The Bomb-Throwing Pacifist

Holy Crap!

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:13:21 GMT

Another update.

Anywho, one quick look at the calendar and we soon realize that not only am I posting more frequently than usual, BUT it's almost inauguration day!

*gasp! Cries of "too soon" and "down with the speaker" filter from the box seats.

That means that while the president-elect is busy breaking in those new official Presidential penny loafers and counting down the days until he can finally start eating all those little M&M hard candies with the presidential seal emblazoned on them, the right blogosphere is in a tizzy, fractically attempting to sustain the now frayed and embarassingly subdued standing ovation for the outgoing president, even as some of their fellow travellers kill the stage lights on the way out the door.

An so, it begins.

George W. Bush-- the last US president?

By Sher Zieve

Will George W. Bush end up being the last true US President? Increasingly, it seems that he just may. As lawsuits against President-elect Barack Hussein Obama — questioning his US citizenship — continue to grow, he ever more adamantly continues his refusal to produce his real, viable and original birth certificate.

Yeah, and in other news, I've just recieved confirmation that Trigg Palin is actually Sarah Palin's baby, not her grandaughter.

Oh wait-- even if it was true, it wouldn't really be relevant now, would it?

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW--

Now, another ugly issue is rising within the Obama-minions' camp. As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, "once Obama is elected, we won't be able to get rid of him." Tragically, this warning is now being realized.

Well, that's kind of the way a democracy works, Sher. Unless of course he gets some fat Jewish girl to suck his cock and then lies about it under oath, although the last time that happened, I don't think it worked out too well for y'all.

Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization — ACORN — nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the US Constitution's 22nd Amendment. This amendment sets term limits for US presidents. And Obama still plans to set up his national police force that he wants to be as large and well-funded as the US military.

Golly! It's a good thing we have all those constitutional protections against warrantless wiretapping, spying on United States citizens, habeas corpus, and torture.

Oh wait. Shit.

Sher? You're boned.

So, with election-fraud units firmly in place, no term limits and his personal police to forcibly enforce his will upon the masses, Obama will likely never be voted from the office of POTUS. Only those who have lost the ability to see and/or hear do not recognize this increasing and eventually ultimate danger.

God this shit pisses me off. We have had the most anti- civil liberties president in the HISTORY of the United States and you're telling ME that the greatest threat to the citizenry is a group which is focused on getting out the vote? Jesus woman, get a grip!

To add insult to injury, during these current times of economic disaster — brought on by Obama and his Democrat friends — Obama's inaugural ceremonies are reported and planned to exceed $150M! And, to top it off, it doesn't even appear that Obama is a US citizen. Astounding...

And to think...that whole Iraq war thing only cost us $623 billion. What a rip off!

Let's see, let's see. What next?

Here we go again

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:01:45 GMT

My, my my how the time does fly when you know you're gonna die by the end of the night...

Back from hiatus, or perennial favorite, Mr. Warner Todd "teh bukkit" Huston is back. Let's see what he has in store for us today, hmmm?

'Dear Mr. Obama,' why are our kids so brainwashed?
By Warner Todd Huston

Hoo boy! Today, Mr. Huston is going to tell us that while the children may be the future, the future is a bleak place indeed with so many of our nation's precious youth being indoctrinated to believe such liberal lies as the fact that pollution is bad and that killing off entire species is somehow an offense against "nature" (whatever the hell that is). Let's take a look.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has launched a wonderful little feature that will run until Barack Obama takes the oath of office next month. They are calling it "Dear Mr. Obama" and it is a heartwarming exercise in child indoctrination and brainwashing. The Post-Gazette will be publishing letters from local students to Obama asking him for all sorts of global warming fixes, Iraq war enders, and big government programs.

Which would be fine if the kids were, you know, asking Mr. Obama to increase their stock dividens another quarter of a percent or repeal the estate tax because "it stinks," but once the kids actually start demonstrating a concern for the world they are going to inherit from us...ohhhh brother!

Sadly, it appears that the government schools these kids have been subjected to have failed to teach their charges about anything like the American system, federalism, even science seems neglected.

Pretty tough talk for someone who writes sentences where is missing.

But they SURE taught their kiddies that government is there to spend, spend, spend, that government is to be treated like our collective parents, and that the war in Iraq is obviously an evil venture. Obviously.

Well dude, if the kids are attending a public school I can see WHY they might be inclined to ask the government to spend more money on their infrastructure so that they can finally get computers that don't run on Windows 95 and that they don't have to eat meatloaf three times a week.

And, yes little kiddies, The One, your very own Obamessiah, is flying to the rescue like a super hero. Cue the theme music — I'd suggest the theme to 2001, like Elvis used, is appropriate for the sentiment here. The Obamessiah has entered the building!

Or maybe "Barack the Magic Negro," a lighthearted, heart-warming little ditty which is in no way, shape, or form meant to be taken in a racist way. Even though it uses the N-word.

The tykes are all about the alternative energy these days. They are full of exhortations to The One that he should force upon us all a reliance on wind power and solar cells. Obviously these youngsters have not been taught that no alternative energy source has thus far been found that is cheaper than oil and the fossil fuels.

Good thing oil, coal, and gas will last forever and in no way shape or form make us reliant on foreign countries whose citizens want to kill us.

These kids are under the illusion that just instituting a government program is all it takes to overcome the science of the matter and make them cost effective and feasible. Yes, all we need is a word from our new religious icon in Washington DC cum Obamalot.

Your wife cums to Obamalot. Just sayin.

The first letter was amusing for its complete fraud. It is supposed to be from a ten-year-old child, yet it talks about alternative energy, the war in "Irak" and lays out a fairly detailed idea for a new method of education. It is painfully obvious that no ten-year-old ever wrote this letter.

That's because when Warner Todd Huston was ten years old, he was still communicating using a series of grunts, whistles, and flung feces.

Also we see little Neil Pandya, age 10, who asked Obama to lower the age limit on driving. Apparently, Neil was not told that states are supposed to legislate that restriction, not the federal government. Sadly, states' rights is not a subject taught to our young Mr. Pandya.

Anyone else get the impression that Huston is maybe- just MAYBE- overcomensating for all the dreams and youthful naivite that was stolen from him when his mother finally told him to get his 30-year-old ass out of the basement and rake the yard?

Several of the children are worried about mythical man-made, global warming and have been indoctrinated that Obama can control such things from the Mount Olympus of Washington.

Which is somewhat heartening to hear, since these kids presumably have to take an actual science course at least 3 times a week and don't have Huston's luxury of designating the various ecospheres of the earth as pre-and post-flood.

Here, for instance, are the worries of little Anna Devinney.

To be so misled by one's teachers is so disheartening.

Aww, lookit the cyoot liddul kiddie! She's all concerned about silly grown-up stuff like the "No Swimming- Pollution" signs at the local lake and a global flood because of melting ice caps. Silly little kid! We all know that God said he'd never destroy the earth by flooding again, so I guess that pretty much settles it, doesn't it?

The thing we can take from this is that whoever said kids can't learn is way off base. Unfortunately, what they are learning is a thorough left-wing agenda. To paraphrase a famous saying, it isn't that our kids don't know anything. It's that what they know is all wrong.

Goddamnit kid! Your dad did NOT, I repeat NOT lose his job over at GM, and Tommy's mom was NOT killed in Iraq. Now I'm going to sit here and repeat it until you admit that it's true, or I have to beat you to death. Understood?

Unfortunately, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, thinking it's cute, is all too willing to display for all to see what a failed education looks like.

And if there's anyone who knows what a failed education looks like, it's a contibutor to Renew America.

Till next time, folks!

From the AP

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:03:04 GMT

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

By BEN EVANS – 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

I would like to point out to the distinguished gentleman that one may be Marxist OR fascist, but rarely both. I understand that in the wingnut's fevered brain, communism or Marxism represents a basic Ur-text of the generalized, hostile "other" which must be contained, but at the rate we're going, it's only a matter of time before we start refering to the Homo-Islamic threat to our fare shores.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the White House's new official spokesperson.

Please be patient with him, as I hear his accent is kind of strong.

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

Oh dear, what a radical, fascist-like attitude to take. If only we had a national-level civilian agency which was responsible for the security of our fair republic which was not only incredibly incompetent and criminally bureaucratic, but also came equipped with a suitably jingoistic and menacing name.

Hmm....nothing comes to mind. Maybe the Ministry for Internal Security? No, too foreign-sounding. Federal Bureau of Obfuscation? No, too hard to pronounce.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

Ladies and gentlemen, meet our nation's newest security operatives!

Where yo 401K at, craka?

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force[...]

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

I think I'll let that last thesis on the human brain's capacity for stupidity stand for itself.

Till next time!

Toon Time!

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:58:17 GMT

It has long been known that most conservatives possess little in the way of any actual sense of humor. When conservatives do try to put on ye olde thinking cappe and make an attempt at a droll statement or humorous juxtaposition, it's usually because Fox News can only take them so far and they do have at least some idea that the forces of bright ideas and pop culture are more or less firmly entrenched in the other camp.

Part of this is due to the fact that conservatives are entirely incapable of laughing at themselves. Part of it can also be attributed to the fact that conservatives take Themselves and the World so darn seriously all the time that the don't really have the time, energy, or motivation to seek some of the more inherently humerous paradoxes within the context of our existance. That, when coupled with an entirely paranoid fear of straying too far from the official message and the fact that what passes for "humor" amongst Ann Coulter types is usually nothing more than passive-agressive wish fulfillment (ie. "John Edwards is a faggot" or "Michael Moore is fat") means that when conservatives actually do try to come up with something funny, the whole project comes crashing down like a candelabra made of anvils. Because, as someone smarter than me once said, the closest conservatives can come to actually being funny is repeating their slogans really loudly. And even then it's defiantely a "laughing AT them" type moment.

Anywho, let's have a looksie and check to see if anything has improved over the last few months. Hold onto your britches kids, you're about to bust a gut laughing.

Interesting. We don't subscribe to evolution but the theory of plate tectonics is apparently still kosher. Man, the continents must be moving a lot faster than we thought!

Ann Coulter's tits...

That's not the setting sun in the distance. It's the nozzle of the fetus vacuum.

Or a conservative cartoonist, since he fingerpaints with shit.

Fuckin' crack babies.

Not so much a cartoon as an impressionist painting.

Nope. Ever had a pencil jammed through your eye socket?

At least you don't have Hep-C. And aren't Chinese.

That's all for now!

Wee!

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:59:55 GMT

I really need to do this more often. As it is, I'm getting out of practice. But then again, I always tend to find that I'm much more on my game when we are in a political midwinter, rather than when the campaign season is in full swing. After all, while there is something to be said for widespread involvment in politics, it's much easier for me to focus on the innanities of the crypto-fascism which has been passing itself off as reasonable conservativism in America when the news media isn't playing convention hilights 24/7.

Anyway, today's column is from regular Bryan Fischer who is going to explain to us why exactly the news that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is five months pregnant with a boyfriend who describes himself on his mypsace page as "a fucking redneck" totally proves that sex-ed loving liberals are totally out of touch with the salt-of-the-earth, plainspoken people who make up the "real America." One can only imagine what the pundits would have to say if Chelsea Clinton was in her shoes. Let's give it a looksee.

Thoughts on the Palin pregnancy

By Bryan Fischer

When left-wing bloggers began to spread the malicious and unfounded rumor that Sarah Palin had faked her pregnancy with her recently born son Trig in order to protect her 16 — year-old daughter, Ms. Palin and her husband released a statement revealing that their now-17-year-old daughter is five months along in an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

Fears that the son's name was actually, in fact, "Trig" proved to be entirely justified, unfortunately.

Prior to this announcement, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity's counterpart on Hannity & Colmes, suggested that Palin herself was to blame for her son's Down syndrome condition by failing to give him adequate pre-natal care.

While I certainly do applaud Mr. Colmes for raising the issue of inadequate pre-natal care in the case of Sarah Palin, the fact is he forgot to raise the possability that Trig's mental retardation is perhaps hereditary. Either that or his mom made the inexcusable mistake of watching too many George W. Bush speeches while pregnant with the young master Trig.

I've received some snarky emails over the weekend about this latest revelation, including one compassionate liberal who referred to the "bastard grandchild" that the Palins' daughter now carries.

Wow. You can almost hear the painin Fischer's voice. Tell me, Bryan. Are our blast-faxes holding a better batting average over at snopes.com than those that come out of your camp? Or is the spelling just better?

We will watch with interest to see if the senator's self-identified paragons of compassion in the blogosphere follow their leader. The Idaho Statesman has shown its willingness to hit below the belt by going after a pro-family legislator for decisions made by his 28-year-old son. We'll see whether its editors follow Obama's advice and show restraint in this circumstance.

I know! It would be just like those fiendish LIEberals to go after the innocent children and families of thier political opponents in an attempt to derail their campaign. Good thing Senator McCain has never been known to do such a thing.

Say what you will, but only one of these pictures screams out "Prison Beauty Pageant"

Several thoughts:

All right! This makes my job easy!

Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches us that all men are fallen creatures, with a built-in tilt toward sin and self-destructive behavior. Christians know this better than anyone; why else would we acknowledge our need for a Savior? In fact, you can't even become a Christian without passing through the doorway of repentance, which is a confession of personal failure and moral weakness.

Which means that it''s ok for them to spend thousands of dollars on hookers to indulge in their diaper fetishes, shoot up meth and have gay sex with male prostitutes while condeming such practices from the pulipt, soliciting sex from undercover cops, abusing children, and sending raunchy IMs to their interns. So long as they remember to genuflect on the way out the door.

Sure, we libs fuck up all the time. At least we don't go around blaming satan or the lack of 10 commandments monuments for our own personal failings.

And besides, our scandals usually involve consenting adults of a hetero disposition.

When a Christian fails, he is faced with a fresh set of choices and what counts is whether he chooses to do the right thing at that point.

As opposed to atheists who...you know...lack options and stuff.

The Palin's daughter is not denying her failure, is not justifying her behavior, and is doing the right thing by carrying this baby to term and giving it life. Gov. Palin made the McCain campaign aware of her daughter's pregnancy in her first interview with them about the vice-presidency. The family has done all that they should do to deal with the hand they've been dealt in an honest and honorable way.

Well at 5 months into the pregnancy, you're going to have a hell of a time getting an abortion anyway so the whole "she made a tough choice" meme isn't really gonna cut it. I mean, sure, I suppose she could have done what countless of other unwed redneck mothers do and dumped her fetus in a dumpster behind the local Wal Mart for the sled dogs to eat and no one would be any the wise, but COME ON.

The Palins can only be accused of hypocrisy if they had taught their daughter that sex outside of marriage is o.k. But they didn't.

Technically. Charges of incompetence on the other hand are entirely justifiable.

Gov. Palin has been an unapologetic advocate of abstinence education. Teenage children possess the most precious of God's gift, the gift of free will, and can use that priceless gift to either follow or reject the counsel of their parents.

So much for the effectivness of their own regimen. Maybe if she'd been taught to use a condom or something, this whole messy situation might have been avoided ya know?

(On another note, does it seem like Bryan is ever so quietly trying to shift the blame onto Bristol? I mean, what he's arguing here is analogous to a parent telling their child not to play in the pool unsupervised, and then washing their hands of the whole affair when the kid drowns instead of, you know, covering the damn thing up.)

The Palins' daughter is old enough to be responsible for her own decisions. Her parents can hardly be blamed for a near-adult daughter who is morally responsible for her own life choices. In the Jewish tradition, a boy becomes a "son of the law" (the literal translation of "bar-mitzvah"), at age 12 or 13, meaning that from that point onward he is considered an adult when it comes to his personal responsibility to obey the moral standards of his tradition. Jewish daughters go through a "bat-mitzvah" at the same age for the same reason.

Translation: If girls and boys were considered fully-fledged adults at age 12 or 13 hundreds of years ago in the near east, then it's only right and fair that Sarah Palin and her husband be absolved of all responsibilities for their daughter's life choices at age 17. Tag no tagbacks double backsies olly olly oxenfree!

As a pastor for 25 years, I had a number of opportunities to assist families with this exact scenario — a young girl, still living at home, the daughter of parents who had taught her that sex was reserved for marriage, pregnant out of wedlock. My counsel was always the same: Your daughter needs your unconditional love and support, the child she carries has a right to life, and the priority after the child is born is to make sure that he is placed in a loving home with two parents who are married to each other. The Palins are taking that exact course with their daughter.

So in other words, parents, you followed my exact instructions and taught your kids that sex was bad without going into the details about how to have safe sex and make informed decisions if they CHOSE to have sex, so if your kids ignored you and got themselves in trouble...well now let's just move on with our lives and make room for the $80,000 investment that's going to be coming down the road in a few months. Hope you have a crib picked out.

The family needs our prayers. I know from my personal experience with families who have faced this circumstance that it is a challenging and stressful one even when the circumstances are known only to a few. For a family to have to walk through this in the painful glare of the national media and vicious left-wing critics is not something we would wish on our worst enemies.

Unless your worst enemies are liberals (viz. Bill Clinton or John Edwards), in which case, bring on the popcorn!
See you next time!

An Update

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:59:31 GMT

Today's entry is from occasional contribution Craig R. Smith. While time may or may not have blunted my edge (after all, you can only maintain a veneer of amused incredulity for so long), every time I think that writing up another entry would be too much trouble, I stumble along some low-hanging fruit. And speaking of fruits (with my apologies to all my gay friends, I sincerely doubt they would want to be associated with this cornball), today's column is a doozy. Let's take a gander and see what's been brewing over at World Net Daily.

Supreme insanity

Posted: June 30, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

Once upon a time, in America, if a man stole another man's horse, he would face the hangman at high noon and justifiably so. Stealing is wrong. But now five liberal judges on the Supreme Court find it perfectly acceptable to rape a man's child and face nothing more than life in prison. This is progress?

I agree. Back in the day, child rapists generally got what was coming to them: the agony of a waiting a week or so for a one-day trial followed by an immediate post-judicial hanging. But now? That lucky fucker will get to spend the next 40, 50, even 60 years playing Hide the Salami in a cozy 8' by 10' cell surrounded by murderers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, AIDS patients, lunatics, serial killers, arsonists, and compulsive masterbators. No wonder Craig is upset!

Liberals are insulting anything and everything any reasonable person sees as decent and just. I wonder how much more "progressive" thinking we can tolerate in America before total chaos rules the day.

That is because we are beyond your primitive laws and reasoning, pathetic Earth-man.

I hear over and over again how liberals respect the rule of law yet they seem incredibly comfortable ignoring laws or finding excuses why not to enforce the law. Libs apparently subscribe to the notion that punishment has no value unless it is imposed on Republicans from the Bush administration.

This coming from someone who has just more or less stated that anything less than the death penalty for statutory rape is worthless as a punishment. If gasoline didn't cost so much these days, Craig would be arguing for Exxon-sponsored executions via necklacing.

They are willing to give child rapists, illegal aliens, crack dealers and international financier-fugitives like Marc Rich the benefit of the doubt, but without any evidence, they call for the heads of the Bush administration – unless you consider "hearsay" to be evidence.

Because throwing people into legal black holes, torturing them, shipping them off to other countries to be tortured some more, and detaining them indefinitely without legal rights-- all without evidence-- is something we only do to foreigners. And John Walker Lindh. And Jose Padillia.

Watch any congressional hearings conducted by the newly appointed, Democrat puppets like Jerrold Nadler, John Conyers and the angry Muslim Keith Ellison and you will see where the liberals turn for testimony.

Interesting. Last I checked, Nadler, Conyers, and Keith ooga-booga-scary-black-muslim-man Ellison were all elected to the Congress by a clear majority vote. Unlike, say, some other people we could name.

Recent hearings discussing memos related to "torture" invoke sources like the New York Times, Vanity Fair, the Washington Post and ABC news. The liberals in Congress look to the media for truth instead of reliable, sworn testimony. Democrats quote press accounts as if they came from the Bible.

Because if you want to keep up with current events, the one source you really ought to consult is the Bible.

And so the progress we see coming from the liberal, democratically controlled Congress, headed up by Speaker Pelosi, has done absolutely nothing other than watch gas prices rise from $2.15 a gallon when they took office to more than $4.15 today.

Hmm. Gee. What's this?

Hm. On second thoughts, maybe it really is congress' fault.

Liberals are destroying the nation, and many people are sitting by and watching it happen. When you have five liberal justices afford a rapist life in prison while a jury of 12 calls for the death penalty, they disqualify themselves from being called justices. That is not justice. That is insanity.

No, it's called an independent judiciary and is something you conservative Marie-Antoinette types have historically favored. Because if it weren't for people like them, us middle and working class people would simply vote ourselves into power and then appropriate all your shit for ourselves.

The court is to interpret law not write it or change it. This should be an activist-free court.

Ah, and so it begins again. Watch closely kids, this will be on the mid-term.

(Supreme court) + decision overturning [(voter-imposed) DC gun ban] = model of a flawless judicial proceding.

BUT

(Supreme court) + decision overturning [(voter-imposed) LA capital punishment statute] = judicial activism.

Which in turn may be used to construct the following proof= "judicial activism" is a condition which arises when, regardless of the actual nature of the legal reasoning behind a decision- conservatives disagree with the court. Gnashing of teeth, wailing, and threats of vengeance soon follow.

And as an aside: HOLY SHIT. Conservapedia actually has Brown v. Board of Education listed as a textbook of Judicial Activism and why it is bad!!! This just gets better and better.

When we have come to a point where terror detainees are afforded "rights" in the American court system while American citizens have to fight to maintain their rights enshrined in the Constitution, it is time to take stock on just what motivates liberals.

If you think he's talking about FISA or Habeas Corpus, you're dead wrong.

They hate this nation, plain and simple. Don't try and sugar coat it or justify it. Don't try and make it politically correct. They hate this country. And with the recent ruling, it is clear they hate children as well.

But-but-but....

Orgasm = Love.

Explain to me the justification Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former ACLU attorney, can provide to a family on why she is not willing to defend and protect a child. If her liberal thinking has denigrated to the point where killing children in the womb and raping them after birth doesn't make her burn with disgust, she needs immediate mental health attention.

KINKY! Not only do we have womb-genocide, but post-abortive paedo-necrophilic acts as well? I wanna be a supreme!

We have a lot of problems in this country, no doubt – problems that over time we will work through.

Jesus. We have womb-killing baby rapists ruling against teh gunz0rs sitting on the Supreme Court, and yet somehow Craig expects that these are problems that we will just "work through" like an episode of the Jeffersons? Anyone else get the distinct impression that Craig's idea of "working through" the liberal problem involves trains and gas chambers?

Government needs to get off our backs, out of our pockets and away from our children. The court needs to interpret and uphold the Constitution, not write laws. If we take that approach, our future is bright. If not, get ready for your life to be run by folks like Pelosi and Ginsburg.

I have a fantasy that one of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court will retire or die in office, and that Barack will appoint Hillary Clinton to the bench. I might take a day off to avoid slipping on all the exploded heads littering the streets.

That is right up until the point when the patriots stand at the foot of the bridge and draw the line. And that day may be rapidly approaching.

Interventions are a very popular solution to people who are out of control. So we may need a million sane Americans to go to Washington and stage an intervention. They can start at the Capitol and finish at the Supreme Court – only leaving those who defend America, the Constitution and our children.

Interestingly enough, that gun ban the supreme court recently overturned? Right in your nation's capital. Somehow, I think our jolly patriot militiamen are going to be in for one hell of a fight as they attempt to storm the Capitol Building.

Navy Hill, circa 2010 (artist's conception)

That's Right, Cracka! Judicial Activate this mo'fo'!

Put simply ... we can not afford any more liberal progress. If this is progress, I suggest we digress.

fo' shizzle.

Catch you next time!

Update!

Fri, 09 May 2008 02:34:53 GMT

Wow. I really am doing these about a month at a time. Which is funny really, because this is my second journal, and I update this more regularly than do some of the people I know on their primary.

Ahem.

In any case, this month's offering is from our good friend and colleague Deacon Keith Fournier.

Just kidding. I don't even know if Deacon is his first name, a position he holds within the church, or a self-appointed title of reverence assigned in order to lend some weight and gravitas to whatever dreck he happens to shit out (like Colonel Saunders, Colonel Tom Parker, or Sergeant Slaughter). In any case, today was apparently Nikita Kruschev remembrance day or something down at St. Peter's, because Saint Fou-Fou the mighty has decided to pick up his rhetorical shoe and pound it on the pulpit as hard as he can in order to assure us that yes, we will bury them (the abortionists that is. I'm not sure unchristened aborted foeteses actually qualify for a Christian burial in hallowed ground).

Anyway, here goes.

Editorial: The Inevitable Triumph of the Pro-Life Position

By Deacon Keith Fournier
5/3/2008

It has been thirty five years since that infamous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.

So much for the triumph of the pro-life position being "inevitable."

With the stroke of a judicial pen,

As opposed to a ballpoint...

unelected Justices consigned an entire class of persons, children in the first home of the whole human race (their mothers womb), to the status of property.

Which, interestingly enough, are the exact same unelected justices which will one day (supposedly) reverse their decision and happily grant full citizenship rights upon our most precious of resources, the blacocyst-Americans.

And, as an aside...this guy is a deacon in the Catholic church and he's bitching about unelected people handing down autodictats from on high? I guess that's the Pope's job.

Like millions, I have prayed, marched and worked tirelessly to overturn this horrid decision and end the killing.

Yeah? And how's that coming along for ya, Fou-Fou?

As a human rights lawyer I went to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend pro-life protestors. I still try to join the thousands annually who travel to Washington, D.C. to pray and stand in solidarity with children in the womb and the second victims, their mothers.

And presumably bring pedestrian traffic to a standstill because, even after having traveled here year after year, decade after decade, you red state nutjobs still can't get over the fact that there are more people than cows in this particular neck o' th' wood. PEOPLE! They're called fucking ESCALATORS! If you want a picture to send to your parents, friends, and cousins over at the county fair, just download a picture off of Google. I can guarantee you, the view will still be exactly the same, whether or not your retarded Midwestern ass is in the frame or not.

The right to life is the fundamental human rights issue of our age because without it there are no other rights.

Unless you count the millions of prospective zombie-Americans who even now are awaiting the moment when Darth Chaney, fearing for his own mortality, cracks open the Crystal of Souls and returns them to glorious, rotting unlife. But they're not as cute as fetuses so I guess they don't get a social movement.

And, speaking of rights to life, I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of women die each year as a result of complications of childbirth. I guess you might argue that since they were here first, their right to life kind of takes precedence over that of a shrimp-like collection of cells living deep in parasitic stasis in the bowls of a specific human female, but ya know. I'm not an asexual zillionare octogenerian with red leather Prada loafers.

It is also the great freedom movement of our day because without the freedom to be born, there are no other freedoms.

I'm not sure what the hell he means by this, but I assume it's safe to say that if you don't have freedom of movement, you can't be born either, because your egg and sperm can't get jiggy and so on, ergo your scale of human freedom collapses. Or something. It's been a while since I read Aquinas.

After all these years of pro-life activity I am still labeled by some who seek to protect the so called "right" to take the lives of innocent children in the womb as "religious right." I tried to stop caring about labels a long time ago.

Dude, embracing a label isn't exactly cause for wonderous amazement when you wake up one morning and realize that people are "still" calling you a religious nutjob. It's just common sense.

After all, the old children’s jingo "sticks and stones…" does have some merit. Names should not hurt me.

"Jingo" is invading a foreign country to steal its natural resources. "Jingle" is something that is featured in commercials. Neither is really appropriate, but since we are dealing with the Catholic church here, I guess the invasion of foreign kid's rectums in the name of church integrity will have to suffice.

However, they still do. I have never liked being called a "conservative." I am also NOT a "liberal" because of what that term has now come to mean. Finally, I deplore the theft of the term "progressive" by those who want to call a return to paganism or libertinism "progress".

If being a progressive leads to paganism and means I get to be the horn-helmeted viking that burns your church down, sign me the fuck up.

I am simply a Catholic Christian.

I believe that what the Catholic Church teaches about the inviolability and sanctity of every human life, at every age and stage, is true.

I'll bet. Just how much spare change do you give away to the homeless black people sleeping on hot air vents when you come to DC, Deac? Enough to let you sleep at night? I fucking doubt it.

I try to inform all of my life, including my social, economic and political participation, by the teaching of the Catholic Church. Because of that teaching, I sometimes speak of myself as pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-poor and pro-peace.

Or the opposite. Depending on what century we're in.

I am being a Catholic Christian when I insist upon an end to legalized abortion.

And a religious nutjob when you argue that your version of Christian sharia law be imposed on the rest of us, not because of the ethical needs of a secular, democratic state, but because the Pope fucking says so.

I am ashamed of fellow Catholics, and other Christians, especially those in public life, who have failed to stay faithful to the truth about life, and in some instances, have become collaborators with the Culture of death.

Yeah job my memory about what the Catholic church had to say about the truth of life back in the 11th century or so. That'll be good for a laugh.

We are called by our baptismal vocation to serve the common good. Legal Abortion does not serve the common good.

Well I beg to differ, but then again that's because I see Roe vs. Wade as a compromise position which allows for moderation while avoiding the extremes. But then again, I'm weird.

As a part of our mission to building a truly just society where the polestar of all public policy is the recognition of the inherent dignity of every human person, at every age and stage, we simply have to end legal abortion in America and throughout the world.

Or, you know. Stop torturing people.

We must not let up in our efforts to see Roe v. Wade vacated, overturned, or in any other feasible way eradicated from our jurisprudence. The decision is a heinous example of how bad science, worse history and nefarious judicial engineering disguised as "legal reasoning" can be used to unleash a horror on an entire class of persons.

Ok, this is just getting stupid.

I believe that we will see its reversal. We now need to plan beyond that reversal. Our work has always been about more than Roe; it is about building a culture of life and a civilization of love, a new society.

Stupid, but not really surprising. I've always maintained that the Pro-Life forces aren't really about overturning Roe vs. Wade, but rather are trying to have abortion, contraception, pornography, and a whole slew of various sex-related statutes overturned on the grounds of "morality" and "human decency."

This new society we must build, in addition to protecting children, the elderly and the infirm against those who would kill them, must also promote and protect authentic marriage and the stable and healthy families that are built upon it. It must reach out in compassion to embrace all who have been wounded by the weakened state of the institution of marriage.

Oh and divorce. I guess that's banned too.

This new society, because it is genuinely concerned about justice, must proclaim the truth concerning human freedom and openly reject the relativist and libertine counterfeits that have sought to redefine the word and lead men and women into new forms of slavery.

As opposed to the old forms of slavery. Which the church was usually pretty cool with.

Tell me, oh great Deacon. Will there be a place for unbelievers in this brand new society of yours? You know, that will let me drink on Sunday, have casual sex with people, and swear so long as I do it in the confines of my own specialized "infidel's" ghetto?

It must hear the cry of the poor and promote public policy and legislation which is a response to our social obligations in solidarity. We are our brothers (and sisters) keeper. Such concern for the poor is not “left wing”, it is human and just.

And creepily authoritarian. Tell me, will the poor have to pray before they get their bread?

Oh well, there's a lot more here, as it goes on for three (THREE!) more pages. In any case, I just thought I'd leave you with the cove rimage for this article. I guess it was supposed to prove the humanity of baby fetuses but, somewhere, something went wrong...

All it did to me was convince me that babies freak me the fuck out. Ah well. Until next time!

Vernon Strikes Back!

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:02:25 GMT

Ah, how I love Wes Vernon. While I can say that I did try so very hard to find someone else to make fun of this time around, I guess that the Bengaye and Talcum-Powder scent of a fresh Vernon column simply proved irresistible. So much so, that I've decided to do another analysis of one of his thought-provoking yet cringe-inducing shit-bricks. But don't despair! There's a special treat at the end for all of you who make it through this week's offerings. Stay tuned!

California secession from the U.S.: The coming war with Russia?

Wes Vernon
April 7, 2008

C'mon! With a face like that, how can you go wrong?

The year is 2025 or thereabouts; pick another year if you wish, because this hypothetical scenario is a real possibility.

Wes, Wes, Wes! By 2025, everyone knows that the western atheist post-Christian nanny-state will have collapsed and the whole world will have been overrun by the raving Mussleman hordes, thereby rendering your hypothetical scenario impossible! If this has any chance of actually coming true, you'll have to bump the date up until at least 2015.

Russia has argued in the United Nations for the independence of California.

California's leading minority-grievance activists presume to speak for the state's Spanish-speaking majority — or near majority, depending on the coming census. They have succeeded in pressuring the state legislature and governor into declaring the state's independence from the United States of America. California thus would become the first U.S. state to attempt secession since the mid-19th Century, though a self-proclaimed socialist senator from Vermont has made noises in that direction over the years.

Oooh, this is getting better! Not only do we now have the Russkie proto-communists howling outside the city walls, but the reconquista-minded denizens of Atzalan, no longer content with mowing lawns and bussing tables for $3.50 an hour have finally risen up and demanded independence from the tyranny of the gringos! All we need are some atheist-abortionist-homo-Muslims, and the unholy trinity will have been completed!

Russia, having gone to war with the U.S. over the latter's 2008 successful use of its power to back the Muslim-majority Kosovo in its drive for independence from Christian Serbia, is using its own increased authority in Europe and in the world community to bully the U.S. in world affairs.

In other words, you're saying that our missile shield really did stop those hundreds of Russian nukes heading our way? Ok Wes, now you're really stretching the boundaries of one's credulity.

Russia pronounces this as a drive for "liberation," an Orwellian term for its privately expressed desire to give Uncle Sam "as taste of his own medicine."

Well, if it actually wanted to give the United States a taste of its own medicine, it would, you know, claim that we live under the oppressive rule of a ruthless, megalomaniacal dictator who is Russia's sworn enemy and is packed to the gills with UFO-based laser technology which represents a threat to world peace. It would then, despite the vocal opposition of the international community launch a poorly conceived, ill-timed, and badly thought-out invasion of the United States, take control of our Alaska oilfields, allow the Smithsonians to be looted and burned, and proceed to kill about 500,000 of us while causing millions more to flee to Canada or Mexico. It would then insist that it had no long-term plans to occupy the United States while it built a few dozen permanent military bases and attempted to install a pro-Russian puppet as president while taking no steps to combat the widely escalating and ever-worsening violence between conservatives and liberals in the US.

Oh, and it would also randomly grab thousands of Americans off the streets and send them off to secret prisons in the rockies to be brutally tortured and then summarily executed, while reserving the "justice" of secret military tribunals for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, followed by a low-quality, cell-phone captured hanging of of the aforementioned politicos by a sectarian execution team.

You know, if all it wants to do is support the liberation of California in a popularly-proclaimed vote for independence, that doesn't seem so bad.

The slogan, of course, served to encourage the (successful) campaigns for secessions by other ethnic and/or religious-motivated "breakaway provinces" elsewhere, Muslim and non-Muslim.

Wait, so I'm confused now. Are you saying the Nation of Islam gets its own homeland in the new Russian-occupied United States? Because I would be totally down with that. Give them the rest of South Dakota and Idaho. It's not like anyone's using that.

Shortly after U.S. recognition of Serbia's breakaway province back in 2008, the American Council for Kosovo publicized an article arguing that "the dumbest statement about Kosovo's independence is that it will bring stability to the region, since as anyone can see the opposite is true."

Well, what else can you expect when you hire PR specialists of the caliber of Wes Vernon to draft your statements for you? The guy isn't exactly Shakespeare...

Russia went to war with the United States a few years ago, not only because of Vladimir Putin's support for Serbia in its part of the world — but also out of concern that the Kosovo breakaway would create similar pressures (in its own backyard) on the part of the restless and troubled Sunni Muslim province of Chechnya.

Yeah, because Chechnya was a peaceful and contented little province within greater Russia until those damned Kosovars started giving them funny ideas.

Now in 2025, the president of the United States has personally addressed the United Nations, arguing that California had been an integral part of the United States for 175 years and had been the home base of several U.S. presidents in the 20th Century. The pleas fell on deaf ears at the UN, as Russia was able to marshal the forces of the Islamic and Spanish-speaking nations and some allies in Africa and parts of Europe.

Holy shit! We really ARE going to be fighting Muslims and the gay-homo-euro-fag-fags after all!

The continental United States — notwithstanding the War of 1812, the Civil War, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 — has been blessed with a relative absence of the ravishes of war on its own territory.

Yeah, the United States has been a pretty peaceful place. Unless of course you count all those wars we fought (and the ones Wes forgot to mention, like the Mexican-American War, the War of Independence, the War of Texan Independence, the bleeding Kansas conflict, and all those wars against the Indians). Not to mention the fact that I never realized that Pearl Harbor was part of the continental U.S.

John Bolton, President Bush's highly respected former ambassador to the United Nations,

If you use the term "highly respected" as a synonym for "laughingstock" or "manchurian," you'd be dead right...

is concerned about the administration's "dismissive attitude displayed toward Russia's objections [to an independent Kosovo] " and contends it would backfire against the United States in a very real and dangerous way.

This of course being the same guy whom the administration appointed ambassador to the UN after he claimed that there was no such thing as the 'United Nations,' I'd take anything he said with a grain of salt the size of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Further contributing to the foreign policy downslide is the fact that all three major party candidates for the presidency — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain — support independence for Kosovo. McCain, in fact, sent his wife Cindy to meet with Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, implicitly signaling that if elected, McCain — as would be the case with either of his Democrat opponents — is fully supportive of the newly minted state.

You can almost hear Vernon jamming his fingers into his keyboard and shouting "PEOPLE! The Kosovars are FREAKING MUSLIMS!!!!!?!?!?!?!lolOMGBRB!!!!! You can't NEGOTIATE with these people!!"

It is sad to recall that President Bush — during his first campaign for the White House in 2000 — expressed a disdain for "nation-building." And yet in his second term, he has followed just that path with an intensity and stubbornness that would make Woodrow Wilson proud.

Which of course is a major no-no in Vernon's mind. Unless of course, we are referring to a place known as Akir-ay
and the Iddle-may East-way.

Though lionized by the liberal establishment , Wilson's pompous and self-righteous pursuit of nation-building made him one of the biggest failures in America presidential history.

Well technically, it was the conservatives in congress who vetoed Wilson's attempts to join the League of Nations that made him a failure, but as is usually the case in such circumstances, the Republicans get to point to Wilson and laugh while claiming a Mulligan for themselves.

What sense is there in pursuing Islamists in Iraq, while offering American prestige and power to establishing an Islamist state on the European continent? Not only an Islamist state, but one whose persecution of Christians is a matter of record.

Well, last I checked, there were already two "Islamic" states on the European continent, but that's neither here nor there.

His Grace Bishop Artemije of Ras and Prizen, a leading Serb cleric, came to Washington prior to the U.S. action and begged the White House to change its planned course of action.

"I do not welcome having to direct these critical words of the United States," the bishop declared. "Serbs have always regarded America as a friend and continue to do so.

Well, far be it for me to contradict such a prestigious member of the international hierarchy as a bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church, but, his grace is simply wrong.

We are not the ones who are pursuing a confrontation today.

"Please. That genocide ended nearly a decade ago!"

Ok, we need to wrap this up.

Bush 43 thus engaged in an exercise that — aside from the damage alluded to above — puts an unspoken stamp of approval on Bill Clinton's legacy chestnuts which are thereby pulled out of the fire

Hehe...he said "nuts."

But then we are speaking of specialists beyond the rarified atmosphere of the nation-building striped pants diplomats who populate the State Department, whose building is appropriately nicknamed "Foggy Bottom."

Of course, as we learned last time, whenever there is a Foggy Bottom in Vernon's direction, you can be assured that the aroma has a distinctly porky smell. And no, it's not the hoitdog vendors on the corner either.

Till next time!

Yar! I am teh kings!

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:59:26 GMT

A very intelligent person once said that the Republicans love to play up the Democrats' racist past, because it's easier than focusing on the GOP's racist present. Given a choice, they'd rather choose the former.

And speaking of racism, today's columnist is perennial favorite Pat Boone, columnist for World Net Daily and who previously found employment whitening up rock n/ roll songs so as to make the devil music of coloreds more palatable for white radio audiences. And if you think that's bad, just pray to whatever deity you choose that you never come face to face with Boone's "In a Metal Mood" late one night in a dark alley, brandishing a lead pipe and asking if you have a dollar.

The truth about Democrats and blacks

Posted: March 08, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

Did you know that Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican?

Just sit on that for a minute and think.

MLK was a Republican.

A tax-lowering, big-military, small-government, pro-gun, anti-affirmative action Republican.

Probably explains why the FBI thought he was a communist.

Um...yeah. More on that in a minute.

I sure didn't – till I read Ronald Kessler's arresting column on the Internet just recently. He was liberally quoting Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association, in which she was describing the Democrat Party as the "architect of modern day racism."

Oh good. I guess people like Trent Lott are just kidding when they say things like "when Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

This was just the first of many fascinating and surprising accusations from someone who is certainly in a position to know what she's talking about. She's a retired Army lieutenant colonel and lawyer[...]

Wow. She is a lawyer, AND former military? Well that certainly makes her an expert on the long-term socio-historical and political developments which both lead to the fascinating and turbulent epoch of the 1960's race relations.

She was in the army? Holy shit, we have a genuine, bona-fide expert on our hands here, folks.

[...]and she avers that it was Republicans who pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress – and that the GOP still stands for empowering blacks to help them out of poverty, more than the Democrats.

Well, if you want to get technical, more Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Republicans in terms of pure numbers. Now, as a percentage of the party as a whole, yes more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats as a whole, but if you look at the division of the vote by regional affiliation, 95% of Northern Democrats voted in favor of the act, while only 85% of Northern Republicans did.

And you know what's even scarier? While 7% of SOUTHERN Democrats voted in favor of the act...the support for the act amongst Southern Republicans was- get this- 0%.

In contrast, she says, the liberal party pushes programs that keep her fellow blacks dependent on government handouts and temporary "fixes," and encourages them to see themselves as victims.

Yeah. I wonder where the idea of blacks as "victims" ever came from.

Oh wait, that's right.

That's the road on which James Byrd Jr. was dragged to death in 1998. Good to see this is all a thing of the past. Speaking of which, I can't help but wonder what the political affiliation of his attackers was.

She even charges that in every election cycle, Democrat operatives fan out into the black communities and preach hatred against the Republican Party, to get them to cast protest votes against perceived prejudice.

As opposed to Republican operatives, who just tell make sure black votes don't count.

And this activity has succeeded insidiously, convincing several generations of black Americans that the Democrat Party is their only hope. The party strategists' fear is that "once blacks become prosperous, the Democrats will lose their power base."

So on the one hand, democrats keep American blacks disenfranchised in order to keep their votes, which they do by...passing...Civil Rights and Affirmative Action legislation and trying to diversify the workplace.

Yeah, that makes sense.

One thing she points out is that most black people are completely unaware that from its founding in 1854, as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been at the "forefront of the struggle for civil rights, which is why Dr. King was himself a Republican."

Which is amazing, seeing how King himself voted for JFK in 1960 and LBJ in 1964, and would undoubtably have voted for RFK in 1968 had they not both been shot to death.

But hey, some people like to argue that if he were alive today, JFK would be a Republican, seeing how he was a democrat in the 1960s and all his relatives still are. That does say something about the conservative need to appropriate heroes from the liberal end of the spectrum and rewrite history, and take right wing villains and turn them into squishy liberals, like Hitler. Not like that hasn't already been done (see Goldberg, Jonah).

It was Republicans who fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote. They also pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s, Rice says

Though not to the same degree, nor with the same enthusiasm as Democrats did, apparently (see above).

On the other hand, it was Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene "Bull" Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., who unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators, she reminds us. And Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox "brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. And Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.

Saayy...speaking of which, I wonder what happened to all those people later in life?

Oh wait, I forgot. They all became Republicans.

Why am I chronicling all this? Well, this is an extremely crucial election year, unprecedented in its implications. A vast majority of media attention is consistently focused on the Democrat race, with its leading contenders a young black man and a middle-aged woman; one will win the nomination, and the predominantly liberal media will pull out all the stops, employing all its biased wiles and influence to push that nominee into the presidency.

Indeed. The Democrats are so focused on keeping themselves in power by exploiting black people and keeping them oppressed that they actually have the nation's first viable black candidate running for president.

Must be trying to bring it down from the inside. Honestly, stupidity like this couldn't possible be achieved in less than 4 hours of constant turpentine injections into the brain, followed by savage beatings by fish-bat wielding, hockey players from the Central African Gorilla Hockey League every quarter hour.

For years, I've been aware of this advancing phenomenon. I was an Alan Keyes supporter in his first bid for the presidency. Before that, in 1976 I was a Reagan delegate to the Republican convention, and was actively stumping for the GOP to find, nurture and put forward black candidates for every elected office! I kept saying, "We're the party of Lincoln. Why shouldn't we be the ones that create the opportunities for the best qualified black candidates?

Jog my memory here, Pat. How many black Republicans are there in the 435-member U.S. Congress today? About the same number of Southern Republicans who voted for the 1964 Civil Rights bill. ZERO. So are blacks just unqualified, or are you just incompetent at finding them?

Anyway, time to wrap this up.

[F]or now, my point is that we Americans, all of us, need to step back and take an objective look at our past as well as to the immediate future – to the trends and actions and influences that have brought us to this election year. There are serious differences between the candidates, their ambitions and abilities, and the goals of the two parties.

So, in conclusion, the best thing an ambitious, racially-conscious black voter who cares about the future of African-Americans in this country can do is vote NOT for the black Democrat from Illinois, but a 72-year old white man from Arizona.

Hey Pat? Your 15 minutes are up. Looks like the Gorillas are back for another round.

Doot doot doot

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:50:30 GMT

Which is better, paper or plastic? Who was Jack the Ripper? Did the lost city of Atlantis every exist? Is there intelligent life on other planets? And why does Wes Vernon's profile picture look like that of a mad scientist who has just cut a particularly pungent and deafening fart? Some questions will never be answered.

Eurabia--is America next?

Wes Vernon
March 3, 2008

"Har, har. The mooslim hordes can take over Europe, but riddle me this. Will the nations of musselmans be able to withstand the mighty productions of Lord Vernon's pork-eating digestive tract? I think not, Allah-worshippers!"

Dr. Bernard Lewis — a British-American who is one of the most widely read authorities on the Middle East — says, "Current trends show that Europe will have a Muslim majority by the end of the 21st Century at the latest.... Europe will be part of the Arab West — the Maghreb."

Well I can't speak for Dr. Lewis personally, but if you want to claim that Western Europe will be part of the Maghreb by 2100, I think its fairly safe to say that his doctorate is not from one of any of the geological or cartographical sciences.

And seeing how he is often regarded as "perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq," who argued that the invasion would "modernize the Middle East," I'm pretty sure that whatenever he puts his pen to paper, the resulting byflow is made of wrong.

George Weigel, a distinguished senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), invites us to envision a Europe in which the muezzin summons the faithful to prayer from the central loggia of St. Peters in Rome, while Notre Dame has been transformed into Hagia Sophia in the Seine — "a great Christian church become an Islamic museum."

Considering the fact that the EEPC is a right-wing think tack which, by its own admission is "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy," one can see why they would rightfully fear a world in which they actually had to go out and earn a living for a change.

Weigel cites figures showing that the Europeans (and European Americans, for that matter) are not reproducing themselves in numbers to maintain their current level of population. Muslims living in the West are outpacing us.

Wow. That's a pretty wicked 3% you got there.

Further, he believes that much of Europe has turned its back on its Christian heritage — something resembling a pathological "self-loathing," or a "silent apostasy."

I am in ur bibble, steelin ur beleifs!

Oh noes! They be steeling mah followerz!

There is a fear on the part of police throughout Europe that enforcing laws inconvenient to radical Muslims will meet with violent rejection of laws.

In Holland, Lent is referred to as the "Christian Ramadan."

Hey, look, I'm as fond of semantic categorizations as the next man. But when you consider the fact that the referral of Lent as "Christian Ramadan" comes to us via a Roman Catholic charity group, I find the notion that this is somehow a reflection of Europe's "silent apostasy" somewhat logically inconsistent, yo.

In Britain, the ever-polite BBC refers to Islamic extremists as "anti-Islamic extremists."

Hmm, yeah, that is interesting. Say, I wonder if we Americans would ever countenance doing such a thing.

In Spain, the focus is on fighting (rhetorically and policywise) the 1930s civil war all over again, with a twist: Old Communists are becoming Muslims.

This is quite possibly the most laughably and unintentionally hilarious thing I have ever read on Renew America. Yes, Wes. The ideological descendants of the Party for Marxist Unification and the Spanish commissars are the ideological forebears of today's Islamic fundamentalists. Just when we though we finally had our terms pinned down, it turns our that the Islamofascists of yesterday are the Islamocoumminists of today. Brilliant!

Throughout much of Europe, Mohammed is the second most common name to newborns.

Except that it isn't. Mohammed just barely cracks the top 50 in France, the supposed Muslim capital of Western Europe. But whatever. Who needs facts when we have the kind of truth that comes from the gut.

The war against Islamofascism is essentially seen as a revival of the Islam vs. Christian Battle of Vienna of 1683. That was when the soldiers of the Ottoman Empire (Islam) were at the gates of Vienna ready to attack. But the Christian forces of Europe struck back, won the battle, and saved Vienna from capture. This was the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire's drive to overrun Europe. That fatal day for Islam in 1683 was September 12 — just one day shy of exactly 318 years prior to a spectacular attack on Western Civilization by Islamic terrorists. Some have speculated that selecting the date September 11, 2001 (however slightly imprecise) was meant to send a message. This column knows of no hard evidence on that one way or the other.

ZOMG!! Quick! Get Harry on the phone! He have cracked the code! The date of September 11th, 2001 was chosen because it occurs just 24 hours before the 318 anniversary of an Ottoman Turkish defeat by Hungarian-Austrian-Imperial forces. No wonder a group of 19 Saudi terrorists chose such an auspicious date for their attack on the United States. The parallels really scream out in concurrence.

There's more, but this stupidity has drawn on too long for my taste. Far, far too long.

Incoming!

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:14:51 GMT

Today's words of wisdom come to us courtesy of Mary Mostert, author, commentator, and general failure at life. Today, she is going to give us an in-depth explanation of how the constitution works and provide details on how electing Obama to the White House would legitimize what he has been trying to do unconstitutionally-- namely, end preznit Bush's Best War Evar!(tm). Let's have a gander.

Will military veterans support Obama's "retreat and declare defeat" strategy

Mary Mostert
February 28, 2008

I've got to say, I do love the quotation marks around "retreat and declare defeat." Almost as if she were quoting verbatim from Karl Rove's fax machine. You know, I hate to break it to you, but (unsurprisingly), that slogan doesn't even have a good ring to it. Retreat and declare defeat? Waaayyy too many syllables in between the rhymes. Were I a Republican operative (which is in and of itself ludicrous...I do have a sense of shame after all), I might venture to suggest the:

Retreat out with your meat out strategy (Larry Craig only)
Run out with your gun out strategy
Cut and slut program
Cry and die plan.

You see? It ain't hard here, peeps.

As things now stand, it appears that Barack Obama, if nominated by the Democrats and elected in November, may very well become the commander in chief of America's military force.

Which is kind of like saying "if Prince Charles' mother were to die and he were to succeed her in the line of succession, he may very well become the next king of England." Sure, it sounds retarded to most of it, but you have to understand that for this particular audience, shit needs to be dumbed down. Like...way down.

As commander in chief he actually would have the Constitutional authority, under existing legislation passed by previous, but recent congresses to implement the policies to do what he has unconstitutionally tried to force President Bush to do — pull out of the war on terror.

Because in this topsy-turvy world in which the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and does not in fact have the authority to declare war or activate the military himself, congress' attempts to deescalate a conflict which it had itself authorized 5 years previously represent the hight of logical contradiction, second only in preposterousness as birds who do not fly and chocolate-flavored Chex Mix.

His bill S 433, introduced in January 2007, would redeploy the Armed forces in Iraq and implement a "political settlement in Iraq, thereby ending the civil war in Iraq." That sounds like a recipe for surrender to me.

You know what else it sounds like? Outdated. The bill hasn't even come up for debate yet and its supposed cutoff date for troop redeployment was May 2007. Now I assume it is entirely possible that once elected president, Barack Saddam Hussein Osama Mumia X will gain access to Bush's top secret time-travel device and change the past so that his bill was not, in fact, overtaken by events, but if Bush were in fact in the possession of such device, it's hard to imagine the world being as fucked up right now as it is (unless of course he likes it that way, and it only trying to make things even worse). Either that, or he already got bored with it and it's currently shoved away in the White House garage somewhere along with Jenna's stash of fake IDs, Donald Rumsfeld's body, and the rest of his approval rating.

The U.S. Constitution gives no authority to Congress to tell the commander in chief where to send the troops, once they have been called up. That is clearly defined in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution which states:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices."

Hmm...that's a fascinating way to read the constitution. Tell me more.

At this point President Bush has the authority, under the Constitution, to ask a senator for his or her opinion. He does not, of course, need to agree with that senator nor has the senator or the congress as a whole have the constitutional authority to tell the president what to do as commander in chief.

But-but-but....!!! According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to....

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

and

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So in other words, while Congress basically has complete and utter power over how the army is to be run and if/when it can be employed, once it has authorized action, the President enters a black hole whoopsies he-said-she-said no backsies olly-olly-oxenfree of executive power, in which he can basically do whatever he wants with the military, because he's "Commander in Chief."

Now, I could be a little hazy, but last I checked, the authority of the President as commander in chief only extends to how the military is to be employed in the field, not how long a war is to last, or even if it is to continue forever. And while we all know how much the right wing loves staring at the bulging triangle of manhood whenever our fearless leader dons a flightsuit and takes the helm himself, other notable executives-cum-commanders have had markedly similar experiences in command, with similar results. You know, like Hitler, Stalin, and Richard III.

On the other hand, the president, in his role as commander in chief, does have the responsibility under Article 2 Section 3 of the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Jog my memory, Mary. Which branch is in charge of writing the laws again?

Oh, wait. That's right.

Basically, Obama's bill, S 433, would require the president to ignore laws passed by previous congresses.

A) And, apparently, travel back in time.

B) Because congress has never, ever in a hundred million years ever passed laws which contradicted other laws.

Pick your response!

While congress can defund a war, as it did in the Vietnam War, it has no authority to pass a law ordering the President to ignore existing law.

See above.

It is the president, not the senators, under the law who determines what is needed to defend the country's national security and enforce UN resolutions.

Hrm. Like I said, I'm kind of lazy and don't feel like scrolling up, but I'm pretty sure that the authority to repel invasions, supress insurrections, and all that shit is part of Congress' job. Just a hunch.

In 2007, there was a remarkable increase in the number of suicide bomber attacks in Iraq. Eighty percent of those attacks were within a 30 miles of Baghdad.

Huh. Looks like we are having a surge after all, of sorts.

Based on the laws on the books, and the Constitution, President Bush had not only the authority to increase the number of troops to address the heightened threat from those attacks, but also the constitutional responsibility to give orders to the troops without interference from Congress — or the media. It was HIS decision — not that of the Congress.

When you capitalize HIS like that, it kind of makes me nervous, Mary. Could it be that our Commander-in-Chief is also a stealth candidate for messiah? Now, you can make the argument that congress does not have the power to say how many troops should or should not be in Iraq (which would be pretty tough, seeing how Congress has the power to raise and support armies), but I don't really think you can seriously argue that Bush is the second coming of Christ. Though given the horrors that doubtlessly await the loins of any man were he to consumate a carnal relationship with a different species of living creature or brute animal, such as Barbara Bush, it might be a comforting thought to imagine that something miraculous was at work.

Having failed to undermine the Constitution as one of 100 senators, Barack Obama apparently decided to try to run for president so he could have the authority to pull out of the war on terror in Iraq by claiming there was no security risk.

Um..weren't you just arguing that if the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, he can do whatever he wants with the army? According to your logic, Mumia Hussein Osama X would have the power to order the entire armed forces to drop their weapons and commence mining operations for shit nuggets in the Trans-Carpathian mountains, and congress wouldn't able to do shit about it (pun not intended).

While, obviously there are differences of opinion, politically and religiously, among the Iraq people, as there are in every other nation, only a minority of the people involved in the violence in Iraq are from Iraq. A whopping 84.5% of the suicide bombers are not citizens of Iraq, but citizens of 18 other nations. It isn't a civil war as Obama claims when 19 nations are involved in it. It is a WORLD war.

Someone get Shelby Foote on the line. Apparently, the U.S. Civil War wasn't a civil war at all!

Anyway, running out of time, so let's wrap this up.

It makes me wonder how many of nearly the 25 million military veterans in the USA will be able to hold their nose and actually vote for a man (or a woman) as their next commander in chief who "would retreat, and declare defeat" in the War on Terror.

Blind man, wonder no more!

See you all next time!

Nada

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:54:45 GMT

Today's selection of potential victims of my wrath proved to be depressingly unsuitable. After all, once you get to the point where you actually have commentators complaining that George W. Bush is a failure because he isn't conservative enough or that he is actually an unfettered liberal, words and senses fail. Then again, these are also the same sort of people who maintain that Christians are an oppressed minority in the United States (despite having about 80% of the population in their camp) and who have no problem with the United States government listening on their phone calls without a warrant and torturing people- provided they get to keep their guns. After a while, the ability to keep the parody ahead of the actual words and deeds of these people begins to suffer, and you ultimately end up in a situation in which anything you can say about them just isn't funny anymore, because odds are, it's probably true.

Fortunately, if there is still one area in which conservatives remain refreshingly humerous, it's in their rather ham-handed attempts at what might be considered "humor." You see, there is a reason why all the great comedians have been liberals and not conservatives. In order to be funny you must first be able to laugh at yourself. You must have a willingness to push the envelope, strike the balance between edgy and tacky, and most of all-- and this is key-- be able to withstand ridicule yourself. You must be able to think freely and outside the box, unconfined by a particular adherence to a message or afraid to stray from a party line. Liberals have no problem doing that. Conservatives? eh..not so much.

I'll post more later.

We're Fucking Done.

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:01:14 GMT

Considering the crap I had to put up with this weekend, I am in a foul mood.

Normally I'd find another way to let out the steam, but as I can't actually take a couple of right wing fundamentalists out behind the hedge and beat them to death with a six-foot gaffing iron, I suppose my usual ranting will have to suffice. Although it involves a lot less blood, it is actually legal, and saves me the trouble of buying tickets to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference and Slander Bazaar so that I can make fart sounds and masterbatory gestures every time some fish-bellied reactionary gets up on stage to croak on and on about the oppressed minority that is conservativism and evangelical Christianity in the U.S. today.

Although I am not about to leave the confort of my chair, dear friends, I can assure you that there will be blood. Oh yes indeed.

Wanted: pro-life integrity

Judie Brown
February 1, 2008

For more than 35 years, pro-lifers have struggled to choose the best tactics and strategies while hoping to reach a point in America's history where abortion would become anathema to the public as well as lawmakers and judges. In the ongoing quest to focus on a project or proposal that might facilitate this goal, it would seem that many have lost their way.

Because like any good reactionary group, while it certainly would be nice to hope and pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that one day he will touch all with his noodly appendage and convince the masses of the wrongness of abortion, in the meantime that's really only secondary in importance to getting the procedure banned in the first place. Because God doesn't give a shit what the polls say.

Pro-life efforts commence from the simple truth, revealed to one and all in basic biology, that each human being begins his or her life at fertilization.

Because apparently according to large segments of the American population, basic biology has pretty much been frozen in time around the same calendar date at which it was discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun. In other words, as soon as we stopped using the Bible as our primary fucking textbook for all things scientific.

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism.

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life[...]

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view.

Neurological view:

Because the state of modern technology still prohibits EEGs in utero, brain activity data for humans at various stages of development has been gathered using premature infants. Observations to date have led to the conclusion that 25 weeks of gestation is required for the formation of synapses needed for recognizable neural activity.

Ecological / Technological view:

Under most circumstances, the limiting factor for human viability is not the development of neural connections but the maturation of the lungs. However, advances in medical science permit a premature fetus to breathe after only 25 weeks of gestation, a stage in its development prior to the complete formation of functioning lungs (Gilbert 2002).

Self-Consciosness:

Contemporary Philosophical Stands on When Human Life Begins There are philosophers, although not very many, who would dare to make the stance that a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. This of course means that neither a zygote nor an embryo is a person either.

Indeed, we know that an individual has his/her personal DNA and his/her identity engraved on that first single cell which results from the union of a human sperm and a human egg.

Yeah, and you know what else contains DNA? Eggs and spooge. Please, help us in our quest to ban ovulation and onanism!

Although judging by her picture I'd venture to say that Judie hasn't actually ovulated since the Carter administration, this is not as much of a contradiction as it may first appear.

Philosophically, we recognize him/her as a person who deserves to be protected in law and by the culture in which he/she resides.

Unless of course you're a fucking VIKING and/or SPARTAN, in which case very (very!) late-term abortions are not only acceptable, but the norm.

Not a single pro-life person I have met has ever doubted that basic fact.

Yeah, and I'll wager a large proportion of them have never doubted that the Earth is only 10,000 years old either. In other words, Judie, the majority of your companions are inbred retards.

And so it makes perfect sense to say that pro-life integrity is the complete, principled recognition and the defense of each and every person's right to life from the instant his or her life begins until his or her natural end.

And Judie, the minute you can give me a solid, compelling, well-reasoned arguement to support that your rather arbitrary definition of the beginnings of "life" that is based on scientific evidence and not on the mumblings of some 12th century cretin in a pointy hat, I'll take your word for it.

This principle is confirmed in the natural law and is reflected in such basic documents as the Constitution of the United States.

If you think the founding fathers were referring to a clump of cells smaller than a pinhead when they were referring to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, I can't wait to see what your take on the fucking establishment or quartering clauses is.

But translating this ideal into political and social proposals appears to have created a problem that is growing by leaps and bounds. For example, just five days before the 35th Annual March for Life, the Catholic bishops of Georgia issued a statement in which they officially opposed a state legislative proposal that would legally protect preborn children from the beginning of their lives. Georgia's proposed House Resolution 536 would legally declare every human being a person from the moment of fertilization until natural death. It would, in simple terms, express the truth that is fundamental to pro-life efforts: it would leave no innocent person behind.

And of course, here is the clincher. Because after having gone on a nice long rant about the inviability of scientific evidence with regards to the moment at which life begins (even though she ignores most of it) and what the founding fathers supposedly say on the issue (by extension of an already dangerously tautological point), as soon as that is established, science is abandoned like a 2-hour old dumpster fetus on prom night in favor of that hot octegenarian in the corner with the funky robes and and disdain for universal suffrage.

Unfortunately, we now have ourselves a problem. Judie has given us the money shot when we are still only halfway into the piece. Looks like this week's website update may be shorter than usual.

Even so, the Georgia bishops, Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Bishop Kevin Boland, said that the proposal "does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or reducing abortion in Georgia." The bishops went on to say that they would not "retreat" from the goal of protection, but that they would support "legally feasible means for bringing about an end to legalized abortion."

In other words, the archbishops determined that this particular course of attack made them look like a band of dribbling mongoloids and wisely chose to desist. Not that anyone would have expected anything else from a bunch of catholic bishops.

This is extremely troublesome. It convinces me once again that pro-life strategists are losing their way and perhaps have lost sight of the goal. The Georgia Catholic bishops, like others around the country, have been advised that the timing is not right. And yet, by setting aside this basic principle upon which the culture of life is based, they are setting aside the ultimate goal we strive to achieve.

Judie? Please be my guest. Bring. It. On.

Pro-life leaders in Georgia, as elsewhere around the nation, are committed to advancing the goal, raising the bar and demanding consistency from those in public office. They have chosen the state constitutional amendment course because it provides a golden opportunity to discuss the humanity of the preborn child, the wrongness of abortion in every case and the beauty of parenthood, which is tragically contradicted by choosing to abort one's preborn child. While such strategies as the pursuit of a real pro-life amendment should be met with wild enthusiasm and unity of purpose, the opposite has been the case not only in Georgia, but in Colorado, Michigan and elsewhere.

Judie? I know what it is you're trying to accomplish here, but you know what? It just doesn't fucking work. Please have the balls to admit that what you are basically trying to do is impose a religiously-based law, devoid of scientific, ethical, or legal considerations on a population which is governed by the rules of a secular republic. If you want to basically impose an American Sharia on the country, fine. But at the very least have the honesty to admit it and leave the loopholes in place so that those of us who don't happen to subscribe to your backwards-ass abomination to the human intellect can still watch porn, drink alcohol, listen to rock and roll, and have abortions to our hearts' content.

After 35 years of political business as usual in the pro-life movement, we have before us a huge problem that requires a radical solution. If we are honest in asking ourselves why the pro-life movement has been unable to transform our home-team advantage into cultural conversion and practical steps toward the goal, we would have to admit failure.

In other words, the neo-con and Wall Street robber baron faction of your party have been waving red-meat issues like abortion in your faces for the better part of 4 decades and you're just fucking starting to catch on. Congratulations. With any luck, you'll finally start getting those Green Acres jokes in the next few years as well.

If you think in the context of what has actually been achieved for the babies through politics over 35 years, you really would have to conclude that something is rotten in government and a dramatic shift is needed — a shift in tactics, strategy and focus.

Um...you've basically admitted that your attempts to ban abortion via the legal process have met with failure after failure and you need to change tack. Two questions. First, how radical is your proposed solution, and second, how far is the nearest gun store.

This is why so many state pro-life advocates have banded together in coalitions, looked at legal personhood and chosen to pursue it. These people see a golden opportunity to express pro-life integrity in the law and are willing to do what it takes to get the task completed.

So if you have a beer or two over the 9 months of your pregnancy and miscarry, can you be hauled before your local council of elders and be put on trial for manslaughter?

If you abort your little sperm/egg combo in the first 12 days of pregnancy when the clump of cells can still split into different people, do you get put on trial for one murder, or will they throw the book at you for...like...sextuplets?

Returning to Georgia for a moment, it is easy to see that the death peddlers are frightened for one simple reason: it would put them out of business. That is why the director of public policy for Planned Parenthood of Georgia, calls the proposed amendment "extreme."

Yeah. There's nothing extreme about giving a blasocyst full citizenship rights and penciling it in for social security benefits 60-odd years down the road.

Yet there is nothing extreme about focusing on the humanity of the child and legally protecting every innocent person from America's largest abortion chain.

Whatever the fuck ever. Judie? If I have a girlfriend who gets pregnant, I'll cut you a deal. SHE doesn't abort it, and in exchange, YOU get to either 1) adopt it or 2) fork over $80,000 to see us through until the kid turns 18. I'd sign up for that. Deal?

Therefore, I ask my fellow pro-lifers to consider the following recommendations as the starting point for revitalizing our efforts:

Pro-lifers need to raise their political sights and demand consistency from those running for political office. We should not settle for anything less than pro-life integrity.

And get used to the idea of pulling in a glorious 3-5% of the vote every election cycle. I can get behind that.

We all need to stop talking about restricting abortion and begin abolishing it. The legalized death of even one innocent human being is unacceptable and we should be making that point over and over again.

I've seen pictures in which fetuses are touching their pee-pees. Does this mean we can abort them? Or at the very least, convict them of gross indecency and conspiracy to waste DNA?

Each of us needs to feel, in the depths of our souls, the urgency that is so obvious when we realize that every single day in our nation 3,288 little children lose their lives in the most gruesome acts of murder known to man.

Yeah. Now if only we could actually get people to give two shits about the thousands of real life, living children who actually die from war, famine, and preventable diseases every day, then we'd really be cooking with napalm.

It is time for a change in pro-life strategy and tactics. It is time for tried and true wisdom as we recollect ourselves and renew our sense of what it means to be pro-life. The greatest doctrine on pro-life integrity is taught by the Catholic Church.

Well, except for the bishops mentioned above.

The temptation to be satisfied with some ineffective minimum is unworthy of our time on earth. Let us move on toward the only goal worth pursuing: the legal protection of each and every innocent person, born and preborn. Pro-life integrity and all that it means is achievable today. Let us not wait a moment longer.

Whatever. You guys go and protect your unborn womb-babies if you want. I'm gonna hit up some more Need for Speed: Carbon.

Laters

Cherry gets popped

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:52:55 GMT

Because, in the words of Dope, the pre-eminent scholars of all discourses of note regarding the body politick:

"I'm back to put it in motion
I'm back to tell you no lies
Sit back and sip on this notion
I'm back to put it in drive"

Today's resident scholar of note and caboose on the grazy train known as Alan Keyes' Crack Den Renew America is none other than Ronald R. Cherry, a "board-certified specialist in lung disease who is in the full-time practice of medicine in Sweetwater, Tennessee."

Faced with such intellectual titans, it remains a mystery as to why liberalism remains a viable political orientation, and not a shriveled 11 year old writhing under the final stages of advanced consumption.

Let's take a look.

Judeo-Christian values

Ronald R. Cherry
January 28, 2008

Judeo-Christian values in America have a basis in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Hmm...you know what, that's a good start, but I'm not entirely sure that a passing reference to a non-specific deity in a legally non-binding document really does a good job of carrying your point forward there, Ron. Let's try that again.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Christian men are created equal under God, that they are endowed by their Creator Jesus Christ with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, the libery to to follow Biblical precepts within an acceptable spread, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as that happiness stays well within the bounds of marriage and for procrative purposes only....

Sure, that's not what they wrote. But if there's anything we learned from the Donation of Constantine, just because they didn't write it doesn't mean they wouldn't have if they had known we would be having these debates further down the road, so paraphrasing what they WOULD have said is perfectly acceptable.

Since the pursuit of happiness, as Sigmund Freud surmised, is tied to human love and to creative work and play, the principles of American Judeo-Christian values can rightly be summarized as the honoring of God-given Life, Liberty and Creativity.

Whoa-whoa-whoa there, Ron. You're treading on some pretty thin ice there. After all, even if we ignore the head-smashingly assinine philosophical jump wherein you associate what a 19th century Austrian PSYCHIATRIST said about human love and weld it to what a bunch of American amateur politicians meant when they were attempting to lay out in concrete terms what their vision for the future was, you do realize that when Freud says "the pursuit of happiness," he's pretty much referring to man's lifelong, neverending quest to find quality ladybits to cuddle with?

Is that REALLY where you want this to go Ron? Did the founding fathers really mean to say that we derive a right to try to get girls drunk and then seduce them on Saturday nights from God as part of our Judeo-Christian heritage and that this should be the basis for our system of government?

Are you FUCKING SHITTING ME?!?!?!?!

This seed of American social justice[...]

Heh..."seed"....

[...]was then fleshed out in the U.S. Constitution[...]

Hehe, "flesh"...

[...]through reason and common sense, unencumbered by the dysfunctional[...]

Lol..."dysfunctional."

religious and secular traditions, and laws of Old Europe.

In other words, the Founding fathers based the Declaration of Independance on Judeo-Christian principles while at the same time divorcing themselves from the "dysfunctional" religious tradition of Old Europe. You know, like the kind which say that the King and government dervie their power from God.

You know, this whole article couldn't be more of a short circuit if you rounded up Johnny 5, put Cherry in a dark wig, made him speak in an Indian accent, and filmed the whole thing as "Short Circuit 3: Johnny 5 Goes to Washington."

Our founding fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America.

Yeah, because "Biblical morality" and fundamentalist Christianity have never been known to lead to tyrrany or totalitarianism. Speaking of which, I'm blanking right now. Ron, can you cite that passage of the Constitution which references Jesus and the Bible and says we get all our good stuff from Yaweh? I seem to have missed it.

The combination of acknowledging God as the source of our rights, keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church its self — and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense — has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."

Europeans: We have discovered the source of American stupidity and arrogance. Apparently, it's in the Bible.

Our Founding Fathers were religious in a distinctive way,

Yeah. Among other things, their brand of religion involved not going to church very often.

[...]and they were the liberals of their day by deducing that our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government — but they were conservative to Biblical morality.

Biblical Morality: Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy ^[a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. (1 Samuel 15:3)

Founding Fathers' Morality: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (1st Amendment)

Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty seamless transition there, Ron.

There was and still is a connection between God and Liberty; He is the author of it.

Except for, you know, the freedom to eat shellfish. Or shave.

It is also an irony that many American Liberals have turned a blind eye to the required connection between God and Liberty. As Thomas Jefferson and John Adams noted, as you will see below, Liberty cannot survive among men without its Divine connection.

That's funny. Last I checked, the people who were going around banning alcohol, sodomy, and freedom of speech were the same ones bitching about the evil gubmint not letting them use taxpayer money to put up a religious monument on taxpayer property. Just sayin'.

In Judeo-Christian America, one finds the idea of equality before God and the law, but not government forced economic equality.

WTF? Where the hell was that transition?

Did teh libruls stealed it?

Modern European culture has stressed the value of economic equality rather than Liberty, and their governments unjustly enforce the principle.

As a medical doctor specializing in lung disease in the humming, cosmopolitan metropolis that is Sweetwater, TN, I can see that Dr. Cherry is eminently qualified to make pronouncements on the current state of European social freedoms.

To be continued...

Happy Holidays!

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:46:38 GMT

Yeah, yeah, I know. Long time no post. Blame it on the fact that I'm currently freezing my ass off somewhere and writing something represents an unnecessary expenditure of energy. Nevertheless, i am back (at least for the time being) and as such shall once again bravely attempt to resume my duties with the enthusiasm and gusto of a local constable attempting to reign in a runaway manure wagon as it careens downhill towards a busload of orphans.

Today's post is courtesy of the one, the only, the incomparable Bonnie Alba who like most good conservativrs is going to try to blames Something Bad on the liberal fascism oppressing our fair Republic. Specifically, in this case, toasters that don't toast and ill-fitting jeans. Let's give a listen, shall we?

Levi's and toasters -- change not always better

Bonnie Alba
January 3, 2008

Levi Strauss — who doesn't recognize the royal brand name of denim jeans?

Except of course for students of anthropology who recognize him as the person primarily responsibe for the concept of structuralism in developing theories to explain basic elements of societal organization. Good luck explaining that with copper rivets and 1.75 yards@ 60 inches of blue denim per pair.

Millions of men have depended on Levi's for generations. In the past, Levi Strauss meant quality.

And, apparently, a steadfast and firm belief that the legs of women belong in one place and one place only: safely hidden under 50 acres of skirt material stretched over a galvanized steel frame.

When anyone purchased a pair of Levis, they knew that when they got them home — they would fit. Not in this century.

Because as we all know, in the 1890s, clothing sizes were firmly and thoroughly standardized through and through, and no one ever exceeded the manufacturer's specifications on their bodies by more than half a centimeter or so. Exchanges and refunds are totally modern inventions.

All my husband wanted for Christmas was some Levis. Being the wife who wants to make my hubby happy, I bought two pair, wrapped them and put them under the tree.

All I want for Christmas is a good pair of pants. It doesn't exactly measure up to Alvin's dream of two front teeth, although it does offer a tantalizing glimpse at what simple pleasures are afforded retards this holiday season.

He was happy as a lark to receive size 32-30.

Huh. I didn't know Levis made jeans for the short and dumpy. Must be their new spring line.

Alas, when he tried them on, one pair was too long, one too short and neither fit right. Both pairs were made in different countries — Haiti and Dominican Republic.

Which is kind of like saying that the jeans were made in two different states of the U.S.: North Dakota and South Dakota. Lo! Does today's lack of concern with quality control leave no corner of the globe untouch'd??

We took them back to the store to exchange them. Searching through the stack for his size, we found three pairs of 32-30 Levi's. We were surprised to find they were Made in Lesotho; Mexico; and Bangladesh.

That IS surprising. Most of those countries are better known for other exports. Specifically, immigrants.

None matched any of the others in their posted size. Five different countries total. Only one pair, Made in Mexico, would fit, not perfectly, but okay.

Bonnie, out of simple curiosity, did you and your husband take his measurements before, after, or during the week-long gorging session known as the post-holiday season? Might explain a thing or two. Either that, or he was suffering from one of those 24-hour erections Viagra manufacturers are always warning people about.

Of course, the additional matter of "not being the same denim or material as of old" is also frustrating as they don't wear well.

Well short of digging up a gold-rush era prospector's tent and hacking it up to feed your husband's ravenous appetite for historical accuracy and "vintage" fashions, I sincerely doubt that ANYTHING is going to be made of the "same material of old," as we now know that DDT is toxic, bears are endangered, and the U.S. has fifty states.

A younger man was there also looking for his size to exchange the ones he received for Christmas. (another wife making her hubby happy). His last comment to us was "I'm more than willing to pay more for Levi's like they used to make." Ditto! Are you listening LEVI?

Bonnie, considering the fact that there are now at least TWO husbands who find themselves in the men's section of the J.C. Penny's store the day after Christmas exchanging gifts their wives bought for them, I would be extremely reluctant to claim that EITHER of these men's wives was doing a particularly good job. But what do I know? Perhaps the men in Bonnie's village have been bred to have particularly low expectations.

American consumers have too much variety; Not enough quality! The reality is that while shopping for anything these days, from clothing to appliances to cars, we have to be extra careful. There are more lemons in every bunch.

Oh! To live in the halcyon days of yesteryear! When men were men, women were slaves, jeans were superior, and lemons nonexistent. Unless of course, you got a bad batch of pig snout in that ballpark hotdog.

Speaking of appliances, we received a Sunbeam toaster as a gift at our 1963 wedding. In 2004, this old friend still worked but was temperamental. Like we humans whose body parts run down over life spans, our toaster friend was moody in its old age, sometimes working, sometimes not. We decided to give it a decent burial and buy a new one.

If Bonnie Alba's idea of a "decent burial" is wrapping something in cellophane and throwing it into the dumpster of the corner along with the neighbor's fish guts, I'd hate to see what kind of treatment she expects to receive when her children discover she only signed up for the "economy package" at the local funeral home.

The new toaster has been slow to toast from its first use. We're putting up with it for now. Where was it made? You guess.

East Germany! Listen lady, there are hundreds of countries in this world, I don't see why I should be confined to only choosing ones that are still recognized.

American consumers are having a difficult time, not only choosing among the large variety of same-item products, but also finding long-lasting, quality products. And just try to find "Made in America" products.

Um...Google: "Made+in+America"

The Blame Game: Who?

ALL of us. Citizens, corporations & manufacturers, Unions and Big Government. All of us are to blame. We have allowed this deterioration of our nation's manufacturing infrastructure to the detriment of our future as a strong "we can do it" nation with American Work Ethics.

However, for the sake of expediency, I'm just going to focus on the people who are really responsible, unions and liberals. Need I say more?

Asking the questions: Is it possible that:

The unions became too arrogant in their demands for workers; way beyond what companies and corporations were obligated to provide? Increasing demands by unions and workers placed manufacturers in a no-win situation.

If you assume that a 40 hour work-week, minimum wage, 2-day weekend, and basic health insurance is "way beyond what companies were obligated to provide," then I guess you're right. But hey, I always had sort of suspicion that the so-called "American Dream" wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Our "ever-increasing in power" federal government over-regulated and overtaxed businesses; beginning with overdoing the "safety" issue? Or, that when the big corporation lobbyists got solidly entrenched in Congress, they also traded tit for tat, but ended up being outwitted by Big Government? Making it all but impossible to make a decent profit in America?

In other words, once companies were held accountable for compensating the consumers whose lives their shitty products ruined, the workers whose bodies the company's hazardous machinery maimed, and the citizens who's environment their shitty factories polluted, the poor corporations were forced to seek asylum in countries who better understood the American way of doing business. Like China.

Hit from both sides — Big Government and Unions — Capitalism ceased to be what it should be? At the least, have we all flown the coop and joined the Once-True Americans — Now Globalists?

In other words, capitalism as it once existed in this country during the dark days of the progressive era and the new deal ceased to be true to its original intent: the destruction of the environment, slave wages, and tainted meat in the pursuit of the noblest goal of all: making money.

Citizen-consumer-workers overreached with their demands for safety, higher wages, shorter work hours — all to achieve a comfortable house with a 2-car garage in suburbia?

Like I said. I always thought the American dream of hard work, persistence, and playing by the rules in order to achieve a comfortable middle-class existence was somewhat fishy sounding. But hey at least its good to see a conservative actually admit it: some people are just meant to spend their lives living in rags in a pubic park, employment status notwithstanding.

The sad result is that younger citizens will no longer recognize quality or value because of All of us acquiescing to the changes in American capitalism.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what will be running through the minds of all those 20-somethings waiting for a chance to get a few hours' pay working as day laborers down at the docks because all the jobs have gone overseas: "god damn, but the upper classes' appliances sure do suck nowadays."

Americans are looked upon as consumers who consume anything and everything, no matter where it was manufactured. Yet we have lost something in the process — we can't produce a pair of Levis nor even a toaster.

If only American workers could wake up and realize that they have been way too demanding. In this day and age, spending 60 hours a week chained to a sewing machine for 50 cents an hour is as good as it gets.

So much for self-sustaining America.

My husband, a Levi customer for over 50 years, is disgusted. He's looking at all the other brands to find any which might take Levi's place in consistent sizes and quality.

Yeah well, unless the U.S. plans on annexing Mexico and Bangladesh, good luck.

Or maybe, just maybe, the problem doesn't have anything to do with a lack of U.S. skill and resolve at all. Maybe it's because people like Bonnie Alba and her husband and all the other fucking corporate enablers in this country realized that in the post-industrialiation model of the 1960s, it was possible to simply ignore the progress made over the previous 40 years by going overseas to places in which human manure is still used to fertilizer and unions are illegal. And that in some corners of the world, simply giving someone a bowl of rice at the end of the day was withholding a beating constituted acceptable worker-management relations, and that for a 50-dollar bill and a bottle of Bailey's, all those pesky fire safety inspections would just magically go away. I guess I just never figured that people like Alba would then be so stupid as to blame the poor quality of today's products on the American worker's unwillingness to work in a tin shack in which the fire doors are chained shut.

See this photo? It's from the 1911 Triangle Factory Fire. Over 140 young women, most of them immigrants, burned to death or jumped out of windows to avoid being incinerated because some stupid fucking asshole like Alba decided that having an escape route was too expensive and more than the company really owed them. And here we are, 97 years later, and the only thing people like Alba and her ilk can think to do is blame the women above and their successors for being too demanding, and their modern overseas counterparts for not making jeans large enough to fit her husband's fat ass. Great fucking show, Bonnie. Great fucking show.

Cuidado!

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:06:38 GMT

Today's ~~steaming pile of horse shit~~ column is from BTP regular Michael M. Bates. Five bucks says the "M" doesn't stand for "Marshall."

Take it away!

This is America, speak Spanish

Michael M. Bates
December 6, 2007

I find it annoying to call a telephone number and have to press 1 to proceed in English.

Considering the fact that Michael Bates looks like the kid of crotchety old coot who insists on getting a rain check when the local CVS runs out of his favorite brand of razor blades after they run a 10-cent off coupon, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I sincerely doubt this is the only thing in this world which he finds annoying.

It seems to me that our national language should routinely be used and callers wishing an alternative should be the ones to select a number.

In other words, if you don't speak English, you should be forced to push a number to select a language other than the default. Presumably these instructions will be communciated to hispanics via telepathy so as to not disturb the chronically annoyed white male demographic.

We've come very far from the sentiment of Teddy Roosevelt, who believed, "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language." That's not politically correct by today's standards and the U.S. government explicitly disdains such views.

Seeing how Teddy Roosevelt's term expired in 1908, I'd say we've come about 100 years actually. What's next? Nostalgia for the heady days of James K. Polk and the Mexican-American war?

A model of current official thinking is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's tormenting of the Salvation Army for setting up an English-only policy for its workers.

In Massachusetts, the Salvation Army gave all employees one year in which to learn English and speak it while on the job. Two people who sorted clothes for the agency refused and were terminated.

This of course came on the heels of their demands that blind people learn to see and black people turn white within 12 months of their initial employment.

On a side not, you'd also think that a charity would be more interested in giving people jobs and helping the needy, rather than persuing a policy of ethno-cultural purity regarding their Spanish-speaking employees' on-the-job conversational habits.

Enter the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Deciding that the Salvation Army's action had embarrassed, humiliated, inconvenienced and inflicted emotional pain on the fired employees, last April the EEOC sued the Christian organization for back pay, damages and an end its "discriminatory rules."

Um, well unless the Salvation Army can demonstrate that a fluent command of the English language is an absolute requirement for being able to sort through a clothes bin, I fail to see what difference an employee's language is.

The EEOC asserts that an employer can impose an English-only rule solely when it's necessary for conducting business. According to the agency, otherwise mandating that employees speak English on the job constitutes national origin discrimination.

Um, Michael? In future, you may not want to be so blantant in making points which undermine your central arguement. Because now, you see, you have to either claim that being able to speak English is necessary for the oh-so-complex task of putting shirts in one pile and pants in the other, OR you have to argue that the Salvation Army should be allowed to discriminate against anyone it feels like. Provided of course, that those people are hispanics.

Which path will he choose?

Spanish, which was spoken by the former clothes sorters, is in this instance a language, not a national origin. That detail hasn't slowed down the EEOC in its godly mission.

Ooh, looks like he went with option "C: Claim that this discrimination is not, in fact, discrimination after all."

So presumably, since Spanish is a language, not a national origin, these employees have no case. Unless, of course, they were like, from Madrid, because Spain has dibs on its linguistic contribution to humanity.

Requiring workers in the U.S. to speak English isn't discriminatory. It's common sense.

So is shaking a baby in order to make it stop crying and sacrificing people to ensure a good harvest. What's your point?

We have a common language and English is it.

By "we" you are of course referring to white people. Unless you're a Cajun.

Being able to communicate with the boss, with one's co-workers, with customers, and with the police and other emergency workers isn't an unreasonable expectation for most employees.

You know, since none of those people speak Spanish either.

The EEOC's suit didn't escape the attention of Congress. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is obviously frustrated by the some 200 legal actions taken by the EEOC against English-only guidelines from employers.

Hmm...now this is interesting. Mr. Alexander? You may want to get the Senate's IT people down to your office pronto.

Senator Alexander's provision passed the relevant committee. It passed the full Senate. In the House, bill conference members were instructed to agree to the measure and make it law.

Then Madame Speaker caved. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), pressured by Hispanic Democrats in the House, is holding up the entire commerce, justice and science appropriation bill so the amendment won't pass. Ms. Pelosi will never be mistaken for a profile in courage.

Hey, I wonder what the Hispanic Republicans in the house have to say on the matter? Oh wait, that's right. There's only four of them.

Our common language is a basis of our cultural unity. It's far from the only language spoken in the United States, but certainly it's the primary one. For folks wishing to advance here, knowledge of it is essential. We do immigrants no favors by bending over backwards trying to accommodate them in their native language, hindering their adapting to a new culture.

In fact, if anything, it's only by persecuting and marginalizing them that they are able to learn to be suitably ashamed of their heritage, thus becoming Anglicized as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Ah well, that's all I have for y'all this week. Check back next time! Same time, same place.

Why do I bother?

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:42:53 GMT

Sorry for the lack of time between updates, but I have been too busy stuffing my belly with turkey, my gullet with beer, my heart with holiday cheer, and my brain with...schoolwork. Ah well.

Never fear, my calendar-watching friends, for today's column is by Bonnie Alba who, like any good, civic-minded member of our great society has decided to tackle the important issue of hate crimes. And just in case you think that means she's suddenly grown a soul and decided that people other than White Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic American Christian Conservatives are people too, just relax. She's talking about the recent rash of pine forest burnings which have been ravaging the heartland of late, undoubtably the work of anti-Christmas Tree extremists bent on intimidating our needle-beridden brothers and sisters and wiping conifers out down to the very last sapling.

Or something. Bonnie, take it away!

Battling hate crimes against Christmas

Bonnie Alba
November 30, 2007

Speaking of which, is it really possible to comitt a hate crime against an abstract concept like "Christmas"? I mean, next thing you know, we'll be suing the Chinese for their malicious words with regards to time zones.

Those few U.S. citizens who can't stand the thought or public expression of "Merry Christmas" or any other symbol of Christmas are taking up the annual banner of their War against "the reason for the season."

You know. Like Jews. Heartless atheists to a man, those rabbis.

These misguided citizens can't stand to see the Nativity on public property. It offends them. In the name of the misinterpreted First Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union gladly pursues the War in court.

Because you know, it's not like the First Ammendment prohibits "1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose" or anything (thanks, Wikipedia!).

School Administrators and school boards struggle with renaming the annual "Christmas" concert to the benign "Holiday" or "Winter" Concert. Ditto for Christmas trees and class parties; for Christmas cards and gift exchanges among students.

Because it's not like public schools are a part of the government. And even if they were, it's not as though you have any non-Christians in the student body, right?

Above: One student, one teacher, three potential terrorists

Cities and local officials across the country wrestle with "Should we take the chance of public display of Christmas symbols, mainly the Crèche or Nativity scene, in public and risk the ACLU taking us to court?" Who can blame them?

Yeah. I mean, the answer seems obvious to us, but believe it or not, there are some people out there who might actually be bothered by a scene from the Bible being put on display in front of government property and run on electricity paid for my taxpayers. Next thing you know, they won't let us have our full-scale crucifixes on the White House lawn either come Easter.

Even our nation's Capitol denied Christmas last year with the grand national 'Christmas' tree lighting ceremony renamed the 'Holiday tree lighting' ceremony.

The fiends! Washington is supposed to be a place of one-sided, railroad-style partisan brinksmanship, not a haven of moderation and compromise!

This year is proving to be no different. There's always a few cases of someone being offended by Christian symbols, once accepted as traditional expressions of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Like a Christmas tree? Did the stork, jaked as we was no doubt on with 16th cup of eggnog for the night, make a slight course diversion and drop the Christ child on top of a Douglas Fir in anticipation of what was to come 33 years down the road?

Take the case of a special committee consensus in Ft. Collins, CO. They have decided what is appropriate for public expressions of Christmas. They have chosen 'white' lights to replace the supposed symbolic 'red and green' lights. 'Red and green' are 'too religious' for the city to sponsor goes the reasoning. [How little they know.]

In fact, the committee is so opposed to Jesus and Christmas that they included two clergymen on the board. Now we know how insiduous these Christ-haters can be!

[teh quaker sez: It should also be noted that these changes came as the result of a rabbi who kept petitioning to have a Menorah added to the Christmas display, only to be denied time and time again.]

Other examples:

Chattanooga, TN. An annual live Nativity exhibit has been eliminated. Pastor Seton Tomyn, whose First Baptist Church has performed the Nativity since the 1980s, was reportedly disappointed but accepts that the city includes diverse cultures.

Considering the fact that the local imam was threatening to have a live reenactment of the murder of Ali ibn Abi Talib by the Khawarij assassination team on the 21st of Ramadan, its understandable.

After the hullabaloo at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport last year, officials have taken further steps to avoid any controversy by embracing a celebration of 'Winter." Travelers will not see one iota of Christmas — no Christmas trees; no carols; nothing that might denote the actual celebration. The nature display includes birch trees dusted with non-toxic snowfall along with foam birds, all to the sounds of wind chimes. [I'm sure it will be beautiful, but maybe missing something?]

A month of nonstop gorging, drinking, and feasting followed by a human sacrifice?

Saginaw, Michigan. The "Dickens Christmas Festival" has been renamed the "Dickens Holiday Festival." Why? So the city organization may promote the festival in the schools. The school district already has descended to a "politically correct" policy; a list of words they can't use or even say out loud: Santa; Christmas; Nativity

Shhh, be quiet. Saying his name will only summon him faster...

Above: Oh shit, run!

Berkley, Michigan. After last year's threat from the Michigan ACLU that the city could not display the Nativity on public property, the exhibit was turned over to the local clergy organization to display on church property. The citizen attempt to change it failed 55-45 on a Nov. 6th ballot as the 15,000 strong suburb is divided on this issue.

A mere 45%? Pfft...I'm so sick of catering to these pathetic minorities with their thousands of insignificant votes.

Lowe's. This retailer made the same mistake as WalMart, Target and others have done, renaming Christmas trees — family trees. But the hue and cry arose immediately so they rescinded and now are selling "Christmas" trees.

Please. The only reason they did that was because they knew damn well that should the 28%-ers out in the heartland decided they were going to boycott Lowe's and WalMart, the specter of famine would haunt the land and everything from Ohio to Idaho would turn into a desolate wasteland populated only by the mangy, gaunt shells of people who once were, shambling around in their size xxxxxl bib overalls, trying desperately to start a fire using only sticks and a pile of Thomspon for President bumper stickers. That was a humanitarian gesture, nothing more (ya know. Kinda like pretending Americans actually give two shits about their "family" anyways).

Is it not getting tiresome when one person complains and a whole organization, public school system, city or corporation jumps on the 'PC' bandwagon to avoid being sued by the ACLU? Have we gone so far down the road to inanity without reason that we can't find a way back?

Inanity without reason? That's like profundity without rhyme. Wickety-wickety-wickety wack, y'all.

Evidently only the ACLU gets excited by any individual's complaints against Christmas. To participate in the destruction of the traditions of our nation in the name of the "individual right" to not be offended skirts the edge of treason within our own country.

I can't decide what's scarier here. The creepy volksreich-like reference to the "traditions of our nation," or the fact that Alba apparently considers complaining against religious indoctrination to be "treason."

Intimidation works well. Who is willing and has the money to battle this War in court with the ACLU?

Note that brains are not a requirement. And apparently neither is a law degree or concern for the facts.

And hey...we made it through the entire thing without a "Grinch" reference either. Sweet!

See ya next time!

Woo!

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:57:56 GMT

Today's column is by Paul Weyrich, a semi-regular here at BTP. Now normally, I would take the time to do this take-down in a thorough, thought-provoking and analyitical fashion. However, since I beat Gears of War last night on the Xbox 360 and survived the post-celebratory hijinks with only a minimal amount of hangover-ness, my celebratory cheer will extend to this post as well. Therefore please sit back, relax, put your feet up, and tune in as I destroy this miserable waste of bandwidth with all the subtlety of a a pack of rabid gorillas moving through a warehouse full of bananas. Enjoy!

Federal government housing for Americans -- a Communist precedent

Paul Weyrich
November 8, 2007

Woo! Yeah, bring it on, Sucka! This my kinda shit!

Have you ever been to a Communist or former Communist country?

Well, considering the fact that both Paul Weyrich and his audience are the sort of people who consider free public education and medicaid communistic in nature, I suspect the answer is yes, as I have actually traveled outside the United States. However, if he is referring to an actual, real, live country in which communism is still practiced as well as extolled, then the answer is no. Because I live in America, the freest nation on earth, I'm so free that the government has decided I'm not allowed to go there (Cuba).

If so I am sure you have seen street after street of government-funded housing. Usually this consists of numerous drab apartment buildings crammed together with tiny apartments inside. But at least everyone is "equal" and has housing, right?

Or in the words of Michael Moore: "this is what a slum looks like, in Canada."

Historically, Americans have been averse to reliance upon governmental munificence, preferring instead to keep their hard-earned money and buy or build a house or apartment that suited their lifestyle and their needs.

Their lifestyle and their needs, in this case, being the near-condemned rat traps and fire cans in which you could cram 15 or 20 Italian immigrants for a couple hundred dollars a week. But hey, that's all part of America's glorious ownership-based society. And it's not like we do that any more, right

How times have changed[...] The bill would allocate up to $1 billion per year to construct or repair 1.5 million low-income housing units in the next ten years. This is in addition to all of the low-income housing the Federal Government already provides.

I agree. The money we spend on repairing low-income housing in which the working poor live would be much better spent on another tax break for the top 1%, thus allowing the rich to further profit from whatever unique skillset it was which brought them wealth and power, while at the same time encouraging the individualism of the American spirit in the poor by forcing those with the most gumption to fight their way to the very best bridges, overpasses, park bencehs, and hot air vents.

The truth is that nothing is free. Someone must pay for this and other government entitlement programs. Usually the burden falls upon the middle class in the form of higher taxes.

If by "middle class" you define everyone making over $300,000 a year, then yes.

Or in the words of Blackadder:

Baldric: My lord, I've been in your service since I was two and a half!

Blackadder: Then that must be why I'm so utterly bored at the sight of you.

Baldric: But...I've got no place to go, my lord...

Blackadder: Oh, Baldric, come now. Surely you'll be allowed to starve to death in one of the royal parks.

In spite of the enthusiastic, feel-good rhetoric, the purpose of H.R. 2895 is similar to that of so much other legislation that creates or expands entitlement programs. It produces a group of people beholden to the generosity of the Federal Government for their daily needs.

Whereas whenever Paul Weyrich's house catches fire, he grabs a bucket and heads to the local well, indignantly turning down the local fire department's offers to help.

Well that's all we have time for this week. See you next time!

Knock-knock-knocking on the restroom door...

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:07:18 GMT

Well at least now we know how the Singing Senators' lead vocalist keeps his vocal chords in tip-top shape:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8[...]

In October 2006, Craig’s office publicly denied allegations that he was a homosexual made on a gay activist Web site — blogactive.com. Craig’s office told the Spokane Spokesman-Review that the charge was “completely ridiculous,” saying that the allegations had “no basis in fact.”

This is getting ridiculous. In any case, there is a helpful lineup of people you may encounter frequenting Washington DC-area public restrooms, looking for someone in need of 20 bucks.

Bob Allen: Will actually GIVE you $20 in exchange for you letting him choke down on the giggle pole. Though the $20 might just be for menacing-looking black guys/undercover police officer.

Mark Foley: The bad news? He's an online predator. The good news? He's only interested in your kids.

Ted Haggard: Despite Voltaire's long-standing criticisms of the clergy and organized religion, Haggard remains one of the few who can actually make meth-addicted gay prostitutes look good in comparison.

Ralph Gonzalez: In his defense, this guy was a GOP consultant. It's unfair to punish people for only doing what comes naturally.

Glen Murphy: To his credit, he at least had the decency to have his sexual scandal go down BEFORE people knew who the fuck he was.

David Vitter: At least he got his sex the right way. He paid for it (laissez-faire deez nuts, biotch!)

Randall L. Tobias: He WASN'T having protected sex with a prostitute! We was only trying to prove that abstinence-only education works!

And many, many more!

Rainy Day Blues...

Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:10:56 GMT

Today we have a piece from Joseph Farah, owner of the online magazine "World Net Daily" and legendary crank. Take it away, Joe!

I had one of those "Stop the Presses!" moments this week.

That's when I read something in the so-called "mainstream" press that blows even my mind – someone who was a denizen of that institution for 20 years.

The specific "mainstream press institution" of course being the inmate-run printer's shop at the State Lunatic Hospital in Danvers. You can see the results of those 20-odd years in the words below.

I thought I had seen it all – from the inside and out.

As a former editor in chief of daily newspapers, I have an exquisitely refined sense of propriety.

This coming from a guy who's web-zine features advertisements for drilling for oil in Israel, the Swiss America Trading Corporation (Let Uncle Sam Help You Own Gold!!), and has Chuck Norris as an opinion columnist.

Yeah, pull my other leg. That one has bells on it.

I frequently served as a highly paid expert witness on newspaper standards and practices. My job often entailed cutting out biased copy from stories before they ever saw the light of day.

This coming from a guy whose single greatest interest in life is acting as a "traiblazer for anti-liberal establishment" and focusing on whether or not Bill Clinton had Vince Foster whacked. That also probably explains why you've pretty much failed at every newspaper venture you've ever tried your hand at, except for the ones which daddy Richard Mellon Scaife cut you six-figure checks for.

Evidently, that's not the way it works in the "mainstream" news business any more – at least not at Newsweek (or is it Newsweak?).

To which they responded: "while we may, as Mr. Farah's column title suggests, blow hot and cold on this issue, he just blows."

Joe, care to respond?

Did you happen to catch this week's amazing cover story?

Don't bother to buy it at the newsstand. you can read it (for laughs) online. The gist of it is that a "denial machine," bought and paid for by big industry, is preventing critical government action to stop global warming."

What a bunch of hogwash! Where on earth did they ever come up with such a ludicrous and preposterous notion? Oh, right. Yeah, I'd forgotten about that.

Huh. I never realized Texaco and Exxon-Mobil were so active in the charity arena.

One thing I've noticed about socialists and tyrants and those who do their bidding is that they always accuse others of doing what they do.

Therefore, I would like to postulate that Myself:Rubber::Socialo-tyrants:Glue

Here's a good example. Government and corporations have spent about $50 billion in the last 10 years promoting the hysterical notion that catastrophic, manmade global warming is going to destroy the planet unless we provide Al Gore and his friends with all the power they need to stop it.

On the other hand, real scientists who are even remotely skeptical about these claims are denied positions in academia and grants. By comparison, the climate-change skeptics have spent less than $20 million in those 10 years, according to some estimates.

My source? Oh sure, I'd love to give you my source. But apparently neither the Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA Manual of Style, nor Turabian specify how I'm supposed to cite figures I pull out of my ass. Whatever. They're probably all liberal fags anyway.

Ah well, that's enough for fun. Until next time!

The Prestige

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:01:28 GMT

"Every great magic trick consists of three acts. The first act is called The Pledge: the magician shows you something ordinary, but of course... it probably isn't."

As a people, we pledge allegiance to "one nation under God," not "one nation under gods." Hindus are certainly free in America to worship as many gods and animals as they want to, but we must not be deluded into thinking that they pray to or worship the same God who is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

"The second act is called The Turn. The magician makes his ordinary something do something extraordinary."

Further, Rep. Sali's caution with regard to Islam and public policy is wise. The citizens of Minnesota certainly have the right to send anybody to Washington they wish, but when you examine nations whose public institutions have been shaped by Islamic politicians, you invariably find no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of conscience, no fundamental rights for women, and no freedom for ordinary citizens to choose their own leaders.

"Now, if you're looking for the secret... You won't find it. That's why there's a third act called, The Prestige. This is the part with the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before."

We will resolve this conflict either by taking a step toward the wisdom and faith of the Founding Fathers, or by taking another step toward an abyss of paganism, darkness, and inevitable destruction.

Americans- what? Nothing better to do?

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:25:25 GMT

Why don't you kick yourself out, you're an immigrant too.

Shorter Wes Vernon: Freedom of speech means that not only I should be allowed to espouse crazy-ass pseudo-scientific drivel, but should also be taken seriously within academic communities.

Shorter Adam Graham: The reason we're losing in Iraq is because we aren't spending enough money on getting those oil wells going.

Shorter Matt C. Abbot: If you thought the Ouija board from "The Excorcist" was the key to Regan's demonic possession, I urge you to also consider the dangers of Harry Potter.

Shorter Reed R. Heustis, Jr.: While the Constitution does, in fact, guarantee freedom of religion, I would like to point out that the Mayflower Compact does not, and that it is older. This, I believe, is trump.

Shorter Warner Todd Huston: Just because Republicans are a lot more corrupt than Democrats doesn't mean the media shouldn't focus on both equally!

Shorter Michael Gaynor: Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal, Part 57. Does anyone really, honestly, still follow this shit?

Shorter Jim Kouri: In my desk, there's a .38 Special. I keep it loaded. There's also a bottle. It keeps me loaded. I'm Jim Kouri...private eye.

Shorter Cynthia A. Janak: *Cue "The Final Countdown" by 80's superband Europe*

Shorter Chuck Baldwin: As America is God's most favored nation on Earth, can we as Evangelical Christians really let it become submerged by hordes of brown people?

Shorter Curtis Dahlgren: Don't let all those massacres by Pol Pot fool you! Academics and Communists are really BFF!

Shorter Warner Todd Huston (again): The bad news: I have discovered the Founding Fathers were prejudiced. The good news: they share the same prejudices I do.

Shorter Edward Daley: In order to illustrate the superiority of neoconservativism to all other political philosophies, I will proceed to shit out some of the most asinine neologisms and rhetorical strawmen for which you will have no answer. For example, did you know that the U.S. peace movement is responsible for more deaths than the U.S. Army? Or that if Bush was around in 1939, WWII would never have started?

Video Post

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:23:05 GMT

This is what happens when ideology outpaces reason. Sad, really.

Oh good lord...

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:02:41 GMT

Today's column is from notable right-wing heavy hitter Felicia Benamon who, when not busy salt-curing ham, making underwear out of flour bags, or attending the ole timey big tent revival down the river, dutifully churns out columns for various right wing sites with all the gusto and sophistication of someone who was raised on Lil' Abner funnies an Ayn Rand. Today she's going to be exploring what's wrong with "secular America:" its despicable tendency to promote non-Christian religions and witchcraft.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

Secular America

Felicia Benamon

July 31, 2007

Might as well call it like it is.

This introduction looks like it was rode hard and done put away wet. Despite squeakin' like a Sears saddle, I went through it like corn through a goose. Uh-hyuh.

Anytime the Senate opens with a Hindu prayer (amidst a protest, mind you) and the consistency to which the media is feeding on the hype of the latest Harry Potter book[...]

I.e. purreed

it is looking like we are putting God Almighty, Jehovah, whom we are supposed to heavily rely on for our freedom, our health and prosperity, to the background.

While God normally enjoys to be put on the foreground where he so rightfully stands.

Honestly, try as I might, I just can't capture the full effect of the stupid when I try my hand at it. I honestly wish to God I could at least ascribe some of this miserable prose to Felicia's first language being something other than English, or her slight mental retardation. Sadly, neither of these seems to be the case.

It's shocking that a President, who in his first term emphatically mentioned his relationship with Jesus Christ, is pushing an "interfaith" feel with the various religions in this country.

You might consider this kind of odd too, given the fact that the bishop of Bush's home church vehemently opposed the war and that I'm pretty sure the Bible has some stringent restrictions on killing people. Diffrn't strokes I guess.

And now, the Senate opens with a Hindu prayer. That got scant attention. A few dedicated Christians felt the need to rebuke and protest a prayer given by Hindu chaplain Rajan Zed. The Christians exclaimed that the prayer was "an abomination" and asked Jesus for forgiveness of what was occurring.

That sound you just heard? That was irony suffering a major back injury and several compacted vertebrae. He'll be out of the game until next season.

In response to the protest, Hindu groups want the candidates running in the 2008 election to rebuke the protesters' actions! EXCUSE ME! This is the United States of America; we are free to protest when we feel that we are not being well-represented on Capitol Hill (or anywhere)!

The scene, as played out in Felicia's mind.

Christians: "Secularism and godlessness is out of control in America!"

Hindu Chaplain: "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds"

Christian Protestors: "We are Christian patriots! Thou shalt have no other God before me!"

Hindu Chaplain: "Umm...you guys are kinda being assholes, you know that?

Christian Protestors: "Fuck you! Help, help! We're being discriminated against by secularists!!"

It shows complete disrespect when a prayer is recited in the halls of our government that is not of the Christian faith.

Hmm...good point. Mr. Jefferson, would you like to respond?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Ms. Benamon?

Granted, this hasn't been the first time that a non-Christian prayer has been recited in the Senate (a Muslim prayer was offered in 1992), but nevertheless, respect should be given to the majority Christians who live in our country.

Mr. Jefferson?

"No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States."

Hmm. I don't know, Mr. Jefferson. That sounds an awful lot like anti-Christian discrimination to me. Moving on!

When people come to the United States, they can be assured that they are free to practice their faith freely, but they must recognize that we are a majority Christian nation, and have prospered well in that way. It is because of the Lord Jesus Christ and His grace and mercy that we have prospered.

In other words, people are free to believe in whatever ridiculous dirt god they believe over in their dark, heathen lands, but they should also understand that they're just freaking wrong and behave appropriately.

We have been content and we have lifted up Jehovah, God Almighty and Jesus Christ for ages, and now, we are taking a different direction. With the increase of the secular trying to intermingle with the Christian faith, or simply with secularism parading around in full scale, we are saying to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ that you are on par with the rest of the gods of this world...we don't trust you to fully be in control of our lives and this nation, and we will allow other influences in to decide our fate. This is not good.

And there you have it. Non-Christian prayer: the most evil of weapons in secularism's vast arsenal.

Showing such fanaticism over the latest Harry Potter book isn't helping either.

Neither are these high-velocity twisty-turny things you're taking us down. I don't know what your tolerance is, but my pressure suit is only rated to 6Gs.

Again, I've watched the furor over the Harry Potter books and wonder if Americans would display that much adoration for the Lord Jesus Christ.

I dunno...is there a church or temple or something that the remaining 15% or so of Americans who aren't Christians can go to to perform magic and worship Harry Potter on a weekly basis?

There are Americans who call themselves Christians who are getting sucked in by the Harry Potter craze. They are not honoring God, but instead have their interest peaked towards a book that talks of children attending a school for witchcraft and wizardry. Well doesn't that fly in the face of everything Christians believe in?

The fools! Everyone knows that the only real magic tricks are the ones which involve raising people from the dead, changing water into wine, casting out demons, and resurrecting. No Oculus Repairi here, bitchez (though, on second thought...).

America is trending more and more secular because of the lack of Christians willing to engage in the political arena and to speak out when they feel secular forces are the norm.

Secular forces like Hinduism and witchcraft.

In regards to other faiths, as a nation, will we allow ourselves to be swayed by "global" forces who want to determine how we conduct business in the Senate or other areas of our lives?

Say what?

Oh I get it. The Senate prayer was outsourced to India. Gotcha.

We as a people are either loyal to ONE God or to none! Our forefathers were not inspired by multiple faiths working in sync in this country to make America what it is. They were inspired by Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible.

Which is amazing, considering how many times Jesus is mentioned in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Ah well, that's it for this time. See you around!

Maybe if we built a giant wooden badger...

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:16:15 GMT

Today's column is by Michael Reagan who- get this- feels as though letting the candidates communicate in a mostly open forum with the electorate represents one of the great devaluations of the American democratic process. Onwards and upwards!

The Hollywood Culture Takes Over
By Michael Reagan
Friday, July 27, 2007

The Kennedy definition of politics was that it “ain’t beanball,” but as the Democratic debates on CNN the other night showed, politics ain’t even politics anymore – it’s show business a la Hollywood.

Unless of course it's a Republican administration, in which case it's more of a cross between Goya's "Execution of the Defenders of Madrid" and Picaso's "Guernica." I.e., an act of legislative butchery conducted with unparalleled and triggering an attack of existential pathos.

Among the Democrats, the culture of American politics has succumbed to the culture of the coke-snorting, booze-soaked Hollywood of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan and the rest of Tinseltown’s decadent and far-Left celebrities.

Did someone say cocaine and booze? I think we might have George W. Bush on the other line, circa 1975.

Things in Hollywood have changed drastically since my parents’ day. Nowadays we have bizarre incidents involving pampered, out-of-control blondes routinely exposing their private parts, commuting back and forth from rehab center to rehab center or the L.A. Slammer, all while the media celebrates their antics.

Uh huh, they sure were. In the words of my good friend Sid Hudgens, "Off the record, on the QT and- as always- hush hush."

Back when my mom and dad were acting, we also had blondes such as Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe, and even though they were hardly role models for decent behavior, they managed to show restraint, even when cavorting with a president of the United States, as in Monroe’s case.

In other words, blowjobs were around in the 1950s and 1960s too, but because the liberal media didn't go around trumpeting all about Clinton's schlong, that made it ok.

The current lack of restraint was on display the other night when CNN abandoned any pretense of seriousness and turned the question-asking function of the debate moderator over to a weird conglomeration of clownish inquisitors via YouTube.Com.

Viz. the people who actually pay attention to the process and want to have a say in the upcoming elections.

Instead of walking off the stage at this degradation of a process allegedly designed to help voters decide who should carry their party’s banner into the 2008 presidential election campaign, the candidates went along with this sham of a debate, dutifully playing the role of straight men to a cast recruited from Looney Tunes.

I'm not exactly sure what Michael Reagan is implying here about Bugs Bunny and his penchant for putting on lipstick and a dress every so often, or whether or not Elmer Fudd's fixation on shotguns and bagging ducks and rabbits is a statement regarding his overcompensation for those weird feelings he gets every time he's in a locker room, but I would like to point out that in the case of Hillary Clinton, one of those "straight men" was in fact a woman (and a lesbian, if the right wing is to be believe- Chelsea Clinton notwithstanding).

On display was the culture of Hollywood – the culture of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, the Hollywood that marches in lockstep with the militant Marxists who dominate the Democrat party today.

The Democratic Party: too liberal for Stalin.

Think about it. In an era when the very survival of civilization is threatened by terrorism organized on a global scale there was not a single mention of the ongoing war on terrorism, which is costing lives every day.

If I'm not mistaken, the Daily Show had a feature at a debate viewing party in which the participants dutily informed John Oliver that they had to drink every time someone mentioned "terrorism," "Iraq," "bin Laden," and "I agree with the President." By the end of the segment, there were some pretty drunk college kids, let me tell you.

Instead we have a questioner dressed as a sock puppet asking about global warming. Now that’s bad enough, but what is even worse is that he was taken seriously.

Can't imagine where on Earth anyone would get the idea for that, much less treat it seriously.

I don’t blame the debaters for this debacle as much as I blame CNN for allowing what was meant to be a debate to become a venue for Hollywood-style show business. I am surprised that they didn’t include among the questioners Miss Hilton or Miss Lohan or at the very least, Rosie O’Donnell.

Um, because getting Paris Hilton to figure out how to use a camcorder makes about as much sense as promoting her to be the head of mission control at NASA?

CNN also managed to include a question about gun rights from what they would like the audience to believe was a typical supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership – an AK47-toting fanatic who resembled an average American National Rifle Association member about as much as Cindy Sheehan resembles an average Gold Star Mother.

Whoa. You mean the guys from Red State Update got a question through to the candidates? Damn, now I'm sorry I missed it.

When the culture of Hollywood dominates politics, the real issues are stifled – the public is denied an opportunity to understand that the real underlying issue is the struggle between a party that wishes to impose their Marxist policies and programs on the nation and the Republicans who don’t.

Ladies and gentlemen, a vote for the Democrats is a vote for Communism. What? Wait...what did I say?

Democrats want big government and Republicans insist that the best government is the government that governs the least.

And by "governs the least," we mean invading foreign countries, killing their people, and taking their shit. Oh, and letting black people drown while we meet with campaign contributers as one of the greatest domestic disasters in the history of the United States unfolds.

Politics becomes a spectacle something like the Academy Awards where the participants show up in their most glamorous attire, mutter a lot of meaningless dialogue, celebrate each other’s celebrity, while the media oglesfrom the sidelines.

Not at all like that ol' Ronnie Reagan feller. Now that was a self-made man, through and through! Ah well. Until next time!