Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) has said some incredibly stupid, bigoted, and absurd things during her two years in Congress, but something she suggested Friday may well be a new low for her.
According to Boebert, no American should be allowed to come out as LGBTQ until they turn 21.
“We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products.
“Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?”
We require people to be 21 to purchase alcohol beverages, and 21 to purchase tobacco products.
Why is it so unreasonable to require people to reach a certain level of maturity before making life-altering decisions about their sexuality and identity?
If we’re going to impose such a restriction on people’s sexuality, wouldn’t it also be reasonable to insist that you can’t own a gun until you’re 21? Boebert would no doubt be opposed to such a measure because she thinks we should all carry weapons of mass murder everywhere we go.
Twitter quickly reminded Boebert just how utterly moronic her suggestion was.
If age = reaching a certain level of maturity, your then boyfriend, now husband, wouldn’t have exposed his tattooed baloney pony to a bunch of underage girls at a bowling alley when he was 24 years old, Bobo. But thanks for playing.
— Nestor "the boss" Gomez (@soloyochapin) April 2, 2022
But you agree with forcing a 12 year old to give birth from a pregnancy as a result of rape.
— Peasant Twittler ☀️ (@PeasantTwittler) April 1, 2022
Educate yourself you ignorant twit. We don’t decide our sexuality. It’s who we are. It’s a rigid process to transition. And hypocrite- can’t decide sexuality until 18, but can be forced to give birth? GFYS. Can’t wait until you’re out of office.
You married a guy who exposed himself to minors. Your decision-making skills haven't improved since then.
Why is it so unreasonable to require representatives to have a certain level of morality before making society altering decisions about anything at all?
— Frank Wears A Mask (@Frankwearsamask) April 1, 2022
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is angry that she may be kept off the midterm ballot for being an insurrectionist, so she’s blaming everyone but herself and whining that if she isn’t allowed to run, it will “destroy democracy.”
Speaking with right-wing host Jeremy Herrell of Real America’s Voice, Greene remarked:
“I need people’s support. They’re coming after me. They just filed a lawsuit against me last week to try to actually remove my name off the ballot! You talk about destroying democracy, these Democrats, they are seriously trying to destroy democracy by filing a lawsuit to remove my name off the ballot and taking away my district’s ability to vote for me again.”
What Greene neglected to mention is that a clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution allows for anyone who has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the United States to be excluded from running for office.
Greene then added:
“That is destroying democracy! And that is the most evil thing these people could do. They’re so arrogant. They want to take away my district’s right to vote for me. That’s how much they hate the people of my district and look down on them because they’ve tried to shame me in the media and make me into someone I’m not.”
The congresswoman also proved that she’s all about the grift, begging for donations to her campaign “because I’m going to have to pay attorneys to fight for this.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene claims Democrats are "destroying Democracy" with efforts to remove her from the ballot over Jan. 6.
Boo freaking hoo! Margie should have thought of all that before she urged on the rioters and defended them in the months after the attack on the Capitol. To hear her tell it, no one did anything wrong and the Justice Department is persecuting the rioters simply because they’re Trump supporters.
Much like the failed, one-term, twice-impeached former president Marjorie Greene is so full of shit that her eyes must be brown.
If it wasn’t enough that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had to face criticism from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week about the sentences she imposed on those convicted of possessing child pornography, now a woman whose husband allegedly flashed his penis at an underage girl is trying to suggest that Judge Jackson is part of a larger conspiracy inside the Democratic party.
On Friday, police in Maine arrested former independent gubernatorial candidate Eliot Cutler on child porn charges:
Prominent Maine political figure Eliot Cutler was arrested Friday on child pornography charges.
Cutler is facing four counts of possession of unlawful sexually explicit materials Class C, which means subjects are younger than 12-years-old, Matthew J. Foster, district attorney for Hancock and Washington counties, told NEWS CENTER Maine.
Even though Judge Jackson has absolutely no connection to Cutler, that didn’t stop Boebert from tweeting out this disgusting tidbit:
“A well known Democrat megadonor in Maine was arrested on… …You guessed it! Child pornography charges! The reason KJB was picked becomes more and more obvious as the days go on.”
A well known Democrat megadonor in Maine was arrested on…
…You guessed it!
Child pornography charges!
The reason KJB was picked becomes more and more obvious as the days go on.
As Jamelle Bouie noted in the New York Times, such specious allegations by Republicans are no accident:
“The belief that Democrats are pedophiles — and that at its top levels the Democratic Party is an elaborate pedophilia ring — looms large in the QAnon conspiracy theory, which is something like orthodoxy for a substantial portion of the Republican base. In a poll taken just before the 2020 election, half of Donald Trump supporters agreed that ‘top Democrats are involved in elite child sex-trafficking rings.’ And in a poll taken last year by the Public Religion Research Institute, 15 percent of Americans say that ‘the levers of power are controlled by a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles.'”
Twitter wasted no time calling out Boebert for her bullshit and blatant hypocrisy:
Boebert do you really care because your voting record proves differently. You voted no on “H.R.485 – Stronger Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act” along with 72 of your fellow republicans. Tell us how you care as I don’t see it other than using those kids for political gain.
Even if this was true, which it isn’t, KBJ will be one judge on the Court. She won’t shift the 6-3 conservative balance. In other words, this take is just plain silly.
A well known Republican strategist who worked on tRump's campaign and for the RNC was charged with distributing child pornography. https://t.co/1kKeB3Mp9u
A group of voters in the state of Georgia filed a lawsuit Thursday that would disqualify Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) from running for reelection in November as a result of her actions on January 6, 2021.
“The suit argues that Greene’s statements and activities related to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th make the congresswoman an insurrectionist A clause of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits those who have ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ against the United States from holding public office. The suit, citing this clause, contends that Greene ‘is constitutionally disqualified from congressional office and, as such, ineligible to run as a candidate under state and federal law.’”
The lawsuit was filed by the nonprofit Free Speech For People, which has also filed a similar suit against Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC).
The suit against Greene cites “numerous instances in which Greene, on social media or in person, has ‘advocated for political violence, up to and including, her encouragement of the insurrectionists on January 6.'”
One of those instances was a tweet Greene sent out on January 5, 2021 in which she referred to the next day as “our 1776 moment!”
Additionally, in a video Greene posted on Facebook, the Georgia Republican remarked:
“You can’t allow it to just transfer power peacefully like Joe Biden wants and allow him to become our President because he didn’t win this election.”
Greene has recently drawn criticism for suggesting that the United States shouldn’t arm the Ukrainian freedom fighters, commenting:
“If we truly care about suffering and death on our television screens, we cannot fund more of it by sending money and weaponry to fight a war they cannot possibly win! The only effect of more arms and more money from America will be to prolong the war!”
Indiana Republican Sen. Mike Braun says he thinks the U.S. Supreme Court had no right to mandate that interracial marriage had to be legal in all states and that each individual state should be able to decide on such issues without the interference of the courts.
According to The Times of Northwest Indiana, Braun said the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision that struck down state bans on interracial marriage, was a mistake:
“Braun initially limited his claim to the national right to abortion established by the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision he hopes the current, more conservative, Supreme Court will overturn in coming months when it rules in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But, when asked by The Times, Braun admitted there are many Supreme Court decisions he believes improperly established federal rights that would be better handled on a state-by-state basis, including Loving v. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage, and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) establishing a right to privacy concerning contraceptive use.”
Specifically, Braun commented:
“We’re better off having states manifest their points of view, rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did. This should be something where the expression of individual states are able to weigh-in on these issues through their own legislation, through their own court systems. Quit trying to put the federal government in charge.”
So now we have a Republican member of the Senate who is quite literally letting the mask slip and saying that if the state of Mississippi decides that blacks in their state cannot marry whites, they should have every right to do so.
Or, suppose the state of Indiana wants to say that same-sex couples have no right to marry or live together, they should also be allowed do to so because hey, state’s rights and all that stuff, the very same argument that was made for decades on the issue of slavery.
Fortunately, the reaction to Braun’s remarks was utter disgust and disdain, as it damn well should be: