Rick Perry Doesn’t Know What Century the American Revolution Took Place

Posted on October 12, 2011 by Jacob Flores

In a shining moment for the state of Texas, Governor Rick Perry (and Republican Presidential hopeful–God help us), apparently doesn’t know his American history. But his ignorance is even worse than simply not knowing that the American Revolution started officially in 1776, but he apparently also missed the date by a mere two hundred years!

As reported by ThinkProgress, Rick Perry made the following comment to an ABC affiliate about state’s rights:

Our Founding Fathers never meant for Washington, D.C. to be the fount of all wisdom. As a matter of fact they were very much afraid of that because they’d just had this experience with this far-away government that had centralized thought process and planning and what have you, and then it was actually the reason that we fought the revolution in the 16th century was to get away from that kind of onerous crown if you will.”

Let’s (for now) overlook the fact that his answer makes absolutely no sense. Let’s focus instead on the fact that Perry obviously doesn’t realize the 1700’s were part of the 18th century. The 16th century took place in the 1500’s. It’s a difficult concept I know. My daughter has some issues with it, but then again she is 11. I would assume a man who runs a state and who also wants to run the nation would be able to figure this out.

But I may be expecting too much from Perry, especially when you consider his answer as a whole!

The incoherence of his response troubles me as well. I can’t make heads or tails of it. The majority of my college students are able to respond far more eloquently than our governor. Is this the man we want representing our nation to foreign countries? Someone who not only has no grasp of basic facts but someone who couldn’t form an intelligent answer to save his life.

Because, as President, forming an intelligent response is crucial. Words have been known to start wars. But, hey, what do I know? Well, except that the American Revolution took place in the 18th century, that it actually began in 1775 but was not officially declared until 1776, and that the war ended when the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783.

But those are just facts. Who needs those?

Rick Santorum Supports Reinstating DADT & Ex-Gay Therapy

Posted on October 9, 2011 by Jacob Flores

Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum once again proved today how un-electable he is.

During an interview this morning on FOX news, Santorum regurgitated his support for the reinstatement of DADT, which he expressed during the GOP debate where a soldier was booed. (Click here to read that post).

Santorum believes that if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military then our “recruitment and retention” will decrease. He makes these claims despite the reports that the majority of service members have no issue working alongside homosexual soldiers. Once again, a candidate chooses to ignore the facts and instead pushes an agenda fueled by hate and prejudice. Most soldiers don’t care who sleeps with who anymore than most people care who their colleague sleeps with at home. Everyone’s private life is just that–private. The government needs to stop caring what happens in the privacy of an individual’s home and refrain from making laws, which attempt to govern any individual’s pursuit of personal happiness.

To add insult to injury, however, Santorum’s rhetoric is strikingly similar to the arguments used in the 1940’s when racial integration became a problem for the military. Candidates against integration worried about “close sleeping quarters” and “showers” just as Santorum does. Homosexuality isn’t a communicable disease anymore than being Black is. If that was the case, I’d be sneezing all over everyone in Washington! Then, those conservative politicians would not only be gay but Latino too! (I bet they’d really hate that!)

Still, Santorum’s frothing at the mouth knows no bounds! For Santorum, homosexuality is a choice, despite the many psychological studies conducted to combat this belief. (Once again, science and cold hard data mean little when faced with ignorance). To make matters worse, Santorum supports ex-gay therapy saying that “There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary, and there are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren’t anymore. I don’t think that’s the case with anyone who’s black.”

Apparently, Santorum forgets there was a time when Blacks used to bleach their skin to try and blend in. The hate they felt from the nation drove those American citizens to feel as if they had to change their skin color something that is really unalterable in order to fit in. As ridiculous as trying to lighten one’s skin tone seems to be now, that is the same nonsense ex-gay conversion spouts.

Ex-gay conversion doesn’t work, according to the APA, but once again, who cares about the facts, when an argument is based on hate, fear, and ignorance? All of those are a wonderful platform for a presidential candidacy, aren’t they?

Perry Endorser Robert Jeffress: Mitt Romney Follows A Cult

Posted on October 7, 2011 by Jacob Flores

ThinkProgress reports how Southern Baptist Pastor Robert Jeffress “well-known for his bigoted views about gays, Muslims, and Mormons” believes that allowing Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney in The White House would be the same as supporting a cult. According to Jeffress, only true Christians (which apparently excludes Romney) should be allowed to lead our nation. Evidently, religious convictions are a pre-requisite for the Executive Office in this deluded man’s point of view.

Jeffress’ comments were made today at the Values Voters Summit, where Rick Perry was introduced by the Dallas-based Baptist pastor. In his speech, he called Planned Parenthood “a slaughterhouse” and repeated his belief that “Mormonism is a cult.” He also falsely claimed that “seventy percent of the gay population has AIDS” and that the virus is a well-known “gay disease.”

If you want the highlights, here’s the video.

What amazes me is that the summit is touted as Values Voters. This man demonstrates no values I would want anyone to follow. His perception is prejudiced, narrow, and alarming. Basically, his argument comes down to this: if you’re not like him, you’re not fit to hold office. That is most definitely not the principles this country was founded upon nor does it represent the true spirit of democracy. Perhaps Jeffress forgets that this country is “for the people” and “by the people.” Those people include Mormons, non-Christians, and gays!

Why does this man, or anyone really, feel the need to exclude groups within a country seeking national representation? A true candidate, someone who really wanted to represent America, would be a voice for the rich and powerful, the poor and downtrodden, and the social elite and the social pariahs.

True leadership means leading everyone not just those who are the most like you!

Presidential Hopeful Herman Cain: It’s Your Fault if You’re Poor

Posted on October 5, 2011 by Jacob Flores

Herman Cain, 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, revealed exactly how in touch he is with the pulse of America. When interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, about the grass roots movement “Occupy Wall Street,” Cain announced, “Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself! . . . It is not someone’s fault if they succeeded, it is someone’s fault if they failed.”

Think Progress reported the following on Cain’s comment: “But Cain’s claim about the unemployed is especially heartless and uninformed. There are simply not enough jobs to go around, with 4.32 unemployed people for every job opening in the country. So even someone looking hard for a job will have a difficult time finding one. Moreover, Cain fails to understand the astronomical income inequality in the U.S. and the negative effect it has on economic growth.”

To further illustrate his ignorance, Cain also claimed, “I don’t have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration.”

Well, without facts, who can really argue with him? I’ll give it a try though.

The citizens behind the “Occupy Wall Street” movement aren’t pleased with Republicans or Democrats! (as mentioned in the Huffington Post). They are angry with politicians in general. They aren’t trying to help Obama or hurt him. They are trying to bring attention to the plight of the everyday citizen, who flounders in an economy that favors the top 1% of American income earners.

They are upset that the individuals who caused the banking crisis remain unaffected and free, while the average American still suffers from the fallout of the banking scandals in 2008. But as Cain said, “We aren’t in 2008; we’re in 2011.”

Who can argue with that logic? What happened in 2008 couldn’t possibly be affecting the nation still in 2011! I mean slavery in this country ended in 1863, and our country has long since moved passed that, right?

Cain obviously has no concept of the struggles of the typical American. To blatantly tell an interviewer that the unemployed should blame themselves is ridiculous, especially in this job climate. Jobs are simply not there, so how can the unemployed be blamed?

With Cain now tied for first place with Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential nod (both candidates are at 17% among Republican primary voters, as reported by CBS), I am concerned that someone as out of touch with the average American might one day represent their interests in The White House.

House Speaker Boehner Triples Budget in Defense of DOMA

Posted on October 4, 2011 by Jacob Flores

In what can only be called a frivolous waste of tax payers’ money, House Speaker John Boehner has approved to triple the amount paid to their legal team to battle DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in legal proceedings. This move is supported by other House Republican leaders.

What I find interesting, and a little maddening, is that Republicans constantly blast Democrats for their “frivolous” spending on the poor, Medicare, food stamps, and Social Security, to name a few, (all programs to help Americans, by the way), while Republican leaders apparently have no problem spending 1.5 millions dollars to defend a law that restricts civil rights.

Apparently, defending marriage and restricting it to only one man and one woman means more than providing food and health care for the down trodden. Is that really what this country, whose deficit is approximately 14 trillion dollars, needs to be spending money on? Is ensuring that two men or two women, who love each other, are not allowed to marry that important?

For Republican leaders, the answer would apparently be a resounding yes!

When asked about the tripled budget to defend DOMA, Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, said, “At a time when Americans are hurting and job creation should be the top priority, it just shows how out of touch House Republicans have become that they would spend up to $1.5 million dollars to defend discrimination in our country.”

And that is exactly what Republican leaders are doing.

As I’ve said before, marriage is not only a religious sacrament, it is also a civil right. Not every straight couple is married in a church. And homosexuals aren’t asking to be married in a church. We are simply asking for the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy (and take for granted), which they receive from the government–the right of inheritance, the right of hospital visits, the right to make medical decisions, and the right to file joint income tax returns. The list goes on and on.

But spending 1.5 million dollars to prevent that from happening means more to Republican leaders than any social program that helps others. This is government-sponsored discrimination at its best!

With the way things are going in politics these days, the America of 2050 I envisioned in my novel Moral Authority really isn’t that far-fetched, is it?

Ann Coulter: It’s Okay to Boo a Soldier

Posted on September 29, 2011 by Jacob Flores

No doubt, many of you have already heard about the audience, who booed a gay soldier, at the GOP debate. The soldier in question, Stephen Hill, serves in Iraq and asked the panel if, elected president, they “plan[ned] to circumvent the progress that has been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?” At this point, the booing commenced.

I’ve been angry about this for days, so I couldn’t write about it right away. I needed time to cool down and process.

Then, I read today on Towleroad (another blog site) about Ann Coulter (one of my least favorite people in the world). She is actually praising the booing of the soldier. Click here if you can stomach reading her column.

According to La Coulter: “It is beyond absurd to demand that Republican candidates pledge not to consider altering a recent rule change overturning a military policy that had been in effect from the beginning of warfare until the last few weeks of the 111th Congress. Of course there was booing for that!”

In her column, she “claims” the booing was not in response to the soldier being gay but about him not wanting a republican presidential administration to overturn the repeal of DADT. I believe that as much as I believe that one day Ann Coulter will ride in a parade car with RuPaul as Grand Marshall of the NYC gay pride parade in 2012.

Sorry, Ann, but some of us “liberal cry babies” don’t buy the bull your shoveling. Heap that pile of manure over on FOX News, thanks.

However, as a logical person I will concede the possibility that the disrespectful drove of conservatives might have also been booing the question as much as the soldier. And in this country (the one that soldiers gay and straight fight for), Freedom of Speech is one of our most cherished rights–even in the form of scorn at a persecuted minority.

But these people, the ones who booed Hill, these would be the same people to spout if YOU DON’T SUPPORT THE TROOPS, YOU DON’T SUPPORT AMERICA!

Who’s not supporting the troops or America now? That would be you, you bunch of booing boobs, with Ann Coulter, the biggest boob of them all, riding the train of discord all the way to the bank.

It’s preposterous to think gay soldiers are ineffective (or lead to the uprising of a Fourth Reich, according to Ann’s comment in her column) for the sole reason that they sleep with someone of the same gender! Sex, whether gay or straight, doesn’t lead to decreased morale or destroyed unit cohesion. Sex, for most people I know, only increases morale and unity. But only if you do it right. If you believe otherwise (and have to boo about it), maybe it’s sexual frustration more than anything else. Actually, that would explain a lot about Ann Coulter’s bad mood all these years!

But I digress. Sex has been occurring in the military since “the beginning of warfare” to quote Coulter. Whether you want to believe it or not, gays have been in the military since the beginning. They are just tired of having to hide who they are. So when Coulter says “that not talking about your sex life with your co-workers is not lying about who you are. In fact, many Americans manage quite easily to go days and days without talking about their sex lives with co-workers,” she is once again not seeing the forest for the trees. Admitting your a homosexual is not talking about your sex life. Is your colleague at work talking about his/her sex life when that person announces that he/she is getting married? Of course not! Talking about sex at work, whether it’s on a military base or at a small business, is inappropriate, whether or not you’re gay or straight. Admitting who you love isn’t about sex or about being inappropriate; it’s about being proud of who you love and who you are! It’s what makes us human.

Apparently, that’s not a lesson Ann Coulter or her booing friends have learned.

And, finally, in regards to Ann’s last comment that the “hysterical sobbing” of liberals on the subject of the audience booing the gay soldier “blocks reason,” I shall only say this. We aren’t sobbing; we are simply angry, and you’re just upset because you can’t keep us in the closet anymore.

Now dry you’re eyes and stopping crying about that!