How Liberals Argue...

A pretty funny video.

(H/T FiveFeetofFury)

Buchannan: McCain Won By Being A Douche...

Who knew Pat Buchannan was still alive? Who the fuck taught him how to use a computer? When does he go back on his meds?

Pasty wails today about the unseemly electoral tactics of John McCain in his defeat of The Joker-Look-Alike Contest Runner-Up, J.D. Hayworth.

A few quibbles, if I may, Mr. Buchanan:

1. J.D. Hayworth is not an "authentic" anything, let alone conservative. His kind of "conservatism" is a tribal affiliation, little more than the wearing of gang colors. Then again, neither is McCain a conservative. In the race between neither-really-a-conservative "Douchebag" and "Shit Sandwich", the people of Arizona chose "Douchebag" as the lesser of two evils. This, unfortunately, is the state of American electoral democracy today. In a perfect world, neither man would have been on the ballot. Why don't you write something about that tragedy, Patsy?

2. In the Obama-McCain race of 2008, I don't recall you being quite so critical of McCain, except for your appearances on MSNBC as resident-curmudgeon-in-chief, where there's a check involved, I imagine. In your own personal dilemma of Douchebag-vs-Shit-Sandwich-and-which-do-I-criticize-more-on-TV, you grudgingly supported Douchebag McCain too, if only because to do otherwise would have been a tacit approval of Obama.

3. Don't suddenly get bent out of shape because you've just NOW realized that politics is a dirty profession. I suggest that your disgust at the process has less to do with McCain's tactics as much as it does with his victory, because if you could do to a democrap what McCain did too Hayworth, you'd do so with an indecent haste.

4. How is it that someone still pays you for your opinions? You are the Al Sharpton of the Pantybunched Right.

5. This quote is quite puzzling...
　

"But if the GOP takes the advice of its establishment,
and the neocons who seek power to start another war, and walks away from
cultural, social and moral issues, which are far more popular than the party
itself, folks who care about the character of the country and national identity
should walk away from that party, and find outliers who will pick up the banner
and carry it forward..."

...coming, as it does, from one of those very same "establishment" figures in GOP politics, i.e. YOURSELF.

And what the fuck is a "neocon"? Ever since that term has come into common parlance, it seems that it's only possible definition is "a republican that doesn't agree with Me,and just cave to my ridiculous demands", and has been freely used by both the Communism-is-good-Left and the Taliban-Has-Some-Good-Points-Right. If it is, as I take it to mean "a republican who is willing to find common ground and consensus where that is possible, for the common good, even if it means telling the Church Pikers to fuck off", then this makes a nonsense of this little bit of stupidity in the very next paragraph;

Americans motivated by causes need to maintain their freedom and independence of both parties, forming what George W. Bush liked to call "alliances of the willing.

This is rich: in one paragraph you denounce the "Neocon" War-starters, and then cite George W. Bush (with whom the term "Neocon" originated), as a shining example of enlightened leadership? Do you even read what you write, anymore, Pat?

"Something Weird Happens When Presidencies Go Wrong"

Not as weird or as wrong as what happens when you elect the wrong President.

We don't have a President, just a self-absorbed douchebag on perpetual vacation.

Now It's a Tax on Garbage?

The City of San Francisco, always a bastion of intelligence, rational thought and good government (NOT!), has decided to impose a tax on fast food as a means to wage an increasingly-expensive battle with litter.

Yeah, right. I'm buying that one.

I would think it safe to assume that what San Francisco's upper-crust has an issue with is NOT so much what's in it's trash; after all, I'm certain they're finding empty crack vials, used condoms, dirty hypodermic needles, and worse, in their trash bins.

The irony here is that City Government, at some level, is probably responsible for the worst kind of trash which finds it's way into The System, what with giving those hypos away free-of-charge to hardcore addicts, and the schools handing out condoms like candy -- all, of course, to prevent the spread of AIDS -- but no one would dare suggest that there be a tax levied on condoms or Homosexuals, or that we stop handing out drug paraphernalia to those determined to kill themselves.

We live in an upside-down world where encouraging people to engage in risky behavior that will probably kill them (by providing them with the means, the excuses, and the political mojo to make it happen) just so we can start taking extremely stupid and expensive measures to save them from themselves, somehow makes good financial sense to the Solons of the City By The Bay. To suggest that the City do otherwise and, say, discourage drug use -- so that the city doesn't spendmoney on free needles, and would have more cash tokeep the streets clean -- is somehow considered "Anti-Gay". No, the sainted Elders of San Fran would rather tax legitimate commerce, and under a false pretense, to boot, especially if they can pass the tax increase off as being good for society; in this case, they'll be supposedly getting litter off the streets, but in reality they'll be continuing the ongoing assault against society's slugs consuming whatever the fuck they feel like and then sticking the Taxpayer with the medical bills.

The Food Nazis in America will tell you that Wendy's is bad for you. That McDonald's will kill your children. That The Colonel is selling you a poison that will slowly rot your asshole from the inside out, but only after it stuffs you full of fats, salt, and concentrated sugars that, in the rather weird calculus of the American Libtard, are infinitely more dangerous than gay sex or intravenous drug use. No wonder they don't mind if Iran has nukes; Devil Dogs and Wing Dings constitute a greater threat to Civil Society.

Quite frankly, if someone dies of an overdose, that's his problem. Ask me if I give a shit. Same for the Anally-Injected-Death-Sentence; you put your pecker someplace it wasn't meant to go, and you take your chances, andpretty much deserve what you get. Somehow, the consequences incurred by the Stupid and Irresponsible became Everyone Else's -- and by that we mean The Taxpayer's -- Problem.

And now it's Everyone' Else's Problem because some poor shithead (read: "Minority") who can't stop at just one Krispy Kreme, and who practically lives on a diet that consists of KFC, pork rinds, Malt Liquor, and the Four Basic Food Groups of MSG, Salt, Sugar and Caffeine, might fucking drop dead as his swollen heart bursts from the strain of moving his 450-pound ass through the streets of San Francisco. Oh, they say it's to keep the streets clean, but no; the tax is really intended to make Pizza Hut too expensive for the average Welfare Recipient to afford to eat three meals a day.

What a fucking racket: they get paid to stay poor, stupid and exploitable, and then the very people who exploit them make sure they can't even eat what they please with their stolen taxpayer money. And yet, the Exploited just can't wait to vote for more of the same. The New Plantation is alive and well.

It's time for a little Social Darwinism to take hold in America before more self-appointed hall monitors, like the San Fran City Council, suddenly decide they have a vested interest (and can make a buck) in limiting your number of bathroom trips, dictating how many hours a day you can sleep, how much water you will get on a daily basis, or how many times you're allowed to yawn before all that excess carbon dioxide you're expelling makes you a weapon of mass destruction.

I want people to die as a consequence of their own stupidity; that's how Nature is supposed to work! Those that make the right choices thrive and prosper, and those who don't are dropped from the herd. If we actually had a society where consequences were geared to actions, and which was free of government interference on every subject, we'd all be a lot healthier, freer, and richer. The world would be a whole lot better if cans of pesticides didn't have little red labels warning"Do Not Spray In Mouth", or if oscillating fans didn't have safety cages on them, because the truly lazy and retarded amongst us would be pushing up the daisies -- and the government that preys on their stupidity, to the detriment of the rest of us, would be gone.

Something Annoying...

With regards to the double-edged sword of Obama Criticism by those "on the right";

We hear almost every day that President Odickhead is in over his head. He lacks Executive Experience, and this makes him an ineffective leader, as well as contributes to his confusion about how "government should work". We are beginning to hear the brilliant formulation that Obambi "never really wanted this job" (nah, he only spent half-a-billion of other people's money, and invented 57 states to visit, and took all the Birther and Jeremiah Wright stuff for shits and giggles). They suggest that, maybe, he takes far too many vacations and breaks, because he's not up to the task of governing? He's totally unqualified for the office, runs roughshod over the Constitution leading some to question if he has ever even read it. He's a tool of the Left -- or worse -- of the Evil Triad of Emanuel, Pelosi and Reid.

That's when he isn't a total tool of the Unions and the environMENTALISTS, and George Soros, and that when he isn't mollycoddling terrorists and bowing to foreign potentates. He's a Manchurian Candidate from Hawaii and Indonesia, sent to restore the Comintern. He's capable of trying to turn the United States into a New Soviet Union (on a bad day), or a new Greece (on a good one), apparently all by himself, and despite his lack of acumen and ability, which is just an act, you know.

They complain that his "vision" is Un-American, that term typically being defined by the same people who bought George W. Bush's "Jesus is my favorite political philosopher" spiel. American-ess is now being judged by what church you attend, whether or not you wear the flag on your lapel, and all that which passes muster with a crowd of people, who, if they could, would burn fags at the stake, and frog-march abortionists to the ovens. And do so cheerfully if their Pastor told them it was the will of the Almighty. He's arrogant, continually turning a deaf ear to the will of the"American People".

Why, Barack Obama is perhaps the worst thing to happen to America since Jimmy Carter, Disco and the Pet Rock hit us all in the same decade. He is an unmitigated disaster of Biblical Proportions, so bad that even the people in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Outer Mongolia and East Buttfuck, Bangladesh laugh at us. He is a a National Embarrassment, so much so that even the 52% who actually voted for this douchebag are ashamed to admit it in public.

Why,Obama is soooo godawfully-bad that he's made it perfectly safe for Black Conservatives to come out of the woodwork, show themselves at Tea Parties, and even to call for his Impeachment in public.

Then, when something happens (an Oil Spill, a foiled Terrorist Attack, and so forth), and the man who isn't qualified to run the local Taco Bell, who has no business being in the White House for his lack of experience and qualifications, the Man with the Absolute Worst Judgement on Planet Earth, somehow becomes the Only Man on Earth who can and should provide "leadership". And he gets hammered when he can't do it.

Suddenly, when it becomes convenient, the Punditocracy on the Right demands that He be everything they say He cannot, nor ever, be.

Now, I agree that Barack Obama will go down in history as the worst American President Evah, provided we aren't all made extinct by an Iranian or North Korean nuke. He is probably the last Black Man who will ever reach such heights in my lifetime, setting the cause of Civil Rights back 100 years. He will, historians will say, have done the impossible:Obama will have made George W. Bush seem Regal, John McCain seem saner, and Hillary Clinton appear to have been the better choice all along. He will have made Sarah Palin a billionaire and Kingmaker of the Right. He will have made Jimmy Carter appear to have been smarter than he ever was, and Joe Biden seem a goddamned statesman of the First Rank.

It's apparent to me that Barack Obama couldn't lead a three-year old to the crapper without a Blue-Ribbon Commission and a 2,500-page piece of legislation that no one will read before voting on, and only after he's made a dozen Potemkin-village stops to rally the Union Workers being paid to attend the rally and feign enthusiasm. I get it. I got it a very long time ago. However, could we PLEASE stop with the endless parade of "conservative" flapping rectums on TV who make the wild swing from "Obama's Utterly Incompetent" to "Obama Should Suddenly Get Competent"?

Quite frankly, I'm damned happy that he's not"engaged". I'm ecstatic that he plays golf three times a week and makes as much time for the wife and kids as he can. I'm tickled to death that he spends half his time flying from staged-event-to-staged-event, re-fighting battles that have already been won (that, incidentally, is the stock-in-trade of the Civil Rights/Community Organizer crowd. It's what they do because they are allergic to original thought and hard work) . I'm so happy I could shit that Obama spends less time in the Oval Office than the (presumably) Illegal Alien who cleans it every night.

Why?

Because an "engaged" Obama always results in higher taxes, more government, the destruction of the free enterprise system, transparent pandering to every "victim" group under the Sun, charges of racism where none exist, panic in the markets, uncertain Allies, more-brazen enemies, more debt, fewer jobs, more misery. When Obama is not thinking "wouldn't it be cool if...." , and then actually working to see it come to fruition, I feel safer, and better. Imagine what kind of damage he could do if he were actually qualified for the job...and trying!

I understand the nature of political criticism is "damned if you do, damned if you don't", but the recent criticism seems, to someone who actually agrees with most of it, to be exceedingly gratuitous. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's like kicking three-legged, blind puppies. It's like hunting turtles with a power drill. It's that's easy, and requires little in the way of sophisticated thought, or preparation. It's getting to be almost as annoying as those stupid horns at the World Cup. You can't make the case for incompetence one day, and then --mystically -- demand it from the man the next, and expect me to take you seriously.

I'm not defending Il Doofay, nor his Insane Clown Posse. They deserve most of what they get. I'm just annoyed at the pundits who apparently assume we're all dummies who need to be reminded every day of just what is happening (or not happening) in this country.

Quod erat demonstrandum -- the thing speaks for itself. You can make a point or two for the really dense people in the room -- the ones who might be obsessed with 16 and Pregnant, or Jersey Shore, but the rest of us don't need the constant repetition and Power Point slide shows. This continual hammering upon a single theme is, in part, why Republicans lost so badly in 2008 -- they did the same thing and repeated the"the terrorists will get you"meme 700 times a day. Eventually, it turns people off, even the ones who agree with you, because it wearies the ears.

Now, as for the flapping rectums on the Left, who go out there to defend President Asshole -- You've pissed me off, too.

I'm getting rather tired and annoyed with you, too. While the Right-wingers get on the TV and yap-yap-yap like poodles, ad nauseum, about what is painfully obvious to a brain-damaged hedgehog, you guys simply look into a camera and lie. There's not even a question as to whether or not you're being truthful, because your pronouncements defy the evidence of my eyes and ears. I can tell you don't even believe the crap you spout, because you look so ridiculous trying to defend it. There was one democratic dickhead on Fox last night who tried to brazen out the fallacious idea that Barack Obama was the best thing to happen to America since penicillin.

That he looked guilty as hell as he did it -- like a schoolboy who has wet his pants in the presence of the Headmaster -- that he gave you not the slightest indication that any of his defense was waged with any real conviction. It was too much to hide from the camera. I realize that this is your bread-and-butter, but goddamn it, at least try to make a logical case for what you argue instead of trying to turn turds into silver coins, and when you can't even make a good argument, then at least have the good grace to shut the fuck up.

I suppose that we're reduced to this 3rd-grade level of political criticism (on both sides) because this is, for better or worse, a country inhabited by mouth-breathing morons. This is the same public who pays far too much attention to some publicity-whore dipshit with 8 kids, or which considers NASCAR, Lady Gaga and American Idol to be entertainment of the highest caliber. I understand that we have created a country full of idiots, run by and for the benefit of idiots, and that, therefore, our political discourse will naturally be idiotic. It's not in the least to be wondered at that the people who make their livings on criticism will often be bigger idiots, themselves (The Poli-Sci majors and ex-lawyers who make up the Punditocracy often turn out to be the biggest, dumbest, assholes you'll ever meet. They're like fanatical ex-smokers, the In-crowd that snubbed you in High School, and Jehovah's Witnesses all-rolled-up-into-one).

I'm just wondering when intelligence will make it's way back into our conversations -- on any subject at all -- and this cheap, "gotcha!" opportunism, from both parties, will come to an end.

Maybe I'm asking for too much?

Thoughtcrime is Double-Plus Ungood...

George Orwell, please pick up the white courtesy phone? Mr. George Orwell, please pick up the white courtesy phone...

The Savior's EEOC Nominee says it should be illegal to have Negative Thoughts; we should be thinking purple pixies and rainbow unicorns all the time. Not because Negative Thoughts are all icky an' stuff, but because Negative Thoughts lead to inequality which must be corrected by overbearing government power weilded by complete assholes with law degrees. Especially Negative Thoughts that originate in religious belief, and which can be considered (just who gets to 'consider' anything is left vague) anti-homosexual. Quote:

"...society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality...Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people...”

Yet another shot fired at all you Bitter Clingers out there. You can read of her insanity in it's entirety here.

The presumptive head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just come out openly in favor of discrimination. You can't make this shit up. Provided the discrimination is done on behalf of a favored group, it's all hunky-dory. In this case, the protected class will be homosexuals. The EEOC was set up to combat discrimination, Missy, not to promote it.

I should think that someone who can't even wrap her tiny mind around that simple concept is automatically disqualified for the job. But since the people in Congress who will approve her appointment, eventually, have a vested interest in keeping gays happy enough to vote for them and contribute money to their campaign coffers, they will punch her ticket.

They can do no less.

Just you wait until this sort of pantybunched liberal has to make a choice between the competing groups that make up the democratic base, and the decision quickly becomes a political headache for the democratic party. After all, who comes first on the list when it comes to societal grievance: gays, blacks, women? The fur will fly, blood will splatter, brains will explode. Why, I'm making my popcorn now, because that'll be such a fun fight to watch.

Draining The Swamp...

Just a quick list of democratic "lawmakers" and officials who have wound up on the wrong side of an ethics investigation, or who have some dubious qualifications for office, who best represent the graft that Nancy Pelosi said she would clean up. In no particular order, I give you the Most Ethical and Transparent Government EVAH:

Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner - Tax cheat who didn't even pay his taxes when his employer gave him the money and instructions to do so! Crony capitalist who orchestrated the TARP fiasco, who is now accused of helping AIG hide losses from government regulators. Geithner is at the heart of all things Wall Street bailout-related because of his former job as chief of the NY Fed, but it also seems that Geithner has been in bed with many of the major players at AIG, Citi, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs, amongst others. He won't come clean, and he won't resign, and the taxpayer is on the hook for $750 billion that went to his cronies. By the way; Geithner was allowed to pay his unpaid taxes without fines or penalty. Why don't you try to get that sort of deal from the IRS?

Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis - another tax cheat. Solis "forgot" to pay taxes...four times. Even when the IRS "reminded" her to pay them. Four times. Solis was also "permitted" to pay the back taxes she owed (four times) without a fine or penalty, and nary a word said in public. Once again, I invite you to try the IRS on that sort of thing and see if they don't fine you within an inch of your life.

Attorney General, Eric Holder - the man who accused America of cowardice for it's inability to deal with the subject of race (hey, the Klan knew how to deal with the subject of race. Would you prefer we went back to those days, Mr. AG? I think we're doing rather better than that, no thanks to people like you), wants to give terrorists the same rights as any other criminal defendant in our civilian courts. Recently, questions have been raised about his motivations, as it appears the AG may have a conflict of interest in this sort of thing; a law firm he worked for before becoming the AG has defended several terrorists in U.S. civilian and military trials already, garnering a lot of government cash in the process,probably. Mr. Holder himself is yet to be accused of anything, hell, when he appears in front of Congress he apears to not know anything -- at all -- but he may want to rethink that whole "try the Undibombers in the Public Square" thing.

Rep. Barney Frank (Homo - Massachusetts) - Co-Orchestrator of the looming Fannie/Freddie collapse, proponent of the massive 'Stimulus' boondoggle that will cost more than expected and do less than advertised. Barney Fwank was diddling one of Fannie or Freddie's (I forget which) chief executives, who was possibly using his romantic influence with the Representative to keep regulators and reformers away from his agency. Barney stood in the path of reform no fewer than seven times. He never reported his conflict of interest, i.e. fucking one of the executives of an agency he was supposed to be regulating. Barney is also a classic example of why some people in this country continue to call for the stoning of gays in the public square; he is one of the most insufferable human beings alive (Michelle Obama is a distant second). There has been no ethic investigation of Barney's behavior whatsoever.

Sen. Chris Dodd (Dipshit - Connecticut) - Another of the Wall Street defenders, Dodd also had as many fingers (figuratively-speaking) in Fannie (not someones actual Fannie, we mean Fannie Mae, the mortgage thingy. Dodd, so far as we know, isn't quite as gay as Barney Frank). He's up to his neck in mortgage scandal money, having received two "sweetheart" mortgage deals from Angelo Mozillo, former CEO fo Nationwide, which is now defunct. Dodd's fingerprints are all over the AIG mess, and he slipped a provision into a bill int he middle of the night to allow AIG to pay huge bonuses to dipshit executives with Taxpayer money. Dodd's only saving grace was that he's finally resigned, given the reality inevitable loss in the mid-terms. The ethics investigation done on Dodd was a model of speed, efficiency and whitewash, which went by so fast and touched him so lightly that it just might as well have never happened. He can now retire to that Irish "cottage" of his, and hopefully, he will never contaminate these shores again. Oh, and Senator? We're still waiting for the documents!

Sen. Mary Landrieu (Thief - Louisiana) - The recipient of the Famous "Louisiana Purchase", and we don't mean the land deal that Jefferson swung on the French and which led to the exploits of Lewis and Clark. No, we're talking the $300 million dollars Harry Reid promised Mary for her "yea" vote on Healthcare. The stink of this one is that it wasn't even hidden; it happened in broad daylight, on the senate floor, and was being reported on by the cable networks before the proposition was even complete. To date, Landrieu hasn't even expressed a shred of remorse or shame over her actions, and says even less than the statue of Lincoln at the memorial.

Sen. Ben Nelson (Dickhead - Nebraska) - Recipient of another infamous bribe, the "Cornhusker Kickback", in which his state of Nebraska would essentially get Medicare for all eternity at the expense of the other 49 states. Fortunately for us, the people of Nebraska have some sense of propriety and fair-play, and howled so loudly that Nelson began to backtrack even before the ink was dry on that Harry Reid promise (bribe). Now Nelson is in danger of being voted out of office, and plenty panicked about his future. I would suggest he start acquiring a taste for orange jumpsuits, since accepting a bribe for a vote is supposed to be a crime in this country. Unfortunately, he'll wriggle free of this one.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (Hemmorhoid - New York) - the Man who runs the Ways and Means Committee in the House, which writes the very tax laws you struggle with every year, apparently doesn't know, or even bother to follow them, himself. He even said as much, claiming the tax code (which he helped construct) is so complex that even he doesn't know what's in it. When Charlie isn't hiding scads of income like $75,000 in rent from his overseas hideaway, four rent-controlled apartments, illegal deductions for using those apartments for campaign purposes, and accepting all sorts of illegal donations in return for his help in getting some asshole's name on a university building or something, he's busy spending your money faster than the government can collect it, and then even faster than it can borrow it from China. Oh, btw, Charlie was allowed to pay his back taxes without interest or penalty attached. It seems the IRS is in a forgiving mood these days,perhaps I shall give them a miss this year?

Rep. John Murtha (Windbag - Pennsylvania) - Murtha has been up to his ass in scandal since ABSCAM in the mid-70's. He's been up to his neck in shady defense-contractor dealings practically forever, and he's been the recipient of more campaign contributions from defense contractors than any other member of Congress. Yet, this is the man who has denigrated US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq since the beginning of those wars, even going as far as to compare them to the Nazis. He should be shot just for treason just on that basis alone, but instead, the idiots in Pennsylvania (the so-called Bitter Clingers) sent this liberal piece of shit thief back Congress. There has still been no investigation of Murtha's alleged crimes, but Pelosi bent over backwards and practically blew every member of the Ethics Committee in order to nail Randall "Duke" Cunningham on his shady shenanigans with defense contractors. The pot calls the kettle black, methinks.

I know I'm forgetting more of the democratic rogues gallery, like Dorgan, Ackerman, Jefferson, the SEIU, ACORN amongst others. But you get the point.

The rallying cry of the last mid-term election cycle for democrats was the "culture of corruption" that surrounded republicans, with their associations with Jack Abramoff, the Cunningham scnadal, and the "indiscretions" of Senator Craig and Congressmen Foley (both of which involved allegations of inappropriate gay sex, which apparently no one can be bothered to act shocked at when Barney Frank is involved), whom they also used to tar "family-oriented" republicans with the label "hypocrite". Nancy Pelosi, upon her coronation which had all the splendor of Elvis Vegas show but none of the charm, claimed she would "drain the swamp" of Washington, and then Barack Obama came along and cried "transparency on C-Span" (a trick which Bill Clinton once used, too). Somewhere between "Drain the Swamp" and "Hope n' stuff", they've lost their way.

That's if they ever meant any of it in the first place.

Update: I must not have had enough coffee at the time, but I almost forgot: the democratic Secretary of State of Taxachsetts is threatening to delay the certification of Scott Brown, a republican running in a special election for the Senate Seat formerly occupied by the enormous-drunken-alleged-rapist-alleged-manslaughtering-cancer-couldn't-have-happened-to-a-nicer-guy Ted Kennedy, should he win, just so that the dems could keep their 60-vote majority to pass "Healthcare Reform Legislation". This, incidentally, was announced PUBLICLY. They don't even bother to hide conspiracy anymore.

Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Play Fair...

My old employer, Citigroup, is back in the news today. Another story comes out telling you just what a bunch of malicious pricks our corporate officers are, just in case you'd forgotten the previous days' story.

You can read about the scam perpetrated on the American taxpayer by your government and Citigroup here.

Don't be surprised at how crooked and dishonest these people are. After all, these are the same folks who made a promotional video screaming about how they (Citigroup's Smith-Barney investment unit) were the only financial house to turn a profit on 9/11. It can't get much lower than that.

They can continue to deny that video exists, but I saw it...every day for a week. And I can find you hundreds, if not thousands, of other Citi employees who saw it, too.

The next time Wall Street comes begging for money, folks, tell them to go phuck themselves. These are the slimiest people this side of Congress.

Editorial Note: It's nice to know the Obama Administration is busily lowering corporate taxes so that Citi and WellsFargo and others can 'survive' without paying back the money they were given at the same time they are castigating these people as 'fat cats' on Oprah. If that wasn't bad enough, Congress threatens massive tax increases on the middle class in order to pay for both those bailouts, and this stupid Healthcare legislation -- which we apparently must have, but no one can be bothered to read or explain what's in the bill.

We are saddled with the worst political class in history. They are retarded, they are corrupt, they are a danger to this country and it's citizens. Mid-term elections cannot come soon enough.

They Should Throw the Pigs at The Muslims, Instead...

Check out what the U.S. Military is doing in the world of medicine.

This sort of thing would never be funded in a government-controled "Healthcare" system.

Yeah,. yeah, yeah, I know the Pentagon is part of the government -- so spare me the "you're making no sense" e-mails.

My point is that , under a potential Obamacare regime, if medical research/technology is deemed beneficial to the State, it would be funded (because saving the lives of soldiers who may return to battle, or providing a President who doesn't care about the troops the opportunity to loudly exclaim "I care about the Troops!", even when he truly doesn't, or sending out fewer chain-letters of condolences, is seen as beneficial to the powers that be. It's good P.R.).

If the technology were made more widely available -- say, a cheaper, just-as-effective version were to be made for use by paramedics and other first-responders -- well, that might just throw the healtchcare budget out of whack, as many more accident, domestic violence, stabbing, slashing, beating, burn, and gunshot victims might actually survive. Those survivors would then eat up government-rationed resources.

And that would leave less money for late-term abortions, free dental for illegal immigrants, and killing senior citizens.

Discuss.

But it's Not Like the Press is Biased or Something...

The Politico runs this little thing this morning about the travails of one Mara Liasson, a correspondent for National Public Radio, and staple of Fox News. Ms. (Mrs?) Liasson has been asked by NPR to re-consider her relationship with Fox News because, according to NPR, Fox is little more than a bullhorn for the Republican Party. This is a charge which was first floated by Anita Dunn (devotee of Mao and Mother Theresa), once President Obama's Communications Director, and by that asshole Obama sends out every afternoon to speak a steady stream of crapspeak...what the hell is his name again? Oh yeah, Robert Gibbs.

Now, the good folks at NPR hint that this whole 're-evaluation' thing is merely something Mara should do as a matter of journalistic integrity, but it's clear they wish her to sever her ties with Fox entirely, and there is a veiled hint of intimidation. One gets the impression that here is an implied threat.

Which is laughable. Because if NPR thinks it has as much clout, money, power or influence than Fox News, they're smoking something funny. If given a choice between being under contract to Fox or NPR, which to you seems the better career move?

I wonder, did they have the same conversation with Juan Williams? I would wonder which liberal taboos such action would violate, but given the history of the last election, it's obvious that liberals would rather stick it to a woman (figuratively) than to a black man, as black men are higher up on the victimhood scale. (NOTE: That was sarcasm. I happen to personally like both Williams and Liasson on TV. I find them to be at least honest and earnest correspondents).

Far from criticizing Fox for spouting the Republican line, perhaps NPR ought to be looking at it's own behavior for obvious signs of fascism. It is doing exactly what it accuses (falsely) it's opponents of doing, and doesn't recognize the obvious hypocrisy.

I'd say shame on NPR, but liberals (small 'l' intentional) never display that capacity.

You're All Racists...

Leave it to the New York Times to publish a steaming load of horse crap disguised as an editorial.

The aptly named Charles M. Blow, wrote this, and it's overwhelming message is:

America is still a racist country. It's why, even with the elevation of a black man to the highest elected office, the plight of American blacks has not improved. It doesn't mean to be, but it can't help itself. Obama was supposed to hook us (blacks) up, but instead he pays attention to you white people -- who have a love/hate relationship with him which will invariably poison race relations in this country for many years to come, giving American blacks even more excuses not to work and succeed. Blacks are being victimized by one of their own (Obama) for the sake of white folks, and because white folk's racism is such a powerful, subliminal force that it can even make a good black man forget what color his skin is -- but then again, it's not like Obama was really one of us, what with that bi-racial crap that y'all lapped up -- so what could you expect?

Oh, and by the way; America is a racist nation.

He begins with this piece of crap, describing the Reign of Obama:

"So far, it’s been mixed. Blacks are living a tale of two Americas — one of the ascension of the first black president with the cultural capital that accrues; the other of a collapsing quality of life and amplified racial tensions, while supporting a president who is loath to even acknowledge their pain, let alone commiserate in it."

Translation: Obama is not "authentically" black. He doesn't understand what it is to be black, really. Raised by white people, educated in elite, white schools, Obama doesn't understand the 'hood. He cannot communicate with us because he is not one of us. This is the argument that a Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton would have used against Obama a decade ago (in much the same way they used it against Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, et. al.), the only difference this time is that Barack Obama actually managed to win an election, something even they never believed could happen. Then, of course, he was always black (so much so that his half-white heritage was never mentioned again after the election). Until he wasn't. Why isn't he? Try this one:

"Last year, blacks dared to dream anew, envisioning a future in which Obama’s election would be the catalyst for an era of prosperity and more racial harmony. Now that the election’s afterglow has nearly faded, the hysteria of hope is being ground against the hard stone of reality. Things have not gotten better. In many ways, they’ve gotten worse."

Translation: Where's the reparations I was promised, dammit? Obama hasn't given anything to black people, Mr. Blow says. Of course, policies like Cash For Clunkers, Porkulus and Onmibus, all the Mortgage renegotiation schemes, propping up unionized labor with Government funds, all the Health Care nonsense, are, arguably, policies that were specifically aimed at the black community. They failed of their purpose because of the realistic limitations of government power in a free society, and because they were fundamentally bad policies (although the jury is still out on Healthcare). They were designed to hand out benefits quickly, before anyone would notice they were welfare-by-another-name.

But, what makes Mr. Blow believe blacks are actually entitled to anything? I mean, other than 50 years of white liberal excuse-making and mollycoddling, and all the patronizing bullshit of several generations of so-called "Civil Rights Leaders"? Worse, what makes him think they're entitled to anything at a time when the productive class is losing it's security?

According to Mr. Blow, Mr. Obama has been stopped dead in his otherwise-well-meaning tracks by the spectre of racism (hey, wait! I thought it was because he didn't understand black people?). Obama will never get a chance to 'do' for the black community because America is a racist country that doesn't care about the black community. In fact, American racism runs so deep and is such a pervasive and powerful force that:

"This means that Obama can get away with doing almost nothing to specifically address issues important to African-Americans and instead focus on the white voters he’s losing in droves. "

In any universe other than Mr. Blow's, you could accuse Mr. Obama of being a 'realist'. Of course, Mr. Blow then nullifies his own nonsensical assertion (again!) when he writes just a few lines later:

"The hard truth is that Obama needs white voters more than he needs black ones. "According to my analysis, even if every black person in America had stayed home on Election Day, Obama would still be president. To a large degree, Obama was elected by white people, some of whom were more able to accept him because he consciously portrayed himself as racially ambiguous."

Nothing like accusing people of racism, Mr. Blow, and then conceding that accusation is groundless. Don't they teach you not to undermine your own arguments within two paragraphs at the Times? Obama wouldn't have been elected without white votes, and his socialist utopia will never come close to realization without them because...guess who he needs to accede to it, and then pay for it? When he says "tax the rich" do you really think he means anything other than "Tax Whitey"?

But having made the accusation of racism in spite of the logical evidence against it, Mr. Blow then goes on to make himself look even more ridiculous:

"In a study to be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences this month, researchers asked subjects to rate images of the president to determine which ones best represented his "true essence." In some of the photos, his skin had been lightened. In others, it had been darkened. The result? The more people identified him with the "whiter" images, the more likely they were to have voted for him, and vice versa."

There's that "Obama isn't really black" theme again. But, really; you didn't just go there, Charles, did you? I was beginning to have sympathy for you, misguided comm-symp that you are, but not any more. I'd tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but it's apparent that it would do no good. After all, you managed to write an opinion piece which contradicts itself every other paragraph, and then took a paycheck from the Times, so shame is not one of your strong suits, is it?

If that was the only rhetorical club in your arsenal, Mr.Blow, and the only message you really wanted to deliver, perhaps you should have saved a lot of newsprint, and maybe even not taken that check from Mr. Sulzberger in his time of need.

How To Lose A War...On a Timetable...

Giving credit where it's due, at least Barrack Hussein Obutthead committed 30,000 of the 40,000 troops that Gen. McChrystal asked for, and then demanded that NATO and Pakistan "do more". That's 30,000 more and one gentle rebuke of our "allies" then I expected, honestly.

It's what was between-the-lines that made me spitting-mad.

General McChrystal now has a timetable for turning Afghanistan into something at least resembling secure (by what means that standard is measured is still undefined), and then he has to come home.

Nothing like telling the enemy when you intend to stop fighting. That's awesome strategy there, Barry.

This war is now irrevocably lost. Obama's heart, despite all his rhetoric, was never in it. It's why he's dithered over requests from his own, hand-picked General. It's why, even when men are being shot at and killed, there has been little talk of victory and a lot of show over the formulation of an 'exit strategy'. The subtle nuances of that speech before the future leaders of the U.S. Army last night was a virtuoso display of what I like to call Noballs-itis.

The excuses that will be used to cover the Administration's behind were trotted out last night. In case you missed them, they are:

* NATO hasn't done 'enough'. (That NATO is incapable of doing anything will conveniently forgotten).

* The Pakistanis haven't done 'enough'. (That Pakistan created the Taliban will be conveniently forgotten).

* We left a 'stable' Afghanistan, and the 'mission accomplished', we left. This will be followed by the paradoxical refrain of "The Afghan government was corrupt, and undermined our efforts." (The fact that the Obama Administration accused Karzai of stealing the election, and called him a crook while standing beside him on his Inauguration Day, will be conveniently forgotten).

* Hey, I sent the troops, but McChrystal still fucked it up. (That McChrystal was Obambi's 'guy', his hand-picked commander, will be conveniently forgotten).

* The strategy was flawed from the beginning, when George Bush started the whole thing. No one could have 'saved' Afghanistan at this late date, no matter how many troops went, since the war in Iraq 'distracted' us from the mission in Afghanistan (That Iraq is largely pacified and it's government is beginning to take over more day-to-day security and military missions, will be conveniently forgotten).

* If you criticize this President, you're a racist. (The race card is always the last resort of a scoundrel).

* It's George Bush's fault. (Didn't you know this already?).

* It's George Bush's fault. (Why do we have to repeat this? You should know by now!).

* Oh, and it's George Bush's fault. (One last time because we like saying it, and the man doesn't defend himself and because no one except Dick Cheney will call us on it.)

Some other details that irked the hell out of me;

The Prezzzident trotting out his best Bill-Clinton-I-Feel-Your-Pain schtick talking about signing letters of condolence, visiting the military hospitals and his once-in-a-lifetime photo-op at Dover AF base, 'honoring' the fallen. How crass. That was thrown in there to silence critics who will claim the man doesn't care about our military.

Well, I'll say it; the man doesn't care about our military.

You can talk all you want about the importance of winning, Barry, but you certainly didn't back that talk up last night. That was schoolyard rhetoric of the kind used by children who want to act tough in front of their friends, but who really are scared to death of an actual fight. You put up the front (the 30,000), but then said the fight has to end before your Momma calls you in for supper...and no punching in the face, okay?

Good luck, General McChrystal. I'm sure things will be nice and quiet for the next 18 months as the Taliban and A'Qeada cause just enough trouble for you to remember them by, biding their time until you leave. I'm sure the Administration during that time will trot out all sorts of charts, PowerPoint presentations and statistics about how 'violence is lower now than in 2008' (just like the last one did in trying to justify it's lack of warfighting), and then everyone comes home.

And six months later, there will be a smoking crater in Chicago. Or Los Angeles. Or Philadelphia.
And all the perpetrators will have worn turbans, trained in Afghanistan, and if any are captured alive they'll be given trials in the Federal Courts, with all the rights and privileges afforded any criminal defendant, and free attorneys.

Barrack Hussein Obutthead will shed some crocodile tears, and then go back to making sure every illegal Mexican in this country has free dental and access to cosmetic butt implants, and how to put a tax on breathing to pay for it, because that's where his heart really is.

Reason # 5,128 why Your President is a Dickhead...

Afghanistan. The necessary war, you'll recall.

It's a straightforward process, Barry, really. You say we need to win the war there, the necessary war, not the one of choice -- your words, not mine -- then do something about actually winning it.

Oh, we've seen the photographs, the very serious, dramatic photographs of you speaking with your closest advisers in the Situation Room. Your people are good with manipulation of the media like that -- not like it's hard, you know. The media people would eat one of your turds as a sign of undying fealty and then beg for another, so they'll regurgitate whatever you tell them to. But the dramatic photos, even if they are designed to portray you as a serious, deliberative soul, manage to convey another message altogether. That feeling can be summed up, thus;

What the fuck are you people talking about... still?

This is a war that you say is good and necessary. Your own, hand-picked general says it can be won, but he needs another 40,000 grunts to do it. He says this is a critical time, that the next year spells the difference between victory and defeat -- and you've wasted a third of that time in serious deliberation and posing for West Wing-style head shots. Sorry, but Joe Biden in serious-deliberative-Washington-manufactured-crisis-mode photos just doesn't cut it. It actually is a bit creepy.

Shit or get off the pot, Barry.

Oh, right; you want to get off the pot without making it look like you've gotten off the pot? I got news for you; you're already going to lose House and Senate seats in '10, and you're already a lame duck, one-term President, Nothing short of the Republicans nominating Charles Manson for President in '12 (or one of those back-bencher, milquetoast non-entities they're always extolling the 'Conservative' virtues of, like Pawlenty or Huckabee,and I wouldn't put it past the ridiculously-stupid suits at Republican Central to misread the tea leaves and try that one), is going to save you.

You're also caught by your own rhetoric about 'good' wars and your chaotic, incomprehensible foreign policy wherein you call the guy who's running the joint a crook...and then send the Secretary of State to stand with him at his Inauguration.

Anything to get Hillary out of town and away from the microphones, I guess.

If you want to unilaterally surrender, then man up and do it. I know you want to. I see it in your eyes, Barry. You want to please the Berkeley Faculty Lounge, and Code Pink, and the loony wing of your own party so much, but it makes you look all wimpy and stuff. Even more than when Michelle makes it clear she really wears the pants, and shows off her manly-yet-ever-so-femininely-sculpted pythons. It's not Presidential to look wimpy...except when you're bowing to Saudi Princes and Japanese Emperors, and grovelling before the Iranians and Arab Street, and all that; that's not being wimpy, that's extending a hand in friendship or some other tommyrot.

At least that's how it's spun by the flapping rectums over at (P)MSNBC. That's between soundbites about 'exit strategy'. Only liberals (small 'l' intentional) talk about war in terms of how to finish one before you actually start to fight one. It's why they lose wars, badly, after spending a couple of decades and a few tens of thousands of men (see Vietnam).

Anyway, you will be gone, and then unfortunately, the real deliberative, serious, decision-making people (i.e. Adults) who might actually be prepared for this job will have to undo the damage you've done. With luck, it'll take less than 50 years. With luck, they won't have to suffer the impediment of having to repair the damage from another terrorist attack originating in Afghanistan while they do it. Perhaps, by some miracle, they might even find some money to rebuild the country with after that $12 trillion debt you'll leave them.

I know you really only wanted this job for the perks, but, Dude, seriously, the job entails work and the making of difficult decisions, especially where lives are at stake. That's not a cliche, either. There are people being shot at over there so that we don't have to eat kamikaze airliners over here.

Do the right thing, for the first time your life, Shithead. You don't need Michelle's permission, really.

Either send the boys to the battle or don't -- and then man up and tell the truth about how you arrived at your decision. Don't keep the brave men and women already in Afghanistan in suspense; they have a right to know if help and victory are on the way, or if their Commander-in-Chief has decided to fold up the tent and run away.

A Message for the So-Called Feminists...

Either you stand for the rights and dignity of all women, or you stand for none.

Serial-rapist (allegedly) Bill Clinton was defended against his accusers with a near-menstrual fury, but a woman (and her daughters) can be savaged in the media, almost daily, and nary a word is said int heir defense by their sisters because they actually believe (and live) the opposite of what Bill Clinton and Gloria Steinham merely profess.

In true Saul Alinsky fashion, I accuse the feminists of being incapable of living up to their own beliefs. Their ideology trips all over their dogma. You should defend this woman, raise the hue and cry, wave the colors, because she is one of you. In fact, she's more 'one of you' than most of you are. She actually has lived, and achieved, what you all preach is the ideal.

But because she doesn't to hold your insane and self-destructive ideology, she doesn't attend the same smart cocktail parties you do, she didn't attend the 'right' schools, because she had the temerity to actually give birth (and five times? Is she crazy?), refusing to murder her 'diseased and burdensome' child, to have a career AND a family, to marry that which according to you doesn't exist -- a supportive husband, because she doesn't see a rapist/abuser behind every tree and shrub and shriek in terror and demand federal funding and extra-constitutional rights for it, you ostracize her. You join the chorus of derision. Your own jealousies are evident. When one of you does speak your own salvos at the woman are even more petty and vicious than most (see: Naomi Wolff), and do greater harm to your cause than you obviously realize.

Only a feminist or a democrat (small 'f' and 'd' intentional) could be that blatantly hypocritical and still expect, nay, still demand, to be taken seriously.

Either you feminists should live up to your own ideals and come to the defense of Sister Sarah, or you should shut the fuck up about 'patriarchal oppression' and get back in the kitchen.

Failure to defend this woman spells the end of your empty philosophy and the death of your 'movement'.

Update: More stuff for 'feminists' to get up in arms about: earlier this week, a government-appointed 'Health Care' board 'suggested' that perhaps y'all are getting way too many mamographies, and today, they 'suggest' that maybe you're getting way too many pap smears, too. But don't worry; Harry Reid will somehow make certain that you can get a government-funded abortion.

First, it was gutting Medicare, possibly killing elderly women, and this week, it's about letting younger women who may be saved from the ravages of cancer with early detection die as a 'cost savings' which will be used to ensure that more women get killed, only this time, in the womb while they're still just an 'extraneous clump of cells'. You see what your so-called advocacy gets you when it's wedded to a selfish and ridiculous political ideology instead of logic?

Rush Limbaugh Can Be a Civil Rights Hero...

Such sound of fury over a simple proposition: Rush Limbaugh wished to be part of a group that would buy the St. Louis Rams, an investment that seems from afar to be just as good as buying oceanfront property in Zimbabwe. Still, it's Rush's money, and he probably knows better than I how to spend and invest it, so I have no comments, really, on that account.

However, from the public outcry, you would have thought that Rush was planning to build a plantation.

Naturally, every black man with the ability to get his face on television (with the exception of Juan Williams, who has class) feigned outrage, amazed that anyone who could espouse the opinions that Rush Limbaugh does could ever be allowed to buy a professional sports franchise. Put aside the question of whether the words 'professional' ,'sports' and 'franchise' apply to the Rams for a second, and let's try a little thought experiment. I wonder what they would have said if the group who wanted to buy the team included Louis Farrakhan?

Next to complain were the NFL players, especially the black ones. They implied (when they didn't say it outright) that Rush Limbaugh is a racist. They could offer no proof of any racism, except a quote about Donovan McNabb which they construe to be racist. In today's world, any statement which questions the ability of a black man is considered racist on it's face, regardless of the validity of the question. For NFL players to cry racism when a great many of them have had their way into the NFL greased since they were teenagers, is appalling. This racist society allowed yo to play football. This racist society allowed you to go to a supposed institute of higher learning on scholarship, this racist society ensured that when you finished your four years of pretend education, you had the opportunity to enter a field that pays you millions of dollars to play a game for a living, and which then treats you as if you were some sort of superhero. They are a privileged caste in our supposedly racist society!

If I have to listen to one more interview of one more mediocre wide-receiver diva who uses "see what I'm sayin'", "you know" like punctuation, and pronouns like "we's" and "dey", I'm going to puke. That man can barely articulate, and had his freight paid by a greedy university; what makes you think I care what he has to say? I can promise you this; if Rush was his boss, all his objections would very quickly disappear if there were a few more zeros in his paycheck.

(Disclaimer: the above is not intended to imply that all black NFL players got scholarships they didn't deserve, or that all black NFL Players are little more than street punks with the ability to run and bigger paychecks. I do know there are some who actually had to work for what they have, and I can appreciate them and their sacrifices).

The word 'racist' no longer has any meaning, being that it has been flung around so carelessly in recent years.

Of course, the race hustlers rushed right in. Jesse and Al arrived just on cue, a battalion of lesser 'reverends' in tow, and began the usual song and dance;

"Racist, racist, racist, evil, mean Whitey...Write me a check, or I'll picket in front of your building..."

Yeah, Al and Jesse are orators on the same plane as Cicero and Cincinattus. Never a hint of racism in anything they've ever said. Never mind all that 'Hymietown' and 'White Interloper' stuff, right? It was all a big misunderstanding.

Sorry, but it's difficult to take you seriously anymore, Al and Jeese. We've been there, done that, and we all recognize the scam. If either of you had vowels at the end of your names, there would be a U.S. Attorney preparing the RICO case against you right now.

Naturally, the 'professional' journalists on sports and editorial pages all over the country, concerned by the spectre of a private citizen choosing to spend his money in a public manner, piled on. Particularly since it's Limbaugh, someone they despise. They continued the mantra of racism, and then went one further; they manufactured quotes which make Rush look like the worst racist since Hitler -- and then reported them as fact. That's when they weren't citing other people's poorly-based opinions lies as actual sources. I guess the word 'professional' doesn't apply to them, either? Last time in looked, that was slander with malice of forethought. At the very least, it's a laziness which is indicative of why most major newspapers in this country are circling the bowl.

I'm sure if it was Obama being lampooned in a TV skit, the fact-checkers would have been all over it...

The NFL, besieged by the manufactured bad publicity, and not really needing Limbaugh's money in the first place (the NFL is an $8 billion franchise, you know), feigned concern for it's players, it's fans and 'the best interests of the game', and decided Limbaugh wasn't welcome. Roger Goddell is a moral coward.

It seems to me that Rush is now in a unique position; He has been denied his right to engage in free enterprise. He has had his character questioned publicly. He has been slandered maliciously publicly. If he was black, this would be enough to make him President of the United States and worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize 11 days into his reign.

His civil rights have been violated. Publicly.

Sue them all Rush, sue them all, and put a stake through the heart of this phony racial spoils scam that punishes people on the one hand, and which poisons our public discourse on the other. Sue the NFL, sue the newspapers that lied, sue the Player's Union and the players who might deserve it. Sue Jesse and Al.

You'll be bigger than Rosa Parks ever was, Rush, if you just did it.

Redefining the Argument...

Conventional wisdom:

"When you're losing an argument, change the subject."

Everyone knows that, of course. But, sometimes, you can change the subject all you want, and the other person in the debate is sharp enough to recognize mere logical evasion, and insists (how rude!) on having the discussion return the to the original subject. Some people are weird like that: they insist on consistency and silly stuff like that.

When that happens, simply changing the subject is not enough to throw off the most tenacious opponent. Now you'll need to bring out the rhetorical big guns. Now you have to redefine the basic premises of the argument. This is a time-tested tactic of propagandists and the apologists for the worst criminals and dictators in the history of mankind.

So, if you oppose a certain President's policies on everything from the War on Terror, to the Economy, or the fake crisis of health care, you are not an independent thinker exercising your faculties, weighing pros and cons to arrive at a rational position. Nor are you a patriotic American taking advantage of your right to dissent and conscience -- like you were in the days when it was cool to protest Vietnam and the Iraq War (Apparently, those were 'bad wars' as opposed to the 'good ones'. Good Wars are defined by who happens to be in favor of them and how little fighting actually occurs). If you oppose corporate welfare for companies who's management obviously failed to read their textbooks in Economics 101, or worse, giving welfare to politically-powerful unions in the form of nationalization of formerly-profitable companies, you must not be very smart or compassionate.

Why, you're incapable of being a rational, thoughtful, politically-savvy person if you oppose those things.

No, opposition to those things now makes you a racist.

Now the terms of the argument have been fundamentally altered. Now, the argument is no longer about inconvenient things like verifiable facts, matters of record, direct quotations, and nonsense like that. It's all about your prejudices -- whether you have any or not (According to all leftists, anyone who disagrees with them automatically has prejudices and questionable thought processes). No muss, no fuss, and it keeps democratic party flapping rectums gainfully employed on (P)MSNBC.

The word racist has now been completely redefined. It had already been thrown about so carelessly for so long that it no longer had much of a meaning, anyway. But the present circumstances we live in have given it a new lease on life, as it were. Now, racism is not the reflexive and irrational hatred of 'the other' based on differences in race; now it's simply principled opposition to a particular individual. Imagine the consequences of that concept!

Since racism has now been redefined to apply only to The Savior, the great and Omniscient Obamatard, the next time I hear a reverend or a rapper throw that word out I shall take great pride in informing them that racism no longer exists; at least as far they understand and define the term. Barack Obama brought some of that Hopenchangey fairy dust of his and changed the meaning of the word 'racism', and by extension, 'racist'. I now reserve the right to call black folk nasty names, attribute to them or expect of them, stereotypical behavior, and offer them all the fried chicken and watermelon I can get my hands on, free from any burden of guilt or shame, and legally and morally protected from their righteous indignation -- if not from an outright ass-kicking.

Thanks to Barack Obama and the democratic party, I can use the N-word freely again!

Because now it's only racism if it means opposition to Obama.

Now, go pick me some cotton and then gimme some soft-shoe, Boy!

Update: Before the hate mail rolls in; I would never behave this way in real life. I'm simply trying to prove a point here, which is that words and ideas have consequences. Perhaps it's about time we stopped throwing the racism tag about so freely and stupidly; it's an issue much bigger than any President and his quest for beatification and elevation to sainthood.

Janeane Garofalo and Flapping Rectum Syndrome...

Caught this from JammieWearingFool.

Far be it from me to disagree with the worthy personages over at JWF, but in this case, I must.

The main argument against Garofalo in the post is that she's dangerous because there is a segment of the population that might treat something she says seriously. I say let her whine all she wants, for two reasons.

Firstly, what makes you suppose that anyone who counts (Hollywood folk and mentally-constipated left wingers don't count) actually cares about what she has to say? In fact, I'd wager that anyone with a room-temperature IQ who heard that load of nonsense that she unloaded on Bill Maher's show were not nodding in agreement, but either seething with anger or more than likely laughing at her. Yeah, I know the rabid left wing votes and stuff, but mostly, they simply whine. Incessantly. Mostly, they whine about how someone else should do something about whatever their pet peeve happens to be today. Left to their own devices they might make a lot of noise over a subject, but it's far easier to make noise than it is to muster an effort. One thing you can always count on with regards to the Garofalo type is their inability to make any honest, meaningful effort. These are people who live by words and empty, symbolic gestures. It's why they want the government to do everything -- so that they don't have to.

I refer to this sort of person as a 'flapping rectum', in that they're sort of like a really long and ululating fart: lots of noise, perhaps a lingering stench, but in the end, little more than a mess of hot air.

Secondly, African-Americans don't need Janeane Garofalo to provide an excuse for a lack of success. They have the democratic party for that, and when the dimwits fail them in this regard, they have their own legion of apologists, racial hustlers and bomb-throwers to pick up the slack. I'm certain that if you asked a black person, the chances are pretty good that they might actually resent a white girl making a racial argument for anything on their behalf. They have a battalion of inarticulate "reverends" for that, and a Congressional Caucus, after all.

If you're going to make an argument about why your race seems to be failing, it's better that it comes from someone of that race, it appears. Unless you're Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell or Bill Cosby and present what can be construed as a conservative (i.e. common sense) solution to the problems of the African-American community.

Let Janeane Garofalo say whatever she wants, then. It's a pretty safe bet that 95% of the people who can read without their lips moving don't agree with her, or will just ignore her.

And if you're one of those people who absolutely wallow in racial grievances, then you don't really need her help and advice on how to do it better, do you?

True Text of President Obama's "Speech On Healthcare"...

Here's how I heard the President's address last night:

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah, healthcare, blah blah blahbitty blah. Republicans are the devil blabbity blah blah, blah blah blah blah I am God, blah. Blah blah blah (pause for polite applause) blah blah blah blah, blah. Illegal immigrants will get better benefits than American citizens for free, blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah, Death Panels by another name blah blah, blah blah blabbity blabbity blah-blah. Blah blah blah Tax Everyone Within an Inch of Their Lives blah blah blah blah, blah blah! Blah blah blah, blah, blah I'm a Con Artist Who Tricked Y'all Into Voting for Me, blah blah blah balbbity-blabbity-boopity-boppity blah blah. Blah blah blah This is a Centerpiece of My Reparations-By-Another-Name-Master-Plan blah blah blabbity-blabbity-beebop-bejesus blah.

Blah blah blah (serious expression) blah blah blabbity blah, blah blah. Blah, blah blah blah? Don't You Wish You Voted for Hillary Instead? Blah blah blah blah blah blah....

I can now sleep soundly; the dreaded Obama beast has finally been slain, and the beauty of it all is that it has been killed by it's own words, it's own actions, and it's own messenger. The Won has bitten off far more than he can chew, and his ignorance and lack of touch with reality show ever more with each passing day. We can look forward to three years of lame-duckery and a republican Congress in 2010, provided republicans don't do something stupid -- like vote for anything this President ever proposes short of his own hanging.

Dodd and Conrad Cleared by Ethics Committee...

Two Senators at the heart of mortgage scandals wherein they've received preferential treatment from providers while the industry they were supposed to watch began the process of implosion, have been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Senate Ethics Committee (three lies for the price of one).

Chris Dodd has promised, for over a year, to release the documents pertinent to this investigation, and has not. I'm not certain what Conrad has done, if anything, to even defend himself against the allegations. I don't know if either man is actually guilty as charged, and frankly, don't give a shit; that's a matter for a criminal court, but there's a more important principle at stake here -- how can we trust Congress when it can't, obviously, police itself? How could we have expected any other outcome from the Senate Ethics Committee?

Neither of these men should be re-elected. Both should be prosecuted, if there's evidence of a crime.

Burning Books in 2009...

An article from the City Journal, which tells the tale of what happens when Congress decides to ban books...for the children.

These people are either clueless or diabolical. Either way, there is something chilling in the idea that one of them was just smart enough to advance one agenda (suppression of speech) with another (toxic-free children's books).