The president of the Iowa-Nebraska chapter of the NAACP has endorsed anti-gay Republican gubernatorial hopeful Bob Vander Plaats…

"I know that Bob Vander Plaats is not afraid to stand up for what is right," Rev. Keith A. Ratliff Sr. said. "That takes courage."

"He's talked about the importance of defending the institution of marriage… That takes backbone and determination. That's what I want in my governor — and that's why I'm standing here today to show my support for him," he added.

Now, after a century of tireless effort, it sure is heartening to see a leader of the NAACP — which, according to its website, has a long and proud history as "a champion of social justice" — taking such a bold stand in favor of the oppressed majority, forging a stronger status quo, and fighting back against the tyranny of the downtrodden.

And it's kinda sweet to see this brave leader and one of his organization's old rivals finally seeing eye-to-eye on some things.

See also: The Daily Show on the Radical Gay Rights March

No, not Elton John-themed honeymoon cruises. More terrible. Yes: SOCIALISM.

It's true, says Rep. Steve King…

King told a conservative news radio program: "If there's a push for a socialist society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they have to go to, same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation, they want access to public funds and resources."

Think about it. It's like how dentistry is just a few steps away from facism*. Rep. King is just the guy to sound this important alarm, because he is from the gay-marrying state of Iowa, so he knows whereof he speaks…

"I said that if this is allowed to happen, Iowa would become the Mecca for same sex marriage, and that has begun to happen," King said.

Oh my God, it's even worse than I thought! After everyone gets forced into gay marriages, we'll be forcibly converted to Islam, and then the Socialist takeover happens.

And then, I guess, we'll just give up and start praying for God Allah to put us out of our misery.

^{* Dentists are licensed by "state boards." Need I say more?}

That place has really turned into a regular Sodom and/or Gomorrah. And practically no one has been spared the unimaginable pain of this fiasco.

Except for these very few people..

The overwhelming majority of Iowans — 92 percent — say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.

Okay, well, this new poll from The Des Moines Register isn't telling the whole story. Like, how about the other eight percent of Iowans? What about all the trauma they're going through?

Have you noticed positive or negative changes in your life, if any, since marriage for gay and lesbian couples was allowed last spring?

Mostly positive: 3%
Mostly negative: 4%
No real change: 92%
Not sure: 1%

Okay, well what about that 4 percent? That's 1/25th of the state. And that's… not… nothing.

The poll has a possible margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Alright, alright, alright. Let's just say that there are at least 27 or 28 people who are having a very difficult time with this gay marriage thing.

And gay dudes trying to adjust to married life can't  make up much more than half of that number.

Update: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention. You know how miniscule 4 percent of Iowans claim to be feeling negative pangs since gay marriage has been instated? Well, can you guess what percent are planning to vote against it?

Yep, 41 percent.

Human beings sure are the best, aren't they?

Grassley said the attendance at the town hall meetings has been six times what it was last year.

"It's great that so many people are getting involved and want to participate in these meetings," he said. "I want to hear what people have to say, and encourage every Iowan to participate in the democratic process by having dialogue with their elected representatives."

That's your cue, Angry Guy in the Back!

"The president of the United States, that's who you should be concerned about. Because he's acting like a little Hitler," said Tom Eisenhower, a World War II veteran. "I'd take a gun to Washington if enough of you would go with me."

Uh-huh. Actually, I'm concerned about people like Tom Eisenhower, people who can't even get their basic facts straight.

I mean, come on. If you can't see that Barack Obama is acting like a much taller Hitler, I don't know how you expect me to take you seriously.

Grassley quickly returned to the popular myth he discussed earlier in the day during a similar town hall meeting in Winterset — that a Democratic health care bill will allow the federal government the power to "pull the plug on grandma."

Despite the fact that the idea has been thoroughly debunked by political analysts, policy experts, and even a Republican senator, Grassley maintained that the current proposals moving through Congress leave the door open to government-mandated euthanasia.

Why can't these "debunkers" see the truth? And who are you going to believe, a Republican senator or Chuck Grassley?

The proposal to which Grassley referred would merely require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions for anyone who would like it. It would also be completely voluntary. In Iowa, a similar law is already on the books, and Grassley’s grandson, state Rep. Pat Grassley (R-New Hartford), voted for it in 2008.

Yes, it will be a tragic day for America when Chuck Grassley is forced before an Iowa death panel, by his own grandson.

On the other hand, at least he'll be able to say "I told you so."

Well the senator has weighed in with a response via his favorite medium — Twitter — and the answer is a resounding "no."  At least we think so.  Which is to say, if you can make sense of this post, please let us know…

Misinformatio accuses me of supportin ObamaCare NOT TRUE I M at table making sure Govt takeovr doesn't happen,protect patience,and taxpayers

Although nearly 50% of the words in Grassley's "tweet" were technically English, it's still hard to make sense of it all.

I hate to disagree with my friend Dylan over there, but I don't think that Grassley was writing about health care at all. If I'm not mistaken, he's quoting an incantation from the original printing of Abdul Alhazred's forbidden tome, The Necronomicon.

From what I understand, he's very conservative when it comes to observation of The Ancient Ones.

Update: It has come to my attention that both Dylan and I are wrong. Sen. Grassley is attempting to communicate with the Foodpeeple in their native language.

* Hey, remember that charming witchdoctor picture that Mary wrote about a few weeks ago? This guy knows what I'm talking about? (And, by "this guy," I mean "prominent conservative activist Dr. David McKalip.")

* Health Care Reform from the people who brought you Saw: Parts I thru XVI.

* This just in: Barack Obama hates the Socratic concept of "Law." Also, he's not so keen on "Order."

* Bob Barr likes watching his babies die. (But in a good way.)

* What the hell is going on over there in Iowa?

* Is Carrie Prejean actually going to be on the next season of The Apprentice? And what does that have to do with Meghan McCain? And, most importantly, why do I care?

You see, the other day the House voted on a bill to hang a plaque in the Capitol Visitors Center, but not just any old plaque, a plaque that would "acknowledge the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol." Is Representative Steve King going to sit back and let something like that be screwdriven into the United States Capitol?

No he will not…

The [399] "Yes" votes spanned the ideological spectrum, from Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann [Ed. note: !!!!] on the right to Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich on the left. The one vote against: Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

That's right! Iowa, high-five yourself! Your Representative Steve King is the only person in the entire House of Representatives who's brave enough to say "Nah, don't think so" to one plaque, four screws and fourteen decades of grappling with the most horrifying period in American history!

Because of Jesus, you see, because of Jesus. King's official statement on the vote:

"Last night I opposed yet another bill to erect another monument to slavery because it was used as a bargaining chip to allow for the actual depiction of 'In God We Trust' in the Capitol Visitors Center. The Architect of the Capitol and liberal activists opposed every reference to America's Christian heritage, even to the extent of scrubbing 'In God We Trust' from the depiction of the actual Speaker's chair in the U.S. House of Representatives. [...] Our Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation and should not be held hostage to yet another effort to place guilt on future Americans for the sins of some of their ancestors."

Little tip for Rep. King: next time you speak out against a wall decoration to commemorate thousands of American slaves who suffered and died while constructing the very institution to which you have (for whatever reason) been elected, MAYBE you should consider avoiding certain phrases.

Like "foundation stone" and "held hostage," for example.

February 23, 2004: A Giant Homosexual Taunt

May 11, 2005: This Week in God

June 6, 2006: Gay Marriage Ban

December 11, 2008: Proposition 8

April 6, 2009: Queer Eye for the Hawkeye

April 8, 2009: I Now Pronounce You Ben & Jerry

May 20, 2009: Gay Marriage Is Bad for Small Business

But, since I've got a job, I usually just end up reading bullshit unfounded speculation on the Internet instead…

[If John Edwards had not run for president] Could Hillary Clinton have grabbed Edwards' loyalists and won early, stage-setting contests in Iowa, where Barack Obama emerged as a contender with a stunning win, or later, in the South Carolina primary?

Yes, says Mark Penn, Clinton's close campaign adviser and pollster. Penn has asserted that without Edwards on the ballot, voters would have taken a "fresh look" at Clinton.

Well, if Mark Penn says it, it must be true. Why, he's never proven himself to be wrong-headed, duplicitous or willfully ignorant before. That guy is a straight shooter if ever I did see one.

But, just for the sake of adding length to this post, let's see what somebody who knows what he's talking about has to say. What does Mark Blumenthal from Pollster.com have to say about it?

Mark Blumenthal from Pollster.com: "The most compelling evidence concerns where Edwards' support might have gone, had he withdrawn once the campaign had gotten under way in early 2007: polls showing that Edwards supporters preferred Obama to Clinton as their second choice in Iowa (as early as May 2007) and in New Hampshire (a few days before the primary)…

"Edwards started the race as the leading candidate in Iowa. Had Edwards withdrawn in late 2006, others who were considering the race at about that time — Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner — might have gotten in."

Yeah. Edwards' campaign was the only thing standing between Evan Bayh and the White House.

He must be very bitter.