Decided We'll Fall

Marc and Marx Prove Tea Party Racism

2010-09-28T01:50:00.001-07:00

Well, it happened. Someone finally showed “proof” that the entire Tea Party is racist.

Last night on O’Reilly’s show, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill presented clear and simple facts to Bill that show the Tea Party as a whole has a racist agenda.

The various racist signs were shown, along with those thought to be racially motivated—but let’s just assume they are blatantly racist—and the tally comes in at about a dozen signs per the thousands at every event.

A normal Tea Party event with thousands of signs (We'll be nice here and give it a nice round number later) has a handful of questionable signs: the big-tooth, big-ear Obama, the "Why so Socialist?" Joker dig, and other other things thought basic insults when done about previous presidents. Then you do have the occasional N-bomb, monkey business, and other nasty signs. It's true. It takes about 20 cameras and 40 PI plants to find them, but they are there. Events of thousands produce around a dozen. Always.

So...

12/1,200 = 1%. That’s math – true science. But more on the latter later; right now, find peace in the fact that an educated man such as Dr. Hill and others basking in the glow of their own self worth see fit to call a miniscule percentage—and I’m being kind with the 1%—mainstream and not simply the fringe.

Per Hill’s reasoning, being, don’t forget, a supposedly well educated professor at a prestigious school, the “fringe” doesn’t show up to multiple events. The “fringe” becomes the actual movement if it does.

1% tops of all signs depicting racism means Tea Partiers, by and large, are racially motivated.

So, that means the 1% of signs at anti-war protests making threats of “Kill Bush!” make the entire anti-war movement criminal.

No? Well, why not? Oh, common sense rules all, you say? Not so fast. We haven’t got into the “social science” yet.

Hill cited a study conducted by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. Okay. So it’s a survey—polling!—and not actually a legitimate study. Never mind that. Christopher Parker, who directed the study, did flesh it out and give postulation some purple prose to stand on.

According to this study, which isn’t really breaking news and has been out a while, Tea Party members have a “higher probability” of being racially resentful; they’re also supposedly all-around more racially motivated than other whites. “Whites” being the key “race” here, but more on that later.

First, what is social science? Well, it’s not science like most people know science. Social science is more of a philosophical approach to the sciences, using some strange techniques to create data where data is needed, and it works in one major way above all else: the Y is adjusted to fit the X.

Social science was brought along by individuals like Karl Marx.

Christopher Parker is a professor of social justice.

What do these things matter in terms of “science”?

How much “science” does anyone think is involved with a system crafted by Marx and employed by a social justice advocate? And not to bash on social justice, but that’s already a biased cause. That’s like asking the oil industry to assess its own safety rating on an oil rig. Oops.

Social justice, in the context of American society, already assumes all whites are advantaged compared to all minorities, and that wealth need be redistributed and that the economy need be taken over to level the playing field.

So, what was the “science” behind the study?

People were read statements like this, for example: “If blacks would only try harder, they could be as well off as whites.”

Your choices: agree or disagree. 73% of Tea Partiers read this statement agreed, thus they’re branded racists.

But that’s not a standalone statement—question—in this “scientific” study. (Okay, it’s a crooked poll aimed to trick people by asking questions Frank Luntz could ask way better. But let’s not quibble.)

Every question and statement was geared toward white vs. minority. The idea being, supposedly, to find out if a Tea Party already suspected of racism was really racist.

So, here’s my question: If you want to be truly impartial and at least attempt to make a Marx method ring true as science, then why not ask flat questions. How’s this – “Do you think all races are equal?” Or how about, “Can people achieve equally regardless of their race?”

Then, if they’re racists, they’ll answer accordingly.

Instead, however, the platform was set with questions making minorities appear the victim by singling them out specifically, and then presenting carefully worded statements about “blacks trying harder,” giving individuals with an already planted image of a struggling minority a choice on whether they agree or disagree.

Sorry. This is not science. This is not even close to science. Someone telling me otherwise better be ready to get dizzy from all the spin.

And not to bash Hill and Parker and these other individuals who have made their way in the world by being advocates for America’s supposedly oppressed, but there is absolutely nothing scientific about the way they approach social sciences. There isn’t. And if we weren’t so afraid to be politically incorrect in America, we would call this crap exactly what it is – glorified pollster spinning.

That’s all it is.

Anyone can do it. I’ll tell you how.

Start out with an agenda, first and foremost. Devise questions and statements that suit your agenda. Target a specific group of people and claim they’re a fair sampling of the whole. Ask your questions in a way which no answer is wrong (read: right). Compile the numbers afterward to mean whatever you want them to mean.

For example: I’ll ask you, “If blacks worked harder, could they be as well off as whites?”

Now, as the questioner and you the questioned, you’re assuming that I’m asserting blacks aren’t as well off as whites. Why? Because I am.

But if you answer yes, I will say you have racial leanings and think blacks aren’t as well off as whites. If you say no, I will say you have racial leanings and that you think blacks can’t be as well off as whites.

Yeah. It’s real “science” we’re dealing with here. Sarcasm alert!

Social sciences matter only in circles where empathy is so strong that logic superseding postulation and speculation actually seems cruel. It’s garbage, pure and simple. Al Gore’s science is really two grades above these “social” methods. And that’s saying a lot.

Is the Tea Party racist? If so, you wouldn’t think they would need to be coaxed into it. You wouldn’t think 1% would need to become the majority.

Funny how these “social” things work in America. No wonder most Americans—“most” meaning more than 1%!—don’t want anything “social” around us. We know it means bad news and more placating junk for empathetic purposes.

Get off his Back, Nuts

2010-07-10T00:37:00.000-07:00

I might be a Boston Celtics fans and despise LeBron James on multiple levels, but this uberheartbreak going on over his departure from Cleveland is just pitiful.

On one hand, it’s easy to understand that the Cleveland faithful are upset. Who wouldn’t be?

But on the other hand, relying on James like a father is just pitiful.

One of the biggest criticisms I’m hearing is that James’ decision will cause businesses in and around Cleveland to shut down.

People who went into business for “themselves” put their eggs in James’ basket. In simple English, they rode his coattails to earn a living.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with that. But if your business is to rely on someone else, then you don’t have a business. You have a dependency. Your career is based on another career’s success, and will only be as good as the person you’re relying on to make it thrive.

On that level, how in the hell is it someone else’s responsibility to do what you want them to do so that your business—modeled to capitalize on their fame—stays afloat?

In all honesty, you might as well be on the government tit. You’re relying on someone either way.

It’s starting to remind me of how thousands upon thousands of people around Flint and Detroit and other areas of Michigan cried like babies and gave up because auto manufacturing plants started leaving. Granted, not all did. But enough moped and finger pointed and outright let their spirits die that it became then and still is a disturbing trend in that highly-government-subsidized area.

Rather than exploring their own free market sense and seeking to break through with innovation, they hung their heads, blamed the companies for leaving, and fell deeper and deeper into crime and poverty and are now part of a shameful place in America.

Ask Moore and it’s that dirty capitalism. Ask me and it’s simply not the responsibility of someone else to ensure you make a living – pure and simple. If you want that, again, just get on the government’s (read: mine and every other taxpayers’) tit.

What’s with the lack of innovation, lack of motivation and an unwillingness to find self reliance in the world? I can perfectly understand LeBron James’ presence becoming a person’s meal ticket. But why is he your only meal ticket?

If James failed to perform, your business would have suffered. And if Cleveland would have traded him—which, inevitably they would have had he dropped off—then your business would be bust.

If you want to bust the guy’s chops over being a coward, turncoat, phony, overhyped piece of shit who doesn’t hold a candle to Michael Jordan, then that’s fair. But blaming him for lost livelihoods is the true cowardly way to approach life.

Good Idea or More Evil White Racism?

2010-05-13T07:51:00.000-07:00

Jan Brewer will undoubtedly go down in the liberal hall of shame as one of the most racially charged politicians of the modern era.
But to people not on the reactionary left, her decisions have been well worth examination to see where we stand as a country.

Do you follow the letter of the law or do you immediately see racial profiling? Should America enforce its immigration laws despite the fact that most illegal immigrants south of the border happen to be minorities in America? Do you feel we should give lawbreakers a permanent reprieve… because they’re minorities, maybe?

A host of questions come to the surface that we have not addressed as a county. We’re cowards, by and large, with most in America more than willing to stand down from their decent reasoning whenever a minority is upset.

This is how special interest has crept in – we let it. This is why mainstream media kowtows with an upset minority but puts the majority of their hit list. This is why a country like America is an oddity, wherein we allow anti-Americanism to be taught freely to children, where separating children and teaching them they’re different is somehow warped to wishful thinking of togetherness.

We’re too fucking scared to speak out and say that teaching children that America is occupied Mexico and that white people are the enemy and that minorities will always be treated as second-class is NOT how to bring about change in American attitudes.

We’re absolutely petrified that a group of minorities will be told to be offended and subsequently paint the rest of us as racists. So we hide our heads in the sand while millions of American children are taught that they’re not only different, but that they’ll never be considered worthy.

We ignore revisionist history being taught. We look the other way while 66% of this country is branded as bigots, while we’re held responsible for the actions of our ancestors.

We pretend it’s not even happening when failed revolutionists from a previous generation indoctrinate our children and feed them selected, outdated garbage so that they might finish the job they never even started.

Personally, I’m glad that someone’s out there putting their foot down when it comes to teaching children that they’re different – that they’re entitled. I’m ecstatic that Arizona wants to stand against teaching children that Americans are land thieves living in what should be their country.

How long will we continue to do this in America? How many individuals need to be thrown into groups and have their own version of truth taught to them before we realize it’s the single-most divisive thing we do in America?

What’s the difference in a crazy old southerner teaching his children that black people aren’t really people and an ideologue school teacher telling children their enemy wears a white face and waves a liars flag over stolen land?

Race be damned, we’re not even raising men and women in America these days. We’re raising cowards and sissies. One side yelling that they’re owed and the other side placating so the screaming stops.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with Arizona 100%. I have to look into it more. But I’m certainly thrilled that someone’s finally standing against this ironically accepted teaching of anti-Americanism and racism.

Agreeing for Different Reasons

2010-05-05T03:57:00.000-07:00

The more I watch hardcore, unapologetic ideologues in media, the more I’m convinced that any schmuck can make it in America if they’re selling something another person wants.

A lot of people want President Obama’s head on a platter. To that end, habitual foot-in-mouth hacks like Monica Crowley find themselves more popular than ever for illogically bashing the opposition.

On Bill O’Reilly’s “Barack in a Hard Place” segment, Monica Crowley, uberconservative, and Alan Colmes, Ayers’ more radical twin brother, duke it out continuously over who’s right – Republicans or Democrats.

Colmes, of course, uses liberal logic to make points too dull to stab butter. Crowley, in her brilliance, always manages to find negativity in a rainbow.

Last night’s segment was especially difficult to watch. As Crowley wailed on about how naming our enemy instead of being “PC” is important, O’Reilly chimed in to ask why. But instead of saying anything of value, Crowley dropped the ball by claiming that a failure to call radical Islam radical Islam is hindering our war efforts and affecting the way we approach terror. (Maybe “they,” but not “we.”)

I wholeheartedly agree with her on one part: We should call our enemies exactly what they are! But if you don’t know the reason why, then you shouldn’t bother opening your mouth. Smearing the President for the sake of smearing is counterproductive. I’ll smear Obama and company over their PC attitude and renaming of terror and terrorists as not to offend, but I actually know why it’s important to lose this PC crap.

Monica, listen up. We call terrorists out and name names because we’re Americans. The United States of America does not cower to threats. We do not slip silently under our desks and pretend true evil isn’t always prevalent in every corner of the world. We do not placate those meaning us harm, those looking to tear down our freedom and devastate our will. We do not avoid truth for the sake of empathy and the benefit of the easily offended.

Americans let the enemy know that we know exactly who they are, where they are, why it is they mean us harm, and even exactly how we aim to stop it – with deadly force whenever necessary.

We, as Americans, spit in the face of all terrorists and are not timid about calling attention to any religion, race, creed or culture if the enemy fights under that flag. Radical Islamic mujahideen are out there in numbers and trying to annihilate our way of life. We stand tall, look them in the eye, and let them know we’re coming. To do that, we say exactly what it is we’re after and why. America doesn’t pussyfoot around.

We do this not for political or strategic advantage, but because it is the true essence of the American spirit – fearless perseverance in the face of adversity. We’ll leap unimaginable hurdles to make our way up any mountain.

I am positive that President Barack Obama does not feel this way at all. Neither do his minions and fellow progressive toolboxes feel as if America should somehow “inflame” an enemy by standing our ground. And evidentially, some disagreeing with an Obama-like stance on terror are also missing the point. They’re in opposition exclusively to be in opposition.

Get a clue. The Tea Party isn’t planting bombs. Christians aren’t killing non-believers. Folks opposed to healthcare and illegal immigration aren’t committing terrorist acts. And for the Crowley types, it’s not just good enough to mention the ridiculousness of placating evil. You have to know why, or else your Kool-Aid is just as tasty as theirs.

Oh, For Fuck’s Sake!

2010-04-29T17:02:00.000-07:00

So, because Democrats may lose seats for pursuing other unpopular measures, they’ve decided to not even take on problems from here to the election results are in.

There’s no time for immigration issues. Instead, politicians need all available time to go around campaigning. What this means to anyone with a brain is, instead of risking losing power and money by actually solving problems in America, it’s more prudent to fly around on the taxpayer dime and feed voting blocs more bullshit about government-control being a godsend and all opposition being racist.

No, our elected officials—those fuckwits supposedly working in our employ—will no longer even pretend that they’re trying to do the right thing. They’re so comfortable now that they’ll outright admit that WORKING puts their reelection in jeopardy.

On this one, I’ll actually stick up for President Obama a bit. And it’s not because I feel he’s any different at all than previous presidents and current politicians. He certainly doesn’t want to lose any seats; he’s probably more than happy to ignore issues while infighting over existing policy keeps everyone polarized.

But since he’s not up for reelection, it’s not his fault that his fellow inept hacks in power are refusing to do what they were fucking elected to do. He just has to step out front and bear the brunt on this one, while trying to talk around it by saying ridiculous shit like, “I don't want us to do something just for the sake of politics that doesn't solve the problem." (Hypocrisy much?)

If Congress decided that they would also forfeit pay and stop spending taxpayer money until after the elections, then I’d view it as noble and sensible. But they won’t – and they will continue to live the life we provide.

Arizona is bearing the brunt of federal ridicule for acting in the feds’ prolonged absence, and even still, the federal government refuses to take on the issue.
Fine. I hope every border state does the exact same thing as Arizona. For all the freedom walkers and “racism” criers and folks fearing profiling, well, they’ll just have to complain. Because if the people SUPPOSED to find solutions are deciding that their individual livelihoods are more important than the citizens providing it, then what other possible choice do the states have? Honestly!?

Not only are these politicians refusing to help the American people in favor of illegal immigration reform, but they’re also refusing to help the American people feeling that Arizona’s measure isn’t right. They’re turning their backs on everyone in favor of themselves.

From the AP: “Democrats hold a 254-177 majority in the House, with four vacancies. But 48 are in districts where Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain did better than Obama in the 2008 elections.”

Enough said.

Anybody still in favor of voting for these cowardly fucks?

When all Else Fails, Create the Hate

2010-04-28T23:27:00.000-07:00

I’m over being insulted for my suspected racism. I went from fighting mad to mildly insulted to now nonchalantly thumbing my chin at every accuser and rolling my eyes. I’m at the point where I don’t even feel like standing against real racism if folks are so willing to create it out of thin air. What’s the point?

Even still, I can’t help but strongly feel half the country is being completely duped with this idea of “social justice” the accusers are pressing for.

Just take a sound, impartial look at it.

With social justice, personal responsibility is never involved. All downtrodden are victims of circumstances beyond their control. It’s the fault of capitalism, racism, oppression, greed, whites, Republicans, and, without fail, it becomes society’s responsibility to correct for the victim.

But looking at it a little closer, it begins to get cloudy. After all, “progressive” is to progress – to go forward. And in order for people to want new scenery, something has to be wrong with the old view. Progress logically needs an enemy, or else the progress is pointless.

If you really, really wanted to bring about social justice, you would have to show that the enemy is growing and gaining ground. There would need to be a sense of urgency. If not, minor adjustments would speak as common sense to people and major overhauls would seem unnecessary.

This isn’t to say that folks advocating for social justice don’t honestly believe in the principle of one-world, one-class, one-race togetherness. But at the same time, anyone with such views would want their ideology pushed on people as soon as possible.

This brings up an important question for anyone willing to think outside of their box: Would such an ideologue use minorities to their advantage to stoke the fires of racial hate in order to instill a sense of urgency in the panicked, a genuine need for freedom from oppression?

In a few weeks, after the fire dies down from the Arizona law, all opposing Puerto Rico’s statehood will undoubtedly be called racists. And this is even considering Puerto Rico itself has denied it on many occasions and will be tricked into voting yes.

We’ll be cruel and bigoted greed-mongers looking to keep more brown people out from under our flag. Take it to the bank.

You’re already the enemy of progress for opposing Obama. A racist! Think that illegal immigration is a crime and that most emigrating from Mexico are Mexicans? Oh, you’ve done it now. You’re certainly the enemy, you damn, dirty racist! And what about standing against unions, government-controlled healthcare and finance and failed liberal policy? Shit, you might as well put a hood on.

Truthfully, I do not know the last time when an incident of true racism took place. The media has been so flooded with accounts of suspected racism that nothing else can get through.

And personally, I would think minorities would be more outraged at created racism than we who put up with being called racists at every turn. All that minorities struggled through, all they’re still struggling through, and the effort has been stolen from its rightful owners and is now used as a political rally-cry to bring about change. Not change that will enrich minorities, mind you, but change that will transfer class at the upper echelon, making government Wall Street and Wall Street obsolete and replace personal responsibility and freedom of choice with government intervention.

Through all the many years liberal Democrats and progressive advocates have been claiming to help, how much have they done? Is your house as nice as theirs? Can you afford the cars they drive, the food they eat? Most of the folks they call the enemy are in the same financial boat as the folks they call victims.
Yet, without fail, they claim everyone not sharing the ideology is the enemy and that the enemy is at the doorstep.

It may very well be. But it looks like the enemy is the one you’re about to let in the house and not the one you’re running off your property.

Really Reaganesque

2010-04-02T13:58:00.000-07:00

I’m still hearing a lot of exaggerated rhetoric being spewed from the left side of the aisle about how President Obama’s vision turned legislation will have positive effects on the everyday person in America.

This big legislation is supposedly helping people find jobs, save money and live all-around better lives. This is the generalization of hope and change. To come, we’ll still have the real bits of socially just legislation to contend with.

Why is that a scary prospect? The legislation thus far is proving to be quite counterproductive for small businesses and the private sector in general. So using common sense, the problems will be magnified once the scope of government is magnified.

I’m not very fair with the man always. I admit. I believe he’s a social progressive whose sole intent is to nationalize the private sector and to have the federal government exercise more control over American lives.

For this view, I’ve been called everything from a racist and hatemonger to an ignorant moron who cannot see the good Obama and liberal Congress is doing due to blind contempt.

Okay. I’ll eat that. But, then, oh, ye brilliant one, explain to me how this healthcare legislation’s forcing small businesses to close shop is actually a good thing.

My mother lost her job due to immigrants taking lower wages way back in 1996. With a good education, she tried for over a year to land a decent job. But nothing was happening. Eventually, she swallowed her pride and went to Burger King.

She’s a manager now and has been for years, making decent money with decent insurance.

The owner of this Burger King franchise is the quintessential American entrepreneur. He bought into one successful restaurant and eventually opened three.

With his three stores, he employs hundreds of people, offers well above minimum wage, has good healthcare plans, pays a lot into unemployment so anyone laid off has a chance to stay on their feet, and is the proverbial fair boss.

Because of this new and supposedly economic-saving healthcare legislation, however, this proud business owner must pay $180,000 in new taxes. One-hundred-eighty-thousand!

So, fair and honorable as he may be, his hands are absolutely tied. He’s successful, making over Obama’s targeted number for higher taxes, but including overhead, he’s certainly not the fabled well-to-do fat-cat that liberals have been attacking for decades.

This business owner drives an American made car, has one house, and has been earning less and less money due to recession.

Now he has to close up one of his franchises due to the 180k fee, meaning over 60 employees will lose their jobs.

On the bright side, I guess, these employees, including my mother, will be accepted with open arms by His Highness into the subsidies pool, where they can suck mismanaged tax dollars from business owners instead of working for a living.

And before anyone gets it in their heads that, “oh, it’s only one store from one business owner,” ask yourself how many more just like this guy will have to lay off employees or completely close up shop due to much higher taxes.

Then, I guess, new legislation will arise for small business owners – they’ll receive their very own “high-risk” pool to swim in.

We’re going up the ladder, sucking more and more from the people with money. This is wealth redistribution personified.

So, if anyone knows about any poor people out there hiring and creating America’s jobs, please, let me know so I can give Burger King’s employees a heads up. They’re going to need it.

To Tell the Truth... or Whatever's Most Confusing

2010-03-25T03:31:00.000-07:00

We all know that liberals and other healthcare bill proponents will say whatever’s necessary in order to garner support for the new legislation. Whether this is genuine or simply to save their collective asses come election time, that’s anybody’s guess.

We also know that conservatives and other healthcare bill opponents will say whatever’s necessary in order to thwart support by citing the numerous unsavory aspects of the legislation.

But what many of us still don’t know is who exactly is right!?

In Bill O’Reilly’s interview with the otherwise levelheaded and forthright New York Representative Anthony Weiner, things got even more confusing.

As O’Reilly acted as any interviewer should, asking pertinent questions, Weiner insisted on acting as most liberal interviewees do, avoiding questions, attacking the questioner, feigning frustration in a condescending manner and outright accusing people of lies without a shred of logical evidence to back up the claims.

If opponents of Obamacare are lying, such as proponents claim, why then do they find it so incredibly hard to articulate exactly what people need to hear to put their doubting minds at ease?

Too many conversations about this legislation go the same way:

Proponent: “This healthcare legislation is great. It will save lives, drop premium prices and actually help with deficit reduction and even middle-class and lower-class family budgeting!”

Opponent: “How?”

Proponent: “Because it will; we’re the government and we know what we’re doing.”

Opponent: “Huh? I’m not buying that. You guys can’t get much of anything right – not to mention that every calculation is either based on assumption or is completely out of whack in its gross overreaching and cutting of crucial funding from other areas of healthcare.”

Proponent: “But it will be better. You’ll see!”

Opponent: “Plus it’s unconstitutional to force people to buy something they do not wish to buy.”

Proponent: “We’re not forcing anyone to buy anything. You’re lying.”

Opponent: “Then what are the fines for?”

Proponent: “We’re not criminalizing people for not purchasing health insurance.”

Opponent: “But there are fines associated with the legislation!”

Proponent: “Just like litterers.”

Opponent: “Then it’s criminal to not purchase it!”

Proponent: “No. You’re lying!”

Opponent: “But a fine is an amount of money paid as a penalty for an offense.”

Proponent: “Lies!”

Opponent: “At least tell me who will impose the fine – who’s coming after you if you don’t buy insurance?”

Proponent: “I already answered that. You insist on lying. You’re a liar. Stop lying!”

Good grief. Is it any wonder that people are still so divided on this horseshit legislation? There are no straight answers. The opposition’s “talking points” are supposedly exaggerated and even untruthful, yet supporters cannot give one single straight answer or explain what’s going on in any clear language.

The logical explanation people are reaching: Opponents are actually right about this legislation until someone, somewhere, somehow proves them wrong with sensible, concise answers to simple questions.

Is that too much to ask for from politicians representing citizens of the United States of America!?

I’m not really a fan of Republican/conservative politicians. I think, on the political level, “sides” don’t matter and that they’re all the same brand of schmuck. But I’m really hoping these moronic, evading, silver-tongued, woof-ticket-selling liberals go the way of the dodo and right soon.

Another Ripe Dose of Liberal Logic

2010-03-15T23:33:00.000-07:00

Everyone in the country knows a race baiter when they see one. Of course, if you’re afraid of individualism because of the stigma that comes along with it, you’ll still kneel and worship at their feet. Avoiding becoming a pariah is more important to some in society than actually being free.

It’s infinitely sad, but definitely true. Things are only allowed to work in one direction on the left side of the aisle, and this includes guilt by association.

Bill Maher, a man who always manages to use minorities as pawns in his never-ending quest to paint opposition as racist, was a firm defender of Senator Obama before he became president.

When news broke about the Reverend Wright’s controversial quotes, Maher was among those claiming that guilt by association doesn’t work like that, and that it was absurd to think Obama shared such beliefs.

“God Damn America,” screams Wright. But not everyone in Wright’s church is sure to share that sentiment. Well, at least that’s the tale when it’s a liberal.

Fast forward to the other week, when Mitt Romney had an altercation on an airplane with a rapper, Mr. Maher suddenly believes that, because Romney is a Mormon and Mormon leadership had a racist tinge in the past, Mitt has to be a racist.

Maher, ironically, has become little more than a bad joke. On this very same show, he said that only idiots believe that global warming isn’t happening and getting extremely worse every day. He then went on to question his guest Amy Holmes about why she’s skeptical, but instead of letting her answer, Maher just kept cutting her off, refusing to entertain her facts on the subject (I can’t find that particular video clip).

And although I firmly believe Bill has seriously gone over the nest and into Michael Moore land, I bring his behavior up for one reason: He is one of the few truly far left, progressive/socialist-minded individuals in the mainstream who can say what he and his circle honestly believes without fear.

Sean Penn is another one who is beyond the point of caring, and his wishing people to die and to be imprisoned for dissenting opinions cements his status as a lunatic tool and makes him considerably closer to Hitler than he claims his country’s right wing is.

I’ve personally been ignoring most of the bullshit in the mainstream as of late, but after seeing this clip and remembering vividly Maher’s defending of Obama, I was absolutely floored by his quick leap to racism and his intent unwillingness to even recognize his hypocrisy on such issues.

Because most of the uberleft are either trying to keep favor for political office or Hollywood roles or even a prime position in the new “green” era, they’re not all out and about dishing this type of hypocritical meat. They’re holding their tongues, scared to say what they really feel. So Maher acts now as a microcosm of the entire radical left movement.

For the side of America supposedly more logical, more compassionate, more fiscally responsible, more socially just, more economically sound, more intelligent, more diverse, more peaceful and more righteous, they sure do have a habit of looking like complete morons every time they sputter their divine wisdom – or come into power and pass legislation that’s drastically more damaging than helpful.

Everyday Conversations from the Left...

2010-02-06T21:51:00.000-08:00

Here's my first attempt at a movie. I couldn't get the thing to encode with movements, so it's pretty dry. I also didn't fool around with phonetic improvements or voice options.

I'll try to add some better touches in future films. I'm a PC-noob at everything but typing. And even that's a difficult task on Saturday nights.

The Real Climate Change

2009-12-14T23:02:00.000-08:00

I’ve long contended that, in order for progressives to actually seize control of our country or the world, they would need an enemy that couldn’t be defeated and only grew larger as the battle waged on. They not only need separation in the country, they need a quasi-civil war that’s both prolonged and bloody.

This has to do with the strides taken and those still to come. Blaming Bush for every one of the world’s ills created enough hatred to get a Democrat majority in Congress. Enemy! Oddly enough, the economy that liberals helped crash was called the wrongdoings of capitalism, and thus a Messiah-like figure emerged and was elected to the highest office. Enemy!

Now the greatest stride of them all: the fight to heal the climate. The enemy? Climate change “deniers.” Oh, hate these buffoons that don’t believe in the settled science that is climate change! It’s like not believing in gravity (which, ironically enough, isn’t “settled science” either… but let’s not hurt their feelings).

Here’s a great—and funny to watch—piece on the guilt-driven movement.

Since the 1970s, climate hysteria has spread through the world like a carbon-laden wildfire. It really intensified in the 1990s, after the “ice age” theory of the seventies fell through and was reinvented and relabeled “warming.” And since a few years ago, when, yet again, it was repackaged and resold as “climate change,” much of the guilt-ridden among us have been bending over backwards to save something we couldn’t destroy with carbon if we tried.

It didn’t take long for this issue to become political – right vs. left, with much of the left believing and the right denying. And it’s not that the right is unwilling to believe the frenzied science. It’s just that the left is all too willing to believe any cause presented with a victim.

People believe for one reason but seem to disagree for many. In a country that would dare question the political correctness of Christmas, it boggles the mind that those clinging to liberal philosophy refuse to so much as entertain the thought climate change may be a power play.

And don’t try to sell that black-and-white, either-or horseshit about wanting people to die if you’re not for Obamacare or hating Mexicans if you want the border controlled. Not believing the overstatements about climate change does not mean you want to poison the air and want your children to grow up in a world without polar bears. For fuck’s sake. Get a grip.

I do believe in science. I’m not a religious person. I subscribe fully to the real science (carbon dating, fossil records and real research) stating that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. During this time, it has gone through changes we cannot possibly comprehend; changes that were thousands and sometimes millions of years in the making.

Humans have been around for about 200,000 years, and civilization for only around 10,000. The modern industrialization and city-building of the planet has been going on for around 100 years.

I bring this up to urge people to look at the common sense here to see that these climate change proponents are woefully inept in their attempts to gauge the manmade impact on the climate.

It’s estimated that humans contribute around an extra 3% of carbon emissions to the atmosphere, outside of what volcanoes, forest fires and other natural sources emit.

This means that, simply, in around 100 years, our extra 3% has caused enough trapped heat to doom us all if we were to continue consuming at such high rates. Well, if you were to buy into the hysteria.

Buy that! Go ahead! Say it’s the truth and change how you live. Don’t even look at the difference in zeroes between 100 and 4,500,000,000 – or even 100 and 10,000. Cut out our man-caused emissions by 100%, as impossible as that may be, and see what we’re left with.

What? Another 100 years?

If what they’re saying is, in fact, truth, then the world is doomed regardless of what people do to stop it. If the Al Gore Bible is predicting man will cause catastrophe in two decades, then it’s still happening in three without man’s interference.

Maybe, just maybe, if you really feel like employing common sense, “climate change” and “global warming” and the next “ice age” are simply scare tactics being used to seize control.

If a televangelist is caught spending his flock’s donations on a fancy car or a new house or sins of the flesh, he’s labeled a charlatan and ran out of town. Yet, with Gore, he’s using his flock’s money for private jets, large homes, uber-vacations, and his ultimate sin, which is the insane amount of carbon he emits. How concerned is he?

How concerned are any of the people telling us all we should be concerned? Are they cutting back on their emissions or are they simply seeking to make us do so?

The 100-some-odd (elitists) “concerned” folks that showed up to the climate conference did so in high-carbon-emitting vehicles, with no real concern about the climate.

Have you ever asked what’s in it for them if they can transform the world to “green”?

Well, at a quick glance, a lot of people stand to make a lot of money. GE would be one of the most profitable companies on the globe with their green initiatives. GE owns NBC. NBC is Obama’s pocket press. Obama is a “green” proponent. Coincidence?

Unions stand to literally take over the global workforce. Van Jones, SEIU – ring any bells?

All businesses would be, at least, government regulated if not outright controlled by the government.

Al Gore will be a billionaire, and others promoting the idea will be in line to be anointed world authorities. (After all, the climate change can never go away. It has to continue.)

The only “scientists” allowed to speak—like it’s not this away already—would be proponents of climate change.

Other industrial nations, namely India and China, and others with large, obsolete and maybe even illegal oil reserves would be beholden to elite northern Europeans and American progressives. Third-world countries—what’s left of them—would take cataclysmic hits.

It’s not much of an accident that, in order to “heal” the world, there’s a line of willing participants a mile long – each with a jet nicer than the last and enough money to afford solar panels while still opting to use other (non-green) means for electricity.

It will be the government in control of all climate change legislation. It will be the government telling you what type of business you can run and how much it will cost you. They will tell you what type of foods you can eat and in what amount and what type of car you drive. They’re going to eventually tell you how many children you can have. And if you don’t believe that and think it’s just some right-wing loon being hyperbolic, look at what China does for the “greater good.”

I’ll never quite understand the amount of faith people put into politicians to do the right thing. With America’s progressives, they’ve never done the right thing. They’ve catered to select niche groups, throwing them enough bones to train a hungry attack dog, but never providing enough to keep them fed and happy. And as loyal dogs should, these niche groups have repaid their owners with seats of power.

Now, because some people buy into the finger-pointing, false history and fail to use their common sense, we’re trillions of dollars in debt and could all very well be under control of an encompassing government that gets to tell YOU how hot to keep YOUR home in the winter.

But hey, at least you'll feel better knowing the planet isn't melting.

Group Hug!

2009-10-23T03:50:00.000-07:00

I can’t recall a White House in my lifetime that’s actually been friendly. As a teenager, I remember the nasty rumors coming out about the Clinton years. And thus far, there’s never been any real evidence to the contrary – Bill and Hillary were Mr. and Mrs. Bitchy. But at least Bill had the good sense (to listen to Dick Morris) to never attack…

The Bush years were all-too secretive. Not that I want nor certainly need to know what’s going on behind closed doors to keep Americans safe from terrorists, but the combination of Bush/Cheney just didn’t seem very trusting. There was no transparency on a lot of issues.

The Obama White House is shaping up to be a combination of the two to the tenth power. Mr. Whiny Pants and his minions are tossing fits over opposition and, at the same time, going back on that gargantuan promise of transparency – one of many promises shattered already).

The war on Fox News, though liberals and other Obama-loving types salivate over it, is honestly, no matter how you spin it, a war on free speech.

Until recently, they could have claimed that it wasn’t. They decided to approach it by using smears. “Fox isn’t ‘real’ news,” “(ABC) shouldn’t treat them as such,” “They have a ‘point of view,” “We’ll take media as it comes.”

Turns out they won’t take media as it comes; at least, not unless other reporters from WH-favored networks speak in Fox’s defense.

After stating that they wouldn’t exclude Fox, the White House attempted to do just that – exclude Major Garrett from Fox News from participating in the round-robin interview process.

How fuckin’ cruddy!

How DARE Fox use actual audio, video and literature from the people they run news on! How DARE Fox report news that some may take as anti-administration (Note: questioning the administration is anti-administration). How DARE Fox not let Team Obama control what they put out!

Shit, I would be mad too. But to me, this would be a signal to wise up and not surround myself with people who turn to Mao in times of need. Or people who support cop killers or child sodomy or eugenics or state-controlled media or control over the Internet or the life of a minnow over actual citizens or a .002 drop in carbon emissions over citizens’ tax dollars. It wouldn’t be my cue to prove Fox right about my being a radical loon by actually attempting to throw them out and silence their free speech! But that’s just me.

NBC took Obama to task first over this shunning of Fox News. And to that I say IT’S ABOUT FUCKING TIME, NBC!! Obama responded that Americans aren’t really concerned about that. Instead, they’re concerned over what’s being done to create jobs (nothing), and what’s being done in Afghanistan (nothing). Then he attempts to change what his advisors “meant” when slamming Fox News.

The media really pulled together when Fox was thrown from the pool. Before interviewing the new pay czar, Fox was tossed aside, and lo and behold, in a miraculous display of freedom-loving patriotism, anchors from CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC all conferred and decided that, if Fox wasn’t allowed in, they wouldn’t go either.

Like most liberals do, the White House backed down quickly once “their” media didn’t agree with the shunning. But what’s the lesson in this?

If you don’t agree and show uber-favorable coverage to this sitting President, you will be ousted from the group; your voice will not be welcomed if your voice doesn’t sound like all the others.

What in the hell is wrong with these people!? They can’t fix shit! They waffle on war decisions. They’re more concerned about regulating the pay of corporations they now effectively own instead of creating new jobs. They demonize private insurance and offer no real alternative that wouldn’t be Medicare-like corruption X a thousand. And with all these problems, they devote their time to smearing and shunning a news organization that they can’t control.

If it’s not blatantly apparent to anyone that these schmucks are seriously attempting to separate the country, then you haven’t been paying attention – either that or watching Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann.

The favorite excuse of Obama supporters for his inaction and ineffectiveness, “give him time,” has now run its course. When they choose to spend time fighting Fox instead of fighting to win a war or fighting to create jobs, they’ve floundered unequivocally.

MoveOn, HuffPo, MediaMatters, MSNBC, the New York Times, and a few other outlets have all the Fox-bashing radicals that a country could ever want. The White House doesn’t need to be in on the fight. I’m proud that a few in the media actually came together and refused to participate if Fox was going to be booted. There’s still some hope here.

After all, if they can toss Fox—the nation’s number-one news network—aside for daring to criticize His Highness, then who CAN’T be thrown under the bus next? You’re either a good sheep or you’re chopped up and put in curry. Those are the options this administration is giving.

Hopefully, more will opt for the curry in coming weeks. You might not get to baaaaaaaa beside Barack, but curry is a mighty tasty way to go out.

The Energizer Dummy

2009-10-19T03:13:00.000-07:00

With the thick and brutal political climate in today’s America, it sometimes becomes too much to bear for an otherwise Al Bundy-esque individual like myself. After deciding to boycott news completely over the weekend, I reintroduced the toxic mess that is cable news back into my bloodstream this morning and, to my surprise, nothing has changed.

Not that I expected it to, but I can remember the previous eight years – when the only time you heard from Bush on a daily basis was through a Frank Caliendo or Will Ferrell impression. With President Obama, the guy is constantly up in your face. Still with the healthcare reform-slash-overhaul! Still!

Love the idea or could do without it, even the big-mouthed supporters—literally big-mouthed; trying to fit the entire sack in their oral cavity—can admit that the “urgency” is mighty false, considering most plans labeled immediate won’t be going into effect for years. But that still hasn’t stopped Obama from going on a reform tour.

Yeah, we’ve all seen it already. It’s like me trying to have sex with a girl I used to date. She said the relationship was fine and she wanted to wait. Okay, but can we have sex now? “No, I’d rather wait.” Sure, whatever you say, but how about now? She didn’t want it; she was clear on it. But I wanted it, and I kept on and on and on trying to convince her that she really wanted it too.

But I never attempted to pay her for it!

As if going on every non-Fox cable channel, making primetime speeches, appearing in magazines, and even having the Hollywood elite and art community trying to sell his “vision” isn’t enough, now there’s a cool $250 in it for seniors!

Obama loves you, this you know. For your handout tells you so!

Effective in his Presidency or not, it’s really too early to call the entire term a sham. But to this point, it’s pretty clear that Obama plans on campaigning to keep support. On one hand, why wouldn’t he? I mean, Bush was mums when under attack, and his approval rating went in the crapper quick, fast in a hurry. Well, that and the fact that a lot of Bush-bashers couldn’t tell him apart from his impersonators’ ramblings. We seen it with Fey/Palin, but I digress…

Most Americans over 65 are on Medicare, and with Obama “vision” and the liberal hacks bill (any of which they finally put forward), there is a legitimate danger of their care suffering. It’s not a right-wing talking point; it’s basic common sense if you spit the nuts out for a second and think on it.

Seniors—these Astroturf; these puppets of insurance companies—are the ones speaking out against an overhaul—not REFORM—the most. So to get their support, which keeps his houses blue and his reelection hopes alive, he’s going to do things the Chicago way? Is this what I’m hearing? For the first time in over 30 years seniors may not get a cost of living increase. Enter the bad guy: government.

But wait! Up in the sky, look – it’s a bird; it’s a plane. No, it’s SuperBama and his $250 “love me now?” check!

I hate to be this cynical of anyone, but for a guy so vain and so incredibly shameless when it comes to self promotion, it’s hard to view this as anything but a backhanded way to gain support. I mean, if it was really about the seniors and their living expenses, wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to give them an increase? This looks like nothing more than good cop, bad cop on steroids, with Obama playing the role of Bruce Willis and saving the day.

Yes! We love you now, Obama. Thank you for our money. Give us things and we will vote or support whatever you say. Now that’s politics at its finest! Just like the rumor in Detroit about the “free money” that led 15,000 to push and shove their way through a regular Wednesday afternoon. Wonder who they voted for?

(Note: I woulda said Samuel L. Jackson, but comparing black people to black people is apparently racism. But Obama’s half white and Bruce’s balls were owned by a liberal loon for decades, so it all evens out.)

Quick Question

2009-09-24T21:04:00.001-07:00

This'll be quick. I'm just curious at half past midnight.

Why do far-left zealots push to punish police?

Sure, many law enforcement agencies have their corrupt employees, although not nearly on the scale of ACORN -- more on that in a minute. But for every crooked cop/reporter/soldier/security guard/etc, the other 99.9% step up and do the job right! So why go after the process?

Men and women tasked with capturing and interrogating terrorists--policing them!--are torn to shreds with rhetoric harmful to their job, investigations, smear campaigns, and even out-and-out traitorous acts, like showing CIA photos to TERRORISTS in order to ask them, "Is this the mean guy that called you names and blew smoke in your face?"

Cops in California have been no prize, that's for sure. But an overwhelming percentage of police officers do their civic duty correctly, justly and without incident. But when some maniac kills cops (has happened more than once), people stand up for the cop killers and decry policing as a whole. Yeah, anarchy would really go over well in Oakland. Population FUBAR.

Reporters used to be celebrated, but after Hannah Giles reported on ACORN, she's now being sued for $5 million and Baltimore is still deciding whether or not to file criminal charges against her and her partner in the videos. There are still more tapes to be released displaying possible criminal activity, halted now by the news, and what should be the biggest story of possible nationwide corruption in a century is now a right-vs.-left boxing match.

It all seems ironic. An extremely large portion of progressive liberals actually want a large government to take care of the population. Yet today's far-left loon seems to contradict that stance time and again.

It leaves you with one conclusion: it's just politics.

But fuck that. That's okay to say when Obama preemptively plays the race card against McCain, or when Palin claims Obama is "Pallin' around with terrorists." That's what these morons do. They’re all asshat hacks on one or more levels, working for a political future by any means necessary.

We're talking about something larger, though, when it comes to police and watchdogs and soldiers being treated as criminals just because they nab a bad guy you like! Or worse: a bad guy you’re TOLD to like!

If America should ever come together for anything, it should be to keep us ALL safe. Hey, here’s a news flash: Terrorists want to KILL US ALL. ACORN was helping the sporadic poor person achieve while habitually milking the system and stealing OUR tax dollars! Cop killers are not heroes!

For fuck’s sake! If we can’t unite over these three causes, then we never will under any circumstance.

Another Long Rant.... Who are the REAL Racists!?

2009-09-24T01:58:00.001-07:00

The only time I bother writing a post is usually when a liberal on TV pisses me off by stating outright lies about anyone not subscribing to progressive ideology, and painting them a conservative hatemonger by default. It’s really enough to make your blood boil coming form anyone, but coming from the self-proclaimed righteous light of a long-dim America that is—supposedly—liberalism, my veins are steam-cleaned and bone dry.

Incensed only barely begins to cover how I feel when a progressive nut-job presents their misrepresented case like pertinent fact. I can understand out-of-context sound bites and clips. Everyone does that. I can even understand stretching the truth or grasping at straws to prove a point. That definitely happens on both sides. But only liberals use racism to prove racism and, to me, even though I’m part of the Caucasian majority, that’s sickening.

As Bill Maher worked so desperately to get a reaction from his ironically reactionary audience, he labeled the entire opposition to Obama as racist and “right-wing.” He went on to offer his “proof” by stating, sarcastically, that, “No, Republicans aren’t racist. They only go after…” and he then showed pictures of Barack and Michelle Obama, Van Jones, Rev. Wright, African-American ACORN employees, and Al Sharpton.

I understand that Maher is a comedian. So in a way, I forgive that. But he’s also pulled what I now call the Garofalo, in that he’s stepped beyond what he does for a living and into the political arena under the banner of solemn authority. He stopped being a comedian and started playing politics in recent years, and his view is a shared view of liberal media, politicians, celebrities and everyday citizens alike. That’s why this “proof” of racism seriously sickens me to my core. This is how people are drawing their conclusion – they’re using black people to smear a party.

While the pictures and names are being thrown around of the Obama’s, ACORN, Al, and Jones, they leave out the FACTS that threaten their point.

People are also equally after Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, and the heads of organizations like ACORN and not their low-level employees.

What’s the common denominator of the abovementioned? Oh, I’m so glad you asked. They’re white! Caucasian! Pale-faces! They’re part of the problem, per a guy like Van Jones’ claim-to-fame talking points.

People going after ACORN couldn’t care less that these employees are black or women or liberal or anything other than corrupt. And, to that end, people don’t necessarily care about these low-level, easily-thrown-under-the-bus employees. What matters is the head of ACORN – the WHITE PEOPLE in power, seemingly using minorities and their plight to create a taxpayer-funded golden goose.

The very people attacking Obama and calling him a socialist are also* (Adverb, meaning in addition to) attacking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barney “Life’s Too Serious to Smile” Frank! So, that is at least evidence, if not outright proof, of criticism and fear being about issues and not race. I mean, it is, right? Can you use logic* (Noun, meaning a system of principles and reasoning) instead of reactionary, party-line rhetoric to smear based on hyperbolic half truths?

If you oppose two people equally, for the same reasons, and subsequently call them both the same names and use the same tone when describing them, what’s the separating factor that makes it racism for one if one happens to be a different race?

Okay, never mind. I see the logic. We disapprove with the white people based on issues, but we disapprove of minorities because they’re minorities and not because of the issues. So that means we don’t pay attention to the issues with any non-whites; we only pay attention to their skin color.

So that’s why Republicans hate Michael Steele. Oh, wait. They don’t. Hmm. Okay, then; that’s why Republicans protest Bobby Jindal! Oh, you mean they like that guy? Well, I know they all went after Clarence Thomas! Shit. Okay, regrouping… Maybe Marco Rubio? Damn! Shall I continue?

Excusing yourself from liberal media’s carefully picked-and-chosen storylines, you may stand back and actually see that the very people pretending to take the stand for minorities in this country are actually the ones using minorities as propaganda tools.

When you have to actually use racism to “prove” racism, it pretty much defines your argument. You have none. It’s a type of fear-mongering that the left has been accusing the right of for decades. They toss minorities around like they’re not even people, so long as they can use it as leverage to turn people against Republicans.

I implore everyone to look at the entire situation before judging Obama’s opposition, for they’re not only opposing Obama. They’re opposing an entire system of government, most of which is made of up WHITE elitists who habitually lie, cheat and steal their way to fat-cat status while throwing their vote fodder under the bus once atop the hill.

This shit has gone on long enough. Being the country that cried wolf—especially based on crooked media!—takes focus off of real racism and places it on invented bigotry for means of a power grab.

Think independently to see the whole, not vice versa.

Volunteers Needed!

2009-09-23T00:14:00.001-07:00

As a guy who is a little more right than center while being unequivocally against almost everything far-left, I have no problem admitting that the Republicans have really been a disappointment in recent years. On the other side, you may never, ever, as long as you live, find a devoted liberal willing to take responsibility, because it forfeits their blame option. You’d have a better chance of criticizing Obama without being called a racist than finding a liberal willing to admit they may be wrong.

You will be very hard pressed to find liberals, primarily politicians and celebrities, willing to volunteer or lead by example with policies they push. They tend to be the infallible monarchs, the perfect pointers-out of all ills. Their wisdom is divinity personified and their theories—which really aren’t their theories—are to be implemented by the commons while they’re fed pitted olives on private jets.

But if these ideas are so incredibly great, so clearly divine, why aren’t the uber-liberal elitists volunteering to practice what they preach?

Just some basic common sense: If they would, and could show the people that their ideas are truly impeccable and superior to those of their counterparts, the elitists wouldn’t have to resort to smear tactics and the blame game and other methods that they’ve been claiming to stand firmly against for decades.

Nothing’s new news here. It just strikes me as odd every time I see a celebrity (part of America’s top 1%) or a politician preaching about sticking it to the rich, or social justice, or those poor, poor, poor people.

As I watched Bob Beckel berate his brother tonight, screaming the wonders of an extremely large federal government, I wanted to strangle this guy. He’s another in a long line of uber-progressives that think the basic American is ignorant for not wanting government to handle their day-to-day lives and act as a giant bank for the nation’s accumulative wealth.

I’m not a violent person. I certainly don’t harbor the least bit of disdain toward Bob. He’s usually a lighthearted, funny guy – in the patronizing and ironic way I view him. But his stance is so blatantly pathetic. Yet he hasn’t the slightest idea why anyone doesn’t want federal government controlling their lives. He really doesn’t. And this makes him and his type dangerous.

I propose that the federal government set up a trust. This is my answer to guys like Beckel and Moore and Garofalo and every other mentally disturbed fat-cat who insists on shitting where they eat. They’re against the very system that continues to make them wealthy. So, let’s let them handle it. Let the rich celebrities bring socialism.

As Ben Stein pointed out to the Taco Bell Chihuahua Jim Carville on Wolf Blitzer’s show, the vast majority of rich people in America are liberals. Yes, plenty are right-leaning, but we’re talking about America’s top 1% -- over 3,000,000 people. The lion’s share of this percentage is aboard Barack’s train and heading toward social justice.

There’s only one problem with this: They want to be exempt. When the rich and famous preach about the injustices in America, they’re usually pressuring the government to step in and take from the rich Wall Street and Big Oil types. When’s the last time you heard anyone flaming celebrities for their fortunes?

So, have the government round up the names of every single American that would rather salute the Cuban flag and seize their money. After all, Sean Penn and Michael Moore and Oliver Stone should be more than willing to give everything they have for the common good. They couldn’t just want everyone else to fund this redistribution, right?

This will fund healthcare for the millions who can’t afford it. It will help fund welfare. Their mansions can be torn down and replaced with solar and wind farms. Bill Maher can give up his lavish property and have it turned into a wildlife refuge for the smelt that continues to keep nearly 40,000 American farmers out of work.

Their cars, jets, jewelry and clothing can be given away to the needy and the remnants auctioned off to further fund the socialist mission. All proceeds profited from their respective works can go directly into the trust, along with the salary of every progressive politician, to keep it flush.

Step up and volunteer, you socialists, and show the American people on good faith that you’re not just looking for the government to take control of our lives. Be good Americans for once and forfeit your fortunes to help create the utopia you know as communist America.

Meanwhile, the rest of us average, hard-working, freedom-loving Americans can be left alone to pursue our own dreams and you can all shut the fuck up about the wonders of incredibly large government taking control of the citizenry to reign in capitalism and redistribute wealth.

If you want it, there are enough of you to make it happen. Get it the fuck done and stop intruding on our lives to make it happen. Just tell Obama you wish to give him your money. He will take it, trust me.

Van-Tastic!

2009-09-06T06:11:00.001-07:00

Well, it seems as if Nancy Pelosi finally got what she wanted. The swamp was drained. Of course, she didn’t mean for the all-encompassing swamp to be dredged and purged on her side of the property line. She was hoping for everything right of the fence to be filtered.

The swamp filtration unit had caught a fairly large piece of muck in Van “I ‘Was’ a Communist” Jones. You gotta hand it to those swamp cleaners. They may be few and far between, grossly outnumbered by polluters, but they fished the shit right out of that swamp!

Van Jones is resigning. Obviously, he can’t leave without flaming everyone. The facts were out and in abundance. Jones claims a “smear campaign” was run against him. He’s feigning victimhood, as if he’s the proud, tormented martyr of a witch hunt. Any person in America who managed to watch Fox or read a non-liberal blog or website knows full well that Jones was not misrepresented in the least. In fact, very little reporting had to be done. All that happened was Van Jones’ appearances and speeches, which were all on video, were taken away from his likeminded audience and shown to people who didn’t agree.

The fact that a guy like this was appointed to any backdoor position of authority is a sham. Jones may be resigning, but he’s just the latest in a lot of bad decisions that a supposedly smart President is making. This administration is playing fast and loose with Americans.

Sure, you may have no problem with Van Jones. But if that’s the case, you’re also not fit to be a czar. You’re not fit to hold a prominent position in America. We DON’T do communism. We DON’T do the sympathizing-with-cop-killers thing! We DON’T claim that our President killed 3,000 people as justification to fight a war. We DON’T claim that whites or government (same thing in Jones’ language) are intentionally poisoning immigrants. It doesn’t matter what race you are, stupid is stupid and Janeane Garofalo, the male edition, doesn’t get to advise the President of the United States of America!

The more disheartening part about this is that Fox and a few websites were the only venues covering Van Jones. MSNBC/NBC, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, etc – squadoosh! Nothing! They failed to cover this guy at all. And why? When did news stop being news just because the target of an investigation could end up making the President look bad?

When did we reach a point in America where a loon like this would be suppressed in order to A) not create waves with the admin., and B) make Fox look like the most partisan network in history?

It doesn’t work like that. Just because a network abstains from showing the news does not mean the network doing its duty and running the news is biased! If anything, the real, dangerous bias comes from smothering and changing news in order to effect change.

If WTV1 decided to hire nothing but Spanish anchors, that doesn’t make WTV2 racist if they don’t, especially if the only reason for hiring nothing but Spanish anchors is to call the other network racist!! Get a grip!

Not only are liberal news outlets fixing their own news, but they’re out to fix the entire country’s news! It was tried with the Tea Parties already. By letting Fox treat them fairly while the rest of the establishment insulted them, liberals were able to immediately point at Fox and say that they were promoting Tea Parties. Now, by failing to cover Van Jones, they were able to point their finger again and claim bias.

Obviously, Americans know these tactics well. Fox is exploding because of this. The brainwashed left are furious! And not because Fox is growing, but because in their bereft-of-original-thought pea-brains, they think this means conservatism and racism are on the rise. No. It just means people want real NEWS!

The most important thing about this is Van Jones is at least out a czar position. Radical progressives always take care of theirs, but it makes me feel a little safer to know that Van Jones will not be making any economic decisions. He, by his own admission, has a bias toward white people, capitalism and America in general. Could you imagine what his “initiatives” would be?

The funniest part in all this is that Glenn Beck put this dude to sleep by simply refusing to back down. Nothing against the boycotters, personally; you have a right to boycott. But it didn’t do a lick of good. You were all being played by big corporations who were STILL paying Fox News money – money that Fox was paying Beck as a thank you for the enormous ratings.

Now that I think about it, this is probably exactly why Van Jones hates capitalism!

Any Means Necessary

2009-09-01T21:51:00.000-07:00

On Spike TV’s newest show, Surviving Disaster, a former US Navy SEAL illustrates various ways in which regular people can survive unthinkable situations. Tonight’s show, which I thought was fantastic, was about terrorists hijacking an airplane – far from a foreign concept.

I thought it was very interesting that the host pointed out pre-911 advice was to simply comply with terrorists’ demands, but post-911 advice is to fight back. I guess there’s nothing like killing thousands of innocent people in the name of Allah to change civilized thinking. Or maybe the thinking hasn’t changed, but more on that later.

The terrorists seized control of the flight using plastic-carved knives as weapons, along with murderous intimidation. Per the host’s cool-headed perceptions, the fact that one hostage was killed, coupled with the fact that these men were showing their faces, suggested it was a suicide mission. It was time to react in order to save lives.

His advice was to coordinate an attack with four to six people, and to use keys, laptops, or any other weapon to strike the throat. The goal was to incapacitate or kill the terrorists and regain control of the aircraft. In the simulation, everything obviously worked out. I can only hope that if I or anyone else was faced with this situation, the reaction and result would be the same.

After all, this is an extraordinary situation. It’s do-or-die. It’s a terrorist’s life or yours. If these terrorists had to be beat to hell and back or even killed, the ends justify the means.

But would everyone see it that way in hindsight?

What if you were on a plane and had to kill a terrorist to save your own life and the lives of other innocent people? Wouldn’t you think that what you did was necessary to save lives? Now what if America’s Attorney General Eric Holder, along with special interest sections of the citizenry, decided that the force you used was unnecessary?

It’s not at all absurd to think that your plane could be hijacked, nor is it a stretch to believe that, depending on a politician’s political leanings, you could be investigated and tried for your actions. Obviously, regular, everyday citizens and government agencies aren’t the “same,” but at its root, the drastic actions taken to save lives are being investigated. The situation, life-or-death, do-or-die—survival—doesn’t matter as much as morality, per the insistence of Holder and those seated in his Kangaroo Court.

This means that you, although a hero to those affected by the trauma, could be guilty of giving America a bad worldly image. Can you imagine Olbermann in an interview with Garofalo as they label you a hate-mongering, backwards, conservative bully who could have and should have handled it differently? Could you imagine the New York Times releasing your name and address to the zealot leftist readers so they could show up and picket on your lawn? Could you imagine actually going to prison behind this?

It’s happening to brave and proud men and women who used “questionable” tactics to extract information from terrorists. These men and women are exactly like you. The situations were considered extreme. Multiple hijacked planes, WMD, viral agents and other terrorist acts were thought to be eminent, and as we now know, some were thwarted by enhanced interrogations.

How far are we willing to go in America in order to keep a radical liberal’s conscience clean? Not to mention that the investigation, at this point, is smoke and mirrors to bring more political capital in through the back door.

I’m certainly not for torture. I’m against it! I’m also against murder! But in self defense, a person does what they have to do. Why should that change when an employee of a government agency did what was needed in order to keep us all defended? How can you ever fault anyone for using drastic measures in unequivocally drastic times?

I don’t know about anyone else, but if I have to choose between appearing to be on the highest echelon of moral superiority to the rest of the world, or my loved ones remaining safe, the rest of the world can pucker up and kiss my unharmed-from-terrorist-activity ass!

A Life in Pictures

2009-08-14T04:48:00.000-07:00

Being the hack of a writer that I am, I’m usually not big on putting a lot of photos on my blog. Heck, I’m not big on my blog period. However, I’m stealing a page out of Lot2Learn’s—my blog buddy—book and posting some pictures here to tell the tale.

Since Obama first announced he would run for President, the race baiters, fully erect and looking to grudge-fuck conservatives out of existence, took up arms (national press spotlight in bleeding-heart land) and began their hypocritical assault.

What’s the goal? To silence all opposition. How will they do it? By labeling any criticism as racism, and if it’s too vague to call, they’ll throw it in their favorite pile: coded racism.

I remember that some hypocritical liberals went out of their way to preemptively label white conservatives racist by declaring that racist people are referring to Barack Obama as a terrorist.

It has to be because he’s black with a Muslim name, cited the uber-liberals. What else could it possibly be? It’s not like anyone would ever call a white President/candidate a terrorist.

See the picture? I think that little, old white lady was recently at a town hall meeting. She’s a racist now, but was a patriot then. Way to screw it up, liberals.

Everyone knows that you’re hypocrites except you.

Just recently, liberals were pitching a fit over some comparing Obama to Hitler. Never mind that Nancy Pelosi inferred that concerned American citizens were Nazis, libs are still claiming that this type of thing is racism.

Well, I guess Bush had it coming, though, right? But to do that to Obama is and will always be RACIST! I’ve even heard recently that millions of white people are looking for a reason to hate black people.

I guess, in order to prove something along those lines true, you’d need for people to hold up signs declaring death to the President of the United States. After all, no one would want the President dead unless they were racist. Obama’s a black (racially mixed, but they love labeling) man, so death threats are racist.

And what about those racist birthers!If Obama was a white man, people would never, ever, in a million years, even think to promote such a conspiracy. We all know they’re only doing this because they’re racists. When in America’s history have people ever made such bold claims about a white President?

Evidently, people are paying this guy for his opinion. In this case, he really shouldn’t quit his day job. What else is he qualified to do? Oh, never mind. He can always be a college professor.

(And let's not even get into the hordes of people who feel they're completely justified in claiming Bush stole the 2000 Election. Not even the Supreme Court could change these theorists' minds.)

Seriously, you liberals and other race baiters, your speculation and wild theories are null and void here, and I don’t care how many times CNN and MSNBC give you a platform to embitter regular people by claiming that every dissenter is an actor, unconcerned about our country and their respective futures, and just criticizing and obstructing because Obama’s “black.”

And for the love of all things unholy, stop trying to insist that "socialist" is a new code word for the n-bomb! Christ on a Cessna! You'd think that Bush wasn't called a fascist at least once a day on average--in the MSM!--in his 8-year Presidency. What is "fascist" code for? Well, it was a not-at-all-subtle dig, meaning he was the new Hitler. But, I guess, since Bush is white, the claims were legitimate... or at least not worthy of claiming that sort of slander to be wrong. Wow. Only in liberal land.

People can buy into it if they want, but meanwhile, they’re selling their fellow Americans short.

See, if you believe that Obama’s opposition is made up of racists, then it’s a safe bet that you’re in complete agreement with him on American issues. This equates to blind loyalty. And this is what Obama and other progressives are hoping for.

The more you pay attention to these dirty racists, the less you’ll notice about what’s going on in Washington. Racist, in this context, is a word that’s meant to mean liar, fringe member, Fox watcher, uninformed, and other discrediting terms that liberals are using to their advantage at your expense.

The main thing that you’re forgetting is that, unlike uninformed, misguided, liberal blowhards protesting Bush and only Bush, today’s dissenters are protesting actual policy that is leading to massive government expansion.

Obama, the head of the snake he may be, is not the only one. People are worried because it’s also Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Schumer, Boxer, Frank and others who are also calling the shots.

This country is bigger than your infatuation with a man you refuse to judge by a fair standard.

Sorry for being such a racist! I can’t help being white

Holy Bejeesus

2009-08-08T23:52:00.001-07:00

I guess Obama is proud to be an American for the first time maybe.

Not trying to say the guy is unpatriotic. I think he's more of an egotistical blowhard who works through pure symbolism. That doesn't mean he's not American.

But I do find it odd that Obama seems to be anti-Flag saluting, anti-Flag pin, and anti other things that the left-wing zealots claim are foul, backwards traditions, until, of course, he feels the heat.

Hey, it doesn't matter to me that Obama doesn't cover his heart with or for the Flag unless Axelrod reminds him to not alienate people who love America. I've been known that progressive liberalism is anti-American Flag. It's also anti-lower class white people and anti-common sense, among other things. It is what it is.

However, I find it rather symbolic--as Obama, I'm sure, intended--that he wears the Flag pin while welcoming Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Yeah, under pressure and realizing that not every liberal voter is a full-on, America-hating zealot, he has worn the pin previously. He usually wears it when addressing Americans via prime time press conferences. I've seen it on at small town hall meetings, then off again in liberal cities.

NOW he's patriotic. Now he's not. But NOW he's patriotic!

Everybody loves America when you get what you want... which would explain liberal voters, but that's another post.

No big deal? Maybe. But it's the little things you always notice about someone, ya know.

Jackson Again

2009-06-30T07:39:00.000-07:00

Oh, what is this bullshit now!?

I flipped over on the news to watch P Diddy and Alicia Keys, thinking they had some fond memories of MJ, or maybe even a heartfelt goodbye to add, so I wanted to hear from two popular celebrities of the day.

Well, I forgot that Keys is a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist and Diddy can’t stop, won’t stop, uh uh, uh uh, Bad Boy. Remix.

According to some—and this is surprising, even in today’s culture of victims and uber-victims—the way the press is covering Michael Jackson’s death is racist.

Diddy, with an Olbermann-like “Yes” in agreement from Keys, went on to list off white celebrities who weren’t getting the exact same treatment after dying… in his respected opinion.

Keys thinks Biggie and Pac were murdered by the white government because they were going to take over the world. So I guess calling the press racist is the least I could expect from her.

Anna Nicole Smith? What about Heath Ledger? And someone I remember extremely well, Kurt Cobain, was torn to shreds for his drug use. You couldn’t really tell under the scruff, but Cobain was a white celebrity. I’m pretty sure Heath and Anna were too. They weren’t celebrated for their good contributions to society only; their lives were put in context: the good, the bad and the ugly. People were reaching, at least in Heath’s and Kurt’s cases, for understanding. Understanding their lives may have helped to understand their untimely deaths.

But with Jackson, you can’t mention any of his struggles or it becomes racism.

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill also cites racism in MJ coverage, stating that Elvis isn’t remembered as a pill addict. Well, dude, seriously, take a deep breath. The difference here is that Elvis has been dead long enough for the stigma to fade and for his music, rerelease after rerelease, to work wonders on his legacy. Not even a week after Jackson’s death and you expect the same? What kind of water are you drinking up there at Columbia U?

For the first few hours of news coverage, I failed to hear any references to Jackson’s suspected child molestation charges and ultimate acquittal, alleged skin bleaching, the baby dangling incident, the sleep chamber, the Peter Pan stuff, etc. They were reporting on the incident, not the life.

But, yeah, like any news in today’s America, they eventually got to the shocking stuff – the tabloid stuff. But is that racism?

Racism?

For fuck’s sake.

The news in America today is different than the news when Elvis died. So you’ll have to throw that out right now. Elvis, in his entire career, only had about 1/100th of the controversy surrounding Jackson. So, yet another way they’re different (and I don’t mean skin tone, Puffy. Elvis was way darker than MJ! *rolls eyes furiously*).

I don’t get what or who this is being compared to. Sinatra? Sinatra didn’t die under suspect conditions at only 50 years of age. He died an old man, with an entire lifetime to hear about his alleged mob activities.

Michael Jackson’s death is no wagon to hitch up to. This sullies the situation. No shame at all. Leave it to a celebrity to bring the spotlight right back on them.

Next, I guess, white media and its extreme prejudice will be responsible for his death altogether. Gosh, I can’t wait.

Another Legend Gone

2009-06-28T01:39:00.000-07:00

Poor Mike and those who loved him,

I don’t know for certain if there’s a supreme being up there pulling the strings, and as such, I make the personal choice not to subscribe to any religious belief. But to step outside of myself and look at the world in all its mystery, it seems as if somebody sees fit to snuff out our icons, as if reminding us that if they can go, then the rest of us mere mortals don’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hondo.

Yes, I’m a Michael Jackson fan. Although I’m guilty of picking at the legend, throwing the word “wacko” out on occasion, and even having my doubts about his alleged habits with children, I still separate the man’s myths from the cold, hard facts about him. Mike made some of the greatest music on the face of the Earth. And anyone who denies that hasn’t bothered to give it a listen.

If Jackson was nothing more than a simple musician, he wouldn’t warrant the least bit of empathy on my part. But recognizing his contribution to the world on so many different levels, I feel a part of me mourning the loss of a true American icon. Michael Jackson is now, was before, and always will be, the King of pop music.

Apart from the regular surgeries, questionable activity and trendsetting music, I can look at Michael’s life and see parts of me. As just one of many millions, I share bits and pieces of Michael’s early life. The poverty, the abuse, the overbearing father wanting you to fulfill his dream, the loneliness, the doubts and fears – Jackson’s story is, for many, the typical human story.

If he’s remembered for anything, it should be his perseverance. Talent, yes, he had that to spare. But the determination to be his own man; to be what and who he wanted is a lesson to us all.

Regardless of the dark clouds looming over his name, his body of work—his legacy—still shines through brightly. No matter what you think of Michael Jackson, the world is worse off without him.

Better Than Us

2009-05-29T14:40:00.000-07:00

Obama’s a flaming liberal, and there’s not one single indication—outside of his sticking with Bush wartime policies, understandably—to the contrary.

“I don’t want to be in the auto industry,” says Obama with a grin. His actions, however, prove otherwise. “I don’t want to be in the bank industry,” Obama wails at those accusing him of socialistic tendencies. Again, every single piece of evidence, besides his words, suggests the complete opposite. “I just wanna spread the wealth around.” Self explanatory.

Loose rhetoric, constant flip-flopping, massive spending, and a propensity for only doing things pro Obama, hmm, it seems as if Obama is truly an American president – just like the rest. And just like every president before him, the country fully expected his Supreme Court nominee to share his political ideology: radically left.

The Republicans were right in saying that Obama would not and could not pick a white person or a male to fill this role. Never one to prove the right wrong, Obama, with the first pick in the all liberal draft, selects Sonia Sotomayor, a Clinton-nominated circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

When Obama said that “compassion” must play a role in the law, he basically eliminated the Constitution from the equation. This up-for-interpretation brand of judging is nothing more than a way to retool America. And there’s not a person alive who can disprove that claim. But Sotomayor? Why, Barack, why?

Everyone in America understands, to an extent, that more minority faces are needed in high-ranking positions bereft of diversity. But at what cost? I’m happy that America has elected its first racially mixed president, but I firmly believe that we sacrificed our wellbeing to prove that we’re not the pre ‘60s America. And to me, this is the worst thing that could ever happen. Even in Major League Baseball’s color barrier, they didn’t shove the first black guy they could find over the line. Jackie Robinson could ball!

If minorities are needed just to have minorities, it’s understandable… again, to an extent. If the Supreme Court needs a Hispanic woman, so be it. But at what cost? Does the time have to be now? Does the judge have to be Sotomayor? Shoving someone through simply because of their skin color or sex is, at the very least, extremely condescending, and, at the very most, outright dangerous.

Affirmative action be damned, Americans should not be put in harm’s way simply because the secular progressive liberal machine wishes to damn white people for making up over 60% of the population. It’s not the majority’s fault that they’re the majority, just like it isn’t the fault of today’s whites for the atrocities minorities in the past suffered. Hold a grudge much? How hypocritical to fight under the flag of equality while claiming that every “group” needs an identifying face. Umm, this proves equality to be false in the very eyes of those who champion the word.

Why is Sonia Sotomayor an unfit judge to serve on the Supreme Court? For starters, she’s even too liberal for the Supreme Court. They have ruled against her decisions 60% of the time. She also suffers from a little brain lag while talking, saying that, paraphrased, a woman with “her life experiences” should “reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who hasn’t lived the same life.”

Yikes!

Imagine if Alito, whose entire life was picked apart when nominated by Bush II, said those comments. The Supreme Court would, without a doubt, be minus its only libertarian Justice.

A “wise Latina woman” should recognize a double standard – especially an American wishing to judge other Americans. Does she have something against all white males or just the white male judges of the world?

Does she also think she’s better than black male judges? What about Asian male judges? How wise has being a Latina woman made her?

To get a quick glance at this woman’s life, you—being white, black, Asian, etc—may find a lot in common with her. She was born and raised in New York, went to American schools, and led an American life. She’s a Roman Catholic who went to Princeton and Yale. So what’s the difference here between her and Alito? He was born and raised in New Jersey, is a Roman Catholic, and went to Princeton and Yale.

Inconceivable! The only differences I can find are that she’s a woman, he’s a man, and she’s Latina (cue the Charo) and he’s white. Boo! He’s inferior!

But beyond her questionable rulings and belief that she’s better than white males, Sotomayor is also reported to have an incredible temper, sometimes planning speeches weeks in advance to berate lawyers in her courtroom. She’s also reported to have misrepresented the law in cases, one of which is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

But most of all, she’s another flaming liberal that wholeheartedly believes America is a land of freebies. Along with president Obama, the country just drifts further to the left – where personal responsibility fizzles out for the cries of victimhood; where today’s white males are suspected to be 300-year-old stealers of land and people; where it’s okay to take money, so long as it’s not “their” money; where fascism is freedom; and where an overly large, intrusive government is the only thing keeping America from falling into the ocean.

If California isn’t an example of why liberalism is bad for America, nothing is. Say hello to our newest Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, and say goodbye to the America you fell in love with.

Take a Load Off Manny

2009-05-08T05:49:00.001-07:00

“I signed with Los Angeles… when my career was ‘bout half past dead,” sings Manny Ramirez in a blissful moment of nonplussed remorse as he weighs his millions made against his millions lost.

“How did this happen,” wonders his Dominican, blame-riddled cousin. Sorry, cuz, you were simply a victim of Manny being Manny.

After it broke that the sweet slugger tested positive for a drug on the sanctified no-no list, Manny promptly dropped a story about how it wasn’t his fault. Yeah, we’ve heard it all before, with plenty of room to spare. These athletes, as wealthy as they are, visit street corner doctors who perform procedures on them via dark rooms in once-vibrant row houses. Here’s a 2.

Athletes, being told for years to shape up and pay attention to what goes into their bodies, ignore these things because … well, because why? Why, if they love the game so much, would they neglect to see a highly trained team doctor? Why, if they love the millions and fame so much, would they risk not only their current career and salary but also their legacy? There’s a 2.

Here’s your 5.

No, it doesn’t add up. Manny has never been accused of being the sharpest bulb on the street, but he’s no dummy either.

He knew full well that playing possum – ala Randy Moss in Oakland – would buy him a one-way, twenty-five-million-dollar ticket out of Boston. He also knows full well that he’s an aging athlete who habitually gives a halfhearted effort to train to play on the world’s biggest stage – and that’s if he even decides to show up to play at all.

Being a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, I’ll go to my grave with admiration for the third-best hitter I’ve witnessed in my lifetime (Ken Griffey, Jr. and Barry Bonds), but I can’t defend the steroid addict on this one.

I don’t necessarily blame anyone for taking steroids. As glamorous as an athlete’s life is today when he or she’s on top, we’ve all born witness to the unrelenting perils of “life after the game.” It doesn’t take long at all for anyone on top, millions and mansions, to guest star on the Surreal Life for hamburger money.

If it were me, especially in today’s economy, it’s hard to tell what I’d do to ensure I locked up a contract and continued to put up numbers in the Big Show. However, I also believe I’d have the humility and basic decency to admit to my many fans that I did cheat.

Manny, although you’ve always been one of my favorite athletes, you’ve never been much of a man. You’ve let people down continuously since you began your Major League career. Step up and bite the bullet. You don’t owe us shit. But, when it comes to you, a heartfelt apology may do some good.

Of Course it’s Torture… Duh!

2009-04-22T19:57:00.000-07:00

To go or not to go on a witch-hunt: that is the question. The answer is going to be yes. Why? Because “yes” is the only thing President Obama seems capable of saying when pressured by the far-left. If the man has a shred of decency, he will nip this investigation (read: angry mob) in the bud and proceed to more pressing matters.

CIA memos state that we used waterboarding… a lot; sometimes over 100 separate times on terrorists and terror suspects. This is unacceptable to the far-left, who want to not only see Bush put in jail, but hanged in Times Square. Now, for what, exactly, they don’t even know. They’re simply populists taking their cue from the liberals of the day. The same way hate-mongers in the past took their cue from the liberals of yesteryear. New cause célèbre – the same old brainwashed minions.

Other CIA memos state that the information gathered from waterboarding helped to save lives. But masters of hindsight, the far-left zealots insist that a warm cup of tea and a stimulus check would have coerced the truth from the hell-bent-on-America’s-destruction Jihadists. “There’s no way to know if other methods would have worked,” is the line that the left clings to like a crack head clings to his pipe.

The far-left automatically assumes that waterboarding is torture. In fact, an interrogation method doesn’t even have to be close to as uncomfortable as waterboarding to be considered torture. Any discomfort; any method used outside the realm of polite conversation is considered to be reprehensible – even if your children’s lives are on the line.

While captured Americans are decapitated by Jihadists, abiding no such cordial guidelines, we’re forced to bribe and make deals and coddle terrorists, hoping that they give up information. But it all makes sense. Of course waterboarding is torture. The far-left and coddling go together like mashed potatoes and gravy. It’s no surprise.

On last month’s episode of Real Sports with Bryant Gumble, Bernie Goldberg updated a story he ran a few years ago about the movement to remove dodge ball from public schools. “Dodge ball, or any competitive sport, teaches that there are winners and losers,” the anti-doge ball activist proclaimed. “What about those kids who are humiliated when they lose?”

To coddle these children, the uber-liberal masterminds have devised the ultimate plan: Instead of having a 2nd place finisher in the race, do away with the race entirely! Kids shouldn’t compete to begin with. It makes the losers feel bad. Instead, we’ll simply call everyone a winner! And they’ll never have to experience the brutal, inhumane humiliation of being hit in the head with a soft rubber ball or not being the best. … Brilliant!

But on the show, Bernie displayed a woman taking it one step further. Well, one hundred steps, more like it: Instead of playing tag – you know, the game where you touch someone, scream “You’re it!” and they proceed to chase someone else and touch them – kids are NOT, I repeat, NOT, allowed to touch at all! No handshakes, no high fives, no hugs, not even a pat on the back. The game of tag has been replaced with “shadow tag,” a game where you step on another person’s shadow and gently moan, “You’re it... that is, if you don’t mind.”

The idea behind this is noble – if you’re the kid who lost at everything his or her entire life. These adults take the stance that a child competing in the world will cause emotional scarring unless they win, thus there has to be a better way. That way, no child ever has to experience the feeling of loss. The game of tag, in particular, as stated by the woman who’s changed it around, has caused minor injuries that include “bumps, bruises and scrapes.” But with shadow tag, amazingly – and remember, statistics don’t lie – there have been zero injuries! Let’s give it up for neo-Theresa. It wouldn’t surprise me if she thought kids should be breastfed until puberty.

It all ties in together. This insane utopia where every child is always a winner because no child is ever a loser is considered the “progressive” movement in a child’s life – imposed on them, unwillingly, by the force of adults, no less. And speaking of adults, well, they’re to be coddled, too, even if they’re terrorists.

You crazy far-left progressive wing-tips! That’s it; no more dodge ball for terrorists! I’m not sure they’ll cooperate, though. Terrorists may still want to win. Tag, you’re it.

If I Can’t Have You, No One Will!

2009-04-16T01:23:00.000-07:00

The far-left, radical, socialistic, progressive, secular liberal zealots in this country are like Glenn Close from Fatal Attraction! You could easily say that the liberal media in America has Closeitis, but they’ve gone above and beyond boiling bunnies.

During the waning days of the Bush administration, regular people of American started to feel fed up with the direction our country was moving in. They were tired of the spending. They’re fed up with the non-representing government that continuously plays right against left to seek power. We’re all sick to death of the media that perpetuates this put-on battle and drives it home.

So what happened? It all came to a head with a series of Tax Day Tea Parties, where millions of people from across the United States gathered to show their disdain, not for radical leftist government, but for all government.

But Glenn Close can’t have that! She doesn’t care if you’re single; she wants you to be with her! And if you’re not, well, you’re against her. Mrs. Close is an extortionist at heart. If you fail to comply with her standards, you’ll face her wrath. And if you do comply once, you’re forever subservient or silent; no middle ground. For if you speak up against Mrs. Close in any way, your fucking bunny is boiled!

Many so-called reporters from liberal networks – CNN, MSNBC, etc – went to these Tea Parties to report. Well, they didn’t go to report fairly, obviously. They went to paint the attendees as right-wing, white extremists who were all conservative, all Fox watchers, and all bigots who hated Obama for his skin color.

Some hack with a microphone from CNN took it upon herself to conduct debates instead of interviews. After asking questions, she argued with the answers. And after walking away from the man she was interviewing instead of letting him finish his point, she proceeded to tell her viewing audience how the Tea Party wasn’t “really family viewing,” and how it was “anti-CNN” since it was “highly promoted by the right-wing, conservative network Fox.” Great job, Blondie! MSNBC has an hour to fill after Olbermann, and you’re now on the short list.

The problem with the Tea Party coverage is part of a much larger problem. See, there’s absolutely nothing “right-wing” about these Tea Parties. The attendees were and will be just regular people, from all political persuasions, fed up with increasing government, increased spending, and increased taxes! How is that right-wing? It’s American!

Another hack, calling in to a hack on CNN, labeled the protests as a “white thing.” Is it? I guess the caller read the paranoid, delusional memo about the right-wing extremists recruiting more people now. And this is what millions of recruits did: Gather peacefully, displayed their signs and distaste for governmental control, and went home without incident.

If that’s a “white thing,” buddy, anti-war, gay, and other liberal protestors can learn a thing or few. You can’t have a 4-man pro-life protest without someone throwing objects and curse words, and the police eventually having to make an appearance to make sure the crazed liberal lunatics don’t hurt someone. Ironically (or not), those types of protests are hailed as necessary by liberal media and take top billing.

A lot of the faces at the Tea Parties were white, no doubt about that. But the doors were wide open for any and every American to join. There was nary a whiff of discrimination going on. If any minorities, Kool-Aid-drinking liberals or others didn’t want to attend, that says a lot more about their stance than it does the stance of the Parties’ attendees. A lot more.

Liberal media is far more than complacent with these issues, they’re complicit. And anyone who shares the opinion that these Tea Parties are a right-wing phenomenon needs to educate themselves on what’s happening to this country before they pass judgment on its concerned citizens. It’s not a right thing or a left thing, it’s an American thing.

If you’re a firm believer in heavily taxing working people (Yes, middle class will SOON be the upper class. After the “rich” are gone, who pays the freight? You guessed it.), gigantic government in every aspect of your life, and a one-way media that doesn’t allow any opposing view, then that’s great for you! I hope it drastically fails, but you’re always welcome in America. Just don’t paint a false picture of what these Tea Parties are.

Should Americans do this?

2009-04-06T20:43:00.001-07:00

There’s no need to be overly specific in this post. We’re all well aware of the speeches Obama made in Europe. But did he do the right thing?

Regardless of how much Obama is loved or hated in not only America but the entire world, he’s won the Presidential Election and is now America’s Commander in Chief. But surprisingly, the campaign rhetoric hasn’t even slowed down.

At every opportunity, Obama seems to fawn for applause. No one denies the man’s intelligence, and that’s what makes his choice of speeches even more puzzling. He has a chance to read and change the speech, but never seems to exclude any bashing of George W Bush.

Okay, world, we know you hated Bush. And not because he was a bad guy or a tyrant, but because he spoke the truth to you: The axis of evil is a threat to the entire world, and America shouldn’t have to go at this alone. Oh, a lot of countries hated that!

Spain, who was attacked by radical Islam Jihadists, quickly bent to the terrorists’ demands in order to prevent further attacks. Spain’s situation mirrors a lot of what Europe is about. They would rather do what “the bullies” want so they can live peacefully. Well, that isn’t America’s modus operandi. Sorry. When we’re attacked, we attack back. We’ve had a “never negotiate with terrorists” policy for years.

And that brings us back to Obama’s speech. He made sure to include in his talking points-slash-applause lines that Bush’s policies and actions were arrogant and Europe can rest assured that this (Obama’s) administration is different. But why do that now? No other world leaders took the opportunity to bash their predecessors; why would Obama?

Bush-bashing is popular; it’s a gigantic part of the reason that Obama is loved in Europe. He’s never been shy about blaming others. But his blaming went a little too far. Bush was everyone’s punching bag, and he couldn’t care less. He kept America protected since 9/11, while the rest of world has suffered over 13,000 terrorist attacks carried out by radical Islam. I bet you won’t hear those stats on MSNBC or read them in the Times.

Instead of keeping blame aimed at the previous administration like any political liberal does, he took the everyday far-left route and actually held America accountable for sins of years past. Obama conceded that America was wrong for slavery, segregation, and the treatment of Native Americans. And while no one will argue this – I’m not even sure anyone has argued this – it’s not exactly breaking news.

Average Americans have been bending over backwards for nearly 50 years to humbly apologize for atrocities they didn’t commit. Instead of speaking about the good that America has done since then – the good that made it possible for Obama to be elected our 44th president – he adopts the zealots’ approach of blaming America’s history. For what? I’m not sure.

What America did – after abolishing slavery and working tremendously hard to make up for our mistakes – was to bring a better way of life to the entire world. What civilization on the planet was so free before America rose as a superpower? Which country had such immense wealth before America opened a world economy? Where is the praise and the glory and the celebration of America in Obama’s speeches to Europe?

Playing both sides of the fence, if that is indeed what Obama is up to, is false and he should be held accountable. The American Presidency is the most powerful position in the world. To think that the person in this position would apologize for America being America is mindboggling to me.

European countries are a bit peculiar. Even when they’re our allies, most still won’t help. And when they hate us the most, they expect our help. I’m not saying America should turn their backs on countries like France, Spain, and Germany, but we also shouldn’t placate them just so they’ll like us more.

Having to apologize for America’s past and president Bush in order for Europeans to like Obama says more about Europeans than it does America. Simply put, it’s their problem. America doesn’t need to apologize to the world. People come here from around the world to find a better life. I don’t see people lining up to go to Europe to live – especially if they’re ill or need a job.

Have We Sunk This Low?

2009-03-29T00:39:00.000-07:00

American equality: The great paradox. Well, on second thought, maybe I’m brainwashed by believing that all people should be equal; that all Americans should just be Americans; that all Americans should have to work and strive and struggle and triumph the same.

I blame the rich and damn the crybaby “somebody’s-holding-me-back” bums in the same breath. I lash out at, defend, honor, criticize, and show respect to a person based on that person’s merit. To do so for no other reason but the person’s skin color - whether it was for or against that person - would be an act of prejudice.

My vision of America is a land where the individual thinks as an individual. Herd behavior is bad for America. It’s elected Presidents, crucified innocent people, and now, in a sick and twisted protest that cannot be rationalized without lending credibility to 9/11 and JFK conspiracists, it’s glorified a cop-killing rapist shit-bird – who, as it happens, isn’t glorified because of who he was, but rather for the color of his skin.

Al Sharpton arranges protests and strong-arms the owners of the New York Post for a cartoon that could, just maybe, if everyone at the paper is a bald-face liar, depict President Obama – not even directly, as in, by name or any logical reference – as a monkey. Why? Because of the color of his skin. A year previous, he demonized Don Imus for a remark made toward minorities and bullied Imus off the air. Why? Because of the color of his skin.

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

I’m no Imus apologist. There are things you can’t say; he should know better. True, America has freedom of speech. But America is also all too willing to cave in to “victims.” We all know the context here: Rappers get paid millions to say it, Imus gets fired. Why? You guessed it. But this isn’t about dredging up the past. This is about one man’s heinous act of criminality that should be condemned by ALL people, regardless of the color of his skin!

Lovelle Mixon, the dirt-bag criminal who murdered four police officers in cold blood and raped women (DNA evidence proves it), was said to be the “victim” of a brutal Oakland police force that for years has been “brutalizing the African-American community.” So, he’s a hero for raping and murdering. That’s how you take revenge on a so-called corrupt police force in America!

Never take personal responsibility for your own actions. Never try to succeed. Never avoid a criminal life and stay in school. Instead, blame the police (read: whitey) and take a few with you when you go. Radical conspiracy theorists, who feast on the bones of dead black males to indoctrinate innocent and susceptible people with this vile nonsense, line their pockets at their believers’ detriment.

Bakari Olatunji, the radical who organized the protest that proclaimed Mixon a hero, is a charlatan faith healer. People like Olatunji have been citing the cause for years, promising to cure it with demonstrations like these, and the people keep on believing that the men of faith and divine wisdom can fix what’s wrong. As such, they’re trapped in a decades-old box; the rest of the country has evolved, but certain groups, like the one that clings to Olantunji, are trapped in a bygone era – a different place and time in American history. They’re claiming to be the “victims,” and thus demanding jobs be given, demanding criminals stop going to prison, and refusing to accept any personal responsibility.

The problem with this box is that no matter how small it shrinks and how many climb out to see that the rest of the country has changed infinitely for the better, every time the faith healer says the cancer’s back, people jump right back into the box and kneel at the altar.

Thankfully, these protestors only make up a very, very small percentage of Americans. But that’s not quite the point. Maybe I’ll see it tomorrow or the next day or the next week, but as it stands now, I’ve yet to see or hear Al Sharpton speak up against people glorifying a cop-killing rapist. I’ve yet to see anyone in a prominent position to do so denounce and condemn, not only the actions of Mixon, but of the protestors.

Some police are crooked. Police aren’t mythical beings; they’re men and women. As men and women, they’re capable of being racists, bullies, assholes, and raping murderers. But a rogue police officer is handled. To claim it’s a conspiracy does nothing but work to incite riots.

While the liberal media and those like Mr. Sharpton destroy the “other side” for acts of racism, they cannot even so much as admit that venerating a cop killer is deplorable.

Talk about your hypocrisy, irony and mixed messages all rolled into one!

What Did We Do This Time?

2009-03-16T05:06:00.000-07:00

Michael Eric Dyson, an extremely liberal professor and talk show host, appeared recently on Real Time with Bill Maher. Maher, with his usual dose of unfounded liberal tripe, referred to Rush Limbaugh as a racist. Stepping in to thwart such damning accusations, and asking for exact occurrences of racism, Andrew Breitbart was then bombarded by a fast-talking Dyson.

Dyson is an intelligent man, but he formulates his entire rhetoric around one contentious and overused point: White supremacy is solely responsible for the continued struggles minorities – primarily African-Americans – face in America today.

The disproportionate rate of imprisoned African-Americans in this country is a result of racism, per Dyson’s continued talking points. White, conservative people in America – the year of 2009 – are responsible for all atrocities past and present. Just ask Dyson. He has publicly stated that, “You have to step up and take responsibility,” meaning for what white people of centuries past did to Africans by keeping slaves and Native Americans by stealing land.

According to Dyson’s articulation, conservatism and whites are the main culprits of the black community’s woes. What happens to anyone to respectfully disagree with Dyson’s proposed truths about white Americans? They’re accused of using “code words” which, funnily enough, appear as the “real” meaning behind what’s being said and work to only reaffirm his position.

It’s akin to the anger management lady telling you, “You’re angry.” You reply, “No, I’m really not.” She replies, “Yes you are. Saying 'no' is admitting you are.” Before she’s done with you, you’re convinced that you’re angry and need help.

Dyson himself uses the code language he condemns. Among his code words for racism are “culture” and “context.” “In the ‘context’ of everything that’s going on in America,” claims Dyson, “Limbaugh is part of ‘that culture.’”

The satirical part of Dyson’s argument is that it’s delivered so emphatically and with such confidence, yet remains void of validation. He uses such colorful language to paint a picture that he wishes to sell as a self-portrait of America today. However, in his confusing clutter of rhetoric, nothing’s delivered but a few abstract points that he cannot tie together to give any cultural relevance.

Through careful calculation and ample practice with delivery, Dyson has – as many sharing his position have – crafted the ultimate catch 22. If you’re white, you’re to blame. And while he talks overtop of his opponents like Bill O’Reilly on meth, he makes sure to increase the tone of his voice, emitting passion and zeal and always delivering a well-placed zinger at the end to draw applause. His purpose isn’t to debate; it’s to silence the opposition.

Saying, “I’m not a racist” is strictly “code.” What you’re really saying is, “I’m not a racist for the duration of this debate. I only say I’m not a racist to try and prove a false point.”

Yeah. You can see how people in America are still having trouble discussing racial matters. When you’re prejudged as responsible for pain and suffering as a white person who holds conservative values, it’s difficult to convince yourself it’s even worth trying to give your side of the story.

Of course, silence is what Dyson and many other liberals hope for.

What is the truth? Look past the blame being yelled and to the cold, hard facts of the matter. Look at the liberal agenda and how it has created a welfare mindset for many Americans of all races since the ‘60s. Look at empty promises never granted by a corrupt left that’s bled the working man and stolen the passion of the poor.

My only problem with Dyson is that he’s teaching America’s children “his” truths at Georgetown U where he’s a professor of sociology. His voice fuels the disdain and widens the racial gap. He would rather rub salt in the wounds and teach people to blame than work to heal the wounds with togetherness.

It’s disparaging, despicable, and disheartening. It’s a liberal specialty.

A Good Ole Fashion Welfare Cure

2009-03-12T12:19:00.001-07:00

Pop’s, in his infinite wisdom, yarned me to sleep once with a vivid tale of 1960s life at an all-night diner. We’ve all heard the unchanged preamble: “Boy, in my day…” Then the tale really jumps off with enough horseshit to fill a barn. But this story was different. Pop’s didn’t whip ass or get the girl like in Volumes 1 to 194. He wasn’t a hero at all in this anecdote.

The story was simple. And seeing as I had stolen change from his jar earlier that day, it was also timely. He spoke about a typical drunk night; how he had left the car parked at a friend’s house and walked to the diner to sober up. But on this night, he had forgotten his wallet. After eating and drinking some coffee, the whopping $4 tab arrived. With no money to pay, the owner gave him two options: Meet the cops or fill in as dishwasher for the night.

My dad’s 58-years-old and has worked steady and hard since he was 14. He didn’t do those dishes out of fear of the law – he did them out of respect. Even at 19-years-old, he was man enough to work for his worth.

It was the ‘90s by the time I heard the story, and the world had changed drastically. I may have been raised with those solid principles – work to eat – but many more were not.

I also remember my father’s most shameful time. Working in Chemical Make-up in the Avtex plant, he injured his back. Worker’s compensation never kicked in and the amount of hospital bills almost had us kicked out. So, swallowing his pride and wanting to do what was right by his family, he sought government assistance.

Welfare as a last resort: I can understand it. His years of taxes paid earned him the right. Welfare as supplemental income, a substitution for a parent, party money, trade collateral, or a curb to motivation: I’m at a complete loss!

My simple solution to the welfare problem, meaning “free” healthcare, monetary checks or food stamps: Turn the recipients, if able, into dishwashers.

Why not? This, in my view, and arguably the view of any rational thinker, separates the needy from the greedy.

If you want to draw welfare, you have to meet a certain quota. You must volunteer at least 30-hours/week at your local Salvation Army, Red Cross, soup kitchen, homeless shelter, etc. You can still find time only working 30-hours to fill out your allocated number of job applications.

The same goes for healthcare. If you’re drawing it for free, you should be mandated to give 30-hours/week to the same causes or children’s or vet’s hospitals.

Social engineering has been a failure because it creates addicts. Obviously, many honest people benefit from welfare. And not surprisingly, they’ll be the ones who have no problem “working” to receive money. But paying someone to sit on their rear, rewarding children out of wedlock, giving to people who feel they’re owed, and making the payments “no-strings-attached” is defeating welfare’s purpose.

Who would dare call this racist, unjust, or a design to default on social programs? Who could call it such things without proving that they're, in fact, the ones who see these programs this way. And on that admission of guilt, should not the system be rearranged on pure principle?

With this system, more needy people are cared for. The way welfare is set up today all the wrong things are being rewarded. This way, humanity is rewarded and welfare is no longer taken for granted.

It’s high time that all Americans, regardless of race, religion or gender, learn the value of hard work. Think of it as an encouraging deterrent to wasteful spending.

I Can't Believe This is America

2009-02-20T08:02:00.000-08:00

Okay, I’m literally shocked and appalled here. I will seriously join Al Sharpton and march over this blatantly racist injustice.

Have you seen this obviously racist photograph? If this is the first time you’ve seen it, I know you’re as upset as I am over it. It’s calling President Obama an ape. And obviously the creator of this photo only likens him to ape because of his African ancestry. What other reason could there possibly be? People take things too far sometimes.

Don’t hand me no shit about, “Oh, it’s just a photo” either. There’s no explaining around this picture’s meaning. This type of stuff should not be tolerated in America. Saying that it’s no big deal makes you a part of the problem – not the solution.

Even with all the hatred – and cheap loafers – thrown at George W. Bush over the years, people would never, ever liken a white man to a monkey. He’s white, so it wouldn’t even make sense!

I don't even get why anyone would try equating a person with a monkey unless it was meant to be racist.

The phrases like “A monkey could do that” or “He doesn’t have monkey-sense” don’t fit, either. When people use a monkey in any correlation with an African-American, it’s obviously racist. So don’t hand me the “not the same meaning” story!

That Obama picture is one of the most racist things in recent years. People should be absolutely ashamed.

Oh. Never mind then. That’s okay.

Holder Said What!?

2009-02-18T22:54:00.000-08:00

In a speech yesterday, Eric Holder, the United States’ 82nd and first African-American Attorney General, claimed that America was a “nation of cowards.

Well, I’ll be plucked! That’s the pot calling the kettle…. Oh, never mind. I can’t finish that sentence due to far-left politicians like Holder who have single handedly brought the country to the brink of politically correct insanity.

Holder’s audacious declaration is that we, the American people, live in “racially protected cocoons.” Ironically enough, Holder’s claims could not have been made by a white politician. Why? Holder’s compatriots would quickly deem such a comment racist and the far-left media madness would ensue.

Has Holder looked at some of the causes of this voluntary segregation? In the few decades that the light of racial equality has sporadically fluctuated on the horizon, government has dictated terms of “togetherness” infinitely more so than the actual people urged to action.

The far-left’s fight to make any insensitive comment or even the slightest action towards any minority a version of a hate crime has worked to keep race as something we view as “different.” Having one standard for one man and another standard for the next takes away from the man and adds to his feigned dissimilarities and susceptible vulnerabilities for crimes of generations past.

When you treat someone as different, they feel – everyone else around them feels – that they are different. This is something that cannot be changed by calling people “chicken shits.”

Through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, “races,” people who looked, spoke, acted, and ate just like each other was the norm. It was comfortable; it was home. Your particular race was all you knew.

The idea of feeling comfortable around someone of another race would come naturally, eventually, if not for our country’s insistence that races are different and should be treated as such.

A feeling that you’re “different” as an individual can go a few ways: Indifference, worthlessness, superiority, or anger. Segregation isn’t a condition created by the populous - it’s created by the powers that be.

Racism is taught, and the entire world’s a classroom. Act accordingly.

Holder, we’re not cowards. Your party asked for this and now they got it.

A LIFE THREATENING POST: READ IT OR DIE

2009-02-14T17:14:00.000-08:00

Does Richard Branson know more about space than Dr. Michio Kaku?

Which one would you rather have in your corner if a Hollywood-esque meteor strike was coming and threatened our very existence?

Yeah, but think about it!
________________________________________________________________________

Headline: In a surprising and excruciatingly dangerous distortion of common sense today, mass hysteria created by the proclaimed “eminent” destruction of Earth prompted the public to hold wide-scale riots and demand a hero be brought forth to save the public.

The UN and other World Leaders relented to public protest and named playboy adventurist billionaire Richard Branson to lead the Earth-saving charge after more than half of the world’s citizens cast their vote for the suddenly self-imposed candidate.

According to renowned futurist and theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku, “Branson is a good guy, but he doesn’t know the first thing about how to change the trajectory of a celestial object with the mass of Mt. Kilimanjaro traveling at over 150-thousand miles per hour.”

Kaku would go on to give his own theory about how to distort the gravity of a meteorite, thus causing it to miss the Earth. Kaku added, “This object will most likely miss us by more than 300,000 miles, anyway, but it’s always good to have a plan in place.” However, we’re not supposed to print that here. Branson’s supporters own this publication.

Many other of the world’s foremost experts on space agree with Kaku; however, the public insists that Branson’s “we’re not okay” slogan is what’s needed in these drastic times. Branson’s plan is to throw a massive surplus of bombs at the object, hoping to eventually slow it down enough to tow away with a tugboat-like spacecraft.

Branson warns that if we do not give up every bomb in the world arsenal to attack this object, we all face extinction. Kaku claims that “throwing nuclear bombs” at the object may inadvertently cause it to jump course enough to collide with the planet.
________________________________________________________________________

Thankfully, this stuff only happens in movies! Real life people on this planet would never be so utterly stupid to heed the words of someone popular over someone skilled in their particular field!

We’re lucky that people are smart and would never, ever hand over the keys of their future to a celebrity while ignoring the wisdom of individuals who know, excel, and have even won awards in their respective field of expertise!

Thank goodness people are smart! Otherwise, well, we would all be fucked!

FUCKKKKK!!!!

A Night with the Creeps

2009-02-11T08:56:00.001-08:00

Is anyone else getting that creepy feeling? I’ve been gearing up for my new writing job this past week, so I’ve had some free time on my hands to surf around the Net and TV to check out the latest happenings in Washington.

I’m really starting to get weirded out over this stuff. I try to follow the bill, bailout, whatever the fuck you call it, as closely as I possibly can. I understand that Obama does plan to offer some immediate relief to middle-class families around the country. Well, I commend him for doing so – even though that’s akin to commending a man for not fucking the secretary behind his wife’s back. But judging by recent Presidents we’ve had, that should be commended also. He’s the President. It’s his damn job to provide relief.

What I’m not thrilled about is this Area 51-like secrecy. Does it exist or is it just conspiracy theory fodder? From what I understand about this stimulus/bailout is that some Americans will receive immediate monetary relief, some companies/corporations will receive massive amounts of money on spec and with fingers crossed that they don’t fire employees, and the rest of the insane billions will go to Global Warming research that could theoretically help America 50 years down the road and other Pelosi-worthy causes.

The Senate’s bill added an extra $20-billion to the House’s bill, and before it reaches its final state, people are going to cut out and add and rearrange some more.

Does no one have the right idea for how to pull this thing through? I mean, fuck, these people are voted into office for situations like this. To me, this is no better than FEMA fucking up during Katrina’s aftermath. These politicians are in place for this shit. Republican, Democrat, Independent, it doesn’t matter – something needs to go smoothly here.

Dems want so many billions for schools; Reps want so many billions for AMT - Pelosi and Reid simply want the thing through quickly before their interests meet the scissor squad. I even think somebody’s trying to designate $3-billion for octuplet mom!

It’s supposed to pass soon, but I have a bad feeling about what’s going to happen in the coming months. I try to stay positive, but I can’t wrap my mind around spending this much money during a recession.

Every Obama supporter I speak to tells me the same thing: “The man knows what he’s doing. Obama is smart enough to make it work. He’s the right man for the job. Have faith in him. He doesn’t have to tell you exactly what the money’s for – just trust that he knows what needs to be done.”

I smile and say, “Okay.” These people, by the way, being the same people who never believed a single world President Bush said. It’s a stark contrast, to say the least. Going from believing absolutely nothing the former President said to wholeheartedly believing every single bit of rhetoric the current President says.

It would really put my mind at ease if he actually said something. This “we must act now” horseshit doesn’t come close to explaining HOW his plan for economic recovery is going to work.

My fingers are crossed, but I can’t shake this bad feeling.

You Are a Right-Winger!

2009-02-11T03:08:00.000-08:00

I don’t care how cool it is to be liberal - you’re a conservative Republican at heart. No? Hey now! Don’t give up on me just yet. I can prove it. But first, you have to admit the truth to yourself. Don’t worry about anyone else finding out. Your secret is safe with me.

America’s problems are the problems of American citizens. No matter how decisively you stand in opposition, you won’t deny that you’re an American … will you?

We’ll look at problems and then solutions. Simple enough, right? You be the judge.

Problem: Energy crisis in America and dependence on foreign oil.

Solution One: Drill for oil in our own territories. Tap into the natural gas. Develop clean coal technology to help fight against Global Warming while heating our homes with the abundance of coal we possess. Bring in more nuclear power.

Two: Spend billions on Global Warming research but build/do nothing. No drilling, no tapping into natural gas. No pipelines that might inconvenience animals. Shut down coal plants and stop the pursuit of widespread nuclear power. Drop billions on experiments and quit on every current American outlet for energy.

Problem: Current financial crisis that’s affected nearly everyone in America on some level.

Solution One: Immediately save and create jobs by giving business owners incentives to hire. Stop the needless spending during a horrific recession and pump money into the economy by issuing tax relief so that people can save and invest and spend.

Two: Heavily tax business and give tax breaks to a lot of people who don’t make money. Spend nearly a trillion dollars during a recession to buy into companies so government can dictate terms in the future. Spend more and tax more and hope the economy bounces back. Spend some on “worthy” causes and hope unnecessary spending and contributions go ignored.

Problem: Terrorist organizations’ hatred for America and her citizens.

Solution One: Fight to abolish terror by any means necessary. No deals, no bending to the will of the enemy, just fighting for freedom against an enemy the same way America was built.

Two: Pretend there are no terrorists. Tell the public these people are angry because of American influence and cater to their needs, give them an OJ-like trial, and ignore them like the school bully in hopes they’ll leave us alone.

Problem: Illegal immigration and the effect millions of unregistered people have on America’s economy.

Solution One: Protect the borders. Work hard to weed out the “bad element” of immigration and let good, hard-working immigrants labor their way towards citizenship. Create venues so illegal immigrants can register, work taxpaying jobs, and be honest citizens in thriving communities.

Two: Give every illegal immigrant – regardless of their records or employment status – amnesty and then let them share in America’s welfare system. Let more illegal immigrants have more jobs that would normally go to citizens during this economic crisis. Don’t create taxpayers – create voters. Ignore crime and chalk it up to “racial profiling.”

Problem: Religious principles going the way of the Dodo.

Solution One: Inject the ideology of Jesus and religion in schools and throughout the country. Teach the sanctity of love, faith and family. Follow a set of principles that mean something and work to prevent lawlessness. Hope that religious principles can instill a sense of responsibility in young people so that crime and single, young and unplanned motherhood rates drop. Hold one’s self to a higher standard so that conviction and love take precedence over selfishness, ignorance and violence.

Two: Do away with any such notion of religion in a public venue. The word “prayer” has no place in school. It’s okay to do nothing while an increasing voter base on the left pushes to do away with Christmas and any remnants of religious principles.

Problem: Poverty in general, including during the recession.

Solution One: Work to create jobs and manufacture more goods in America – creating even more jobs and helping the economy to thrive. Increase welfare for those who truly need it and pull away from people who have means to work but choose not to. Don’t punish wealth; instead, let wealth create industry and let industry create jobs. Heavily monitor the top echelon of business to ensure unrelenting greed doesn’t cause damage.

Two: Give everyone – willing to work or not – welfare generated from the revenue of the top 10 or so percent of earners in the country. Force lenders and lend and creditors to credit, even though the recipient cannot afford to repay the debt. Let companies do their business unmonitored, and then attempt to nationalize when things go awry. Create no incentive to work, but encourage sloth by rewarding it. Punish success and entrepreneurship and blame it for America’s current state of affairs.

Don’t forget what matters to you in two years.

Stand in Whose Way?

2009-02-07T13:05:00.000-08:00

I’m an on-again-off-again poster at a community forum called MyLot. The tone there basically reflects the tone all over the country: Obama is the messiah, anyone standing in his way is evil and racist, and anyone not supporting his every move must want to see the country collapse.

MyLot is just one of the many places to have this type of abundant support for Obama. People should support Obama, he’s our President. In fact, people who don’t should be utterly ashamed of themselves! However, when it comes to the hypocrisy involved here, I almost want to puke.

The chatter today sounds a little something like this: “Get behind Obama. Pray for him, support him, and have faith in his decisions. He is our President and needs your support.”

I in no way disagree with that at all. I’m lending my full support to help in any way I possibly can as an individual. But I can also see why this makes many more people just like me want to punch the walls and beat the holy hell out of some liberals.

The chatter yesterday, being spewed by the very same people giving the chatter today, sounded like this: “George W. Bush is not my President. He’s a fear mongering, hate-filled, racist, stupid redneck hick who should be hanged swiftly after immediate impeachment. I won’t support him.”

Umm, okay. So, let me get this straight. Now that you have the candidate YOU wanted in office, you’re ready to play ball and be a good American? You’re ready to do your patriotic duty and NOT stand in the way of progress? You’re ready to fight for change now? Well, my little American buddies, where the fuck were YOU for the past 8 years?

It’s this blame game I can’t stand. “Republicans are evil! They caused the housing bubble to burst! They’re fighting a losing war against an imaginary enemy!”

Not only is none of this garbage true, as anyone who cares to find out for themselves instead of believing MSNBC can tell you, but it’s so ridiculously unbecoming of an American that some of these hypocrites deserve nothing less than a prison sentence in my humble opinion.

Only participating in the betterment of your country once things start to go your way is childish! It’s detrimental to the fundamental principles of America’s democracy. It’s criminal! Turning your back on America because the President isn’t “cool” is NOT the same thing as boycotting American Idol because they sent your favorite would-be pop deity home!

The latest line I’ve heard from liberals is that Republicans are going to stand in Democrats’ way and impede progress simply to see Obama fail.

What does that get Republicans except another term’s worth of bashing from the vast majority of all media; another few years of hate spewed in their direction from an ill-informed public?

Democrats can afford to do that with the whole of Hollywood and America’s media empire in their back pockets. And they did it blatantly for the past 8 years. The Republicans, on the other hand, cannot afford to make one false move. If anything, Republicans are in a position where they’re basically forced to follow Obama’s lead.

No, libs, I’m sorry. Republicans aren’t going to stand in our President’s way. Now, they might try to slap some sense into Pelosi and Reid, but Obama has free reign to be the best President he can be for the next 4 four years.

There have been 8 long years of finger pointing already, and I’m extremely happy to say that the blame ship has sailed!

You have the reigns now, liberals. Instead of doing nothing or doing nothing right, let’s see if you can handle doing something for the country instead of your self-interested party mates.

So far, we’re off to a horrible start with more pork than the Smithfield plant and unabashed catering to far-left interests. If you don’t do something for AMERICA soon, the citizens will wise up and the party will be over. No amount of celebrities or news specials or commemorative plates will sway a starving public on a Democratic watch. People are not that stupid, much to your dismay.

Let’s get it moving, already! Nobody or nothing’s standing in your way but your own self interests. Remove them and watch the country magically heal

UPDATE: Post was written when first gigantic bill was still in formation. Since, there has been much more unrelenting spending. I'm now begging someone to stand in the way!

The Evil Equation

2009-02-06T07:28:00.000-08:00

Is the world racist or misunderstood? I can’t be sure, but I’m personally leaning towards misunderstood. Now, I understand fully that racism does exist. I also understand that racism isn’t a condition of one particular race’s disdain for another, but that of mankind as a whole. That being said, there are many instances when situations and/or people are labeled “racist” unjustly, and racism is allowed to sprout from unfertile soil.

I was flipping around the tube the other day, trying to catch some Arizona Cardinals press conference footage. Being on the losing end of the Super Bowl, it’s no wonder I couldn’t find any. Instead, I found an interesting local program on Comcast that was ripping the NFL for not having enough African-American coaches.

The NFL is a bit tricky because they’re a business, thus they don’t have time to play around with racial issues like most of us do. If they’re pressured, they need to act. The only color they’re interested in is green – and the only thing that maters is W’s.

Taking a trip in the way-back machine, the NFL was racist. Yes. The entire country discriminated against every race but whites. Yes. But at what point are we comfortable enough, not so much to “move on,” but at least admit that not every slight against another race is based on that person’s skin color? America has progressed further in 4 decades than the rest of the world has in 4 centuries. You don’t advance like that through blatant and overabundant discriminatory practices.

Back to the NFL: If you were to replace people with numbers, you can better gauge the tone here. In order for the NFL to reflect to populous in America, here’s what’s needed in terms of head coaches: 22 White; 4.1 Black; 4.3 Hispanic; 1.3 Asian (Based on a 2006 report). Well, it looks like our Hispanic and Asian friends have the short end of the stick. But I don’t see people fighting to secure their positions.

Of course, in America, everything (emphasis on EVERYTHING) is “black and white.” In the 2006 census report, it’s listed that 66% of citizens are white, while 13% are black. Already, we see a conflicting number in the NFL. If America were to truly employ “equal” opportunity, the makeup of the NFL would reflect the populous accurately.

After I thought of all this, I got to thinking, “What is ‘equal opportunity’?” To me, equal means proportional – because, if you were to hire on a 50-50 ratio, then the majority becomes the vast minority, thus discriminating blatantly against people with larger numbers.

Look at it another way: Say you have a wheel – ala The Price is Right – with 100 spaces. 66 of those spaces have a “W,” 13 have a “B,” 14 have an “H,” and the other 7 have an “A,” “NA,” etc.

If you spun said wheel and consistently hit “B” more than or just as frequently as “W,” the only logical conclusion is that the wheel is rigged. Yes, this is a dry way to look at people, but numbers are universal and incapable of discrimination.

The word “minority” means “an amount forming less than half of the whole.” I know it sounds insensitive, but when the smaller number is given precedence over the larger number in order to create “balance,” it creates an even larger imbalance.

A person – regardless of race, gender, creed, religion, etc – should be judged based on their merit. If a person has what it takes to coach, let them coach. Moreover, if the owner/boss/person in charge of hiring prefers a particular individual, who’s to say that he or she is making this choice based on race? To assume so and pressure the position until it’s filled by the candidate of your choice simply tips the scales further in the other direction.

Little things like this, in my opinion, are working to keep America known as a racist land. They’re working to fuel the disdain held by the qualified individuals passed over. Everyone knows that fairness has never been present in America, but a lot of these NFL-like pressure cookers just seem to be retribution based on a racist past.

If that’s what it is, the least that could happen is for the truth to be told. If we’re sharing in “get-back,” at least call it what it is and let’s stop pretending that America is fighting to be equal.

We’re actually raising children today under the premise that everything is a bit more kosher in the 2000s. Is it?

Shoo-In or Must Win?

2009-01-31T22:56:00.000-08:00

What does it take to get into the Hall of Fame? For each sport, we see the criterion is a bit different, but ultimately the same. Take baseball for example (MLB). You don’t always need the “numbers” for entry; being a hero, a popular figure, a trendsetter, or an all-around good guy can win your entry. Jackie Robinson was elected to baseball’s Hall of Fame – rightfully so – not for having the big-league numbers, but for officially shattering the color barrier which kept African-Americans from competing with their white counterparts on an equal level for decades.

The same sytem that voted Robinson in continues to keep Pete Rose out. Granted, Charlie Hustle isn’t an innovator – he isn’t a moral pillar to an admiring public – he’s simply the epitome of what a good baseball player should be, on the field. Rose was automatic during his years, recording a whopping 4,256 hits in 14,053 at-bats. Of course, the “gambling” question comes up. Just like Mark McGwire’s shunning on the steroids issue – it seems to be more about personal opinion than numbers.

The old adage rings true here: Deserve never deserved anything.

The trouble with the Hall of Fame in baseball, as well as football (NFL), is that writers – introverts whom, for the most part, have no real connection to the respective sport for which they vote – decide who’s in and who’s out.

Since only the “cool kids” are eligible, barring a Robinson-like game-changer, does Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner stand a chance?

Warner’s story is much like the fictional Rocky Balboa’s heartwarming tale of journeyman whipping-boy turned champion. Warner was always a skilled quarterback, bouncing from league to team and bench to start for the better part of his twenties. He attended the Green Bay Packers’ training camp after graduating from Northern Iowa in 1994, only to be released shortly after.

After a short coaching stint, Warner became one of the Arena Football League’s best players, earning First Team honors in 1996 and 97. Football’s underdog puncher would get his chance in 1998, however, as the St. Louis Rams signed him as a backup to their franchise egg carrier, Trent Green.

After Green was injured during the preseason, Warner took the reigns and put up one of the top-5 seasons in NFL history, recording 4,353 passing yards, 41 touchdowns, and completing 65.1% of his passes. The Rams annihilated the NFC competition, and earned a trip to Super Bowl XXXIV where, behind Warner’s 414 passing yards, the Rams defeated the Titans.

Warner and the Rams made the Super Bowl again (XXXVI), but lost the game on a last second Adam Vinatieri field goal. After that game, Warner’s performance began to suffer, and injuries forced him out of the limelight and into obscurity, eventually signing with the New York Giants and subsequently landing with the Arizona Cardinals.

Warner only played 10 games with the Cards in 05 and was set to be replaced by USC hotshot Matt Leinart. After the “Golden Boy” from the Trojans proved to be flirting with a Ryan Leaf-like bust, Warner was given permanent control of the Cardinals for the better part of 07, and all of 08.

This year’s NFL Playoff run by the Arizona Cardinals is one of the most impressive in league history. They’re set to take on the Pittsburgh Steelers tomorrow night in the Super Bowl, and you can bet that Warner is as cool as a cucumber as he prepares to cement his legacy.

His play as a quarterback – minus Brady and Manning, two of the game’s hottest – is among the league’s best in the new millennium. Warner is a natural talent with a big arm and a field general’s demeanor.

However, as well as he’s played this year and in his glory years with St. Louis, his Hall of Fame status remains unclear. Some say he’s earned it, while others say he’s not even close. Personal opinion is always injected. But in a single game, Warner holds the keys to the gridiron lock.

If the Arizona Cardinals defeat the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLIII, Kurt Warner will undoubtedly be a shoo-in for the Hall. What a difference a game makes.

But in a sport where it takes a team to win, is it fair to judge a quarterback’s legacy by the number of championships he’s earned? Warner has every intangible a QB needs to succeed. Win or lose, let’s hope Warner’s injury-plagued middle years don’t deny his spot alongside other all-time talents.

Quick Football Rant

2009-01-03T21:01:00.000-08:00

Okay, the San Diego Chargers are the luckiest team in the history of the planet. That's first. Second is the fact that they're the most gutless team I've ever seen in my life. Their "superstar" player (Tomlinson) can't handle big games. He pulls a Vince Young and takes a seat when the pressure's on. The entire defense lays down and dies unless their punter pins the offense inside the 5 yard line. And with 3 miracle bounces (what are the odds!), Peyton was playing with paint as his back the entire night.

As a tried and true, 20+ year fan of the Oakland Raiders, I know all too well about the cowardly Chargers (AFC West rivals). They've always been a team willing to just wither up and go away unless every break out there goes their way. Whoever they play next week (think it's the Steelers), they'll get beat... decisively. You heard it here first. They don't have enough heart to ever, ever, forever, ever, plus 2 years, make it to the Super Bowl.

I feel absolutely horrible for Peyton Manning that his Colts' defense couldn't stop Darren Sproles. The Colts also had to contend with one-sided refs, but the refs are always going to side with the Chargers in this situation, so the phantom holds and the far too impressive spots are considered granted in my view. There's no way around this. Refs have always been crooked. As a Raiders fan, I also know all too well about referee habits. And I defy anyone to dispute that and claim that officiating is "fair."

That aside, I'm honestly sad that a no heart, cowardly performance by a decidely mediocre team was enough to defeat the hottest, MVP (Peyton Manning) carrying team in the NFL. Any given... Saturday ... I guess.

The only player on the Chargers side that even attempted to play football was Sproles. And not to take away from his 300+ yard day, but he's the flash-in-the-pan type of small guy (5 foot 6) that eventually fades into the abyss once players start looking for him on the field. Remember the dude from KC who returned all those kickoffs the other year? Yeah, I can't remember his name either. I do remember he was something like 5-6.

So, live it up, Chargers. You're not going any farther than this. You're a chump team that's played 1 good game all year, and this wasn't it. Sure, you get to win and move on. But don't get used to it. Until Tomlinson runs out of the Wizard's office with a heart, and your wide outs stick to their routes, you'll never win the big one.

Oakland Raiders forever! Death to the Chargers!

Next year predictions: Raiders 10-6, division champs. Chargers 8-8... not good enough this time 'round.

Democracy: Only Good enough if you Win

2008-12-21T05:05:00.001-08:00

After 232 years of American democracy, we’re starting to see some real change. It’s true; just look around your own town – however small it may be – and you’ll notice that the future has a strong, choking grip around the neck of a disintegrating past.

However hopeful you are that previously accepted values stay firmly in place throughout America, you’re probably starting to realize that it only takes a few to change the many. Is this what democracy is? Democracy, in theory, is a form of government in which the power is held by the people – majority rules. Sadly, it remains only a theory – an ideology – that the majority is willing to accept, but the voices of the exiguous naysayers cause hearts to bleed profusely.

Strong-minded people with a sense of reality – a taste of the entire plate, not just a selected side – realize that you won’t always be given everything you want. These people comprehend the fact that, in America, their vote for Ralph Nader may only make it more possible for another politician to win. Discontent, they may be, but these results are swallowed with a teaspoon and sugar, and life continues to spin.

People on the other side of this coin have no patience for such things. Their idea of democracy is twisted and jaded. These “sore losers,” if you will, put on their protesting boots and stomp up and down the wrong sidewalks, intimidating the wrong people, until America takes notice and decides to forfeit democracy for special interest.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is an example of the influence held by the diminutive suffrage. Proposition 8 protestors’ terrorized white churches, assaulted religious people, and raged through the country after a majority vote put a ban on gay marriage. Instead of upholding the vote as he had originally planned, Brown decided it was unconstitutional and is now urging courts to overturn the voted-for-and-passed decision.

Does this not spit directly in the face of America’s political structure? Does it not also send a horrible message out about America’s social structure? If all you need to do is complain to get your way, what’s the point of having a democracy in the first place?

Who’s to blame for letting special interest groups rise to indestructible prominence in America? Better yet, who’s set to muffle the voice of one to hear the voices of a dozen? Does anyone in a position of power have the courage to uphold America’s democracy?

You can’t put the blame directly on the shoulders of homosexual protestors here, as they’re far from the only special interest groups continuing to move directly to the front in a single-file line of millions. The first special interest group catered to pushed open the door of forceful change, and now some people keep an extra magic marker in the closet just in case they need to cancel Christmas, save a murderer while killing a baby, or reverse a majority-passed vote.

Maybe this stems from a spoilt childhood. These people could have grown up never having to make a sacrifice; never having to decipher their needs from their wants. If they didn’t get their way, a foot-stomping, eye-bawling fit would compel daddy to save the day. Who actual knows the rhyme or reason; the only blatantly evident fact is that far-left special interest groups are wholly different from middle-American people who choose to exist within their country’s framework, as opposed to forcing their country to exist within theirs.

I say: “Stand up, Americans!” If the few can do it, the many can do it easier. If a miniscule population of homosexual men, women and whatevers can complain and gripe their way to change, so can we.

If they can have a vote overturned, then what’s stopping us? They want Proposition 8 done away with; how about we band together and have Barack Obama’s election overturned? Could it happen? If it’s good for goose…

If all one must do to override democracy is assault a few innocent people and spew an imbecilic case on any one of a dozen all-liberal news networks, then we can definitely do the same thing and have Obama’s election overturned. Why? Because, that’s apparently what democracy is.

A New Damage Done

2008-12-11T23:39:00.000-08:00

People! Why do you oppose Christmas to the point of wanting it cancelled? There has to be something in it for you – has to be. There’s no justification to do away with the holiday simply because you’re an atheist. Nobody’s that shockingly secular, right … right?

It’s not enough that the absorbed and oblivious have every right to freely parade around and oppose anything on a whim -- they’re also catered to in our country. With Chopra, the dimwitted Hollywood movement, and the rest of the self-proclaimed “advanced political” great thinkers – all with the mistaken meaning of ‘liberal’ etched into their frontal lobes, causing them to become left-leaning zombies – America is no longer a one-size-fits-all coat; it’s more of a custom-tailor shop.

If you, as a mere individual, disapprove of something, you have every right to protest. Men and women let blood and generations drowned in sorrow to give you that right. As a free-thinking adult with that right, however, shouldn’t your protests actually mean something for not only you, but the betterment of the country? Doesn’t the term “pick your battles” apply?

It’s endlessly ironic that people whom oppose traditions and holidays and protest freely to get their point across are also the same people whom oppose American influence and blame our culture for the world’s hostility. America, by the way, is the same country that allows such disdain for her colors and high levels of frequently misplaced rage to live safely within her borders.

But why Christmas?

Christians, primarily Caucasian Christians, bear the brunt of all ridicule because they’re the only one’s left in the country without a liberal support group. White Christians are the only safe haven for mindless minions to pointlessly protest. Think about it: You can’t oppose the Jews. Heaven forbid you stepped in the way of Kwanzaa. Muslims in America celebrate Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha. Where is the opposition? Isn’t the idea is to combat religion as a whole?

No one is forcing your hand here, guys. Christmas isn’t shoved down your throat. When you hear “Merry Christmas,” and suddenly break out your rarely ridden, borrowed horse and ride in throwing coal at the townsfolk, you have larger issues than secularity, my friend. Yours is a problem of a much larger magnitude.

You don’t have to watch the cooking channel if you don’t like it! Click the remote! But to think you can do away with food is ridiculous.

I’m convinced it has nothing to do with being “secular.” In fact, if anything, secularity in America is the largest growing religion in the past 2,000 years.

Going around, gathering up other atheists, working to create a sign – a symbol of your devotion to atheism – and wanting to place that directly adjacent to a nativity scene … At the very least, you’re part of some weird cult – and we all know how they end up. Beam me up, Davey.

You reject religious deities, yet appoint your own. You stomp on someone’s right to celebrate the birth of a man who introduced and upheld a certain moral code; a man who abided accepted religious tenants and practices. To thwart this, you introduce your own moral code, tenants and practices. Your religion is hypocrisy, and your legions relentlessly kneel at the altar of denial.

It’s only Christmas! Christmas isn’t like you. Christmas doesn’t discriminate. Christmas doesn’t demand that you show your Jesus card at the door. Christmas is a holiday for everyone to reflect on life, love, and experience joy and warmth.

What’s so bad about Christmas that you find yourself offended? Is it the carolers who go around signing? The Salvation Army Santa ringing the bell for disenfranchised children? Maybe it’s the bright lights on the tree, or even the smell of sugar cookies and eggnog. It couldn’t simply be the name, could it?

Could it just be that you’re an asshole? I would call you a Grinch or Scrooge, but those terms belong to Christmas… bah-fucking-humbug.

Deepak versus Tupac

2008-12-03T15:51:00.000-08:00

The good V do-gooder gap in this world is widening. People who feel it’s necessary to extract information from a terrorist will go to great lengths to save innocent people from an attack. People who feel terrorists should be given lawyers and put through America’s flawed justice system believe that terrorists will never attack regardless, so information isn’t important.

A lot on this side believe wholeheartedly that George Bush was behind 911. Why? Fuck only knows. A lot on this side believe that terror can be classified with numbers, and with more people dying from smoking and automobile accidents, terror isn’t really “real.” A lot on this side believe that America’s to blame for terrorist attacks in the first place… enter Deepak Chopra.

His is a stance of peace, love and misunderstanding. To put it simply, the big D believes that if we just give peace a chance (it worked for Lennon, right? What he wouldn’t give for some bodyguards in hindsight), terrorists will leave us alone. If we talk to them kindly, forgive them for killing our citizens, and embrace their hostility with open arms, they will love us and we’ll run through whimsical fields of weeping willows while holding hands and whistling a rendition of Kashmir.

Does his approach work? You don’t have to venture far out of your comfort zone to witness examples of this brand of “love” spitting in the face of those who implement it. Want some proof of this disastrous method? Simply look at today’s children.

I’m twenty-eight-years-old, and came up the same way my father came up: “Pick your own switch and bend the fuck over if you step out of line. Are you crying? I’ll give you something to cry about!” Hey, you better believe I walked the line. But that kind of strict upbringing is considered “so 1950” (he says mockingly while rolling his eyes) and will land a parent in jail today.

Instead, parents for the past three decades have been placating their unruly children. Johnny’s out of line? That’s okay; sit Johnny down, look him in the eyes, and repeat after me: “Johnny, I know you disapprove of us as parents. Truthfully, we’ve failed you. And, for that, we apologize. Instead of grounding you, we want to forgive you and ask that you forgive us. If you must use drugs, have sex, skip school, or any other no-no, we would greatly appreciate it if you let us be a part of your life.”

Holy *($(@^! Can you honestly blame Johnny for taking full advantage of that and ending up on Maury Povich’s Boot-Camp show? Kids are given leashes longer than Barack Obama’s “favors owed” list and are expected to actually succeed in the world. They’re expected to display honesty and integrity and know right from wrong. These kids are beyond sheltered – they’re in their own little bubbles that no authority figure will pop, lest they be considered a child abuser or neglectful parent.

So, Deepak, Mr. philosopher extraordinaire, if this brand of more love instead of ANY punishment can’t even work on a kid – a child who’s grown up with it from day one in hopes of having their minds molded to be good, loving people – how is it expected to work on grown men; terrorists who follow a code set in stone by their own twisted religious principles? How does “love thy terrorist” work? Is it to simply find people who agree with you, thus lending you credibility? Make another Mike Myers movie – that’s the best way to get Hollywood on your side.

It doesn’t take much to be a “philosopher” in this age. Simply spout off some recycled ideals of peace and growth that realists know can never be implemented in the world. You’ll immediately be looked at as a misunderstood genius by some far-left thinking wing-tips. They’ll bend over backwards to do your bidding.

There was even a guy on Hannity and Colmes promoting a book that suggests, instead of interrogation, you talk to a terrorist and ask for information after becoming his pal. Hey, it worked once. It really did. And I’m for whatever works. But finding one defective link in a strong chain of terrorists doesn’t mean that the same slight pull will continue to cause the chain to break. I would root for this guy’s methods, but he’s looking to do away with ALL coerced interrogation tactics! Maybe he plans to bring Deepak into the room with him and have a group hug.

If you sympathize with terrorists because of their poor, distraught homeland, you’re free, as a citizen of the United States of America, to flee our land and move there to humble yourself. But letting go of our stronghold and becoming the embracers of evildoers is a mistake that will get us all killed. Some are too blind to see the truth of the world, so what they do is follow the middling, regurgitated musings of tree huggers until they’re lost in a thick forest of disillusion.

The trouble with peace is that it’s only as good as the people who practice is. I can be a peaceful man. If my neighbor makes me angry by accidentally mowing over my rose bushes, I can forgive him. But if my neighbor rapes my wife and kills my children, should I extend the olive branch and attempt to heal his evil mind with my peace? To me, the answer is no. Some people forfeit their rights to humanity, and terrorists are in this group.

Can Someone Explain This To Me?

2008-11-19T11:11:00.000-08:00

I’m not going to rant. I’m not going to rave. I’m not even going to call people names. What I will do, however, is hit my knees for the world to see and beg anyone to give me an answer to these simple questions. Look, I don’t want to argue it out with you loons – I just want to understand.

Help me - a confessed conservative - understand the mind of a liberal. From my point of view, you far-left thinkers are extremely hypocritical, violent, abrasive, clueless, and all-around unwilling to compromise even half of one of your make believe values.

Show me the error of my ways. I’m more than willing to accept valid logic and reasoning. But how does this stuff seem “OK” to anyone with half a brain…

Up first, we have William “I Kill People and Blow Shit up, but I’m NOT a Terrorist” Ayers.

Not only does this guy flaunt his past around smugly due to being released on a technicality, but he has a following. He has a following! Some liberals who don’t see the problem with fighting war with war go and purchase this man’s (?) books and applaud him when he says he should have set more bombs. Explain that to me, please.

Next we have the gays.

Alright, gay folk - show us that you’re “normal” like you claim. I’m sorry, but attacking Christians doesn’t drive the point home that you’re “just like everyone else.” When gays protest in Christian neighborhoods, they attack Christians. When Christians walk through gay neighborhoods, they’re attacked by gays. Gays break into churches and terrorize God-fearing people. Look, how is this helping your cause? What’s the next logical step in this line of attack? Are you going to set bombs in the churches and claim you’re just for doing so? The idea should be to change the perception, not to reinforce the “different” stereotype, right?

Now we move on to the illegal immigration agenda.

It’s not a secret that liberals wish to grant amnesty to every single illegal in the United States, past, present and future. Y’all are even against the government regulating the hiring of illegals. You don’t think the government should intervene to ensure that an illegal’s job doesn’t take precedence over a citizen’s. Okay, we know this is just a fake, put-on cause that obviously doesn’t affect you or anyone close to you. But can’t the liberal media at least report the news fairly?

An Afghan illegal gets drunk and mows down two American citizens in his car – kills them dead. This story isn’t published in the New York Times. However, a group of 7 high-school kids kill an Ecuadorian man, mistaking him for an illegal, and not only is the story printed, but the government is blamed for this happening. Why are US citizens only important if they murder? And why should illegal aliens have more rights than Americans?

As long as we’re here, I would like to know why terrorists can attack our country without your disapproval, but any retaliation is somehow “breaking the peace.”

Also, tell me why we should save the caribou and preserve land by stopping our drilling and pipeline efforts, while you twiddle you thumbs and worry about Guantanamo Bay instead of alternative energy.

And does driving a hybrid and posting your carbon footprint on your blog justify cutting out coal energy for half of the east coast?

I’ve racked my brain trying to figure it all out. How is any of this “OK”? How do you justify being a liberal? How do you gain by killing babies, taking away our national defense, letting every border become Grand Central, and applauding terrorists?

Lord knows that liberals won’t stop their protesting for America’s collapse. But can we at least keep the Pledge of Allegiance in schools? Must you change every single principle; need you rearrange our country to the point of annihilation?

New Liberals - Same Lame

2008-11-11T23:37:00.000-08:00

Okay, I’m not one to burst the new and exciting liberal bubble, but I have to say that the overzealous hosts of some of these talk shows are like the discount version of debunked televangelists. Conservatives have their share of loud and abrasive talk show hosts, see Hannity and O’Reilly for perfect examples. But at least you understand what they’re talking about. Liberal hosts are nothing more than apologists who make massive salaries to passive aggressively deny every conceivable intention their party has.

Take Alan Colmes for example. Not only does this guy make Rahm Emmanuel look like Alice’s on-again-off-again bed buddy, Sam, from the Brady Brunch, he makes more excuses for Barack Obama than a nerdy 9th grader who accidentally touched the head cheerleader’s tit while her jock boyfriend was standing there.

And have you ever seen this guy? Colme’s just flat out looks like a zealot. His face looks like something Stephen King hallucinated while doing whippits at DeLuca’s.

And what about Charles Karel Bouley, simply known as “Karel” -- has anyone heard his ranting? He calls for the death of Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher. He calls for his DEATH! What kind of person…

Karel looks like Meatloaf decided to masquerade as Freddie Mercury at Elton John’s “tribute to masculinity” ball.

And then we have the prize of them all; the crème de la crème of liberal media, Mr. Bill Maher. Maher is like Dennis Miller without the vocabulary and after an allergic reaction to shellfish.

His political stance isn’t “for” anything, but admittedly "against" all things conservative. Bill spends the majority of his time on earth propagating unfounded, slanderous fairy tales that he conveniently borrows from other fanatics without a big enough budget for staff to perform fact checks.

Please, liberals. Can one of you convince me that you know what you’re talking about? I’ll make a deal with you: If you can actually name me legitimate, America-helping issues of your change-agent celebrity, Obama, I’ll shake my cock at the Wal-Mart greeter while wearing an Obama Girl t-shirt and let you upload the video on YouTube.

The general public says the man stands for change; that he gives hope to the world. Okay, I believe that. I won’t even bother telling you how pitifully inept of a strategy “hope” actually is. I just want to know what I seem to be missing.

Your beloved apostles even fail to convince anyone who’s drinking tea instead of Kool-Aid of Obama’s actual intentions. How in the world can you know and the rest of us have no clue?

Have you heard what he’s planned to do, and other things he’s being pressured into doing up to this point? Funding overseas abortions on your dime; closing down Guantanamo Bay so those released can join in the war against America; giving checks to the 40% of non taxpayers with your money; appointing fish-nailing, intimidation machines to his staff; encouraging more spending for more bailouts; releasing details of Bush meetings as only the President-elect; pulling a bill out from under Thomas Jefferson’s face at Mt. Rushmore that will give him an executive backdoor to override the Constitution of The United States of America.

I’m sorry, people, but your cult of personality needs a reality check. Your messiah is looking for control while the rest of you are clinging to hope. Here’s something to hope: You better hope Obama doesn’t decide to tamper with the Constitution. If so, see if your hope keeps the walls of a falling America from crushing your pelvis.

Black in the Saddle Again

2008-11-06T11:31:00.001-08:00

Let me say first that I’m very humbled as a citizen of THE United States of America. No matter how disappointed I am that leftist politics now have free reign to turn the nation into San Francisco, I’m proud to have our nation’s first African-American President. My President, the 44th installment, Barack Hussein Obama, has my full cooperation as an American.

But where do we go from here? Once the initial shock, the honeymoon period wears away, will Pres. Obama be held to the same standards as Presidents before him? I would hope yes, but I fear no. The first reason I think not, that surprisingly has nothing to do with race, is the sheer amount of liberals surrounding him. This makes him infallible – which, by default, makes any who oppose him stringently fallible.

The second reason, which not surprisingly is race, may limit “free” speech and also grant him an infallible guard. It’s awfully easy to play the race card on top of the race card and preemptively say, “Barack’s black and you hate it!” And although there are some with that attitude in America, I’m concerned that this stance will render any opposing opinion useless.

If President Obama stays true to his far-left campaign rhetoric, we can expect to see the demise of coal and nuclear energy. We can bid fare ye well to any oil drilling or natural gas pipelines. Capitalism will lean towards nationalism, and government could end up controlling your meager wages. Privatized ventures will become submissive to social structure. Non taxpayers’ pull will be infinitely greater than their push. People will be penalized for not abiding a liberal government’s imposed will. Free enterprise will cost dearly, if not completely disintegrate.

And should we, as Americans, choose to speak out against this, are we labeled racists because the architect is a minority? Of course, if that American is Caucasian, the door is wide open to accuse them of prejudice. But what if a black, Spanish, Asian American takes an opposing stance? The idea is so incredibly preposterous that I’m finding it hard to comprehend what my response will be to the first cry of “racism”.

Not even 12 hours after Barack Obama was named President-Elect, my fears were realized. On FOX News, a reporter stated some facts: FOX News was voted the most impartial news organization. This reporter also stated that the majority of other networks were “in the tank” for Obama, and never challenged him with difficult inquiries, never questioned his politics, and never provided fair and impartial coverage of all candidates involved. The woman on the other end implied “racism” and said a view like that (the view taken by the FOX reporter) detracts from what it means to have an African-American become President.

Does it? Not even 12 hours in, and already a different standard of judgment. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways here. You can’t be oppressed while simultaneously holding the free world’s highest rank.

I wish our President the best of luck; more importantly, I wish my fellow citizens the best during Obama’s term. But if I choose to speak against the man, it’s strictly about his politics and nothing to do with race.

When it comes to name-calling, slander, hate, threats, and all-around hypocrisy, I’ll leave that to the liberals. Don’t forget, the Democrats were the party to stand in the way of Civil Rights.

God bless America.

A Necessary Non-Fiction

2008-11-03T04:51:00.001-08:00

Well, it’s really close. That’s right; it’s Monday – soon to be Tuesday – time to rock the vote. But first, let’s have ourselves a story: Once upon a time…

In a land called America, way back in 1961, a child was born. Yeah, we already know it wasn’t the birth of Jesus, but 47 years later, people are hard convinced of that.

The boy grows up in a diverse climate; moreover, is diverse himself. His narrow view of a warped world caused him to side with only one race, forsaking the other.

When in college, he followed the teachings of radical, un-American theorists. He intentionally strayed away from one race, only to draw in close to the other under false pretenses. He wasn’t shy about his racism, nor was he shy about his heavy drug use.

After becoming a “family man,” he joined a radical, separatist church. The pastor of this church disapproves of America, shows disdain for one race, and uses the platform to teach hatred of one “type” of God’s children, while teaching love for the other.

After this man, a stereotyped supremacist, decides to run for political office, he abandons his true, one-race feelings and tries to sever ties with his radical past. This is commonplace in the world of politics, although, in this new millennium, American’s aren’t forgiving of hatred.

After deciding to run for President based, not on experience, but on a speech he gave 6 years earlier that created “buzz,” the man began to present a mystery to the admiring public. His birth records were hidden. Is he a true American citizen, by birth? His college records remain hidden. Is he ashamed of his past to the point where a good old-fashioned cover-up is necessary?

As a presidential nominee, this man promises to change the entire fundamental groundwork of what made him a senator. As a senator, he voted to raise taxes. As a president, he promises to lower them – after his definition of wealthy finally goes into print. As a senator, he was in favor of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s practices. As a presidential nominee, he was against the way they conduced business.

If you've already figured out who I'm talking about, then you're on the path to truth. If the man's name is on your tongue -- his face in your head, then you've stopped trailing the flock. Now, read on and see if you're ready to graduate from sheep to shepherd.

This man has grabbed America’s attention and won’t let go. He’s charismatic, a great speaker, intelligent, full of vim and vigor – fire and brimstone; he’s the rally leader of the new millennium. But based on the story, it’s safe to assume that this man wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House, right?

After all, America would never let an enigma run our country. If the 24-7 surveillance on our lives has proved anything it’s that we want to know “who” a person is and what it is that they do.

Senator Barack Hussein Obama II, a racially mixed (white-black) man, supposedly born in Hawaii, is slated to be America’s next president. That’s an incredible stride in our history. This is the turning point of American life that has been in the making for 232 years. This proves that we’re not a discriminatory nation of bigots and radicals.

But to attach the above story with any man, it’s painfully clear that not only should they be denied the presidency, but they shouldn’t have a place in the American public other than a pariah.

The fact of the matter: If Barack Obama’s story could be attributed to John McCain, McCain wouldn’t be deemed fit to run the checkout line in Arizona’s newest Wal-Mart.

People, the United States of America is growing, there’s no doubt about it. The citizens who choose to speak against Obama do so not because they fear a black president with a Muslim name, but because they fear a man’s heavily checkered and hidden past.

Without fearing that you’ll be deemed a racist or bigot or dirty GOP supporter, just switch the sides on your tape for a minute. Attach Barack’s past and current “American” values to any other man and ask if you’d vote for him.

If the answer is yes, then it’s your duty to forgive all white slave owners, supremacists, America haters, and anyone else who thinks that it’s commonplace to want separation or domination. If the answer is no, then you’re not brainwashed by charisma and you have a chance to better your country tomorrow.

I Believe...

2008-10-30T23:02:00.000-07:00

The way our country has evolved is far too materialized. If people aspired to be only millionaires, we could all be wealthy. When people aspire to be multi-billionaires, by any means necessary, it chokes the life from society. Moreover, if people aspired only to true happiness, America would possess the richest citizenry in the history of the world. From the birth of our blue planet, greed has been the one defining characteristic of life which has carried with it such a negative connotation that no amount of charity can begin to reform those of whom it’s inflicted.

Greed is a condition of mankind, however contrary to a liberal belief that may be. Greed is not an affliction of the right-wing, nor is it solely born of capitalism. Greed isn’t deterred, abolished, or even dissipated by a socialist government structure. Greed lives in the hearts of men, and however valiant a man’s efforts to control another man’s greed, the greed can still dwell within, awaiting escape.

Greed, like any other crime, must be punished. When murder rates become high in cities across our nation, measures are taken to lessen the problem. More police, a crime watch, and multiple “clean-up-the-streets” strategies are implemented to stop the spread. Governments know that violence is a condition of man; one that is not stopped by a ground-up change in a country’s structure.

To punish the greed that has turned the working class poor and the poor into vagrants, strict control must be taken; punishment that forces fat-cats to open their eyes and realize that if they proceed with their unadulterated greed, socialism will, in fact, be realized. Punishment should be provided to induce an awakening; rude if need be, so that corporations comprehend that, while selling out America’s citizenry to shovel every penny from the street into their vault, America is failing.

Perhaps in our next President’s term, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 70% of the population praying for his downfall won’t impede progress on economic issues. Perhaps he may begin to fix the problems that America faces: A market that reflects supply and demand like a funhouse mirror, wages that can’t provide for even the humblest of lives, free jobs going to non-taxpayers – illegally here to boot, outsourcing jobs to the lowest overseas bidder, importing instead of proudly displaying “Made in America”.

In the scheme of what our beloved country has been through, our current tribulations are in no way severe enough for a reconstitution of theory and ideology. To the contrary, our current troubles are very fixable; the right man, possessing a strong belief in our country, can right the ship. Holding steadfast to the principles that work to make America great, the right man can return us to glory.

It shocks me to think that one man is bold enough to rip away our foundations to exert his unconstitutional, radical will upon us. It’s evermore shocking that my fellow countrymen have bought into this sweeping rush -- this un-American upheaval. Our country doesn't need a rally-cap-wielding politician; our country needs a Commander-In-Cheif.

No, my friends, we’re better than this. We know the principles of which this country was so strongly and proudly built. We know that cancelling out capitalism and our democracy due to unrestrained greed will be the loosened brick that brings America down. We know a problem exists in our country. We know how to fix it. More importantly, we know precisely who will destroy it.

The United States of America wasn’t built to be a socialist Europe, hence our violent, bloody and permanent separation from a European country in 1776. America’s problems are not solved by giving up; it defeats the purpose of what it means to be an American. Our country’s most prominent position should only allow someone who loves her to take seat in her highest chair. We have no time for experimentation. We have no cause for a man to exercise his blatantly socialist ideology and beliefs in our country.

"You could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country." -- George Washington

He's Your President Too

2008-10-25T10:04:00.000-07:00

As we draw ever closer to a new President in America, I'm reminded of the last few years. To be specific, I'm speaking of the last four years under President George W. Bush. I'm alarmed at some of the people's attitudes I've had the displeasure of dealing with during this timeframe. And I have to ask...

What’s with the attitude, people? I’m dead serious! Just because you didn’t lend a vote to help Bush get elected doesn’t mean you’re entitled to give an “I told you so” to everyone who did. If I lost a pound every time I heard someone say, “He’s not my president – he’s yours,” I’d be negative 630 pounds. The snobbish manner and can’t-blame-me mind-set you portray is extremely unbecoming of an American citizen. Do you sit at home and secretly hope for failure so you’ll have leverage in your next political discussion?

You see it on bumper stickers, it’s all over the TV, artists paint, sing and write about it: “Don’t blame me, I voted for the other guy.” The Bush bashers stand up and protest and damn their country at a time when we all need to pull together. It’s apparent that people would rather be “right” than safe. They would rather feel smarter than the next guy than to feel on equal ground. When The United States of America needs her citizens to unite, the bluecoats turn tail and run. Is it any wonder that Democrats have the stigma of being chicken shits?

Chicken shits blame other people. Chicken shits refuse to help when something’s gone wrong. Chicken shits hide under their beds when called to stand and fight. Chicken shits pass the President of the USA off as someone else’s “problem.” And, most of all, these chicken shits are unabashed hypocrites. In my mind, these chicken shits are radical terrorists, one dirty bomb away from infamy, sharing my patriotic soil.

A bold claim, you say? What happens when a country becomes divided? At the very least, you’ll see problems like we’re seeing now: Separation amongst people. Next, as the tension grows, groups form and a line is drawn in the sand. One group wants to operate under their own system – the other wants to employ theirs. One group wants laws in place – the other group follows with their own set. One group always feels superior to the other, until, finally, the tension calls for complete separation. Sound familiar? You may recall America’s Civil War.

About that hypocrisy, I’m sure you’ve heard the news. Sarah Palin’s husband was a member of the AIP (Alaskan Independence Party). One of the many goals of the AIP is to be granted secession from the United States. As Governor of Alaska, Palin gave a welcome speech for party members. Now she’s being slandered and called unpatriotic for not throwing them in jail apparently. The AIP is a legitimate Alaskan political party. Their founder, Joe Vogler, is a separatist. He’s quoted as saying that he has nothing but disdain (paraphrased) for the American government. Not America’s citizens, not America’s freedoms, and not America’s overall democracy, but government! He was a bit fed up with it at the time.

Surprisingly, this is the exact same thing that Democrats are saying now. Why is Joe’s party so “radical?” Democrats spew their hatred on over 85% of all news channels. They’ve called Palin a “dumb bimbo who can’t tie her shoes.” They’ve called McCain “a racist war monger who invites terrorism.” Democrats have even started some halfhearted movement where they’ll band together and leave the country if McCain is elected – they hate the American government that much! It seems logical, at least to me, that Democrats would embrace the AIP and Joe Vogler as one of their own. They all claim, without embarrassment or shame, to hate American government.

The Democrats say that the AIP is a radical party with views very un-American. When in actuality, they’re just as radical as the AIP. Joe Vogler gave a few radio interviews bashing government, and received something like 65,000 signatures on a petition for secession. That’s miniscule compared to Democrat radicalism on a widespread scale.

I see how it is, and sometimes I want to cry. Some people in this country only care about America if America is brought to their attention. They remain completely unaware, by and large, of the everyday struggles of people. They hear Obama speak, invoking a King, Jr.-like voice and swagger, and fall head over heels. They text and toil and troll around without any sense of history. They’re bold enough to say that our President is not “their” President. They’re willing to give up on the country if it’s the popular tune of the day. As to not to label every Democrat a chicken shit, I’ll just refer to the rest as utterly fucking clueless.

Stereotyping, I may be, but until individuals are actually ready to take some responsibility for their country, we’ll always fail miserably – no matter who’s in office. Nothing will never, ever be good enough for the person who assigns blame. And it’s not a mystery at all; assigning blame is just an easier way out. In this day and age, being a clueless chicken shit gives you more free time.

In order to keep America’s structure strong, you have to get dirty and fix some leaking pipes once in a while. America declared independence from Britain in 1776, only 232 short years ago. In that time, we’ve built one hell of a country. But in these last few years, people have given up. Just because we have Internet and iPods doesn’t mean that you can be resigned to let the country run on its own. We don’t need a savoir in the form of a man – we need togetherness in the form of all men to be our saving grace.

DemoNcrats Have Our Backs?

2008-10-16T22:10:00.000-07:00

The flag-waving politicians in this country tend to get under the skin of the more standoffish, let’s-hug-it-out softies who also inhabit this free land. I was talking politics in the bar the other week, and I hear, “The last eight years have been a disaster,” yelled out by some hothead whose idea of good government is legalized pot and no tax on the McDonald’s dollar menu. “Why? Huh? What’s happened in the last eight years – other than the obvious hurricane fiasco and a prolonged war – to make you say that,” I asked back. The answer I received was absolutely shocking.

“George Bush is the worst American president because he let the economy fail, he sends our soldiers to die without reason, and he’s plain stupid!” Okay, I can’t take up for Georgey Pie on that last point. The guy is not a great public speaker. If the inability to pronounce words is a sign of stupidity, it’s no mystery why southerners are always depicted as fools. So, a person’s voice aside (you’re welcome, Barney Frank), I decided to discuss politics with my buzzed up buddy. I don’t know a hell of a lot, but I’ll put it out there and try to pinpoint what is so horrible about G W.

War is always a hot-button issue in the world. Never mind that civilization as we know it was forged from war. It’s like the great meteor debate (for non-Christians); do we hate them or love them? Without the meteor wiping out the dinosaurs, mammals wouldn’t have evolved into humans -- and so goes Friday night porn! Without wars, lands are never discovered and ultimately conquered, and we never inhabit this country. I know, I know – now that we’re all alive, all wars should stop, right? Yeah, it’s a beautiful thought. It was beautiful when the acid droppers joined hands to protest war. But not only did they protest war, they protested their fellow Americans. So, let’s face facts here. You’re only concerned about the war because it gives you something to do. If you were concerned about the lives lost, returning soldiers would receive a hero’s welcome.

Oh, that was then, this is now? Okay…

My little buzzed up buddy, let me ask you this: How did the democrats go about getting Bush to stop “his” war? Cat got your tongue? "Yeah," he finally answered, “They took back congress and tried to stop it, but Bush has the final say.” Okay, I’ll buy that last bit to an extent. But did you get the memo? Democrats, in their utter brilliance, used soldiers’ lives as a bargaining chip! Don’t believe it? They voted repeatedly to cut funding from our troops in a blatant attempt at extortion. If enough soldiers died and screamed for sweet release, Bush would have no choice but to bring the remaining soldiers home. Does this sound kosher to you!? Using human lives to wiggle your way out of war is pure insanity. That’s the real criminal act during Bush’s term. But why isn’t this brought to the forefront? My guess, it’s all about playing to the sympathetic sensibilities of uninformed anti-war protestors.

If democratic politicians truly cared about human lives – the reason they cite for wanting the war to cease – why would they pull funding from fighting troops? Could it be that instead of spending billions of dollars a month to fight a war, they would rather earmark funding for their own personal piggybanks? It seems to me like the democrats weren't concerned for the many people engaging in battle. They really only wanted the country's borrowed fortune to be spent more constructively. No big deal, huh. Well, until you consider it was the democrats and not the republicans who used human bodies like pawns in chess. Puts things into perspective for those of us who can still claim sight and sanity.

I like my barroom buddy, he listens to what I have to say, but he isn’t hearing me. He’s so blinded by Bush hate that he can’t see through to the forest. I asked him what he thought the democrats’ end was in all this. He shot me a puzzled look and muttered, “Huh?” I explained that an activist or ordinary volunteer may do something out of pure goodness and virtue, but when a politician goes on an anti-anything rally, they’re simply running for something. Are the democrats really serious about change?

The war topic was history. There’s never a clear winner there. Nobody wants people to die. Well, at least you don’t want people dying in your line of sight. Because since we’ve had radio and television communications in America, we’ve frequently heard about people killing each other over there in the Middle East. Where was the outcry then? When the Shia and Sunnis battle it out and kill each other, where was Wendy Worrywart with her “stop the killing” pleas? The issue is non-existent if it isn’t blasted in your face by television, so don’t pretend to fucking care now. The country’s put-on concern is as transparent as saran wrap. No offense to family members and loved ones of troops lost or still fighting. My thoughts are with you.

The next little tidbit we discussed was the economy and what happened to Fannie and the kids. This will be quick, well, because there’s not much to talk about here. George W. Bush warned against the subprime loans and consequences to come and the whole 9. You better believe he did! But by that point, democrats had trashed everything he said or did to the point that people acted opposite in hopes of a good result. This led some blue boys to get wealthy by the same means they bash republicans for. Does Big Oil ring any bells? Letting gigantic companies line your pockets with money is wrong, right? Well, everybody’s favorite bluecoat Obama was right in the mix here. He allowed Americans to get in over their heads without being informed of the consequences, while his cohorts got fattened up for the feast. All the while, Bush’s warnings fell by the wayside.

Whose fault it is really? You seriously can’t blame President Bush. Even if he was the sole person handing out loans and other interesting ways for people to get in over their heads, where was the restraint? This was a democratic-induced problem, which is really surprising to me. The number-one killer of an economy is greed – why wouldn’t the libs put their foot on the beast’s throat? Give a coke head an 8-ball and what do you think he’s going to do with it? In this society we live in today, you give people a pathway for the cheese and they’re going to get their fingers smashed in the trap. If the liberals weren’t so concerned about being anti-Bush and profiting from other means, they would have seen this coming.

And I know my buddy wasn’t going to tell me how much of the $800+ billion bailout money was Bush’s doing, right? Lo and behold, he hit me with it. “Bush is giving the money right back!” Well, actually, it’s every politician around who’re bailing them out. Sorry, can’t blame Bush for this either. The country came together in a time of need and stuck it to the taxpayer. My personal opinion is that they government should have made this money back by taxing the recipients of the funding. Wouldn’t it be the ultimate irony? “Okay, take this 800-billion, and after the 30 years of sporadically fluctuating interest rates, you’ll be into us for 3800-billion.”

I asked if there was anything else he’d like to blame on Bush before I left. Maybe high fuel costs? After all, it’s President Bush who’s solely responsible for America’s massive thirst for oil, right? Don’t make me laugh. No, really, please don’t! Oil prices shoot up based on supply and demand. We don’t have a big supply, buddy. Higher prices, though they’re making Big Oil insanely rich, are also supposed to promote efficiency and wean us off our addiction. Sorry. I love pulling out the “extortion” card, but oil companies are just protecting their limited product. I definitely do not agree with it, but it’s not Bush’s fault.

Maybe it’s Bush’s fault that we’re not using windmills and solar panels enough! Yeah, that’s it! Well… on a large scale, alternative methods of energy are useless at the moment. Years of development and trillions in funding are needed. So, sorry, can’t blame Bush for science not being science-fiction. Maybe, as individuals, you can affix your house with panels and efficient appliances and drive a hybrid. It’s worth a shot! At least until technology catches up with the widespread need. We have oil in the meantime.

Look, I jumped off the Bush wagon about two years ago, so I’m not exactly a Bush apologist here. But the unadulterated hate is totally unfounded in most cases. People run wild with what they hear someone say on talk shows and pretend that they have a solid understanding. And, I’m sorry to break it to you, buddy, but that makes you part of the problem and in the way of a solution.

Bush used to be a stand up guy, now he just hides in one of his vacation spots and pretty much does what he wants. So if you’re going to blame him for anything, it should be arrogance and an “oh-well” attitude. But liberals in this country don’t have your best interest at heart either. If you’re really willing to believe they do, we’ll be in this same mess until we’re underground. They’re selfish, greedy, and want to make it impossible for people to compete on a level playing field. Their policies are like Extreme Makeover: Government Edition. If you have the biggest sob story around, you’ll be taken care of. But if you’re just a regular poor person who struggles to survive, Barack says you don’t need help.

I want to steal something from someone else’s blog to put on here. It’s a great statement that describes the differences between a socialist (Obama) and a capitalist (McCain).

"Capitalism and Communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The Communist/Socialist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The Capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much."

Whiteys for McCain

2008-10-14T13:07:00.000-07:00

Okay, sometimes in life a person just needs to get over it. Not to be a hypocrite, I’ll keep my personal feelings on the subject to a bare minimum and just dish the cold and rock-hard truth.

When you’re at the booth on Election Day and want to cast your vote for equality and change, I hope your judgment isn’t clouded by the legions of followers waiting to decide if you’re a racist or not. Oh, yes, they can tell who you voted for by looking at your face. Odds are you’ll be wearing a different puss if you vote for McCain. You’ll either have that “haha” smirk, or the “don’t judge me” grimace.

On MSNBC last week, I witnessed a guy berate some poor, happy-go-lucky woman when she decided to speak up for John McCain. Instead of this guy, who seemed to be quite intelligent, convincing her otherwise by citing actual reasons for his incessant Obama-love, he proceeded to label her a racist. So, let me get this right, if a white person (or any person for that matter) doesn’t vote for Obama, they’re doing so because of racism? What a ridiculous stance to take! Anyone who thinks this should be ashamed of themselves! People who spread this poison are reckless and obviously unconcerned by the volatile state of our country’s race volcano. This gross display of idiocy isn’t restricted to MSNBC, either. You can see the same thing on dozens of news channels, any time of day.

I realize that the popular rally-cry for democrats these days is “Racist!” They’re not exactly far off base, especially when you see the 80-year-old white guy show up to the Sarah Palin rally with a stuffed monkey adorning an “Obama” sticker. Unfortunately, the set-in-his-ways old-timer isn’t part of the philosophy of change in America, but he doesn’t realize that he’s doing far more harm than good for his candidate(s) of choice and fellow supporters. By taking a blatantly racist stance, he makes the majority of McCain-Palin supporters look like racists.

Younger minds are the ones that need molding – senior citizens are a hands-off demographic, unless they’re highly medicated and in homes. Older people are products of a different time in history, and however trite that may sound to you, it’s the absolute truth. Throwbacks from a bygone era, white or black, sometimes harbor grudges both inherited and violently imposed. And because racism is taught, it’s the country’s obligation to ensure incidents like the old man’s racist stuffed animal is kept separate from the other attendees at the rally. However, this isn’t the case. Democrats run with the issue and insist McCain-Palin supporters are racists. My, how far we’ve come.

Here’s the one-sided argument brought to you by Blue Nation: Vote against Barack Obama for any reason, you’re doing so because he’s African-American. Race has always been a defining factor in any election. Like it or not, some people just couldn’t put their grievances aside long enough to vote based on qualifications. But this not only extends to race – people also choose to vote for or against based on religion, values, sex, and the list goes on. But let’s pretend for a minute that every citizen of America who votes against Obama is a racist. According to the Blue Man Group, it’s not a stretch.

Okay, so Joe Q, white man extraordinaire, votes for McCain because McCain’s white. That’s racism at its finest. But what about Jack Q, every day black man, who votes for Obama simply because he’s black. May I be so bold to ask, “What’s the difference?” From political programs like Jim Harbaugh, Bill Maher and Bill O’Reilly, all the way up to the lampoon delights like Leno and Letterman, the majority of African-Americans interviewed cite race-identifying reasons for voting Obama. Why should one race’s criterion be accepted as just and humdrum yet the other is condemned and called despicable? Why, when asking for an equal election that race doesn’t decide, is race expected to decide the outcome?

Is this blatant hypocrisy nothing more than an attempt at extortion perpetrated by desperate liberals who fear they have no other means of winning? If Barack Obama is truly the right candidate for President of the United States, shouldn’t his qualifications and political values alone propel him to the Oval Office?

This is what campaigns are, unfortunately. They’re nothing more than theoretical displays of carefully constructed swill put on to coerce your vote based on identification. That’s what they’ve always been, since day one, so why the guilt trip this election? People are ultimately going to vote with whom they most identify. Be it for religious reasons, economic standpoints, environmental issues, or even race, a person’s vote is given based on any criteria they wish. If it so happens to be race, you can’t call it racism unless it’s labeled as such on both sides of the aisle.

In order to have an equal society, things good for the goose need to fit the gander as well or you’re back to square one. Instead of labeling white McCain supports as racists, try a different approach – you have many to choose from. If McCain supporters were smart, they’d attack Barack’s base with allegations of hypocrisy. For whatever reasons, McCain and his supporters don’t seem bothered by allegations of racism at the moment. This in itself is a marker of how ridiculous an applause line it actually is.

So, Barack supporters, please stick to the “real” issues at hand if you want your candidate to be considered qualified for the job. As it stands right now with a large percentage of Americans, you’re making yourselves look as bad as the McCain-Palin supporter who pulled out the racist rally monkey. Your candidate of choice is calling for change in America – why don’t you get on board with your captain and save the illogical slander for another time? Americans don’t like to be extorted, or have you forgotten so quickly?

Poor as a Color

2008-10-14T00:53:00.000-07:00

Coming to a town near you...

A bottom-feeding jewelry store moves into a downtrodden town. The owner has high hopes of pawning his gold-plated chains off at inflated interest rates to the poor town’s folk. This white-bread, 1960s throwback of an owner believes that he’s the next Richy Walmart. So, as any owner would do when aspiring to untold riches, he seeks minimum wage employees who will hopefully see to day-to-day operations while he tees it off at the country club.

The classifieds read, “Jewelry Store – Help Wanted,” and he proceeds to put signs up in the window. With the factory closed down, grocery positions filled, and Mega-Mart yet to discover this haven for exploitation, many people line up hoping to land a job. They know it’s not their idea of a dream job, but not everyone has the strong branches of a well-to-do family tree willing to co-sign for a business loan. If that were the case, the town’s people would have their own stores. So, they proceed to do what Americans do best: Strive on.

Four positions are filled quickly at the store. The employees are far too qualified for the pay they’ll receive, but they’re clean and bright and will hopefully be customer-friendly. One position remains, and the owner mulls over three applications to fill it. Two of the young men who’ve applied have no former criminal record; both have high school educations; they grew up in the same town; they each have ample work experience and are honest and trustworthy. Upon interviewing the candidates, the owner decides that they do not fit the bill of what he considers to be industrious for his lofty ambitions. They’re poor and dirty – not the kind of element he wants in his presence.

Did I mention that one of these young men is black and the other is white? Both applied with equal qualifications, both dismissed for the same reasons. A third candidate was hired: A young woman whom the targeted customers will no doubt prefer to look at.

The young black man claims racism. He was indeed qualified and dismissed with extreme prejudice. His parents, who have both dealt with horrific situations of blatant discrimination in the past, instruct their son to contact the local NAACP office. Here comes the pressure. Picketers gather outside, news cameras show up, the owner’s store is closed before it was even opened. He’s depicted a racist and has no hopes of ever running a store again without interference. His face is all over the papers, all over the television. He receives dirty looks and threats everywhere he goes. From the looks of it, the owner’s professional life is ruined. He’s been branded a racist business owner and now adorns the shameful suit worn by so many of his predecessors.

The young black man promptly takes a job after receiving more than half a dozen offers from neighboring towns. His is a story all too familiar; people quickly step in to right the wrong. Meanwhile, the young white man is without a job. His cries weren’t as poignant. They struck no chord in the symphony of bleeding hearts. He eventually said, “The guy don’t hire white trash,” and quietly went on his way.

Unfortunately, there is no organization for the betterment of poor people, lest there be a "victim" angle. News cameras and coalitions won’t make the trek for non-racial bigotry – it doesn’t quite have the same ring. No community activists are given the opportunity to appear on CNN when the poor are discriminated against. They’re dirty thieves who bring a bad element to any respectable business, so says the richest of rich chieftains.

The young white man receives no outcry of sympathy. Uber-sentimental great-great-grandchildren of slave owners don’t go out of their way to show remorse and sorrow for sins of the past they couldn’t possibly begin to change when it comes to the young white man. With no apparent rhyme or reason, per the public's ruling opinion, the young white man is simply unemployed. Tough luck.

Two men from the same town with the same education and same status, yet they’re treated differently when “equality” is called into question. The oxymoron that is equal rights has propelled one man and left the other stationary. Fear, extortion and guilt, all contributing factors in this mine field. Where does the lower class run when they’re looked down upon? Why is the ‘race card’ so prevalent in society yet the ‘social-status card’ has no leverage whatsoever? Why does equality continue to separate people? The more we struggle for an equal playing field, the more uneven it becomes.

If the government and sympathetic public want so badly to help the lower class out, they could stop apologizing for being born every time a minority inadvertently cites racism. By showing preferential treatment to appease the media monster, it discriminates against more people. The irony here is that it's helping to keep racism not only alive, but significantly thriving by continuing to show that the first "victim" with a coalition of cameras on the scene will take top billing. We’re equal or we’re separate – it’s time to make a decision.