First there was this:
Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?And now there's this. In an interview from late June with radio conservative Alan Stock she was asked this question:
Angle: Not in my book.
Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
Angle: You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.
What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let’s say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?To which she answered:
I think that two wrongs don’t make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I’ll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said ‘I know what you did thank you for saving my life.’ So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life. [emphasis added.]Interesting when you ponder the details. Note in her answer the pregnancy of the 15 year old girl is "at risk, difficult" but not the product of an incestuous rape. So right off the bat, she's changing the subject.
But in any event, this tea-party darling of the GOP has advice for 15 yr old girls who are pregnant because they've been raped by their fathers: When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.
Nice. Compassionate. Conservative.
Then there's the "tan tax." From the Washington Post:
Mention the new "tan tax" in a major news outlet and cries of discrimination and reverse racism often follow.Yea, 'cause if there's one place where white people have fallen behind in Amurika, it's in equal protection under the law. We just cain't catch a break!
The complaint surfaced on reader comment boards to blogs and news Web sites back in December, when it became clear that the levy -- a 10 percent surcharge on the use of ultraviolet tanning beds -- was likely to be included in the new health-care overhaul bill. Since then, it's been repeated by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Doc Thompson, a fill-in host for Glenn Beck who intoned in March, "I now know the pain of racism."
When an article about the fallout from the tax -- which took effect last week -- appeared on the Washington Post's Web site Wednesday, dozens of commenters questioned the tax's legality.
The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
Teh crazie. It's back and better than ever.