Obama has changed the name of Bush's global "War on Terror. " Now he's calling it the "Overseas Contingency Operation."
He's also recommended a few other minor alterations:
Abortion will be redubbed a "Life Extraction Technique."
Heavy taxing and spending: "Financial Flagellation."
Ebonics: "P-Diddy Palaver."
Terrorist: "Overwrought Dissenter."
Birth Certificate: "Optional Documentation."
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Racism=Disagreeing with the Mulatto Messiah
Given that dipping into the Hollywood mind is often akin to wading barefoot through an open cesspool, this is a refreshing change of pace:
Angie Harmon is not afraid to come out and say she doesn’t like how President Obama is handling the job — but she’s sick of having to defend herself from being deemed a racist.
"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."
Angie Harmon is not afraid to come out and say she doesn’t like how President Obama is handling the job — but she’s sick of having to defend herself from being deemed a racist.
"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
If It Ain't Dixie, It Just Won't Do
A fellow from Boston was in Alabama visiting family. One day he decided to take a walk around the area where his relatives lived to enjoy their fine, comfortable southern way of life-- something he was not accustomed to, being from the north.
While walking he happened upon a pit bull attacking a small child. His instincts took over, and he ran to the child's aid.
He grabbed the dog, pulled him from the child, and choked the dog until he was dead.
As the dead animal lay at his feet, a man came running over from the other side of the street. He announced that he was the star reporter for a big Alabama newspaper, and he would make the rescuer famous.
"LOCAL MAN SAVES CHILD FROM GRUESOME DEATH," the headlines would proclaim.
The would-be savior thought that this sounded great, but explained that he was not a local.
"Don't worry," said the reporter. "We'll just make it say: "ALABAMA MAN SAVES CHILD FROM GRUESOME DEATH."
"But I'm not from Alabama, either," the man said sheepishly. "I'm from Boston."
The newsman gave him a disgusted look and left in a hurry.
The next day the headlines of the newspaper read:
"YANKEE KILLS FAMILY PET."
--paraphrased from Reader's Digest
While walking he happened upon a pit bull attacking a small child. His instincts took over, and he ran to the child's aid.
He grabbed the dog, pulled him from the child, and choked the dog until he was dead.
As the dead animal lay at his feet, a man came running over from the other side of the street. He announced that he was the star reporter for a big Alabama newspaper, and he would make the rescuer famous.
"LOCAL MAN SAVES CHILD FROM GRUESOME DEATH," the headlines would proclaim.
The would-be savior thought that this sounded great, but explained that he was not a local.
"Don't worry," said the reporter. "We'll just make it say: "ALABAMA MAN SAVES CHILD FROM GRUESOME DEATH."
"But I'm not from Alabama, either," the man said sheepishly. "I'm from Boston."
The newsman gave him a disgusted look and left in a hurry.
The next day the headlines of the newspaper read:
"YANKEE KILLS FAMILY PET."
--paraphrased from Reader's Digest
Friday, March 20, 2009
Looking Forward to It
A docudrama about Obama's (an Odrama?) life is coming to theaters near you in mid-July. In keeping with the tone of his books and public persona, the story unfolds within a fantasy framework.
Perhaps you've already heard the buzz.
It's called Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince.
Perhaps you've already heard the buzz.
It's called Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince.
"Calling Criminals Lawbreakers is Un-American"
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has called raids by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which is following laws established by Congress, "un-American."
Well, let's see: the laws were written by Americans, for the protection of Americans. So which part is un-American? Standing for law and order, instead of chaos? Fending off an invasion of millions who are taught contempt for us from childhood, and have no intention of assimilating? Not rewarding those who cheated their way in and whose first act upon entering our country was a violation of its laws?
I think Ms. Pelosi made a mistake. When she said "un-American," she must have meant the aliens, themselves, because a significant percentage meet that definition in legal fact, as well as in temperament.
In related news, Obama continues building upon his reputation as a clear communicator:
At a town hall meeting in southern California yesterday, Obama renewed his support for comprehensive reform, including a possible path to citizenship for law-abiding people who entered the country illegally, along the lines of the bill that stalled in Congress in 2007. (Emphasis mine)
Aren't exercises in defying the Law of Non-contradiction fun? "A" cannot be "non-A," just as one cannot be in the U.S.A. illegally and also call himself a law-abiding person. It's like being a shoplifter who's never stolen anything in his life.
This is what becomes of a person who embraces leftist, treasonous policies: his mouth becomes a geyser of literal nonsense.
Well, let's see: the laws were written by Americans, for the protection of Americans. So which part is un-American? Standing for law and order, instead of chaos? Fending off an invasion of millions who are taught contempt for us from childhood, and have no intention of assimilating? Not rewarding those who cheated their way in and whose first act upon entering our country was a violation of its laws?
I think Ms. Pelosi made a mistake. When she said "un-American," she must have meant the aliens, themselves, because a significant percentage meet that definition in legal fact, as well as in temperament.
In related news, Obama continues building upon his reputation as a clear communicator:
At a town hall meeting in southern California yesterday, Obama renewed his support for comprehensive reform, including a possible path to citizenship for law-abiding people who entered the country illegally, along the lines of the bill that stalled in Congress in 2007. (Emphasis mine)
Aren't exercises in defying the Law of Non-contradiction fun? "A" cannot be "non-A," just as one cannot be in the U.S.A. illegally and also call himself a law-abiding person. It's like being a shoplifter who's never stolen anything in his life.
This is what becomes of a person who embraces leftist, treasonous policies: his mouth becomes a geyser of literal nonsense.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
GOP: We Don't Learn from Our Screwups; We Revel in Them
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is under fire from social conservatives for telling GQ magazine that abortion is an "individual choice" and homosexuality is not.
Despite declaring to GQ that women have the right to choose an abortion, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Michael Steele has issued a statement saying he has always been pro-life and supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, says in Steele's interview with GQ, he "sounded like he was on the payroll of Planned Parenthood."
Barber admits he is also troubled that Steele told GQ that believing homosexuality is a choice is equivalent to saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm going to stop being black."
Some observations:
1. If Steele means that a person doesn't suddenly get up one fine day and say: "Hm, think I'll try the opposite sex for a while," I agree. I doubt that one chooses homosexual feelings or thoughts in the way that one chooses canned green beans over peas at the grocery store. However, I take issue with the notion that homosexuals have no control over how they act. Engaging in sodomy or its female counterpart isn't a whim, but a behavior. Suggesting otherwise implies that humans are mindless, rutting robots, enslaved to their genetic "wiring," or malfunction, in this particular instance.
2. Abortion is an "individual choice" in the same way that shooting my neighbor is an "individual choice." That I may choose a specific course of action says nothing about its moral goodness or abhorrence. If Steele believes that women have a right to kill their unborn children, then he is no believer in the ideal that humans--or even just Americans--have God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps he can explain how a person explores these rights, after being vacuumed from his mother's womb like so much refuse and tossed into a dumpster.
3. Steele's public backpedaling on abortion indicates that he's either a liar or a moron. How does he make the transition from supporting a woman's "right to choose," to claiming that he "has always been pro-life," and an advocate of overturning Roe v. Wade? Sounds like someone has no core principles. Or perhaps he simply tells people what he thinks they'd like to hear. Either way, he embodies the GOP's ongoing problem of blurring the demarkation line between itself and the Democrats. Republicans can't wait to lose the next election.
4. Notice how Steeleskull consolidates homosexuality and having black skin under the classification: "Things People Just Can't Help." As if there's no discernible difference between the color of one's skin and engaging in buggery. If I were black, I'd find this comparison offensive and intellectually feeble. By the way, equating the two is a typical tactic of the Left--those destroyers of the family, those wreckers of everything that once represented Christendom.
What's the substantial difference between Steele and a Democrat?
Despite declaring to GQ that women have the right to choose an abortion, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Michael Steele has issued a statement saying he has always been pro-life and supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, says in Steele's interview with GQ, he "sounded like he was on the payroll of Planned Parenthood."
Barber admits he is also troubled that Steele told GQ that believing homosexuality is a choice is equivalent to saying, "Tomorrow morning I'm going to stop being black."
Some observations:
1. If Steele means that a person doesn't suddenly get up one fine day and say: "Hm, think I'll try the opposite sex for a while," I agree. I doubt that one chooses homosexual feelings or thoughts in the way that one chooses canned green beans over peas at the grocery store. However, I take issue with the notion that homosexuals have no control over how they act. Engaging in sodomy or its female counterpart isn't a whim, but a behavior. Suggesting otherwise implies that humans are mindless, rutting robots, enslaved to their genetic "wiring," or malfunction, in this particular instance.
2. Abortion is an "individual choice" in the same way that shooting my neighbor is an "individual choice." That I may choose a specific course of action says nothing about its moral goodness or abhorrence. If Steele believes that women have a right to kill their unborn children, then he is no believer in the ideal that humans--or even just Americans--have God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps he can explain how a person explores these rights, after being vacuumed from his mother's womb like so much refuse and tossed into a dumpster.
3. Steele's public backpedaling on abortion indicates that he's either a liar or a moron. How does he make the transition from supporting a woman's "right to choose," to claiming that he "has always been pro-life," and an advocate of overturning Roe v. Wade? Sounds like someone has no core principles. Or perhaps he simply tells people what he thinks they'd like to hear. Either way, he embodies the GOP's ongoing problem of blurring the demarkation line between itself and the Democrats. Republicans can't wait to lose the next election.
4. Notice how Steeleskull consolidates homosexuality and having black skin under the classification: "Things People Just Can't Help." As if there's no discernible difference between the color of one's skin and engaging in buggery. If I were black, I'd find this comparison offensive and intellectually feeble. By the way, equating the two is a typical tactic of the Left--those destroyers of the family, those wreckers of everything that once represented Christendom.
What's the substantial difference between Steele and a Democrat?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
This Is a Test
In the event of an actual blog post, you will see words strung into more or less meaningful sentences and paragraphs, commenting on the socialist nightmare realm in which we now find ourselves mired, not unlike one who has tripped and fallen into a cesspool.
Please stay tuned to this channel for further updates.
Please stay tuned to this channel for further updates.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
He Black. He Eligible.
A U.S. senator has suggested that voters have made Barack Obama eligible to occupy the Oval Office, whether or not he meets the constitutional mandate of being a "natural born" citizen.
The comments from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., came in an e-mail sent to a constituent shortly after the election, which just now was forwarded to WND.
The constituent had asked about Martinez's perspective on the issue on which WND and others have reported: claims made by dozens of lawsuits around the country that Obama might not meet the constitutional qualification for various reasons.
"Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history," Martinez responded.
"And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president," he wrote.
These days, the only time the GOP halts its implementation of Democrat policy is when its members actively defend Democrats against spiteful, audacious constituents. Why, the nerve of questioning Da Messiah's rightful messiahtude! I just can't understand why Repugnicruds didn't win big in the last election. Maybe it's because they were shilling for Obama instead of resisting him.
It seems that Martinez is too stupid or starstruck to comprehend the simple truth that, if Obama did not meet constitutional criteria for presidential eligibility, he never should have reared his saintly head in the primaries or the general election. If I cheat at cards and win big, will you afterward point to the number of people who slapped me on the back and praised my abilities as a defense of my duplicity?
What if Obama gained the presidency illegally, by lying to the American voters about his qualifications? What if such a revelation had received wide dissemination before the primaries?
"Who cares?" says Martinez. "Powah to da people!"
It's interesting how politicians who couldn't care less what American citizens think about anything suddenly become enraptured with voter opinions regarding Obama's messianic ministry.
What strikes me as odd about the whole situation is that Obama can settle the matter of his eligibility at one stroke by providing empirical evidence that he qualifies for the job. If you ask me for my birth certificate, I'll not break a sweat producing it for you--and it will be the entire document, not just the portion that I deem suitable for your peasant eyes. That Obama refuses to do so is the most singular aspect of this kerfuffle. I see two possible explanations for this: 1. He has a skeleton in his closet that he'd rather keep tucked away; or 2. His sense of entitlement to the presidency destroys all feelings of obligation to us silly proles.
Either way, it stands as lousy testimony for a president of the United States of America, speaking volumes about his character. Whether he likes it or not, Obama serves at the citizenry's pleasure. He has an obligation to the American people to answer this accusation and provide documentation proving the rightfulness of his position.
He is not a king, and contrary to popular belief, he is not a god, though I realize he and his acolytes would decry vehemently the latter claim.
The comments from Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., came in an e-mail sent to a constituent shortly after the election, which just now was forwarded to WND.
The constituent had asked about Martinez's perspective on the issue on which WND and others have reported: claims made by dozens of lawsuits around the country that Obama might not meet the constitutional qualification for various reasons.
"Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history," Martinez responded.
"And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president," he wrote.
These days, the only time the GOP halts its implementation of Democrat policy is when its members actively defend Democrats against spiteful, audacious constituents. Why, the nerve of questioning Da Messiah's rightful messiahtude! I just can't understand why Repugnicruds didn't win big in the last election. Maybe it's because they were shilling for Obama instead of resisting him.
It seems that Martinez is too stupid or starstruck to comprehend the simple truth that, if Obama did not meet constitutional criteria for presidential eligibility, he never should have reared his saintly head in the primaries or the general election. If I cheat at cards and win big, will you afterward point to the number of people who slapped me on the back and praised my abilities as a defense of my duplicity?
What if Obama gained the presidency illegally, by lying to the American voters about his qualifications? What if such a revelation had received wide dissemination before the primaries?
"Who cares?" says Martinez. "Powah to da people!"
It's interesting how politicians who couldn't care less what American citizens think about anything suddenly become enraptured with voter opinions regarding Obama's messianic ministry.
What strikes me as odd about the whole situation is that Obama can settle the matter of his eligibility at one stroke by providing empirical evidence that he qualifies for the job. If you ask me for my birth certificate, I'll not break a sweat producing it for you--and it will be the entire document, not just the portion that I deem suitable for your peasant eyes. That Obama refuses to do so is the most singular aspect of this kerfuffle. I see two possible explanations for this: 1. He has a skeleton in his closet that he'd rather keep tucked away; or 2. His sense of entitlement to the presidency destroys all feelings of obligation to us silly proles.
Either way, it stands as lousy testimony for a president of the United States of America, speaking volumes about his character. Whether he likes it or not, Obama serves at the citizenry's pleasure. He has an obligation to the American people to answer this accusation and provide documentation proving the rightfulness of his position.
He is not a king, and contrary to popular belief, he is not a god, though I realize he and his acolytes would decry vehemently the latter claim.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
All Hail the Conquering Hero!
When Americans were asked whom they admired enough to call their No. 1 hero, the majority of respondents answered "President Obama."
In the new online Harris poll, citizens chose Jesus Christ as No. 2, followed by Martin Luther King.
Others in the top ten, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa, according to Harris Interactive.
The 2,634 respondents were not provided a list of names. Americans named their heroes spontaneously.
When asked to explain their choice of heroes, most responded with the following:
Doing what's right regardless of personal consequences: 89 percent
Not giving up until the goal is accomplished: 83 percent
Doing more than what other people expect of them: 82 percent
Overcoming adversity: 81 percent
Staying level-headed in a crisis: 81 percent
The same question was also asked in 2001 – except, in that year, Jesus Christ was the No. 1 answer. He was most often followed by Martin Luther King, Colin Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresa.
Just incredible. I wonder how many participants in the poll also were bailout recipients?
The herculean task of winning the presidency makes one an automatic hero, in the eyes of blithering idiots everywhere. I see no other conclusion to draw from this poll result, since Obunga has accomplished nothing of note, as president--unless one considers taking a wrecking ball to the economy a worthy accomplishment. A little over one whopping month into his power-grab, and he's a hero? I assume his very existence is mythic, what with the merging of racial chocolate and vanilla into the perfect incarnation of messiahtude.
So if stepping blithely into the Oval Office makes one a modern Perseus or Theseus, why single out Obunga for this distinction? Why not dub every president who ever served a legend for the fawning masses? What makes Obunga so special?
I'll answer that. It's because we live in the era of style over substance. We have thrown out circumspection and embraced a cult of personality. A winning smile and agreeable delivery of a few meaningless platitudes means more than the Constitution, more than our history and heritage, and more than the liberty that so many died in winning and keeping for posterity. And we are that posterity.
If you want examples of superficiality over profundity, look at the tv and music industries. Look at Capitol Hill and the White House. Look at Hollywood. It's like watching an exquisitely filmed movie with no plot. It is the spirit of anti-Christ.
Let's face it: as long as we're willing to buy tickets to Jackass, we'll never see another Gone with the Wind.
In the new online Harris poll, citizens chose Jesus Christ as No. 2, followed by Martin Luther King.
Others in the top ten, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa, according to Harris Interactive.
The 2,634 respondents were not provided a list of names. Americans named their heroes spontaneously.
When asked to explain their choice of heroes, most responded with the following:
Doing what's right regardless of personal consequences: 89 percent
Not giving up until the goal is accomplished: 83 percent
Doing more than what other people expect of them: 82 percent
Overcoming adversity: 81 percent
Staying level-headed in a crisis: 81 percent
The same question was also asked in 2001 – except, in that year, Jesus Christ was the No. 1 answer. He was most often followed by Martin Luther King, Colin Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresa.
Just incredible. I wonder how many participants in the poll also were bailout recipients?
The herculean task of winning the presidency makes one an automatic hero, in the eyes of blithering idiots everywhere. I see no other conclusion to draw from this poll result, since Obunga has accomplished nothing of note, as president--unless one considers taking a wrecking ball to the economy a worthy accomplishment. A little over one whopping month into his power-grab, and he's a hero? I assume his very existence is mythic, what with the merging of racial chocolate and vanilla into the perfect incarnation of messiahtude.
So if stepping blithely into the Oval Office makes one a modern Perseus or Theseus, why single out Obunga for this distinction? Why not dub every president who ever served a legend for the fawning masses? What makes Obunga so special?
I'll answer that. It's because we live in the era of style over substance. We have thrown out circumspection and embraced a cult of personality. A winning smile and agreeable delivery of a few meaningless platitudes means more than the Constitution, more than our history and heritage, and more than the liberty that so many died in winning and keeping for posterity. And we are that posterity.
If you want examples of superficiality over profundity, look at the tv and music industries. Look at Capitol Hill and the White House. Look at Hollywood. It's like watching an exquisitely filmed movie with no plot. It is the spirit of anti-Christ.
Let's face it: as long as we're willing to buy tickets to Jackass, we'll never see another Gone with the Wind.
No Offense Intended When We Spit on You
A plan by Lawrence, Massachusetts, school Superintendent Wilfredo Laboy to make up a snow day by holding classes on Good Friday is drawing fire.
Good Friday, which falls on April 10 this year, is the day when Christians recall Jesus' death on the cross. Laboy says that day and June 25 and 26 could be used to make up for five snow days.
Good call. What makes more sense than having the chillun in skewel on the day honoring Christ's sacrifice for mankind, a day revered by millions? That's far more reasonable than making the kiddies attend on Martin Luther King's mistress's birthday. That might offend some venereal disease-riddled free-love advocate.
And we wouldn't want that.
Good Friday, which falls on April 10 this year, is the day when Christians recall Jesus' death on the cross. Laboy says that day and June 25 and 26 could be used to make up for five snow days.
Good call. What makes more sense than having the chillun in skewel on the day honoring Christ's sacrifice for mankind, a day revered by millions? That's far more reasonable than making the kiddies attend on Martin Luther King's mistress's birthday. That might offend some venereal disease-riddled free-love advocate.
And we wouldn't want that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)