(9AM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)
Ed Schultz covers the latest DeMint Plan
Ed then interviews “openly gay” Rep. Jared Polis (CO);
and then “openly blunt” Rep. Alan Grayson (FL), to get their takes on this new DeMint Lunacy.
Jim DeMint would ban gay people from teaching in Public Schools;
Not only that, DeMint would prevent Unmarried Women Teachers,
“from sleeping with their Boyfriends” too — or else give up teaching!?
Incredible! Are Women Teachers supposed to take a vow of celibacy, or what?
Ed wonders.
Like Ed puts it, it is the Republicans that want to bring ‘Sharia Law‘ to America —
What’s next “stoning women in the town square, for having sexual relations” ?
Ed says there is one word, for what GOP Rule would bring to America —
and that word is “Discrimination“.
Talk about installing the “Morality Police” — that’s what DeMint would bring to America, given the chance.
How would DeMint enforce his new Public Education “Morality” Policies —
Roving bans of Home inspectors? In home monitoring cams? Chasity belts?
Alan Grayson has his take on the GOP’s Morality Police ambitions, as he has been facing a local Tea Party-backed opponent: Dan Webster.
Alan Grayson defends his ‘Taliban Dan’ ad as just restating the Facts, of what his opponent has previous said. Bluntly Grayson says “It’s the Truth.”
Dan Webster would refuse Choice, to a woman, in ALL Cases.
Dan Webster would make Divorce illegal, except in the case of Adultery.
Dan Webster would require Mothers to stay at home, instead of working outside the home.
Alan Grayson “It’s as if you lose your rights as a human being when you give birth.”
Alan Grayson ad against American Taliban Daniel Webster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
First they came for the Teachers,
but since I was not a Teacher, I said nothing …
Say something.
9 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
give Ed credit, for taking a stand.
Grayon too.
true progressive activists, in my opinion.
Obama and the Democrats fall all over themselves to accommodate with their batshit crazy bipartisanship.
…it would be in jurisdictions in the Bible-belt only. I don’t think DeMint or anyone else seriously wants to create a federal policy like that. This effort is another extension of the opposition to the 1954 Brown decision of the supreme court. What they want to do is get the federal government out of the business of establishing “rights” for minorities whether they be gays or unmarried women or people of whatever color or religion that we imagine. It is an example of a yearning for tribalism of “us” vs. “them” that exists in parts of the country where modernism and the information age is fundamentally destabilizing. People there need solid unbendable rules–that’s the way they were raised. Ambiguity and skepticism they understand, rightly, is disturbing to the human psyche that is not trained to accept it and people in the Bible-belt cling to the irrationality of the Bible because it at least appears to them as a symbol of solidity in a world of way too much information.
DeMint, in particular has the power he has because he represents people who honestly believe as he does. As such the Republicans have given him special status as a kind of guru of the great unwashed. We cannot wish away the fact that around half the country believes the Bible is literally true. I say there is a reason for that and I also say that no amount of “proof” is going to change that attitude as long as the American educational system is as flat-out crappy and irrelevant as it is.
he’s resting that declaration on a solid foundation of Democratic bipartisan complicity.
At least insofar as gays are concerned.
According to apparently a fair number of Democrats, gay people are just not suited to serving in the military. They’re certainly not suited to getting equal job protection and they sure as hell are not suited to being considered married in the same way as heterosexual folk? As to teaching– what’s the difference? I mean, ideologically, what the hell is the difference?
DeMint wants to oppress gay people. He has an ally in the modern Democratic Party, not an opponent.