Archive for November, 2008

Obama: “Now That I’ve Been Elected, One’s Associations Really ARE Important”

November 13, 2008

The exciting thing about an Obama presidency – aside from the very real possibility that an inexperienced radical will fail spectacuarly and send the whole country plunging to its ruin – is the neverending stream of hypocrisy that flows from the man.

The man whose campaign offered a constant stream of “that amounts to the charge of guilt by association” when reports of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and others surfaced, is now more fixated on “associations” than any President in history.  This from a man who would certainly fail to achieve a security clearance in any administration other than one in which he was President.

Jackie Calmes, writing for The New York Times, says:

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

Now, it doesn’t surprise me one iota, but it will likely come as a surprise that the man who campaigned as the paradigmatic symbol epitomizing ‘hope’ and ‘change’ would prove himself to be the paradigmatic Stalinist instead.

My favorite quote of the article:

Just in case the previous 62 questions do not ferret out any potential controversy, the 63rd is all-encompassing: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”

As though anyone could actually embarrass the president-elect more than he has embarrassed himself and the country that voted for him with his own “sources of embarrassment.”

In 1992 it was a serious matter than Bill Clinton had once smoked marijuana; he had to convince voters that he “didn’t inhale.”  Obama used hard drugs like cocaine.  It is difficult to imagine a President having openly associated with openly anti-Semitic PLO functionaries such as Rashid Khalidi, but here we are.  It is beyond impossible to imagine a President having not merely associated with, but actively PARTNERED with, a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and the Capital building.  But here we are.  It is utterly impossible to imagine a President who spent 23 years attending a racist and anti-American church and remaining with said church even AFTER the pastor shouted for all to hear, “God damn America!”  But here we are.

And his administration is worried that some detail about someone’s life could be “embarrassing”?

Advertisements

Obama Democrats Pull Out All Stops To Bail Out Auto Industry Carcass For Union Leaches

November 11, 2008

You remember Bill Clinton’s view of Obama, that he has the “political instincts of a Chicago thug“?  Well, we got another chance to see why that’s so today.

President Bush attempted to be the gracious host at the White House, and got a fork thrust in his eye for his trouble.  Barack Obama – with a lot of media assistance that crossed the line into blatant propaganda (for one relevant example, Chicago Tribune writer John Kass described the media’s utter refusal to examine Obama’s Chicago political connections) – portrayed himself as floating above one of the most corrupt political environments in American history in some kind of butterfly-like manner.   But you just don’t play in a filthy playground without getting dirty.

So President Bush meets with Barack Obama in a private meeting between just the two of them – and next thing you know details are emerging that President Bush is quid pro quo demanding “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” in exchange for his support for any bailout of the automakers.  We saw the use of the most potent political weapon in any American politician’s arsenal: the anonymous “leak.” And so, “Asked if the leak affected what appears to be a very smooth transition so far, the senior Bush aide said, ‘It won’t affect what we have to do … but it was disappointing. I think the Obama folks will be backing off this pretty soon.'”  And “Podesta did just that later in the day.”

Obama claims that he didn’t have anything to do with the leak intended to paint Bush into a corner on the auto bailout.  But someone on his staff sure did.  And let us not forget that Obama is pushing for that bailout that his little “leak” puts pressure on Bush to grant.  Automakers already received $25 billion in federal loans, and now they want another $25 billion.   And Obama wants to give them your great great great great grandkids’ money as a payoff to the union leaches who need the rotting carcass of the automakers to feed off of.

Democrats have spent most of the last two years demonizing corporations in order to portray themselves as caring about the little guy as opposed to Republican meanies who cared only about big corporations.  It played very well into their overall “class warfare” strategy.

They’ve gone after whole industries, and they’ve singled out major American corporations to such abuse and demagoguery that they pulled out of the United States altogether.  As a Human Events article described one such event:

How would you feel if as an owner of a business you were hauled into Congress so the world could see you portrayed as a villain? How would you feel if you were grilled on national television by Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.) waving subpoenas to the cameras? Wouldn’t your stomach churn hearing advocates of terrorists’ rights such as Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy (Mass.) and Pat Leahy (Vt.) accuse you, an American family man with a business, of high crimes against America? Perhaps that is how many American CEOs are beginning to feel.

What if your company’s name had, through liberal demonization, become synonymous with evil? The phrase “Halliburton” has been morphed here into a pejorative by liberals and the media. Certainly, that must be one of the reasons Halliburton has packed its bags, decided to relocate outside America and declare “I’m out of here.”

And they won’t be the only ones who decide to head for greener pastures that actually want their jobs and their tax contributions.

Democrats have done a pretty good job demonizing the US car industry, as well.  Their constant ravings about forcing American automakers to make even more concessions to unions, about hitting their bottom line more and more with demands for health care and compensation packages that cost them more than $1300 per car over their Japanese rivals, about forcing them to develop more fuel efficient cars and smaller, “greener” cars when the aforementioned inequalities make it impossible for such cars to be profitable for US automakers, has led to the desperate state that they are in now.  When you are saddled with massive structural labor costs, it is incredibly difficult to make a profit with smaller, less expensive cars.

The American auto industry quit being car makers a long time ago.  What they have long-since become are socialized pension providers for unions who managed to build a few cars on the side.

And now Democrats are about to impose “Card Check” to take secret ballots away from workers in an attempt to force even more unionization on corporate America.  It’s a terrible idea for business that is almost certain to become law given total Democratic control of the government.  You show me a unionized industry, and I will show you an industry in crisis.

Why do Democrats want to bail out the automakers?  Because they want to bail out the unions that overwhelmingly support them.  If the automakers go the way of the dodo bird, the unions will be going right along with them.

Democrats have loudly decried “corporate welfare” by even reducing their income tax burden; so let us now demand that they hang on their own petard when it comes to giving a TAXPAYER HANDOUT to the tune of billions of dollars to a union shop.  Let the automakers fail; everyone who supports Democrats knows that economies are built from the bottom-up anyway, right? Let’s put the theory to the test and let the big boys go under and see if the “bottom” can still move “up” without the people who create jobs for them.

Schumer Compares Conservative Speech To Porn In Fairness Doctrine Ploy

November 9, 2008

I came across this from an email and said, “No way.”

I fact checked it, both because I always try to be honest and because I don’t like looking like an idiot.

It sounded too preposterous, too disturbingly fascist, to possibly be true.  No way Senator Chuck Schumer said that, right?

Wrong.  (and at this point I’d do a Sarah Palin impression and ask, “You don’t mind if I call you ‘Schmuck,’ do you?

In an interview that occurred on November 4 – you know, election day, when people ostensibly get to celebrate one of their precious rights to free speech in the form of voting for whom they choose – Sen. Schmuck Schumer (D-NY) had this little bit to say:

As The Hill reported:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

Let’s try to take this fascist idiocy in order, shall we?

1) Sen. Schumer defended the Fairness Doctrine  saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Well, yes I do, Schmuck.  That’s why I demand that every television program likewise be forced to embrace the fairness doctrine.  That means that conservatives have a voice during the broadcasts of ABC‘s Charles Gibson, CBS‘ Katie Couric, and NBC‘s Brian Williams.  Remember how all three anchors accompanied Barack Obama on his foreign trip, but refused to accompany John McCain on any of his three foreign trips?  That sort of “unfairness” will be ended by law.  “Fairness” means equal time for both candidates.

It also means equal POSITIVE and NEGATIVE time for both candidates, doesn’t it?  DOESN’T IT???

The Center for Media and Public Affairs demonstrated that the “Big 3 networks [are] still fixated on ‘first love’ Obama“:

The “big three” broadcast networks – NBC, ABC and CBS – remain captivated with Sen. Barack Obama, according to a study of campaign coverage released Tuesday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

Numbers tell all: 61 percent of the stories that appeared on the networks between Aug. 23 and Sept. 30 were positive toward the Democratic Party. In contrast, just 39 percent of the stories covering Republicans were favorable.

That doesn’t seem “fair,” does it, Schmuck?  The Media Research Center adds to that sad state of affairs for the mainstream media:

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

And the most recent survey from the Project for Excellence in Journalism,  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 Presidential General Election” – Sep 6 – Oct 16, tells us that:

In short, Obama got nearly 3 times more positive coverage than McCain, while McCain got nearly twice as much negative coverage as Obama.  Does that sound “fair” to you?  How was McCain supposed to run against that kind of media onslaught?

Why not take a look at the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, Schmuck?  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 General Election.” That study found that in the media overall—a sample of 43 outlets studied in the six weeks following the conventions through the last debate—Barack Obama’s coverage was somewhat more positive than negative (36% vs. 29%), while John McCain’s, in contrast, was substantially negative (57% vs. 14% positive). The report concluded that this, in significant part, reflected and magnified the horse race and direction of the polls.

And there was outright deception going on.  Remember that reporter who literally invented “hate speech” allegedly by a McCain supporter against Barack Obama?  It took a Secret Service investigation to prove that the reporter was lying.  And the media consistently portrayed the McCain campaign as being “more negative” than the Obama campaign, when a study revealed that the exact opposite was the case.  Does THAT seem “fair” to you, Schmuck?

And did ABC journalist Michael Malone’s damning description of a dangerous liberal bias that literally threatens the Constitution serve to prove to you that the “Fairness Doctrine” needs to be applied to liberal media, or was it just one more expression of formerly-free speech that you’d like to stamp out, Schmuck?

If none of that sunk in, just let me say two more words: Chris Matthews.

Nothing would be better for conservatives if a “Fairness Doctrine” were actually applied consistently across the media spectrum.  But that isn’t what you want, is it, Schmuck?  No – you want to stifle the ONE media outlet of radio that has a larger conservative presence while utterly ignoring the vastly larger television media presence that totally caters to liberals?

It’s too bad we don’t force the Fairness Doctrine on you, Schmuck.  Because you’d be gone.

2) Then we come to Schmuck Schumer’s simply staggeringly fascist statement: “The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

Let us consider the man’s progression of thought.  Schmuck is in favor of limiting pornography on the air.  And conservative thought is analogous to pornography.  Therefore he is in favor of limiting conservative thought on the air.

So we have a moral equivalence between pornography and conservative viewpoints.  Cover your child’s ears, because I’m going to say the word “Republican!”

This is the kind of reasoning the Taliban and the most fanatic totalitarian Muslim thugs use to kill and imprison Christians for making mention of their Christianity.  They simply declare it evil, and ban it.  This is a totalitarian tactic.  It is a giant step toward the ugliest political philosophies that the human mind has ever envisioned.

Schmuck is something of a fascist, plain and simple.  He wants to crush his opposition by declaring anything that opposes his political ideology as “pornography” and “limiting” it right off the airwaves.

I’ve had a couple people upset that I use the word “Nazi.”  Let me tell you something: if liberals would only stop acting like Nazis, I’d gladly quit using the term.

When Republicans were in charge, do you remember them using their political power to attempt to crush their opposition?  Do you remember a “Fairness Doctrine” that was geared to pin ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and other mainstream media outlets like bugs to the wall, while simultarnously protecting racio advocates such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham?  Republicans would never even conceive of something so fundamentally unconstitutional, undemocratic, or so blatantly totalitarian.  So why are so many Democrats doing it?

There is something terribly wrong, here.

I remember encountering a crazy person on the sidewalk.  She just went off on me and started ranting in my face.  I immediately realized that she was mentally unhinged, and that there was no point attempting to reason with her.  I simply stood there and waited for her to finish her tirade and move off.

That’s what it’s like trying to reason with too many liberals nowadays.

Anyone who thinks like Schmuck Schumer is morally insane, pure and simple.

President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

November 9, 2008

There’s a coming crisis looming that may make every situation the world has faced since World War II look like a children’s game.  President-elect Obama isn’t ready for it.  Are you?

There is already historical precedent that Israel will attack Iran during the U.S. Presidential transition.  Israel attacked a target in Lebanon in December of 1988 – during the Reagan-Bush transition.  In a Jerusalem Post article  Historian Benny Morris describes that operation, and notes:

The operation took place one month after US President George H. Bush was voted into office, and a month before he was sworn in, replacing the popular Ronald Reagan, a leader widely viewed as a staunch ally of Israel.

Operation Blue and Brown says nothing about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran today. But it does show that IDF operations have been ordered in the interim period between the election of a new American president and his inauguration.

And it is this same period in 2008/09 that provides an “attractive date” for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear program, according to historian Benny Morris.

In June, Morris wrote an op-ed for The New York Times in which he theorized that Israel would likely strike Iran between November 5 and January 19, the day before Obama is sworn in.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post this week, Morris said he continued to believe that time period was a “reasonable” one for Israeli action.

“There is certainly a friendly president in the White House until January 20. There is no certainty over what will happen after that, in which direction the wind will blow.

The second thing is the advancement by the Iranians in creating the bomb,” Morris said, speaking from his home in Li’on, southwest of Beit Shemesh. Morris said the Iranian regime was guided by messianic clerics who could not be trusted to act logically in a state of mutually assured destruction (MAD).

“These men are not rational like the men who ruled America and Russia during the Cold War. When [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad talks about destroying Israel and denies the Holocaust, we hear no contrary voices from the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei saying that Ahmadinejad is crazy,” Morris said.

“So long as Iran makes progress, we are under pressure, if we plan on doing something. Iran is supposed to purchase advanced anti-aircraft guns from Russia at the start of 2009. All of these point to the fact that if the US provides support, an Israeli strike is reasonable,” he said.

Acknowledging the lame-duck nature of the Olmert administration, Morris said the difficulties posed by a weak government could be overcome by notifying the leaders of the major political parties in advance of the attack. He even raised the possibility that a date had already been chosen.

Joe Biden warned of an “international crisis” to test a young and inexperienced President Obama:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

And, somewhat disturbingly, Biden said, “we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Biden went on to say:

I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

“Gird your loins,” Biden warned.

Have you “girded”?  I have a feeling you’ll be using your girdle for a much-needed diaper when this mess hits the rotary oscillator.

Former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton flat-out stated that if Obama won, Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran.  He said:

(IsraelNN.com) John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the United Nations, told a London newspaper Tuesday that Israel will attack Iran if Senator Barack Obama is elected President. He predicted the attack would take place between the day after the elections, in early November, and January 20, when the next president succeeds George W. Bush.

The interview with Bolton continued:

Bolton told the newspaper that if Senator Obama is elected in November, Israel cannot afford to wait until he takes office on January 20, before taking action. “An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy,” according to Bolton, who served as ambassador to the U.N. for less than two years until 2006.

“My judgment is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election,” he added. “The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defenses by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations.”

He said that Israel might be able to delay a strike if Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain is elected. Bolton said the Republican candidate’s position is “much more realistic than the Bush administration’s stance.”

It’s not just John Bolton.  The former head of the Israeli Mossad – one of the most esteemed figures in the Israeli intelligence establishment – has also openly advocated an major strike against Iran in the immediate future.  And Western intelligence sources are saying, “An Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program “will most probably take place before 2009.”

And Israel’s Debka File has stated that US intelligence is warning that Iran may have the bomb as early as February of 2009.

Israel has been practicing for something big.  On June 20, more than a hundred Israeli aircraft staged a massive exercise.  The Jerusalem Post, in an article titled, “Iran: IAF drill jeopardizes global peace,” opened by saying, “Iran criticized on Saturday a recent Israeli military exercise that US officials said was designed to show Jerusalem’s ability to attack Teheran’s nuclear sites.”

Hot dang, would it ever get have-a-massive-coronary-terrifying if a major ally of the United States attacked a major ally of Russia to attack nuclear facilities (as in unleashing massive radioactive debris?).  The world would go to hell in a hand basket so fast it you’ll have to lie down or else fall over, and all this with that naive young appeaser President Obama not even sworn in yet!  I mean, Israel would be bombing stuff in Iran that Russia built for them.  Iran is already ranting and raving about Israel, and Israel hasn’t even done anything to them yet.  How close do you think we’ll get to World War III, sports fans?

I hope you’re ready to ride that roller coaster, because, judging by the polls, it is more probable that you voted for it than that you voted against it.

You voted for it in spite of watchmen on the wall like me have been shouting, “We warned you! We warned you! WE WARNED YOU!” over and over and over again.

I have been writing about the problem of Iran for months.  Given the fact that we will now have a President who fundamentally opposed the reasoning of the Iraq War, how on earth can he justify a war with Iran?

Sanctions haven’t worked, and they won’t work.  The United Nations – which has never done anything useful anyway – will again be no help, with key Iranian allies Russia and China wielding veto status as permanent members of the Security Council.  Both nations have already repeatedly blocked US and European sanction efforts against Iran’s nuclear program.  They will continue to guarantee that no international measure with any teeth passes.  And Europe – which relies heavily on Russian and Iranian oil, can hardly be counted upon as a strong ally.

Europe doesn’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  But that doesn’t mean all that much.  I didn’t want Barack Obama to be elected President.  Fat lot of good “not wanting” did me.  Only a steel-eyed unyielding commitment to the use of massive military force has any chance of swaying Iran from its goal.  And Europe simply isn’t willing to go that far.

This would be comical, if the stakes weren’t so incredibly deadly, and if this same game hadn’t already been played before in Iraq.  The United States was ultimately forced to attack Iraq because there was no chance of passing international sanctions that would have been able to force Iraq to demonstrate that it had disarmed.

Barack Obama, by having opposed an attack on Iraq, fundamentally opposes any attack against Iran.  The situations are nearly identical politically.  Just as with Iraq, the United States can never know for certain that Iran has nuclear weapons, and isn’t merely bluffing, as Iraq was alleged to have done.  Every major intelligence service in the world believe Iraq had WMD; and even senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam had WMD prior to the invasion.  Given the persistent failure to get any meaningful sanctions passed against Iran – just as was the case against Iraq – there is no reason whatsoever to believe that we will be able to do so in the future, whether President Obama is personally charming or not.  And – just as was the case against Iraq – we have a coalition of enemies actively aiding and protecting Iran in international diplomacy efforts, just as we have weak European allies that benefit from the product Iran is producing.

If you believe that Barack Obama is going to be able to talk Iran out of developing nuclear weapons, you are the very worst kind of naive fool.  Neither Iran or Russia will join hands with the choir Barack Obama will be able to assemble to sing, “We are the world.”  The “harmony” and “unity” Obama has inspired will be proven to be completely artificial the moment the first real test comes along.  And it is coming.

Iran has demonstrated that it is utterly determined to develop its nuclear program to its logical conclusion: weaponizing.  US intelligence has said that it can “Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure.”  In fact Iran has only blinked once: in 2003, immediately after the United States invaded Iraq over that country’s alleged WMD arsenal.  Bottom line: Iran didn’t want to be next.

By opposing the Iraq War, Barack Obama de facto opposed Iran’s halting its nuclear program, and opposed the only meaningful threat that would stop Iran from its determined course in the future.

John McCain – by standing on the principles of the Iraq War, and by standing by his commitment to employ the successful surge strategy to win that war – was the only hope the world had to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons without war.  Iran very likely would have believed an assurance from John McCain that he would attack Iran rather than allow it to possess nuclear weapons.  It is extremely unlikely that Iran will believe Barack Obama, given his history of opposing a virtually identical war with Iraq.  The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama was the assurance of military action versus the rhetoric of a meaningless threat.

And that is why it is highly likely that Israel will attack Iran.  The only thing that will prevent them from attacking before Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, 2009 is the fact that their own government is in transition and may not be able to act effectively before then.  That is why I have said that a vote for Obama would be a vote for a nuclear Iran.  It’s why I ultimately believe that a vote for Obama will ultimately result in a vote for Armageddon.

A nuclear-armed Iran will be able to pursue both direct and indirect (via terrorist organization intermediaries) global jihad with complete impunity.  Again, that was exactly what President Bush feared would occur if Iraq was able to develop WMD.  For to attack them with such weapons at their disposal would be to risk a nuclear holocaust.

Israel is a tiny country.  A single nuclear weapon of sufficient megatonnage  could destroy the whole nation and produce in just one day a worse Holocaust than Hitler achieved in years.  And Iran’s leadership has clearly demonstrated that they are insane enough to do anything, given their apocalyptic religious fanaticismA nuclear Iran is far more terrifying than a nuclear Russia, or even a nuclear North Korea.  Both President Ahmadinejab and the Ayatollah Khamenei (who called for the destruction of “cancerous tumor” Israel) have made their position clear.  Iranian leaders have consistently voiced their determination to wipe Israel off the map.  Israel simply cannot take a chance.

Just as was the case with World War II – when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s aversion to war and determination to pursue dialogue (without preconditions, by the way) invariably resulted in a far greater and far more destructive global conflagration – President Barack Obama’s aversion to face a preemptive war with determined evil tyrants may well result in the deaths of untold millions.

I hope we’re ready.  We voted for it.

Just so you know, the Bible speaks of the war of Gog and Magog in the last days, with Russia and Iran leading an Arab-African coalition against Israel.  The Book of Ezekial chapters 38 and 39 spell it out to any who have ears to hear.  The Antichrist/beast of Bible prophecy won’t come in a time of prosperity and peace; he’ll come during a time of crisis.  And we are headed for the very crisis that will see the world welcome the son of perdition as a savior.

My personal view: President Barack Obama will be one of the “false messiahs” that Jesus described.  He too is seen as a savior, but he will lead the United States to catastrophe.  Ezekiel 38:13 describes the rest of the world as merely standing idly by and wondering what is going on as the Russian-Iranian-Arab/African confederation attack a lone Israel.  The nations are potrayed as worrying only about what the attack will have on the global economy.  And for the first time in the history of the Israeli-American alliance, the United States is virtually at that point right now.  Somehow, the United States – the historic ally and protector of Israel – had to be rendered unable or unwilling to come to Israel’s aid when it most counts.  I see the United States being too weakened to help Israel both in terms of its economy and its loyalty.

The pawns are all in position.  The board is nearly set.  The most terrifying game in human history is about to be played out across the global stage.

Californians Reject TWO Alternative Energy Props; Will Dems Pay Attention?

November 8, 2008

The People’s Republic of California – which voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of 24 points – did something else that should send an even louder message: the “green,” “global warming,” “alternative energy” initiatives got utterly annihilated.   Proposition 7 – which would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025 – went down 65% to 35%.  And Proposition 10 – which would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology – went down 60% to 40%.

Noel Sheppard wrote it up with the title, “Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?”  Answer: no way, Jose.

Sheppard asks, “Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?”  Not when the media is thoroughly corrupt, and proponents of anthropogenic global warming are demagogues.

I’ve written about the fraud that is known as “anthropogenic global warming”:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

A question should be raised for all to hear that is never raised because the media is corrupt and produces little more than outright propaganda:

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

And one thing is certain: the Democrats you elected to run your lives certainly aren’t going to raise it, either.

Californians rejected both measures because they came to realize that they would have cost an already overstressed economy $15 billion dollars.  Are Californians liberal?  Big time.  Democrats are now in nearly total control of the state.  Are Californians socialist nuts?  Oh, yeah.  As one example among many, Californians in Berkeley passed two resolutions calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders in the city.”  Are they suicidal loons who will go right off the cliff with their ideology?  Incredibly, as it turns out, not quite yet.

But what you don’t realize, America, is that you are going to have an alternative energy boondoggle that makes both California propositions look like a drop in the bucket forced onto your economy.  There isn’t a federal proposition system such that voters get to decide whether polar bears should be considered more important than your kids.  You already voted for it, whether you knew it or not.

You voted to give Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid near complete dominion over the Senate.  He lectured us:

The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

And – like it or not, ready or not – you WILL stop using fossil fuels.  The fact that there is nothing to replace them with is irrelevant (did you know that 90% of our energy comes from fossil fuels?  Did you know that alternative energy sources can’t even begin to replace fossil fuels?).

You voted to give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi TOTAL domination in the House of Representatives.  In her frankly unhinged spiel on global warming, she ranted:

I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Democrats finally blinked on oil drilling after decades of obstruction.  They did so only after it was long past obvious that Americans overwhelmingly wanted them to harness our domestic oil supply.  But now that they have total power, and the price of oil has gone back down due to the coming recession, you can count on them to go back on whatever they said they would do.

And Barack Obama was recently discovered to have said of vital fossil fuel coal – which supplies 49% of the nation’s electricity:

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And what would be the effect of that?  Obama wanted to make sure his San Francisco audience knew that he was going to implement his intentions with his eyes wide open:

The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

Get ready, America: you voted to have your economy destroyed by foolish ideological agendas, and you are going to get it.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we’re going to abandon it.  No matter how much it costs us; no matter how harmful it is going to be on our economy; no matter how hard it is for millions of American families.  And we’re not going to drill for domestic oil, no matter how much it would help.  The people we elected don’t want oil.  They think it’s icky.  Same with nuclear energy.  They might occasionally talk about “being willing to consider” these energy sources.  But they aren’t; and you can know that because they never have been.

That’s why I earlier called Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama “The Three Stooges Of American Energy Policy.”  But the real stooges are the Americans who voted for them.

Ultimately, the joke will be on the nation that put these radical ideologues with their radical agenda in power.

Obama Promises Girls A Puppy, Brings Home Rabid Dog Rahm Emanuel

November 7, 2008

Barack Obama promised his girls – with all the warmth and sincerity of that glitzy media fanfare could produce – to get his girls a puppy.

And then he went and brought home a vicious, rabid dog named Rahm Emanuel.

I hope Obama’s girls have all their shots.

A Time article on Emanuel summed it up rather well:

When Barack Obama asked Sen. Rahm Emanuel to be his White House chief-of-staff, few political insiders were surprised. The Chicago congressman and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus has been described in the past as a profane, hyperactive attack dog — and it is just this sort of steamrolling personality that makes him such a valuable asset. There are few people in Washington D.C. who could make for such a formidable gatekeeper to the Oval Office.

He’s even got a “hyperactive attack dog’s” nickname:

Emanuel’s nickname is “Rahmbo,” and he is known for mowing down his opponents. Coming out of Chicago, both he and Obama know the value of muscle.

Now, me, I wish that Obama had picked up some snarling, frothing-at-the-mouth Rottweiler chained up in some crack dealer’s front yard for the girls’ “puppy,” and picked a reasonably decent and human chief-of-staff instead.

Obama promises a whole new, wonderful world where everybody loves each other.  And then he goes and gets himself the most rabid, vicious, frothing at the mouth attack dog he can find:

And Emanuel’s partisanship—after winning back the House in 2006, he recommended that Republicans “go f*** themselves“—could undercut Obama’s promises to reach across the aisle.

COULD? Did they say ‘Could’?

Yeah. The way dressing his entire cabinet in Nazi SS uniforms COULD undercut Obama’s promises of an “unshakable commitment” to Israel.

Barack Obama will say whatever he has to say to get elected.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a little white lie, or a great big gigantic lie.  He knows the media won’t hold him responsible for anything he says.

I’m sure that Barack Obama will keep his promise to his girls and get them some really nice puppy.  As for his promise to be a “new politician” epitomizing “hope” and “change” that he made to the other 300 million Americans – well, we can quote Emanuel’s famous line to them.

Sooner or later, the public will come to realize they bought a bunch of bogus promises.

Barney The First Dog Strikes First Republican Blow Against Corrupt And Biased Media

November 7, 2008

Republicans have been waiting for a prominent Republican official to finally go after the corrupt and biased media propaganda machine, and throughout this election campaign, there has been little promise that we would see it.

At long, long last, one of our own drew some blood: Barney, the first dog, finally decided to bite a reporter.

Apparently, he was as sick of the disgusting media jackals as I have become.

Mind you, that Reuters journalist is fortunate that Barney did not bite him where I would have bitten him were I in Barney’s place.  Let us just say that he would have filed his future stories in a voice rendered permanently falsetto.

I wrote an article titled, “Do Unto Obama as Liberals Did Unto Bush.”

Now I’m waiting for Barney’s article on how to deal with the liberal media.

I’m just wishing that Barney had run for President instead of John McCain.  I get the sense he would have really gone after Barack Obama where it would have done some real damage…

Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush

November 6, 2008

I wrote an article that pretty much summed up my feelings with the Obama-Democrat victory on Tuesday: Obama Wins!  God Damn America! Two comments represent two very different points of view:

You people are rediculous [sic]. Take a minute and think about what you’re saying. You cannot continue to spew lies and deciet [sic] and expect us to come together peacfully [sic] as a country.

And:

Let’s give Obama the same chance his followers gave Bush in 2000. None.

I have to laugh at the first comment.  Did liberal individual expressing this opinion feel a similar righteous indignation for the over-the-top visceral hatred for President Bush that just seemed to go on and on and on?  I very much doubt it.  He may well be one of the many liberals with “Bush lied, people died” bumper stickers on his car.

He might be one of the “Hamas Liberals” like this [please see the update at the bottom of this article]:

I Hate Bush!
FOUND by Fred Ames in Raleigh, North Carolina
I found this by a middle school / high school bus stop while walking my dog. I know – EVERYONE hates that a*****e Bush – but I haven’t seen it expressed quite so well by a kid before!

All I can say is, “That poor dog.”

I say “Hamas Liberals” because you clearly have a school indoctrination system pumping out the same hatred for Bush that Palestinian schools are teaching their little darlings to have for Jews.  But that stuff was fine.

When I was a middle schooler, I wasn’t doodling about my hatred for President Carter, even though the man was running the country right into the ground on every front imaginable.  There has been an unhinged – and frankly demonic – hatred for President Bush that has been like nothing I have ever seen.

As a Wall Street Journal article put it, “The treatment of Bush has been a disgrace.”  It begins:

“Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.”

Bush hatred didn’t take very long to manifest itself.  People went nuts screaming that Bush stole the election in an assult against democracy.  It didn’t matter that the Palm Beach, Florida debacle occurred in a Democratic County under Democratic leadership, or that the same flawed ballot design had cost Republican Bob Dole 14,000 votes only four years earlier.  No, it was because Bush was the devil.  The outgoing Clinton administration trashed the White House to set the official Democratic tone regarding the incoming Bush administration.

Now, I’m not saying that Republican parents should indoctrinate their children at home to despise and hate Barack Obama (presumably, the public schools will continue to teach children to hate Republicans).  Nor am I suggesting that the Bush administration demonstrate its loathing of the incoming Obama adminstration like the Clinton adminstration did.

But I AM saying that Republicans should realize that Democrats have set the bar for political discourse, and we would have to be world class limbo dancers in order to set the bar any lower than Democrats did in demonizing President Bush.

Democrats have been utterly vicious rabid political monsters for years.  They destroyed Robert Bork in a campaign of unwarranted personal demonization to begin the war of the politics of personal destruction.  And when Clarence Thomas’s appointment came up, they said, We’re going to bork him. We’re going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?”  The Republican response to this shocking viciousness on the part of Democrats and liberals was to confirm the incredibly liberal (the General Counsel of the ACLU!) Clinton appointee Ruth bader Ginsburg, citing that, whatever her perspective, she was qualified.  Trusting a Democrat to return professional courtesy is like trusting a frothing-at-the-mouth rabid dog not to bite you.  It just won’t happen.  Quit hoping it will, and get with the program.

Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle.  It is ALL on them now, and every single failure – and every single event that can be spun into the appearance of a failure – are ALL on them now.  Does Obama lead us into a war for ANY reason?  He’s a murdering warmonger.   Doctor pictures of him with the blood of his victims and fangs like the ugly and evil monster he is! Does Obama NOT lead us into war for any reason?  He’s an appeasing weakling who doesn’t have the will to protect us from tyrants.  Will we see any kind of terrible national disaster?  Then it’s “Obama drinks blood from human skulls!” Does the economy do anything other than spiral ever upward and upward?  It’s a failed Obama presidency” and “failed Democratic policies.” And – given the fact that yesterday marked the “biggest loss ever on the day after a presidential election,” well, Obama is already “a failed President” faster than anyone’s ever been a failed President.

Don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites try to tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave to Bush.  After what they’ve done, they don’t deserve to talk about graciousness, respect, what’s best for the country, or any of their other smarmy self-serving rhetoric.

It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.  The Democrats demonstrated the pathway to political success; let us follow the ashes to learn the example of the trail the Democrats blazed.

Update, December 21, 2o11: I had cause to cite this article again, and discovered that the liberal who posted the “I hate Bush!” note had deleted it (like the lying coward that he is). But no fear; I was able to find an archive of that image here. And this time I saved it to my hard drive as well:

For the record, I’ve never purged a single thing after posting more than 1,900 articles. Because unlike liberals, I actually have the courage that comes from the nobility of my ideas to stand up for what I said, and either defend it or at least have the decency to admit I was wrong to say it.


Democrats Hypocritically Call On John McCain To Mediate

November 5, 2008

The most essential ingredient of a Democrat is hypocrisy.  And not just a pinch of hypocrisy; they dump it into the mixture of their mixed-up psyches by the cup-full.  Case in point – the following story:

Democrats say McCain can help mediate standoffs

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press
PHOENIX – Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president.

Democrats, who padded their majorities in the House and Senate, have a suggestion: McCain can mediate solutions to partisan standoffs on key legislation as he did to help avert a constitutional meltdown over judicial confirmations in 2005.

“There’s a need for the old John McCain, a leader who worked in a bipartisan way,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday.

It’s unfortunate that the AP story doesn’t mention the way Democrats called on John McCain to help mediate the bailout package vote, only to viciously turn on him and demagogue his efforts once he got there.  The same Chuck Schumer who said, “There’s a need for the old John McCain” not very long ago attacked that same “old John McCain” with the following rant:

Charles Schumer was among the many Democrats jumping on the hard-core partisan Democratic bandwagon to attack John McCain for trying to help:

Schumer also requested that Bush get the House Republicans in line. “We need President Bush to take leadership. We need President Bush, first and foremost, to get the Republican House members to support his plan or modify it in some way to bring them on board,” he said.

He added, “When you inject presidential politics into some of the most difficult negotiations under normal circumstances, it is fraught with difficulty. Before McCain made his announcement, we were making great progress. Now after his announcement, we are behind the 8 ball. We have to put things back together again.”

The Associated Press article portrays Democrats as being bi-partisan and noble in calling for John McCain’s help in the upcoming administration.  It fails to mention how deceitful, disingenuous, hypocritical, and mean-spirited the little demagogues were the LAST time they called for John McCain’s help.  Schumer lied when he said they were making “good progress” during the bailout package negotiations prior to McCain’s arrival.  There was no deal on the table.  House Republicans had been shut out of any negotiations.  There was only a cheap political ambush waiting for John McCain when he showed up.

I wrote about the incredibly disengenuous way the Democratic leadership called for John McCain’s involvement, and then attacked him for involving himself the moment he suspended his campaign to try to exercise his leadership within the Republican Party for the common good.

The American people want bipartisan cooperation.  But Democrats sure don’t.  And they haven’t for years.

Hopefully, John McCain has finally learned his lesson.  Unlike Barack Obama – who has basically never reached across the political divide to conservatives the way McCain routinely did with liberals (e.g., Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy), McCain has too often been with Democrats the way Charlie Brown was with Lucy and the football.

The Democratic leadership is watching the stock market sink nearly 500 points on the day after the election, and they know if they say what they really want to do, it will go down like the air pressure of a car tire following a blowout. And now all the economic woes that Democrats like Chuck Schumer earlier delighted in stirring up are on THEIR watch.  But they want to compromise with Republicans the way wolves want to compromise with deer fawns.

Hopefully, John McCain will tell Charles Schumer what to go do with himself.

Obama Wins! God Damn America!

November 4, 2008

Well, Democrats have wanted it for some time, and they have convinced enough people to their side that they have their wish: GOD DAMN AMERICA!

The voters apparently asked for it, and they’re going to get it.

Bring it on, God!  America says you aint got nothin’!  We’ll keep killing babies in abortion mills.  Hell, we’ll vote for a president that supports killing babies who’ve already been born and drawn their first breaths.  How dare those little punks selfishly try to survive and force their mommas to “revisit their decision” to kill their babies in the first place.  Nothing worse than a kid who doesn’t know his or her place – especially when that place is to die.  That bother you, God?  Tough!

Abortion is killing the Social Security system, but that doesn’t mean anything.  So what if we’ve killed off 50,000,000 potential workers, and the ratio of workers to every retiree goes down year by year?  We’ll just tax those younger workers more!  Serve ’em right for being born!

Referring to current worldwide financial crisis, [Dennis] Howard recalled his 1997 report titled, “The Abortion Bomb: America’s Demographic Disaster.” In it he said, “I see little hope that we can avoid an eventual crash on Wall Street that will make the 1930’s look like cashing in your cards after a bad game of Monopoly.”

He also predicted, “It will last longer than the Great Depression, and if it takes a war to get out of it – as happened with World War II – America as we know it may not survive.”

The societal cost of abortion, both economic and moral, has been studied for years, but very little mainstream media attention is given to the findings.

Bring it on, God!  We’ll figure out a way to keep killing millions upon millions of babies AND build our economy AND provide retirement for every American AND provide socialized medicine for everyone, too!  We don’t need you OR you God damned sanctity of human life!

When the socialized medicine experiment utterly fails and blows up in our faces, we’ll just turn to a policy of forced euthanasia to cut costs.  Most of our health care resources are wasted on people who are old and useless.  Their contribution to society is behind them.  We can kill unwanted seniors just as easily as we can kill unwanted babies, and it’ll save us a lot more money, too!  The Nazis called it Lebensunwertes Leben – “life unworthy of life” – all that remains is to decide whose life is “worthy” and whose life isn’t. So watch out, Grandma and Grandpa!  The generation that survived abortion will come after you!  Just call it ‘poetic justice.’

We can import workers from Mexico.  Maybe their loyalty isn’t to America.  But God damn America, the US of KKK A!  And maybe their education and skill level are generally unfit for anything more than manual labor.  But liberal elites need their lawns mowed and they need nannies for their kids.  And they want it cheap!

Mexican Americans – who overwhelmingly support benefits for the 20 or more million “document-impaired” – voted for Obama 2-1 over McCain.  They are going to expect results.  And, under a policy of “God damn America,” they should get what they want.  The damn country aint worth preserving, and being an American doesn’t really mean a damn thing anyway (being a citizen of the world sounds ever so much better!), so let ’em come flooding in!  We can give them health care!  We can give them Social Security!  We can educate their kids at our expense! And any claim that this will lead to rationing is just silly!  By socializing medicine we can take advantage of government’s efficiency.    Government has the cost of a toilet seat down to a mere $600.  Surely “Efficiency” is Big Government’s middle name!

We don’t need oil in God damn America.  Nobody needs to put gas in their cars as long as they properly inflate their tires.  We don’t need fossil fuels; windmills. solar cells, and corn ethanol will make up for the 90% of energy that comes from fossil fuels any day now.  We don’t need our coal industry.  And we certainly don’t need inexpensive electricity.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says oil and coal and fossil fuels are killing us and ruining the world; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she’s trying to save the planet.  If citizens of God damn America have to freeze in the dark to pay for the realization of that dream, well, don’t forget that we voted for it.

God damn America is a land of socialism rather than meritocracy.  We don’t need to earn for ourselves when we can simply vote ourselves money from someone else!  Success is something that should be punished, not encouraged!  Everyone should be at the same level!

God damn America is a place where it is better to talk with murderous leaders of rogue terrorist regimes than journalists on the Fox News Channel.  It is a place where the idea of a unipolar world with a preeminent United States is discarded for a multi-polar world where the United States is reduced to the status of one nation among many.  A powerful foreign policy is exchanged with a policy based on compromise and endless diplomatic negotiation.   Winston Churchill was a political symbol of the determination and robust nationalism of the old America; Neville Chamberlain becomes the symbol of compromise and reliance upon diplomacy rather than strength of God damn America.

The old America was a nation that would eliminate the threat of a rogue nation if it was believed that that nation was producing WMD that could threaten it.  And even the Democrats in that America paid lip service to the need to deal with such enemies with strength and with force if necessary (as you can see here and here and here and here).  God damn America is a place where those same Democrats who voted for the war cynically turn on it the moment it was politically expedient for a cynical nation to do so.  God damn America is a place where the leader of the Democrat Senate stated “that this war is lost” even as our troops were fighting to secure victory.  And benefited from having done so.  God damn America is a place where a candidate for President can oppose the only strategy that could possibly have turned defeat into victory – and win the White House.  God damn America is a place where a Congressman like Jack Murtha can call innocent Marines – whose only crime was fighting for their country – murderers and war criminals and STILL win re-election.

The old America was a place that respected our founding fathers and the Constitution they handed down to us.  God damn America is a place where the man we elect as President said that those founding fathers had an “enormous blind spot” and that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country.” The old America was a place in which founding father Thomas Jefferson said of the Supreme Court:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”

God damn America is a place where the man we elected as President said of the Supreme Court:

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.

God damn America is a place where the state becomes God.  The state is our savior, able to provide for us, and give us things, and take care of us.  In Government we trust!  Who even needs God anymore?  The evolution we force feed our children in school tells us that the very idea of God is simply a form of brain damage.  Rick Santorum tried to argue that we shouldn’t just teach our kids that we’re only soulless meat puppets, with neither purpose nor meaning nor any kind of ultimate destiny, but Democrats got rid of his nonsense in the 2006 slaughter of conservative values!  And we have a new messiah now!  We don’t need that old Jesus Messiah anymore.  God damn America is pluralist; Barack Obama is a much better Messiah for a pluralistic and relativistic society, anyway.

Barack Obama wins!  God damn America!

Do your worst, God!  Empty and hollow platitudes, and meaningless and vacuous rhetoric aside, we don’t give a damn!