Louis Buller Gohmert, Jr., is a U.S. Representative of the 1st congressional district from Texas. This upstanding leader recently made a disparaging comment in reference to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. This was not an ideological critique; this was a childish attack on her physical appearance. Strangely, the “...facelift...” comment was made in the context of comparing Pelosi to House Speaker John Boehner, arguably the most cosmetically enhanced member of Congress.
With foot firmly planted in mouth, Gohmert typifies the character of a Tea Party Republican: supporting regressive social policies, an opposition to taxes, xenophobic, anti-gay, anti-women’s choice, pro-offshore drilling, denies the scientific research regarding global warming, thinks stem cells are babies, and embraces the general paranoia and excessive ignorance that is found within such conservative congregations generously dispensing vicarious austerity.
He has voted against increasing federal minimum wage and voted against restricting adverse employer interference in union organizing. He is one of the Republican legislators who voted against extending unemployment benefits, while also voting against incoming job-creating legislation.
He thinks it’s a good idea to make the Patriot Act permanent and advocates discarding due process for wireless searches.
Gohmert voted no on HR3685, which is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Gohmert opposed this act, which “makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated...”
But, let’s not be overly harsh...
In a striking move of independence, Gohmert recently voted just days ago for Allen West to assume duties as the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. It surely was not an oversight on his part that Allen West lost his campaign for re-election and is no longer a member of the House. There are no words for this level of unorthodox genius. Ironically, Representative Gohmert seems to be quite fond of the word “lunatic” in the legal sense.
He sits on the Natural Resources Committee, contributing a truly profound argument for a trans-Alaska pipeline with how the oil-warmed pipeline is a catalyst for caribou breeding. This is a truly inspiring leader of the United States.
He sits on the Immigration Reform Caucus, with his monumental input being to advocate the idea of building a fence between the U.S. and Mexico.
He sits on the National Prayer Caucus, which means he can serve as mentor for others to develop their magical thinking powers to successfully petition an invisible sky wizard.
He supports school vouchers, meaning that taxpayer dollars would fund parents to send their children to private schools; private schools which too often are more interested in teaching outdated creationist mythology than actual subjects of education.
Representative Gohmert is a conservative visionary. Who else would have the astute discernment to see how Al-Qaeda is obviously sending pregnant women into the United States as a means to raise terrorist sleeper agents on this very soil as a means to support the Muslim Brotherhood, which Gohmert has so expertly detected to have already infiltrated the U.S. government at the highest levels? There is a screenplay lurking somewhere in there.
It may be noted that he is also a Baptist deacon and Sunday school teacher at the largest mega-church in East Texas. Baptism and faith-healing curricula are campus electives; instilling the fallacy of persecuted Christians is compulsory.
Regarding the man with the orange tan, Speaker Boehner recently offered a petulantly suggestive barb toward Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Maybe Boehner and Gohmert could join to form a caucus for the sole purpose of doing exactly that. Conceivably, the word “join” may not be the best choice of words within the framework of Boehner’s jab. The imagery alone is untoward.
Perhaps the lesson here is that if someone is compelled to publicly ridicule a peer in such a petty tone, that person should be mindful not to have such a provincial and ridiculous history that is so easily accessible.
Comments