (2289) details - right (better be I write there).
8. Mudville Gazette (2249) details - right.
9. Hugh Hewitt (2242) details - right.
10. ScienceBlogs (2164) details - I’m not familiar with this one.

He then opines:

"Seems to me that I’ve identified 8 out of the top 10 blogs in the ecosphere as being Conservative in nature. So where does Nagourney get his information? From the pitiful turn out of 1,000 bloggers at Yearly POS, I mean KOS. The conference of leftist bloggers gathering in Las Vegas."

Gribbit's talking about this conference, held in Las Vegas this weekend. As for the accuracy of the Times reporter's info, I'll get to that below.

Gribbit continues:

"Oh, and in case you are wondering, I rank #178 out of 56,081 bloggers being tracked by TTLB. Yearly POS, I mean KOS, has attracted 1,000 bloggers out of 56,081. Seems kind of lame numbers to be claiming dominance huh?"

At this point we can safely assume that math (unlike English) is not one of Gribbit's strong suits. Combine poor math skills with a penchant for lying and you have the potential for serious insults to reality.

First, Gribbit's assuming that his ranking of 178 is correct; I doubt he ranks that high among even the independent voices in his own head, but again, more on these numbers below. Second, he's also assuming that the folks at Daily Kos used TTLB rankings in order to determine whom to invite. (Please hold your fucking snickering until the end of the post, CaptainRational.)

Before I rip Gribbit all to shit and back, I offer this non-statistical aside. One of the many ways in which Gribbit exhibits cognitive impairment is his equating “influence” with “site traffic.” Just because some right-wing blogs may get a lot of hits doesn’t mean anything when it comes to what goes on in the brick-and-mortar world, just as the garbage written in the Bible about humankind springing from dirt seems important to some but is meaningless in the context of actual biology.

The typical person who frequents blogs like Malkin’s and StopTheACLU.com is plainly uneducated (this is far from a subjective judgment; just look at their comments and their own personal blogs) and is in no position to make a difference in terms of public policy; moreover, these impediments to accomplishment are rendered more insurmountable by a seeming inability on the part of self-professed right-wingers to resist reckless dishonesty. A lot of the premier left-side bloggers, on the other hand, are college professors, journalists, and businesspeople with track records of not only reporting closely on but participating in proceedings like the Kitzmiller v. Dover "Intelligent Design" case. They are literate and honest, and people listen to them. They are not infallible but they admit their mistakes when they make them. Gribbitian sorts, absent from meaningful proceedings, exchange fabrications, virtual backslaps, "blogbursts," and links, and that’s about it. (Lefties do these things as well, but my point is that they do more than just yammer and fucker-futz around with source code.)

But getting back to numbers, Gribbit’s triumphantly vacuous contention that "the right dominates the blogosphere" is founded on blog rankings that fall several levels shy of being pulled out of his or anyone’s ass. To suggest that they are is an affront to unwiped assholes everywhere. TTLB computes its rankings in a way that ensures that they’re not even close to being comprehensive or even meaningful (see its FAQ for details). If a blog doesn’t have a Sitemeter.com hit counter, it’s fuck out of luck when it comes to rankings on a traffic basis, which is obviously the money stat, but one Gribbit ignores (and wrongly claims doesn't exist -- see this page, a single "view by traffic" click away from the page from which Gribbit took his above data) when touting his and other righty rankings. You see, TTLB scores blogs based on the numbers of incoming links they have –- and, if that isn't nutty enough, only includes links to and from blogs registered with TTLB. Any moron, regardless of how widely read his blog is, can stock his blogroll with links to sites he knows are registered with this outfit. The whole thing is obviously set up beautifully for people whose main mission is to improve a noncontributory ranking score to take advantage of these various limiting conditions.

So how many bloggers register with TTLB? Well, the site claims to track 56,000 blogs. Technorati, the gold standard of blog traffic tracks 43.9 million blogs along with 2.5 billion links. That’s 782 times as many sites as TTLB tracks. And lo and behold, how many of the conservative blogs in TTLB’s top ten appeared in the top 10 on June 10th at Technorati? Zero. Malkin washed up at 14th, Instapundit (not exactly a right-wing blog) at 17th, IGF at 60sth, Power Line at 63rd, and Captain’s Quarters at 95th.

And oops –- what’s this shit? According to the same Technorati listing (which those on the right may now confidently assert is controlled by Zionist wetbacks), on June 10th, Daily Kos was 4th, the Huffington Post 6th, and Crooks and Liars 18th. So the top three righty blogs together have an average ranking of around 30th, the top three lefty blogs about 9th.

Then there are Alexa’s rankings. Over the past three months, Daily Kos has had a "daily reach" (number of Web surfers out of every million who visit the site) of around 700. The Huffington post hovers right around 1,000; Crooks and Liars, 600. Malkin, the nutjob flagship, sits at about 370, and StopTheACLU.com itself barely cracks double digits. And Gribbit himself? Ummm...break out the abacus and wait a while, folks.

“Damn those facts!” Gribbit mutters to himself at this point. “Why the fuck can’t I make them go away by deleting comments and calling people moonbats? What kind of shit world is this?”

The point here isn’t whether either righties or lefties "control" the blogosphere –- that’s moot on numerous levels. The point is that right-wingers like Gribbit rely exclusively on lies and distortions every time they set about making a “moonbat-bashing” point. These fucks are as trustworthy as a starving pit bull alone in a room full of game hens.

But nope —- pointing out that the TTLB rankings are baseless is just a sign of left-wing brain rot, right, Gribbirino?


Leave it to the Liberal moonbat media to write lies about the tide turning missions executed by our troops in Iraq. If you dont believe just read this, where a moonbat paper south of the Border is saying Al Qawrazi is till alive.

I just shake my head at Liberals, there is no end to the lies these judicial activist communists will write when trying to destroy our nation's Christian heritage by legislating from the bench.

The foregoing was satire, highlighting the common practice of StopTheACLU.com of scanning a headline and writing a tirade based only on the headline's vague implications. Best of all is when Jay or one of the others does this but pastes most of the story he hasn't read into his tirade anyway, thereby providing readers evidence of his own laziness and ignorance.

A great example is today's post titled "Democrats call Al-Zarqawi killing a stunt," where Jay bemoans the reaction of the left to the slaying of the terrorist fuckbag. One problem: The Washington Times story Jay got his idea from (and from which he stole the headline) was manufactured, and Jay of course didn't bother reading it. Note that nowhere does the story quote anyone referring to the killing as a stunt. Congressmen Stark (half of whose "quote" doesn't include his own words) and Kucinich have been vocally against the Iraq war for a long time, while the other Dems quoted in the story said that the killing of Al-Zarqawi was in fact a good thing.

The Times is a winger newspaper owned by a douchefuck-crazy left-basher, the Rev. Sung Myung Moon, who has claimed to be the Messiah and hence figures he can print whatever the Christ he wants.

Just one more piece of evidence that it takes nothing other than hollow cock-rattling to get the blinking, unthinking redneck illiterates of the world mobilized into a state of blind, pimple-popping, priapic, and entirely misguided rage.

UPDATE: I posted the following comment at StopTheACLU.com under the relevant entry, preserving it below because Jay the cowardly liar or oneof the others will soon delete it.

When these drool-swingers lie down at night to sleep or engage in whatever their brain-substitues require during scheduled down time, I wonder if they hear itty bitty little voices telling them. "Man, you really are a lying fuck." It's hard to imagine that they don't, because as dumb as they are, much of what is shoved under their noses is simply impossible for even a full-fledged zoogie to deny.


Failing factual or rational support of their positions, right-wing bloggers have taken to the keen and frequent use of the term "moonbat," ostensibly to describe anyone on the left. Since this slur is rarely accompanied by anything besides raw vitriol, it is difficult to discern exactly what the term means. But having put a few things together in recent months, I'm pretty sure I've got the gist of the definition now. Here are ten cardinal signs of moonbatism:

  • Holding a college degree.

  • Possessing the ability to spell and use grammar at a level befitting middle-school graduates.

  • Failing to unconditionally support U.S.-led wars.

  • Supporting gay marriage and civil unions,and more broadly, freedom from having your rights trampled under free-floating bigotry.

  • Having the temerity to research a topic before ranting about it.

  • Failing to produce an erection or clitty hard-on at the prospect of being linked to by Michelle Malkin or any other cuntrionic blogger with a misshapen face.

  • Understanding that Fox News exists solely to entertain and inflame, not inform.

  • Supporting gun-control measures proven to save lives.

  • Taking offense when a president operates the country and everything in it -- including the delusionals who have staunchly stood beside him -- like a personal, wholly replaceable plaything.

  • Recognizing that gods, especially the abusive and untrustworthy god whose symbolic little cock Americans enjoy sucking most, are a bunch of bullshit.


Ann Coulter is increasingly becunted and diabolical, but no matter what sort of loopy shit tumbles out of her face, she'll always have a small but stubborn support base thanks to the fact that some people are simply too stupid to dabble in critical thought, relying instead on a series of base surges of emotion to propel them through their meaningless, strident days.

A perfect example comes, of course, from StopTheACLU.com, which reacted to David Berg's refusal to gloat over Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death by expressing befuddlement and outrage over his "pontificating" and acting like an "idiot." Berg, you see, had a civilian son who was executed in Iraq by al-Zarqawi's goons, but told the press he felt "only sadness" over the whole affair. That wasn't good enough for Jay Stephenson and his fellow shitheads, who possess some base need to live out vicarious revenge fantasies.

You see, it's not enough that one of the top thugs in Baghdad was killed; people need to be more aroused by it, especially those touched personally in a way that these self-appointed beetle-browed experts never will be. As always with unconditionally pro-war "patriotic" pricks, it's never about strategic victories or clear-cut objectives. These assholes are no more comprehending when it comes to separating the Middle East from raw bloodlust than they are when challenged to separate the just application of the Establishment Clause from "judicial activism." They don't have a clue as to what either their purported allies or their opponents are saying, but they know brown, non-Christian skin when they see it. Like small children, they recognize the raw finality of violence and with America at war with especially depraved motherfuckers they can only grunt and blink excitedly about the prospect for more. They hate not only to be deprived of violence itself but of others' "necessary" hunger for same.

ADDENDUM: As if anyone still wonders what is more important to these fucknuts -- the war in Iraq or their war on everyone not sufficiently resembling Elmer Fudd with scrapie right here in America -- look at the post titles they've deployed since yesterday morning:

Zarkawi’s Death Exposes Far Left’s Confusion
Democrats Call Zarqawi Killing A Stunt
Michael Berg: Only Sadness at the Death of Son’s Killer, Al-Zarqawi

The godfuckers become especially rabid as anti-gay measures continue to lose their grip.


It wasn't a good day for the defenders of all that is good, right and pure on this here nation under God, increasingly beset by corrupt values such as tolerance, fairness, and liberty. Not only did Biblefucker extraordinaire Roy Moore receive a sound thumping at the polls -- which would have been a difficult feat for an old-school godster in Alabama had the other guy not been cut from the same cloth -- but the U.S. Senate failed by 18 votes (out of 97) to pass a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and legal same-sex unions. All this just when Ann Coulter, perhaps realizing fully for the first time that she's old, not sexy even by the standards of blind fetishists, and a thoroughgoing piece of shit, is even managing to alienate many right-wingers with her bizarre comments about the alleged whininess and gold-digging of 9/11 widows. The Good Lord must have been enjoying one hell of a blowjob up Heaven way for all of this shit to simultaneously befall His most loyal supplicants.

Having been fed a shit sandwich at the federal level, wingers like these are already scrambling to insist that gay marriage be treated strictly as a states' rights issue, since "the will of the people" should be allowed to decide the matter. Here's the reality, ya cuntbumpers: If "the will of the people" were allowed to determine laws without some constraints, the speed limit on interstate highways would either not exist or would be 100 miles an hour, no one attending public schools would have to take math after sixth grade, and most taxes would quickly disappear. In fact, if the will of the people were all that really mattered, why would we even bother electing politicians? This is civics-for-shitbrains stuff, innit? But a lot of people seem to be looking pretty far up at "shitbrain" nowadays.

If taken to the state level, even worse things would happen: States like Georgia might re-institute school segregation if not lynchings, while Texas might castrate youths with no interest in either Jesus or football, especially those who enjoyed reading science journals. The people of Tennessee elected Eric Watson to the State House of Representatives, and look at what they got: an anti-abortion homophobic gun nut without either the decency or the restraint to keep from publicly declaring, "It’ll be a sad day when queers and lesbians are allowed to get married ... and kiss in front of the courthouse." Worse than that, though, is that Watson -- who is also fat, bald and ugly -- not only invokes hollow buzzphrases, but deploys them even more inanely than most. In response to the ACLU's challenge to a proposed Tennessee amendment that would ban gay marriage and unions there, Watson said, "We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism."

Well, here's the thing, Eric my man: Both the U.S> House and the U.S. Senate failed to pass the same amendment at the federal level. Is Congress now a member of the judicial branch of government? How dare they legislate from the...never mind.

"The will of the people" can all too often be used to rob folks one of the only things guaranteed them by the Constitution: basic rights. Unless people are all keen on legalizing (or mandating) the teaching of creation fucktardery in American schools and the abolition of every religion except Christianity, it makes perfect sense to let the courts decide on the legality if issues when people's rights are at stake. Visceral redneck opinions don't count for twat-all in these scenarios.


Would America be different if people bothered to read? Not just scan items that superficially buttress their preconceived ideas, but spend a few minutes evaluating the validity of those items?

Possibly, but I wouldn’t recommend any breath-holding. In case a checklist is necessary to figure out how effective a tool propaganda is in capturing the votes of reactionary, incurious dipshits, witness this textbook exchange between myself and a StopTheACLU.com blogger alternately calling himself **Raidernation** and Glib Fortuna. I give this guy a dollop of credit for being able to write in his native language and having the backbone, or whatever it is, to not simply delete opposing viewpoints, which is the usual recourse taken by his “colleagues.” However, he’s still flapping and flailing around in whatever alternate reality breeds these loudmouthed fringe-dwellers, and in our little back-and-forth he touches all of the usual bases:

1. His headline, and hence his premise, is factually incorrect (see Ed Brayton’s post here). In truth, this means that an in-depth argument with Glib is superfluous, but he makes other noteworthy forays into inanity, so it’s hard to resist further demolition.

2. The material he uses to support what is, to be generous, an ancillary point (the alleged effectiveness of the InnerChange prison ministry study) is demonstrably flawed, relying as it does on statistical chicanery.

3. In attempting to discredit one of my own sources, Glib screws the pooch yet again by labeling Brayton “obscure” despite “Dispatches from the Culture Wars” receiving three times as many hits a day as StopTheACLU.com (see Brayton’s response to Glib’s comments). This is even though StopTheACLU.com “features” ten contributors and an untold number of outgoing links to other winger blogs.

I’m done with that set-to, but it’s clear what has happened. Glib Fortuna has, in no special order, made an incredibly lame excuse for claiming that the ACLU is involved in the Massachusetts case; changed the subject repeatedly (he’s now bleating madly about abstinence programs); ignored Ed Brayton’s damning indictment of his bullshit despite being well aware of it, preferring to snipe from within the comparatively safe confines of the StopTheACLU.com sewer; and uniformly tried to pretend, against any semblance of reason, that he hasn’t made the precise claims he clearly has. Throughout, he chalks up plain and objective evidence rendering his claims erroneous as “ultra-radical” nonsense synthesized by a left-wing conspiracy comprising Henry Waxman, Slat correspondent Mark Kleiman, myself, and who knows how many extant and imaginary others.

The question isn’t “How do these guys expect anyone other than fellow wingers to take them seriously?” because I don’t think they do. The question is, how can they take themselves seriously? Is it possible to have the wherewithal to at least scan an article yet be immune to facts no matter how clearly they’re presented?

Yes, that’s a rhetorical question. The only thing I wonder about with these clownish fuck-a-fucks is whether there's a glimmer of discomfort beneath all that comfortable denial or whether they really are as confident in their laughable claims as they appear to be.


That's right, folks. Kit Jarrell is a fuckhead -- a bloodthirsty, unhinged fuckhead who can make blog entries and is therefore ostensibly a mammal, but manifests a 90% amygdala/10% cerebrum CMS ratio clearly more reminiscent of a blinkered reptile than a rational hominid. As with his fellow zealots who make traditional jingoism look treasonous by comparison, Kit Jarrell (who is a fuckhead) cannot distinguish war (which traditionally involves a modicum of strategy and even an objective) from untrammeled slaughter (say, the execution of a four-year-old girl). For evidence that Kit Jarrell is a fuckhead, go here.


The contributors to StopTheACLU.com, while nominally of a single enfeebled mind, play distinct roles in the operation, each replete with its own inverse charms. Jay is the ringleader who sets the tone; he exudes a grudging diplomacy that is at times earnest but is usually feigned, avoids fact-checking at all costs, and unflinchingly refuses to admit to making fallacious statements when confronted with same. Glib Fortuna can turn half a phrase, but his florid paranoia and parochial mentality render meaningless his average to above-average literacy level. Kender is just one pissed-off dude, and, to his dubious credit, frankly doesn't even feign sincerity. Cao is a schizophrenic copier-and-paster, the rottencrotch Queen of the Last Word at All Costs, a purveyor of smokescreens which -- unfortunately for her -- are all too transparent.

We all choose different points along the political spectrum, but no matter how you feel about contemporary liberalism or conservativism, all of these people are hypocrites, question-dodgers and liars by obligation (a blog like theirs literally could not exist otherwise).

Today's post is dedicated to perhaps the most amusing of these characters, the endlessly uncomprehending Gribbit, noted for his staunch eagerness to criticize the writing skills and intellects of others despite manifesting the educational refinement of a meth-crazed trisomy 21 victim. A fine example of how this fellow operates can be found here, where he launches his usual salvo of derogatory bullshit, only to find that he's done nothing but shatter irony meters everywhere. Let's examine what this bastion of analytical genius and gallantry had to say about illegal immigration recently.

Gribbit begins by relaying the positions on the matter of various politicians, none of whom can be trusted at this point to tell the truth owing to the special volatility of the issue at hand. He refers to Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who supports the just-approved legislation that provides a means of up to 12 million illegals to eventually gain citizenship, as an "amnesty whore." He claims that in passing this legislation, the Senate has "agreed to a comprimise [sic] which violates our nation’s sovereignty." With his usual eye for realism, he asserts that "the fine for employing just one illegal alien should be enough to become a financial burden on the biggest corporation in the United States." Gee, how many billion dollars would that be? A proposal sure to fly through Congress, no doubt, at least once all its members find a way to hide the illegal housekeepers and nannies in their employ. And his elaborately detailed -- and utterly unworkable -- plan for securing the U.S.-Mexico border is even more grandiose, though his claims regarding the positive impact on the U.S. economy of such a scheme are...intriguing.

Gribbit is certainly entitled to his beliefs, as riddled with obvious antipathy as they are. However, let's move from opinions to facts, the former (not unlike my own analogies) always applied on StopTheACLU.com with all the grace and subtlety of a farmboy sodomizing a sheep with an acetylene torch, the latter being an as-yet-untapped resource there.

"Sensenbrenner was asked on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday if he would accept any legislation that would put illegals on a path to citizenship. His answer: 'NO' ... Sensenbrenner seems to be one of the few on Capital Hill willing to stick his neck out and say what the American people are saying."

That's the Gribbit "I-have-an especially-big-fucking-mouth-so-I-represent-the-majority" version of reality. What the majority of American people are actually saying is this: 61% believe that illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status (CBS News/New York Times Poll, May 4-8); 79% approve of creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes (CNN Poll, May 16-17); 77% favor allowing illegal immigrants who have paid a fine, been in the U.S. for at least five years, paid any back taxes they owe, can speak English, and have no criminal record to stay and work in the U.S. (CBS News Poll, May 16-17 ).

Most everyone agrees that illegal immigration poses a large problem in the U.S., including me. I thought the protest-cum-boycott last month was awash in idiocy. But the claim that most Americans would reject all legislation enabling working illegals to eventually gain citizenship is just another ad hoc StopTheACLU.com shit-nugget.

I can see why someone like Gribbit is afraid of losing his job. Most Mexicans filter into this country with a far better command of English than Gribbit possesses, and there are only so many low-wage potential employers such as McDonald's and Wal-Marts left to build here.

Gribbit also has a keen sense of stateside economic driving factors:

"The only thing that I see agreement on is going after employers. Is this a new revelation to these pinheads? If you eliminate the incentive for coming here in the first place, that in itself will at least slow the flow and possibly get a couple million to go back on their own."

Remember, Gribbit earlier noted that we already have plenty of laws and none are doing any good. He seems to be suggesting diverting vast resources to ferreting out the same people just given a tentative thumbs-up by the legislative branch of the federal government -- you know, Gribbit's own government.

As far as expecting Mexicans and other former Third-Worlders now shacking up in America to head back to wherever they came from on account of a few crackdowns on employers who pay their help under the table and will inevitable manage to keep doing so, something tells me not to count on it. Most political or economic refugees legally or illegally in the United States would sooner rot in federal prison than go back to a hopeless Havana or Port-au-Prince slum.

So, all in all, a typical entry: high scores for passion and conviction, low scores in terms of assessing the pulse of the nation. All that was missing was a reference to the ACLU's obvious guiding role in shellacking hard-working white Christian Americans by inviting every brown biped south of Brownsville to settle in the U.S., rape and plunder ad libitum, and abet the ACLU in its quest to convert America into a neo-Stalinist regime.

UPDATE: After registering as a user on Gribbit's own blog, I tried to leave a trackback to this post here. Gribbit, of course, didn't approve the trackback, but I knew he wouldn't -- my only aim was to make him and him alone aware of my thoughts on his table-pounding bullshit. Meanwhile, under another Gribbit entry attempting to portray Democratic politicians as especially dishonest, I left a comment that included a giant collection of Republican malfeasance perpetrated in recent years. Gribbit, of course, deleted these and went on to explain with his usual charms why he had edited my comment and that I was not welcome on his blog. This stuff speaks marvelously for itself, but note that I did in fact read his disclaimer and followed all the guidelines there, but was treated like a criminal anyway; and regarding my trackback, Gribbit claims to have not read this post (despite visiting this page earlier today) yet somehow finds reason tlabel it "uncivil."

My comments are universally deleted from StopTheACLU.com now as well. This doesn't upset or surprise me, but it does interest me that these winger-whacko bloggers are adamant about both boasting of the mammoth amounts of traffic their sites supposedly receive and deleting others' input despite constantly defying people to prove them wrong. Evidently they want a ton of visitors, but nothing but adulation from all of them. In this way they are remarkably infantile, which the mild sadist in me relishes because it is easily to provoke an infant into a tantrum-throwing state that is enjoyable to "watch."

I myself have no inclination to delete anything someone writes here, especially if it is composed by a blitherfuck man-child whose main rhetorical weapons are threats of violence and sheer avoidance.


You may have noticed that I have recently linked to a couple of bloggers whose creations were inspired wholly or in part by the proto-hominids at StopTheACLU.com. One of these blogs has the cryptic name of DontStopTheACLU.com. As you might expect, this is an evisceration of the hysterically illiterate blasts of paranoid ignorance on the site that inspired its name, and the posts are not only on-target but hilarious. The other, Thinking Meat, is similar in that it roots out and displays in neon colors the rabid hypocrisy of our wingjob friends, but lacks the intentional comic touch of DontStopTheACLU (which in its own right actually serves to boost the funniness factor; when the goonynuts come barging in from stage right to yammer and screech about Thinking Meat's posts, his deft dismissals and implacable adherence to logic summons forth images of a patient special ed teacher striving against all conventional hope to instill the idea in the heads of his desperately challenged charges that no, it really isn't all right to fling, eat, or otherwise put to recreational use one's own faeces.

Now for the fuckfaces. Here is a letter to the editor of a newspaper in the Bible belt:

When Jesus Christ was on Earth almost 2,000 years ago, he said that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.

I am a conservative Christian. Therefore, it's incumbent on me to love homosexuals and lesbians as myself and meet their legitimate needs if called on to do so, even though I disagree with their lifestyle.

But it bothers me a whole lot when people write to this letters column rejecting what the Bible says about homosexuality and substituting their own opinions.

If I am still alive and able to get to the polls in November, I will be voting for the same-sex marriage amendment, for I believe this is what God wants me to do.

So there you go. This guy is a clusterfuck of schizoid contradictions. He admits that thanks to the lessons dispatched his way by an imaginary hippie-god, he might evince compassion toward gays -- or at least be apt to mind his own fucking business -- were it not for the fact that another imaginary being, this one a confirmed bigot and overall asshole, compels him to act otherwise and vote on an issue that doesn't affect him in any way. He complains that other who write to this newspaper interpret the Bible unfairly, yet appoints himself arbiter of what gays' "legitimate needs" are (evidently these don't extend to the right to legally sanction a loving relationship with another person).

It sounds like he might be old or in poor health. Hopefully this is the case and the dumbfuck will expire before he ever sees another polling booth. I'm pretty sure at least one version of God or Jesus would have said as much, and that it wouldn't be too hard to find scriptural support for such a position.

I've also posted a bunch of responses to entries and comments on Stop the ACLU, the contributors to which have been especially noisome, dishonest and uninformed lately. Naturally these have been deleted; if there's one thing that pisses off that bunch, it's informed dissent.

Read through this post and the comments that follow. My deleted response:

Grub Fart tuna* wrote:

"You never cease to amaze."

I'm sure that from your perspective, this is true of many who comment here. Avail yourself of a dictionary and one day you, to, may have the same effect on people.

"The hilarity of the claim you make above is that you challenged me on the plaintiff's atheism..."

What is easily refuted is the idea that *everyone* involved in getting rid of that meaningless eyesore outside of San Diego is anti-God by definition.

I know none of you is a professional headline writer or even facile with English at all, but this:

"American Legion ... Brings ADF aboard to defend against ACLU, atheist attacks on vets memorials,"

implies that there was more than one atheist mind behind this, or that there is some kind of ACLU-led let's-extinguish-God conspiracy afoot in this and other matters involving the Christian "deity" specifically. This errant notion is exemplified by the confused (or perhaps simply dishonest) kerwin brown's statement that "The ACLU preaches atheism as that is all supporting no religion really is." This gent doesn't understand the difference between failing to rally behind the god of *his* choosing, which happens to be but one of many hundreds conceived by humans over the centuries, and striving to maintain a level playing field. Fortunately this is not true of even a conservative SCOTUS.

Along with constantly blaring their bumbling, shambling, stupefied take on the First Amendment, the people who contribute to this blog as writers or commenters simply can't help but repeat the lie that the ACLU is inherently godless. Mind you, inherently godless things please me, as they are almost always signs of rationality and beacons of hope in a nation otherwise cluttered by bumpkinoid scripture-slappers with their faces twisted into halfwit expressions signifying a primal, bloodthirsty nature and a mongoloid, primitive brand of mentation. But it's still an errant claim, though one that is lost among so many other misinterpretations and lies propagated by the shamelessly deluded and aggressive mouth-breathers inhabiting this futile electronic cesspool.

Have a good long weekend, all. And be safe.

* Just trying to follow CaptainRational's rule with this.

I also responded to comment #22 in the same thread from the notoriously discombobulated apostle with this:

apostle wrote:

"We have had every single president in our nation's history swear on the Bible."

Yes, and everyone who testifies in an American court is also sworn in. Guess they're all Christian too? (Actually, a lot of them surely are; only 1 in 500 imprisoned Americans claims to be an atheist, which tells you something about the moral value of buddying up to Jesus.)

I do enjoy the hapless and myopic tenacity of people like apostle, who, in the face of untold amounts of historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary, continue screeching that Christians merit special treatment in America. This is something truly Christian-minded people would never even think, much less say.

Fortunately, we live in a nation sliding inexorably toward enlightenment despite the fact that a large segment of its population is committed to theocratic machinations. It was this way under Reagan, when Falwell and his dimwit Moral Majority crusaders were maximally emboldened, but he and his subsequently faded from view, and thankfully we'll be seeing this occur again once the current administration is finally purged. Hallelujah.

Finally, I replied to a spectacularly ignorant (though almost quaintly sincere) homophobe here:

"Male homosexuality causes sickness and death which is why AIDS/HIV for one, is more prevalent among males that have sex with males than among heterosexuals."

Homosexuality causes sickness and death? All by itself? Wow, you must be a Ph.D. biochemist or something.

As far as HIV is concerned (and why would HIV-free gays in monogamous relationships worry?), you do know that for quite some time, HIV has spread more rapidly among heteros and IV drug users than among homos, right?

"I assume you are an evolutionist. If so you need to speak to your demigod Charles Darwin who stated that killing children through abortion is a form of infanticide ... He wrote it is the evolutionist sacred scroll that goes by the name of "The Decent of Man".

You mean "The Descent of Man," right? I'd love to give you credit for a lame pun, but unfortunately that would be wrong.

Also, Darwin has some seminal ideas, but just FYI he's not the only one who's worked as an evolutionary biologist in the last 150 years. By calling him a "demigod" you're doing what other benighted godders do and trying to pretend everything in the field hinges on the ideas of one man who's been dead for 100 years. But, see, unlike Jesusology, science itself evolves and progresses over time.

It's sad that in a country where education and information is so readily available, people with your ideas can still exist.

So there you have it. These self-styled bastions of the American Way want no part of people who refute their bullshit using basic reasoning, the cold application of statistics, or anything in between; they want nothing but strict adherence to their hysterical propaganda -- even as they constantly bemoan the "communist" tactics of their eponymous adversary.


It's disturbing at times to be sharing America with such a huge number of mentally compromised shit-for-brains, but I take solace in the fact that they can't help but continually fuck up left and right and undermine their own crippled positions. (The next step is getting them to feel shame over their shortcomings so that they might try to correct them or at least shut the hell up, but unfortunately bona fide dolts are capable only of rage, not shame.)

The egregiously misinformed Gribbit -- who will always be fondly remembered as the inspiration for a blogging career that may well last into next week -- is not only a contributor to StopTheACLU.com, but has his own site here. Let's look at an entry of his from yesterday with the heading "Priest Found Guilty In Nun's Murder."

"I have intentionally avoided touching this story because it involves a Priest."

But he's not unfairly biased or anything.

"Until it could be proven to a jury that he committed the crime, I couldn't bring myself to believe that a Priest could violate GOD's command. But he apparently did."

Apparently Gribbit is unaware of the explosion of priest-on-young-boy cases over the past half-dozen years. Just think: Child molesters AND faggots! Since, according to Gribbit and his buds, the ACLU loves defending sexual deviants, I wonder how ol' Grib-Grib would feel if the ACLU started getting guilty priests acquitted left and right.

Also, here's one more instance of Gribbit's blatant dishonesty, in case anyone had any doubt. Before moving to www.gribbitonline.com, Gribbit made use of Blogger, where his incoherent blatherings could be viewed here. Click on that link and scroll down just a smidge until you reach the "The is the End" entry. Here, Gribbit writes:

"I cannot afford to maintain my hosting. I have never asked for money from anyone to help defray the costs involved in hosting my own site. Because of the low numbers of hits, the lack of participation in the blog portal, and combined with my limited personal resources, I'm allowing my hosting to expire."

Interesting. Gribbit must be the only person in history who was being charged for Blogger's free Blogspot hosting service. I'm not sure what motivated this particular bit of prevarication, but it suggests that Gribbit doesn't merely lie to support his stances, as do many; he may actually be a pathological shit-talker.


In continuing to prove that he has the integrity of a drunken hyena, the contributor to StopTheACLU.com calling himself "Gribbit" has not only deleted all of my responses to his shambling wreck of a rant about a curfew dispute in Pennsylvania, but has deleted my username several times and has now disabled comments to the post in question altogether. It's always those who boast loudest about serving up "moonbat smackdowns" and whatnot who turn out to be scared shitless of actually substantiating anything they say upon direct and fair challenge.

Here's a compendium of some of what I wrote that "Gribbit" erased from StopTheACLU.com; it complements my entry from earlier today. His comments (still available on the other site) are in quotes, and my responses to these (since removed from the other site) follow.
"..new blog that he started for the sole purpose of getting past my rule."

Funny, I thought I was merely *satisfying* your (unpublished) rule. Keep moving those goalposts and editing others' comments! Self-delusion is a wondrous thing!

I noticed that in my blog's comments field, you served up an excellent refutation of the various points I made -- or not. Rather than deal in substance, you can only crow about your site stats. Again, no surprise.

Let me explain something to you. Obviously you have your entire identity invested in how many like-minded mud-heads visit your blog(s). I, on the other hand, have this crazy idea that my advanced education and enriching, lucrative professional life carry more weight than how many hits a blog run by and for whackjobs receives. (By the way, what has the net impact of your rants on the ACLU's well-being and activity been to this point? It seems you haven't made much of a dent in business, there, Mr. "I'M-NOT-A-NOBODY!")

So there it is: You spend half of your life spraying nonsense and lies on this and other blogs, and have nothing to show for it in the real world. Who's the real nobody, tough guy?
In comment #11, Gribbit wrote:

“Disagree with me all you want as long as you provide a link.”

I’ve done exactly as he’s asked, and he’s not only continued to edit my comments anyway, but has de-registered my username multiple times. If Gribbit has a hint of a defense against the charges that he’s not only a liar but a coward as well, I’d be interested in seeing it. Because Gribbit is in fact a liar and a coward.

Also, I and other open-eyed Americans are grateful not to have folks like “NoLibs” in my corner. Rather than accept the fact that the ACLU is effectively going to bat for a Boy Scout in good standing, he creates a far-out alternate reality that suits his persecution complex and takes the oh-so-original stance that the ACLU is rife with communists. You people really shouldn’t be allowed to vote for any office position higher than municipal dogcatcher.
Are you really having difficulty with the sequence of events here, Gribbit? What a shock.
"I did remove 1 of your posts, but go back to it, click the link (comment 10), it leads no where. You provided a link AFTER that happened."

I did provide a link, right in the substance of that now-altered post. I didn't know at the time how to get my URL into the proper field. And I will remind you that there is nothing posted on this site about the requirement for commenters to provide a link to their personal blogs.

"I demand an apology."

How about a request instead? To wit -- quit lying.

"Or I will invoke my power to ban your IP from our server."

Go ahead. You know that doesn't keep undesirables out.

"I don’t believe in anonymity."

Your parents named you "Gribbit"? I'd hate to learn your siblings' names.
"This foul mouthed moonbat dares to lecture me on my politics when he cannot make an argument without dropping the f-bomb?"

I didn't use the "f-bomb" in any of my posts here, including the one in which I pointed out a plethora of faulty premises you were using -- premises you elected not to defend, instead deleting my post (which has been reproduced almost in its entirety on my blog). In other words, you're lying again.

"Be thankful that we aren’t in the same room brainless. I come from the old school, where if you call someone a liar you’d better be able to prove it or you would be eating through a straw. Rest assured if you were to call me a liar in my presence, you’d be spitting teeth. I suggest you apologise."

I'm shaking. Some no-name "Skinheads for Jeezus and Bush" chater member is threatening me with physical violence. I recommend not having buttons so easily accessible for pushing.

"News Flash - brainless is using 2 different nicks, hence his claim of unregistering him multiple times and multiple edits. He is also using the ummmidiot name. The link attached to that name led nowhere so it was deleted. Another moonbat trick."

Here I'm not sure if you're lying, demonstrating how stupid you are, or both. The only reason I switched to "unum cum mens" temporarily is because the username "The one with a brain" mysteriously quit working. The URL linked from both handles was the same, and if you couldn't figure out that the one I left in #20 includes a typo, you're beyond hopeless.

So in summary I've played by the rules. You just happen not to like me, which is fine. But even though you're hamming it up for your own slack-jawed audience members here, they can still tell that you're a prevaricating question-dodger who posts first and gets his background info in order never.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com