Sunday, November 30, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obama Campaign Signs Seen in Ghettos Nationwide
*Please forgive all these goofy signs, folks, but I'm having fun with them. It's a guilty pleasure.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Stupid Is as Stupid Does
This must constitute further proof of the stark differences between Republicans and Democrats:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made comments contrary to the opinions of many fellow Republicans, including praises for the election of Democratic President-elect Barack Obama.
"Change is a good thing," Rice said on the campus of Rice University. "I think the time comes when it is time for new people and new ideas."
Ms. Rice has an amazing talent for encapsulating libraries of idiocy in a single paragraph. The idea that change inherently is good is one with which pre-Holocaust European Jews would disagree, no doubt. As would the defenders of Constantinople just prior to Mehmet the Conqueror's assault on their city walls. Change is an unavoidable requisite of our temporal existence; but whether or not it is good depends upon the change unfolding itself.
All "change" gobbledegook aside, does her remark strike you as bizarre, coming from one whose party dropped the ball and lost the 2008 presidential election? Hm, change is just peachy, even if it means having your own keister kicked to the curb.
"[For] a girl like me who grew up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama, to now elect an African-American president is an extraordinary matter," Rice declared, "and it says to the world that differences can be overcome and in a world in which different is still a license to kill; that is an awfully important message."
Even more extraordinary is the inability of neo-cons and leftists to differentiate between "black" and "bi-racial." By the way, is a black person born in England also called an "African-American?" It seems to me that Ms. Rice's utmost concern is towing the PC line.
In a valiant effort at removing all doubt as to whether or not she's a blithering idiot, Ms. Rice waxed authoritative on the subject of immigration:
Rice also diverged from typical Republican rhetoric by calling for comprehensive immigration reform and criticizing Americans for holding anti-immigrant attitudes.
"Unless we can renew that spirit of wanting to be open to those who want to be part of us, we lose a part of who we are," Rice said, reports Voice of America News.
"America cannot continue to be a place where people live in the shadows, contributing to our economy but afraid to go to the emergency room," Rice said.
This deceitful, clueless rhetoric typifies the reason why the GOP lost the 2008 election. The average American doesn't hold "anti-immigrant attitudes." Rather, he's anti-invasion; he's anti- flouting of our established laws; he's anti- non-assimilation; he's anti- the destruction of his culture, as foreign flags wave in his streets; and he's anti- "immigrants" making demands of the American citizenry while trashing that selfsame populace in every conceivable medium.
These people don't live in the shadows, nor do they fear a trip to the emergency room. Perhaps Ms. Rice should condescend to look into the frightening number of hospitals that have closed as a direct result of being inundated by aliens who use their services as primary-care physician equivalents. This isn't an underground movement; it's an open attempt at a takeover.
A former provost at Stanford University, Rice also made education a significant topic of her speech, saying that an uneducated citizenry creates an America unable to lead in international affairs.
Case-in-point: Condoleeza Rice--a dishonest lightweight in affairs both international and domestic.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made comments contrary to the opinions of many fellow Republicans, including praises for the election of Democratic President-elect Barack Obama.
"Change is a good thing," Rice said on the campus of Rice University. "I think the time comes when it is time for new people and new ideas."
Ms. Rice has an amazing talent for encapsulating libraries of idiocy in a single paragraph. The idea that change inherently is good is one with which pre-Holocaust European Jews would disagree, no doubt. As would the defenders of Constantinople just prior to Mehmet the Conqueror's assault on their city walls. Change is an unavoidable requisite of our temporal existence; but whether or not it is good depends upon the change unfolding itself.
All "change" gobbledegook aside, does her remark strike you as bizarre, coming from one whose party dropped the ball and lost the 2008 presidential election? Hm, change is just peachy, even if it means having your own keister kicked to the curb.
"[For] a girl like me who grew up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama, to now elect an African-American president is an extraordinary matter," Rice declared, "and it says to the world that differences can be overcome and in a world in which different is still a license to kill; that is an awfully important message."
Even more extraordinary is the inability of neo-cons and leftists to differentiate between "black" and "bi-racial." By the way, is a black person born in England also called an "African-American?" It seems to me that Ms. Rice's utmost concern is towing the PC line.
In a valiant effort at removing all doubt as to whether or not she's a blithering idiot, Ms. Rice waxed authoritative on the subject of immigration:
Rice also diverged from typical Republican rhetoric by calling for comprehensive immigration reform and criticizing Americans for holding anti-immigrant attitudes.
"Unless we can renew that spirit of wanting to be open to those who want to be part of us, we lose a part of who we are," Rice said, reports Voice of America News.
"America cannot continue to be a place where people live in the shadows, contributing to our economy but afraid to go to the emergency room," Rice said.
This deceitful, clueless rhetoric typifies the reason why the GOP lost the 2008 election. The average American doesn't hold "anti-immigrant attitudes." Rather, he's anti-invasion; he's anti- flouting of our established laws; he's anti- non-assimilation; he's anti- the destruction of his culture, as foreign flags wave in his streets; and he's anti- "immigrants" making demands of the American citizenry while trashing that selfsame populace in every conceivable medium.
These people don't live in the shadows, nor do they fear a trip to the emergency room. Perhaps Ms. Rice should condescend to look into the frightening number of hospitals that have closed as a direct result of being inundated by aliens who use their services as primary-care physician equivalents. This isn't an underground movement; it's an open attempt at a takeover.
A former provost at Stanford University, Rice also made education a significant topic of her speech, saying that an uneducated citizenry creates an America unable to lead in international affairs.
Case-in-point: Condoleeza Rice--a dishonest lightweight in affairs both international and domestic.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Question
I'm wondering about something.
We have a president-elect who's 50% black, yet the black community and the MSM treat him as if he's our first "African-American" president.
Using the same logic, can I also dub him fully white--since he's half-white--and claim him as one for the Caucasians?
And if not, why not?
We have a president-elect who's 50% black, yet the black community and the MSM treat him as if he's our first "African-American" president.
Using the same logic, can I also dub him fully white--since he's half-white--and claim him as one for the Caucasians?
And if not, why not?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Post-election Observations, or The Stupid Party's Game Attempts at Living Up to its Nickname
The current election cycle that just concluded in a big, steaming pile offers an important message for the Republican Party. Here's the lesson in a nutshell:
Fake conservatism is a tottering foundation for the GOP, and in the current political climate, it loses elections.
It's that simple.
We live in a center/right country, so this poses a serious problem for liberals seeking the presidency. The only avenue around this obstacle is by masquerading as something other than the dull-eyed beast known as the liberal. Take Bill Clinton, a liberal who ran from the center and stole Republicans' thunder by implementing some of their own agenda. And now with Obrotha, who jabbered on ad nauseum about tax cuts for the middle class--a decidedly non-liberal initiative--in the final weeks leading up to the election. Leftists can win presidential elections only through trickery and deceit. Bubba Gump Clinton understood this. Hillaroid understood this. And Obrotha understands this. If Barelyblack had come out for open socialism, McAmnazi would've cleaned his clock. Instead, he took a page from the Bill Clinton play book and used the "I feel your pain and just want to help" tactic, and took home the prize.
Did he win because he's the right man for the job, or because he's a superior candidate to McAmnazi? No. He won for several other reasons:
1. He ran a better campaign. After McAmnazi fought a hard fight in the primaries, he set his campaign on "Coast" from there to the end, and reaped his reward.
2. Barelyblack is a good public speaker with lots of charisma.This superficial talent sways unprincipled moderates who straddle every fence they encounter.
3. He seems to have Baracked the black vote, including turncoat Republicans like Colonic Powell and J.C. Watts.
(A brief digression: Are Powell, and Watts and others of like mind color-infatuated, or are they examples of how little the two major parties differ, in their comfort with the idea of endorsing Obrotha?)
4. The most important reason for Obrotha's win, in my view, is that he pitted himself against a phony conservative. The Democrats have the liberal/leftist/socialist/Communist/utopian market cornered. By championing liberalism, Obrotha caters to his base. But the GOP party base is conservative; so a conservative-in-name-only is a person who stands aloof from the GOP base. This poses an interesting challenge for someone who likes winning presidential elections.
When a political candidate is at war with his own party's base, his sole chance for victory either lies in hoodwinking that base, or in pitting himself against an opponent so blatantly inept or extreme that the party faithful vote for him anyway, despite their reluctance.
Duhbya defeated Gaia Gore by putting one over on his base, and in challenging a stiff golem fashioned by Mother Nature's cruel jest. He won his second term by facing gross ineptitude embodied in a man with less personality than a cigar-store Injun. The interesting part is that he won the first by the skin of his teeth in a contentious, ugly recount process that terminated in a court decision. The second was a close race, as well. These are not what I'd call strong votes of confidence for fake conservatism.
In 2006, we watched the GOP lose Congress. This came after years of phony conservatism from the Executive and Legislative branches. Congressmen who ran as conservatives and governed center/left got their treacherous backsides booted from office. "Conservatives" who supported open borders were deported from their offices in D.C. People who typically voted Republican sat home or sought third-party alternatives. Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and so I dared hope at the time that Republicans had learned that people will take an honest liberal over a phony conservative any day.
Then came the 2008 election season, and I realized that Republicans had learned nothing from the midterm elections. In fact, quite the opposite: the party's leadership had fallen arse over tea kettle in love with the idea of future defeat. That's when we witnessed "conservatives" like Sean Vannity gushing in orgiastic fervor over pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-"gay" marriage liberals like Booty Giuliani. That's when we saw party elites scrambling in support of virtually anyone but a genuine conservative. This gave us the Aw-Shucks Huckster, Juan McAmnazi, and Mitt Mormon, none of whom are true conservatives, but all of whom attempted convincing the electorate otherwise.
As further evidence that this country swings center/right, look at the near draw in the popular vote. Obrotha had a difficult time convincing the populace that he was a superior choice to the pretend conservative who has expressed hatred for free speech in public, is an open-borders globalist, and holds a weak, contradictory record on the rights of unborn children. What an impressive achievement. Imagine Obrotha's performance if he'd faced the Real McCoy, rather than the Real Counterfeit. Can you say GOP landslide?
The short of it is that political pragmatism eked out narrow-margin victories in 2000 and 2004, lost Congress in 2006, and conceded the 2008 presidential election. How is this a winning strategy?
A party dedicated to endearing itself to moderates doesn't just alienate its conservative base; it necessarily transforms into a party lacking in principles, since moderates, themselves, stand distinguished by their unprincipled, vacillating outlooks.
Say what you want about the Democrats, but they have principles. Sure, they're abhorrent and counter to everything this nation stands for, historically speaking; but they defend them with vigor, in uncompromising fashion. They don't field fake liberals as candidates; just the genuine article.
Would that the Republican Party did the same with conservatives.
Ronald Reagan was the last genuine conservative whom the GOP offered its support in a presidential election. He was neither a perfect man, nor a flawless president. Nor was he a charlatan. Somehow, he managed a landslide victory not once, but twice, and the first was against a sitting president. This is what happens when conservatism is given a chance.
I've said this a dozen times, and I'll say it again, for it bears repeating:
People vote Republican because they want an alternative to the Democrats. When the GOP leadership presents them with candidates indistinguishable from Democrats on major issues, or ones who differ insignificantly, they kill all incentive for those people to vote Republican. This is particularly true in cases where the GOP touts these stealth liberals as conservatives.
If the Republican Party can't come to terms with these simple facts, it should settle in and embrace the reality of a losing streak with no foreseeable end.
After all, for a Republican to "out-Democrat" the Democrats, he first must become one--which is a concession of defeat and an admission of irrelevancy.
Fake conservatism is a tottering foundation for the GOP, and in the current political climate, it loses elections.
It's that simple.
We live in a center/right country, so this poses a serious problem for liberals seeking the presidency. The only avenue around this obstacle is by masquerading as something other than the dull-eyed beast known as the liberal. Take Bill Clinton, a liberal who ran from the center and stole Republicans' thunder by implementing some of their own agenda. And now with Obrotha, who jabbered on ad nauseum about tax cuts for the middle class--a decidedly non-liberal initiative--in the final weeks leading up to the election. Leftists can win presidential elections only through trickery and deceit. Bubba Gump Clinton understood this. Hillaroid understood this. And Obrotha understands this. If Barelyblack had come out for open socialism, McAmnazi would've cleaned his clock. Instead, he took a page from the Bill Clinton play book and used the "I feel your pain and just want to help" tactic, and took home the prize.
Did he win because he's the right man for the job, or because he's a superior candidate to McAmnazi? No. He won for several other reasons:
1. He ran a better campaign. After McAmnazi fought a hard fight in the primaries, he set his campaign on "Coast" from there to the end, and reaped his reward.
2. Barelyblack is a good public speaker with lots of charisma.This superficial talent sways unprincipled moderates who straddle every fence they encounter.
3. He seems to have Baracked the black vote, including turncoat Republicans like Colonic Powell and J.C. Watts.
(A brief digression: Are Powell, and Watts and others of like mind color-infatuated, or are they examples of how little the two major parties differ, in their comfort with the idea of endorsing Obrotha?)
4. The most important reason for Obrotha's win, in my view, is that he pitted himself against a phony conservative. The Democrats have the liberal/leftist/socialist/Communist/utopian market cornered. By championing liberalism, Obrotha caters to his base. But the GOP party base is conservative; so a conservative-in-name-only is a person who stands aloof from the GOP base. This poses an interesting challenge for someone who likes winning presidential elections.
When a political candidate is at war with his own party's base, his sole chance for victory either lies in hoodwinking that base, or in pitting himself against an opponent so blatantly inept or extreme that the party faithful vote for him anyway, despite their reluctance.
Duhbya defeated Gaia Gore by putting one over on his base, and in challenging a stiff golem fashioned by Mother Nature's cruel jest. He won his second term by facing gross ineptitude embodied in a man with less personality than a cigar-store Injun. The interesting part is that he won the first by the skin of his teeth in a contentious, ugly recount process that terminated in a court decision. The second was a close race, as well. These are not what I'd call strong votes of confidence for fake conservatism.
In 2006, we watched the GOP lose Congress. This came after years of phony conservatism from the Executive and Legislative branches. Congressmen who ran as conservatives and governed center/left got their treacherous backsides booted from office. "Conservatives" who supported open borders were deported from their offices in D.C. People who typically voted Republican sat home or sought third-party alternatives. Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and so I dared hope at the time that Republicans had learned that people will take an honest liberal over a phony conservative any day.
Then came the 2008 election season, and I realized that Republicans had learned nothing from the midterm elections. In fact, quite the opposite: the party's leadership had fallen arse over tea kettle in love with the idea of future defeat. That's when we witnessed "conservatives" like Sean Vannity gushing in orgiastic fervor over pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-"gay" marriage liberals like Booty Giuliani. That's when we saw party elites scrambling in support of virtually anyone but a genuine conservative. This gave us the Aw-Shucks Huckster, Juan McAmnazi, and Mitt Mormon, none of whom are true conservatives, but all of whom attempted convincing the electorate otherwise.
As further evidence that this country swings center/right, look at the near draw in the popular vote. Obrotha had a difficult time convincing the populace that he was a superior choice to the pretend conservative who has expressed hatred for free speech in public, is an open-borders globalist, and holds a weak, contradictory record on the rights of unborn children. What an impressive achievement. Imagine Obrotha's performance if he'd faced the Real McCoy, rather than the Real Counterfeit. Can you say GOP landslide?
The short of it is that political pragmatism eked out narrow-margin victories in 2000 and 2004, lost Congress in 2006, and conceded the 2008 presidential election. How is this a winning strategy?
A party dedicated to endearing itself to moderates doesn't just alienate its conservative base; it necessarily transforms into a party lacking in principles, since moderates, themselves, stand distinguished by their unprincipled, vacillating outlooks.
Say what you want about the Democrats, but they have principles. Sure, they're abhorrent and counter to everything this nation stands for, historically speaking; but they defend them with vigor, in uncompromising fashion. They don't field fake liberals as candidates; just the genuine article.
Would that the Republican Party did the same with conservatives.
Ronald Reagan was the last genuine conservative whom the GOP offered its support in a presidential election. He was neither a perfect man, nor a flawless president. Nor was he a charlatan. Somehow, he managed a landslide victory not once, but twice, and the first was against a sitting president. This is what happens when conservatism is given a chance.
I've said this a dozen times, and I'll say it again, for it bears repeating:
People vote Republican because they want an alternative to the Democrats. When the GOP leadership presents them with candidates indistinguishable from Democrats on major issues, or ones who differ insignificantly, they kill all incentive for those people to vote Republican. This is particularly true in cases where the GOP touts these stealth liberals as conservatives.
If the Republican Party can't come to terms with these simple facts, it should settle in and embrace the reality of a losing streak with no foreseeable end.
After all, for a Republican to "out-Democrat" the Democrats, he first must become one--which is a concession of defeat and an admission of irrelevancy.
Friday, November 7, 2008
All Quiet on the Election Front
Here are some first reactions from various public figures on Barelyblack Obrotha's ascendancy to the presiduncy:
Hillary Clinton: "I was the best man for the job!"
Michelle Obrotha: "Only now am I proud to be an American. Only after my husband's trouncing of his opponent and winning of the nation's highest office can I hold my head high in the supermarket, or in passing bag ladies on the street. I have rather high expectations, you see. Just ask Barelyblack about our first date."
Bill Clinton: "I don't care what anyone says; I was the first black president!"
Joe Biden: "I remember listening to FDR's fireside chats on the internet with Algore, back in '33. Barelyblack relates to Americans with that same warmth and trustworthiness, and he does it without the added benefit of having polio."
Michael Jackson: "I don't see what's so special about the guy. Heck, I'm blacker than him."
Je$$e Jack$on: "I must lend my admiration to the africanization of this racist nation. And for this rhyming affirmation, I hope Obrotha offers just compensation."
Al $harpton: "No Barelyblack, no peace. Know Barelyblack, know peace."
Chris Matthews: "Obrotha tossed me his underwear at the Demonratic Convention! I'm never washing them! I'm the luckiest honkey alive!"
Emoprah Winfrey: "I saw him descending from on high in a cloud. As the tears rolled down my face, his radiance shone round about him, and I wept even harder than the first time I joined Jenny Craig. I touched the hem of his garment; in a voice that boomed straight out of Exodus, he said: 'Would you go and walk my dog for me? 'Preciate it.' After which he handed me the leash, and I swooned and knew no more."
Jorge Bushandez: "No hablo Ingles."
Hillary Clinton: "I was the best man for the job!"
Michelle Obrotha: "Only now am I proud to be an American. Only after my husband's trouncing of his opponent and winning of the nation's highest office can I hold my head high in the supermarket, or in passing bag ladies on the street. I have rather high expectations, you see. Just ask Barelyblack about our first date."
Bill Clinton: "I don't care what anyone says; I was the first black president!"
Joe Biden: "I remember listening to FDR's fireside chats on the internet with Algore, back in '33. Barelyblack relates to Americans with that same warmth and trustworthiness, and he does it without the added benefit of having polio."
Michael Jackson: "I don't see what's so special about the guy. Heck, I'm blacker than him."
Je$$e Jack$on: "I must lend my admiration to the africanization of this racist nation. And for this rhyming affirmation, I hope Obrotha offers just compensation."
Al $harpton: "No Barelyblack, no peace. Know Barelyblack, know peace."
Chris Matthews: "Obrotha tossed me his underwear at the Demonratic Convention! I'm never washing them! I'm the luckiest honkey alive!"
Emoprah Winfrey: "I saw him descending from on high in a cloud. As the tears rolled down my face, his radiance shone round about him, and I wept even harder than the first time I joined Jenny Craig. I touched the hem of his garment; in a voice that boomed straight out of Exodus, he said: 'Would you go and walk my dog for me? 'Preciate it.' After which he handed me the leash, and I swooned and knew no more."
Jorge Bushandez: "No hablo Ingles."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Of Mulatto Reds and Hoary Heads
In this, the most important presidential election cycle since the last one, we are faced with an interesting set of choices: stay home and learn macramé, vote for preserving the status quo of gleeful, pedal-to-the-metal flight toward a brick wall, or play outside the Demonrat/Repugniscum sandbox.
I consider shunning the voting booth a legitimate option, but I don’t recommend it for someone with an interest in sending the vermin in D.C. a message. No one will ever know why you didn’t show up; you’ll be lumped in with the morons who were too high or drunk to find the local precinct through the bleary mental fog, the illiterates, the anarchists, the indifferent, those who couldn’t miss Survivor: Ethiopia, those afraid of knocking up a chad, and the handful of racists and geriatricists who fume in protest.
However, if you vote third-party, or write in your own name or that of Porky Pig, you’ll be casting a vote for someone outside the candidate pool rubber-stamped by the treasonous globalists of our two major parties. Your refusal to accept those the elites coronated will serve as evidence that you have no use for their ilk—and that’s a much more direct message than playing the role of wallflower at the square-dance.
If you stick with the familiar comfort of betrayal, you’ll have two doozies on offer to choose from: on the one hand, there’s Juan McAmnazi, who stands proudly as an enemy of free speech, never met a wetback he wouldn’t invite over for enchiladas and refried beans after giving him your job, and remains as stable on an unborn infant’s right to life as a man on stilts in a gopher town. On the other hand, you have the privilege of making Marx clap in Hell for supporting unvarnished socialism in the guise of Barelyblack Obrotha, a man who leans so far Left that one more step will send him reeling off the edge of the world, a man who refused endorsement of a provision protecting infants who survive botched abortion attempts by allowing them prompt medical treatment. We’re talking two jewels mined from the hard granite of humanity, folks.
Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so he’s no longer an option for third-party voters. But he has thrown his support behind Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. When I cast my vote, tomorrow, I’ll give Baldwin my backing—not because Paul did, but because I’m interested in a candidate who’s more concerned about preserving America than protecting his avaricious friends’ access to cheap labor, or implementing as much of the Communist Party platform as possible.
I consider shunning the voting booth a legitimate option, but I don’t recommend it for someone with an interest in sending the vermin in D.C. a message. No one will ever know why you didn’t show up; you’ll be lumped in with the morons who were too high or drunk to find the local precinct through the bleary mental fog, the illiterates, the anarchists, the indifferent, those who couldn’t miss Survivor: Ethiopia, those afraid of knocking up a chad, and the handful of racists and geriatricists who fume in protest.
However, if you vote third-party, or write in your own name or that of Porky Pig, you’ll be casting a vote for someone outside the candidate pool rubber-stamped by the treasonous globalists of our two major parties. Your refusal to accept those the elites coronated will serve as evidence that you have no use for their ilk—and that’s a much more direct message than playing the role of wallflower at the square-dance.
If you stick with the familiar comfort of betrayal, you’ll have two doozies on offer to choose from: on the one hand, there’s Juan McAmnazi, who stands proudly as an enemy of free speech, never met a wetback he wouldn’t invite over for enchiladas and refried beans after giving him your job, and remains as stable on an unborn infant’s right to life as a man on stilts in a gopher town. On the other hand, you have the privilege of making Marx clap in Hell for supporting unvarnished socialism in the guise of Barelyblack Obrotha, a man who leans so far Left that one more step will send him reeling off the edge of the world, a man who refused endorsement of a provision protecting infants who survive botched abortion attempts by allowing them prompt medical treatment. We’re talking two jewels mined from the hard granite of humanity, folks.
Ron Paul dropped out of the race, so he’s no longer an option for third-party voters. But he has thrown his support behind Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. When I cast my vote, tomorrow, I’ll give Baldwin my backing—not because Paul did, but because I’m interested in a candidate who’s more concerned about preserving America than protecting his avaricious friends’ access to cheap labor, or implementing as much of the Communist Party platform as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)