There’s a meme out there somewhere that says that having (some number, sorry) illegal aliens in the country is better than one (Trump supporter, Republican…again, sorry).
No one has given me more reason to spottily remember it than good ol’ Todd Starnes. He’s one of those conservatives that derive their adult strength from Jesus and belittling unfortunate people after a school career likely marked by swirlies and getting shoved in lockers. Todd is a mealymouthed little twink with nothing to offer to a civil debate.
Before I begin shredding Todd, I had something of an epiphany about the immigration debate whilst trolling my brother’s Facebook page a few days ago, watching so-called Christians get all huffy about immigrants. I developed an axiom: if you have a lot to say against “illegals”, you’re a racist. Don’t give me that crap about breaking “laws”. That’s your cover story. You have issues with people whose skin color is not like yours and who don’t speak like you. You have probably never been hurt by an illegal (or been exposed to risk from them to a greater degree than you are vulnerable to homemade criminals), none of them have taken your job (in point of fact, they are doing the jobs you won’t do), and they do pay taxes without receiving benefits.
You are hung up because you are a prejudiced asshole. End of discussion. There’s a hundred things to bitch about regarding American life but choosing to plant your flag in this discussion above so many other deserving problems says something about you.
As it happens, being cruel to immigrants is as old as the country itself. For all of our talk about being a melting pot, we have always demeaned the latest wave of immigrants once we have become “Americanized”.
What’s in the name “Starnes”, I wonder? Most Starnes’ are from England, and the name’s root means “stern, uncompromising, austere”. I guess that fits him quite well, if only he didn’t look like look like a rodent who is packing his cheeks for winter:
Anyway, Todd’s as white as can be, hailing from the mother country. If there was an immigrant wave, you can bet a Starnes looked down on it.
Here’s the inconvenient truth on immigration. The problem is intractable and the current boob-in-chief, try as he might, will not fix it. Illegal immigration is a linchpin of daily American life. I wouldn’t be able to afford a chicken breast or enjoy a bunch of grapes if mega-food corporations used labor that they would pay in wampum if they could get away with it. This is the ugly reality sitting just below the surface of our American happy-go-lucky lives; that our polite survival is based, yet again, on slave labor. We don’t get paid enough in this country to make rent, how are we going to deal when a pack of chicken breasts costs eighteen dollars? Am I an amnesty supporter? Yes, of course I am. But a whole range of labor reforms would have to be tackled before we handle how to pay immigrants for the suckiest work that’s ever sucked. If indeed the aim of our corporate masters is to find that sweet spot for all of us between penury and subsistence, then the illegal immigrant issue will not get “fixed”. It’s going to stay the way they like it, and all of you stupid fucks like Todd Starnes will go on believing your bought off politicians when they say they’re going to scratch your racist itch.
Then there’s DACA. Children of undocumented immigrants born here face a possibility of being sent to a country they don’t know and didn’t come from. That is truly frightening shit and should NEVER happen here. Some of these kids are pursuing academics and serving in the armed forces. Donald Trump could have left DACA as it was, but he purposely kicked the legs out from under it, claiming it was not legal and punting the issue to Congress, where it was guaranteed to languish until it could be used as a bargaining chip in the scorched-earth politics Mitch McConnell trafficks in. Not feeling for these kids who were born of undocumented parents makes you a true scumbag.
So anyway, let’s go look at what the terminally punchable Starnes has to say today:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a number of other Democrats plan to fill the House gallery with illegal aliens when President Trump delivers his first State of the Union address on Tuesday.
ABC News reports at least 24 House Democrats plan to bring illegals — the so-called “Dreamers” — to watch the Tuesday night speech from the House gallery.
Whoa! Stop right there, Todd. As I explained above, there is a yuge difference between an “illegal” and a “dreamer”. “Dreamers” have until at least mid-March (and possibly beyond pending a court order to block the end of protections) before they can be targeted for removal. They are not illegal yet, you dumbshit.
The illegal aliens will be sitting in seats that in previous years were meant for brave military heroes, law-abiding taxpayers and America’s best and brightest.
Again, see above on the issue of taxes. Furthermore, there’s almost a thousand “dreamers” serving honorably in the military, which is way more than you can say for chickenhawks like Todd Starnes and Donald Trump for that matter.
The sad truth is that Democrats would rather align themselves with foreign invaders who violated our national sovereignty, thumbed their nose at the rule of law, and pillaged and plundered taxpayer-funded resources.
Foreign “invaders”? Really with that hyperbole, Todd? You sound like a frightened little Pomeranian who snarls and snaps at anything unfamiliar that gets close to it. Buck up. You are a Starnes, damn it.
In response, President Trump should fill the remainder of the House gallery with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
Imagine the message he could send to the world if he directed ICE agents to arrest every illegal alien in the House chamber – live on national television.
Aside from this being one of the most demented un-American fantasies I have seen in a while, once again, you stupid fuck-these people are legal.
There’s really not much point in more blow-by-blow here, because he gets basic facts wrong repeatedly. The whole piece is predicated on bullshit. But I hope I have made clear here that immigrants have so much to offer this country, way more than angry, hyperventilating white dorks who write a Fox opinion column whose only purpose is to spread misunderstanding and fear do.
Todd Starnes is the undisputed king of conservative twerps. Some of you may already know who he is. He’s wound up on my radar several times for being a smug, disingenuous Christian bigot. In other words, he’s loved by Fox consumers. This is the creature I’m referring to:
(Todd Starnes at Halloween, in brave patriot costume.)
That doughy little gopher has always got something snarky to say when Christians don’t get their way. He can’t cut it as a reporter, so Fox is a great place for him since everyone is a commentator there.
What’s Todd being a cunt about now? This, from Pennsylvania:
The Ten Commandments monument will be removed from Valley Junior-Senior High School, after district officials reached a settlement in a lawsuit claiming the district violated the constitutionally required separation of church and state.
Before I begin whupping on Todd, let me just explain the atheist position on these damn monuments. I believe that somewhere in the penumbral intersections of the Bill Of Rights is the right to be left alone. That’s all atheists are really interested in-to live live the way we please(provided we do no harm) with a free conscience. Atheists are NOT, I repeat, not, interested in making converts. It’s a personal decision everyone must make after looking at the evidence that we have about the nature of being. We give less than a fuck what conclusion you come to.
Until you decide to drop a giant stone replica of your conclusions in a public place like a school, without considering how other faiths and creeds are going to feel about it. Then we have a problem. You Christians think you own everything, and that’s why you do this-it’s a show of force, a show of your potency in the face of what you consider evil, which is the rest of us. There’s no other reason for it. It’s not good law or sage wisdom to someone who has another god besides Jehovah, so let’s dispense with that bullshit reason for its usefulness or necessity.
I would never, ever do this to you. Sure, I’ve had the occasional beef with religion and I think believers are all one fry short of a Happy Meal in some way, but I ain’t into constructing monuments to my own brilliance since I have obviously got it all figured out…like you do.
Am I being clear here? Another thing-you really don’t want the Satanists getting into this. Because they will put a monument up if you do and you will really hate it. So, cut your losses like this school did, and keep your Bible tucked under your arm and not pissing me or people who have different faiths off with oversized reproductions of it, as if to signal you will forget it if you don’t have in giant engraved form. It’s more like you don’t want the rest of of us to forget who runs this damn culture.
To this I reply: fuck you too. And I will wield the Constitution and break your middle finger if I can.
So let’s catch a whiff of Todd’s always wrong, halfwit comments about it, shall we?
A Pennsylvania school district capitulated to the demands of a militant atheist who filed a federal lawsuit demanding the district remove a Ten Commandments monument erected on a public high school campus.
She sued. What makes that militant? Todd, as a fellow writer, I recommend trying to change up your descriptive ‘smithing so you don’t use the same word twice in a sentence. We all do it in our first drafts sometimes. You should avail yourself of an editor, because you can. Unless your goal was to emphasize how hard the militant demander demanded, then carry on, I suppose.
New Kensington-Arnold School District agreed to remove the massive monument within 30 days – ending a lawsuit filed in 2012 by self-avowed atheist Marie Schaub.
Unlike other atheists who have other people avow that they don’t believe. I get the feeling that Todd is trying to belittle atheists in some faggoty little passive-aggressive way, like he’s saying our thinking doesn’t count or something. This is probably much akin to Donald Trump and his “so-called” judges remark-if he doesn’t like or respect what they’re saying, then they’re somehow not real or authentic.
Schaub claimed the 6-foot stone monument erected outside Valley High School was a religious symbol and therefore was a violating of the U.S. Constitution.
Schaub also claimed the monument was offensive to her and her daughter. I can only imagine which commandment she found to be most offensive. Maybe it was the one about graven images.
Ho, ho, ho! I’m dyin’ ova’ heah!
No, it’s probably the one that asserts that I have a god, or that there is one that invalidates all others. Would you like me to be a dick and do that to you, Todd?
He’s got something to say about the people who brought the suit:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a group of perpetually offended atheists, agnostics and self-professed free-thinkers based in Wisconsin. They intentionally bully and intimidate small towns and communities in their quest to eradicate Christianity from the public marketplace.
They are truly an unpleasant bunch of people, folks.
We’ve done a really good job at demonizing people who are offended by things. Our national phobia about being politically correct has caused this. White Christian Americans have gotten away with being bigoted dicks for so long that they are shocked, just shocked that someone is telling them to watch their damn tongue. Offense is taken when one is insulted. There is nothing wrong with being offended.
I don’t know why I have to explain this to Todd and his ilk. They get the vapors every time Starbucks’ holiday cup isn’t Christ-themed enough.
I’d rather be unpleasant than be these people any day of the week, by the way.
Schools Superintendent John Pallone told the local newspaper they agreed to settle the lawsuit “in order to take the high road.”
“We compromised and agreed to remove the monument,” he said.
That’s hardly a compromise. It’s more like appeasement.
Bullshit. Pallone either knew he was going to lose the case or was running out of money and goodwill to keep the monument up, so he characterized his decision to settle as a “compromise”. One immediately has to wonder what the school got in return for settling, because as far as I can tell, all they gained were two used carbon copies of checks that they had to write to plaintiff Marie Schaub and the FFRF. I agree with Starnes; it’s not a compromise. As it should be.
Requesting the respect that one deserves as a person with a free conscience is not tantamount to invading Czechoslovakia, which Todd airily alludes to. Let’s imagine it another way, Todd, using another World War II comparison, even though it is wholly inappropriate as all Nazi analogies are: I am living in 1942 Vichy France and you are an occupying army.
I’m the Free French. Vive Charles DeGaulle, motherfucker.
Then Todd finishes by castigating the school for settling.
And in doing so – the school district violated an eleventh commandment: Thou Shall Not Tucketh Tail and Run.
It’s so easy to criticize when it’s not you that has to do the fighting, innit, Todd? It’s typical Starnes, no one fights hard enough for the “right thing”. My god, what would happen to Christian morale if not for Todd’s sniggering prose? The mind reels at how things would be the same as they are.
The school was out of order. It’s fixed now. You’re out a stone memorial. Be fucking polite and no one has to go to court next time.
Let’s go visit the world of Todd Starnes. He’s always out there being wrong on a subject, and what better time to visit him after the Court-inspired Kristallnacht of last week?
Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes wrote that “Record-breaking floods have inundated Washington, D.C. just days after the Supreme Court decided they knew better than God” and wondered, “Anybody got an ark?”
His assessment veered toward end times territory in a June 28 Facebook post where he wrote: “Record-breaking floods have inundated Washington, D.C. just days after the Supreme Court decided they knew better than God. I seem to remember another time in history when there was a record-breaking flood.” He added: “God painted the sky with rainbow colors after that flood. This go-around – Obama painted the White House with rainbow colors.”
Primo pants-pooping. But really, what is it with this God you speak of, Todd? Because according to Glenn Beck, He ended the drought in Texas with torrential rain by praying. Now he is using floods to punish. God doesn’t just work in mysterious ways. He’s downright borderline. Or is it his followers who imbue him with such caprice?
I think we know the answer to that.
Guess what? Todd Starnes is lying and talking about things he doesn’t understand again. He’s got a strange fascination with the military and its regulations, especially when it comes to defending annoying Christians in uniform. Today’s Todd is about another Christian kook in the Marines who found herself court-martialed and kicked out with a bad conduct discharge because she can’t take orders. Starnes says she was booted for being a Christian; the real story is that she refused to listen to the direct orders of her superiors multiple times.
Refusing to follow orders is very serious. It undermines the discipline of a unit. You can get away with a lot of shit in the service but you don’t buck your superiors when they give you a direct order. I suppose that goes double for the Marine Corps-a much more rigid, disciplined group than my Army. Had Starnes comprehended and understood the offenses described in his own link to the court transcripts, he’d have nothing to write about. But being outraged is his bread and butter, so he made it about freedom of religion.
You can be involuntarily court-martialed for grievous violations of the UCMJ, but most infractions can be dealt with in an Article 15 hearing. It’s likely that this PVT Sterling had a choice between that and a court-martial. Article 15 procedures can also result in reductions in rank, a pay cut, and confinement to barracks for a period of time. She got all those things in the court-martial, and also got herself kicked out. That last part probably wouldn’t have occurred had she kept it in-house. She made the choice to go in front of a judge. Worse yet, she chose to represent herself in the court-martial, thinking that she had good reason to disobey the orders of most of her NCO support chain and command. The judges weren’t interested.
Why was she so recalcitrant? What is the basis for Starnes’ assertion that she was fired because of her religious beliefs? She sounds like a pain in the ass that needed to be removed. She had little to no military discipline. Her first infraction was posting religious phrases all over a desk she shared with another Marine. The notes said things like “no weapon formed against me shall prosper”. The SSG interpreted this as provocative language, a demonstration of defiance. Real fruit loop shit. The judges concurred that this is not a religious act protected by RFRA. She was told to take the notes down. She refused. That’s her first strike. The SSG then took the signs down at end of business. She put them up again. Once more she disobeyed the order to take them down. I have no idea why she wasn’t Artie 15’ed at this point.
Two months later, she was on profile for a hip injury. This means that she is exempt from certain duties or formalities to a degree. Her “chit” suggested that she wear her camo because a more dressed uniform would be difficult to wear. Her SSG was told that Friday’s uniform would be “charlies”, which I guess is the equivalent of my Class B dress. Consequently, she was told to change. She refused because she thought her chit gave her a pass to not dress in that uniform. Here’s the important thing; this profile was not tantamount to “orders”. It was a suggestion. The SSG checked with medical and was told that yes, the Marine could wear something other than her camo. Even when confronted with this information Sterling wouldn’t budge. Eventually, PVT Sterling was ordered to do duty giving out passes to drivers at the gate of the post by her fucking 1SG. She refused, producing another profile that excused her from things like guard duty. She had done this duty before. But she thought that her chit covered that. Nope. She earned herself a trip on the carpet with the MAJ of the unit who ordered her to do the mission. Again, she refused to comply. So, she’s basically pissed off everyone in her chain.
Given these offenses, I am not surprised that she was sent to Fort Living Room. But leave it to Starnes to suggest that she was a target due to her religiosity. As I have demonstrated in a previous post by him, he has no military insight, so he misapprehends the facts in the case. No NCO or officer would allow this degree of insubordination to occur-it gives the rest of the unit the impression that they too can go up against their superiors without consequence. PVT Sterling was insolent (and indolent) to an unacceptable degree, and that is what got her removed. It had nothing to do with her right to express her faith. Neither Starnes nor PVT Sterling have a basis to support the claim that her charges were trumped up because she is a Christian.
Who cares what she is? If she was Muslim, Jewish or Hindu she would have landed in a world of shit too. This whole persecution act by Christians is such bullshit. Nobody wants to hear about your gods or your outlandish beliefs. It is happening to Christians a lot because A) They are the majority faith in this country and B) their predilection for projecting that faith is unprofessional and irritating to those who don’t subscribe to it. I know plenty of places in the civilian world where religious displays are not welcome at one’s workstation. The military is, unsurprisingly, no different.
You have a bazillion churches to uplift your lords and gods. Go there and be weird.
CORRECTION: Marines call punishment under Article 15 “NJP”, or “ninja-punch”.