We have a fresh new Toni Home Pundit for you today — meet RenewAmerica’s Robert Meyer. Granted, Mr. Meyer has the look of a high mileage wingnut, and he’s been seeding the Internet with his opinionated emissions since at least 2003, but he’s new to WO’C.  Oh, I’ve been tempted by him before, I won’t deny it, but something about his byline makes my back ache; perhaps it’s his headshot, which puts one in mind of a bus bench ad for a louche local chiropractor.

Ground Zero mosque not about religious freedom The Ground Zero mosque controversy has been erroneously portrayed by certain news pundits as being an issue about religious freedom.

It’s about the right of a free people to exercise their sacred liberties in the shadow of Ground Zero, and more specifically in the New York Dolls Gentlemen’s Club, the OTB parlor, or Thunder Lingerie (“come for the slutty nurse costumes and penis-shaped candles, stay for the Taste of Freedom, one of five flavored lubes available at the cash register”), without a bunch of bearded killjoys looking down their bluenoses.  For was it not Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists who said that, “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & Strip Club.”

Of course this is another red herring designed to demonize those protesting against locating the mosque at ground zero — as if those opposing it want to deny a segment of Americans equal access to the First Amendment.

Anyway, it’s not a question of flat-out denial so much as it is a matter of competitive pricing.  Conservatives think of the Bill of Rights in much the same way that Google and Verizon regard the internet; preferred customers deserve superior access.  Muslims have the exact same rights as other Americans, they just have to wait a bit longer for them, and occasionally the First Amendment returns a 404 error.

Is it not ironic that only a few years ago we were told that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.

Now — at least judging by that Glenn Beck rally — it’s the highest form of paleness.  If only Bull Connor had lived long enough, he’d be a Constitutional expert on Fox News, or at least have his own show on the National Geographic Channel, The Dog Shouter, (Fridays at 8 P.M.) where he would offer tips on training your Dobermans, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds to detect black racism.

Now that those people are in power we have an Orwellian reversal and dissent is again unpatriotic, with the added feature of being bigoted and phobic.

Bigotry: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.  Anyway, I don’t want to accuse Mr. Meyer of lacking a sense of proportion, but maybe a war of aggression launched on the basis of a counterfeit casus belli is slightly more Orwellian than a pissing match with the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (although I’ve heard that Community Board 1 is pretty Kafkaesque).

We have a couple of commenters from New York who experienced the horror of 9/11 first hand, and yet don’t seem eager to void the First Amendment, so I’m wondering where Mr. Meyer lives, that he feels entitled to stand athwart Lower Manhattan and shout, “No Paseran!”  Let’s check his bio, shall we?

Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of the upper midwest. Robert is known by his opponents as a “clever rhetorician”

Apparently I’m one of his supporters, then.

who often exposes the fallacies of knee-jerk arguments presented in local papers.

So he’s a crank who spends the long winters writing outraged letters to the editor of the Lake Koshkonong Advertiser-Pantagraph.

Seeking to develop precepts for every aspect of life — based on a conservative Christian worldview — Robert often gleans inspiration from looking off his back deck, over the scenic Fox river and recalling the wise counsel of those who mentored him.

Robert was abandoned in the woods as a child, and raised by shrews.

Muslim’s are certainly within their constitutional rights to build a mosque there if they desire. The question is whether they ought to. The issue is one of propriety, not religious freedom. Until pro-mosque apologists get past that fact they have yet to make a legitimate counter argument.

“According to Earl Warren, Negroes are within their constitutional rights to attend the same school as my children if they desire.  The question is whether they ought to.  The issue is one of propriety, not equal protection.  Until integrationists get past that fact they have yet to make a legitimate counter argument.  Also, we have William F. Buckley on our side.”

Of course, it’s a community center, not a Crystal Cathedral-like mega-mosque, but Robert makes a good point.  For instance, I’m opposed to our apartment building putting a Babylonian Water-goat in the jacuzzi at some point, but so far the management company has never apologized to me.

That we are endowed with certain rights is granted by our national charter. How judiciously we are stewards of those rights will determine whether we can keep them and maintain our freedoms.

Apparently the Declaration of Independence is the law of the land now; no wonder these teabaggers are so desperate to “restore” the Constitution.  Maybe we should split the difference and just go back to the Articles of Confederation.

What is the motivation behind placing the mosque there if doing so causes so much public grief, considering that the Imam behind the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has indicated he wants to build bridges? Interesting, that in the discussion, the most obvious thing that could be done to facilitate a peaceful resolution is scarcely mentioned. The Imam could just decide to build the mosque elsewhere.

Yes, you rarely hear folks say, “you people can live in the city, it would just be more tasteful and less offensive to us if you lived in your own little special section.”  At least, not since the heyday of Venetian Ghetto.

In fact, were I a Muslim, this is what I would be calling on my leadership to do.

Appease your enemies?  Too bad the project isn’t being run by Imam Chamberlain.

Some might argue that we must show the world that we are tolerant. Of course, according to the enlightened commentators, allowing the mosque to be built on the designated site is just the medicine we need to establish that impression.

It’s not oppression if people voluntarily give up their rights, and besides, the golf courses at most black country clubs are nicer than Augusta anyway.

But are not Muslim nations the ones suffering from the image problem? When we consider the austerity and human rights abuses within Muslim nations, shouldn’t they be trying to demonstrate that they are tolerant?

Robert will stop beating his wife the second it’s no longer legal in Saudi Arabia.  That’ll show ‘em.

There are parallels between this issue and the soldiers’ funeral picketing performed by Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church congregants, a story which has popped up in the news again.

God Hates Fags.  And cooking schools, photography classes, and daycare centers.

If those in charge moved the mosque to another location, think of the public relations bonanza it would be for Islam.

If Vivian Malone and James Hood had just paused outside Foster Auditorium, listened for a moment to all the jeering bigots, and thought, “You know what?  They make a good point,” and then turned around and walked away, imagine what a PR coup that would have been for the civil rights movement.  George Wallace would have been left just standing there in the schoolhouse door with no one to block, and I bet after awhile he would have started feeling kind of self-conscious, and like he didn’t know what to do with his hands.

It would put egg on the face of those who claim Islam is intolerant, it would silence the people who think the mosque construction is an effort to pour salt in the wounds of 9-11 survivors. and it would shut up the people who are claiming that building the mosque at ground zero coincides with the Islamic tradition of triumphalism(building mosques at the locations of great conquests).

I’m sure once American Muslims surrendered to the demands of Pam Geller’s Stop Islamization of America, she would accept it gracefully and move on.  She looks like a reasonable person.

But we can offer them good advise and bank on the presumption they will ignore it.

Or at least misspell it.

If you believe that the bombing of the World Trade Center in February of 1993 was a test of Bill Clinton’s resolve, and the 9-11 plane crashes were a test of how George W. Bush would react, then you have to wonder if terrorists don’t view Obama as an absolute pushover. In that case a more violent approach is unnecessary. Of course this is all speculation — but prudent speculation nevertheless if one is to be vigilant.

So in your analysis, Bob, we can either let them build Park51 and live in peace, or prevent them from building it and get bombed?  Decisions, decisions…

No doubt we will be told that protesting the mosque only results in a motivating factor for terrorist recruitment. But if the Imam is merely a moderate, how does he have so much influence on militants? That sort of assertion is easily reversible. A lack of resolve might well embolden the terrorists to be more daring. Are we supposed to capitulate to every demand under the threat of reprisals?

Ironically, the Cordoba House people have been asking themselves that same question.

Recall that during the Cold War, we often heard the phrase “by conquest or consent,” indicated there was a stealth method of socializing America without a bloody revolution or all out military conflict, but America’s fall was surely inevitable.

This sinister phrase comes to us by way of James Paul Warburg, who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He also wrote the lyrics for the hit 1930 musical, Fine and Dandy.

One should hardly suppose that militant Islam does not likewise countenance both revolutionary and evolutionary strategies in their plans of conquest.

Granted, the Soviet Empire, allied with the subversive influence of the International Communist Conspiracy could achieve neither our conquest nor our consent, but there is an even greater danger than America will be seduced by porklessness.  As goes the Carl’s Jr. Western Bacon Cheeseburger, so goes Western Civilization.

Noticeably absent in all the furor are the champions of religious suppression, crying for expanded “separation of church and state.” It seems that some of these secularist organizations are little concerned if the religious persuasion at issue is in conflict with the advancement of Christianity.

That’s the great thing about being a First Amendment absolutist; we don’t have to take sides in your doctrinal mud-wrestling.

If the mosque issue has the result of being politically polarizing, I hope that isn’t the only positive outcome when the dust finally settles at Ground Zero.

A pogrom would be nice too.  Just for old time’s sake.

Troll (Concern) | 16 Comments »

Most of the columnists who pop up at RenewAmerica are obscure and amateur cranks, and despite their tendency towards lengthy, if not vainglorious resumes, no one seems to know where most of them come from, although my guess would be the north side of a tree. A handful insist on claiming professional status, like papal groupie Matt C. Abbott, who calls himself a “Catholic columnist.” Now, I certainly agree that he’s Catholic, although his columns, as we’ve discussed, consist almost entirely of Matt introducing some diatribe from a peeved priest or cardinal, which makes him less of an entertainer than an emcee — sort of the Ed Sullivan to the bishopric’s Beatles. In a way, this is understandable; since Matt is a devotee of orthodox Catholicism, he would naturally value pronunciamentos from the Voice of Authority over his own piddling lay opinions.

But Judie Brown is different. She’s “president and co-founder of American Life League, the nation’s largest grassroots pro-life educational organization,” an assertion which seems both incredibly specific and hard to prove, but the thing does actually exist, which is more than you can say for the CVs of most RenewAmerica contributors. In fact, Judie has has been “involved in the pro-life movement since 1969,” so she’s been trying to take away your rights since before you even had them.

But unlike a lot of abortion opponents, Judie has evolved beyond mere opposition to choice, and doesn’t actually appear all that concerned about what goes on in the womb — her mission is to stop the killing of “pre-born babies” by contraception, so she’s more interested in fallopian tubes, ovaries, and testes. Because, as you’ll be shocked to learn, Judie is also an ultra-orthodox Catholic; according to her bio, “[s]he is currently serving her second five-year term as a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life in Rome” which is “a Vatican committee that advises Pope Benedict XVI on respect-life topics.” Which I guess means she works in the Vatican, so Judie’s life is basically Bosom Buddies in reverse.

Her bio goes on to claim that “Daily Catholic cited her as one of the top 100 Catholics of the 20th century,” which is probably the only surprising part of her resume, because I would have guessed the 15th.

The pill kills the truth

INTRO: Saturday, June 5th is a special day for preborn babies

Zygotes drink free! 2-for-1 Placenta Shooters.

…honest pro-life activism and families committed to ridding this nation of the sexual saturation that is killing the souls of our young people.

Especially the pre-born ones. Like a lot of people, I thought fetuses floated in amniotic fluid, but as it turns out, they’re soaking in sex!

This is why Judie Brown has a message that every American should read.

Saturday, June 5th is the third anniversary of American Life League’s groundbreaking effort to expose the fact that the birth control pill is nothing but bad news.

So it’s a lot like FOX.

The pill kills preborn babies

By preventing ovulation. So the pill works much like the killer cyborg in The Terminator, by going back in time and killing a pre-born baby before it’s pre-fertilized.

The pill kills women

This second claim links to a pop-up PDF of talking points from Judie’s side project, thepillkills.com, which informs us that “Oftentimes what can happen is that the pill can cause a woman to develop deep vein thrombosis, which is a blood clot that forms in a vein.” It seems like the FDA would be hesitant to approve a drug that “oftentimes” kills the user, but it’s been hamstrung because “[n]o one can know whether or not the pill has been a contributing factor in more deaths since the U.S. Standard Certificate of Death does not include a section that asks whether or not the deceased was taking some form of birth control.”

It’s the perfect crime!

But, as the Concerned But Fake Young Woman asks in the talking points, “What if I have to take the pill for medical reasons?”

A: Since each woman and situation is different, you should talk this over with your doctor and find a safer alternative. In many cases, the pill does not treat or cure your medical condition, but is nothing but a band-aid, which can actually cause even more problems. If your doctor has no other alternative, then contact the Pope Paul VI Institute…There are trained professionals there that can help you find the real source and treatment for your medical condition and they may be able to make a referral to a trained physician in your area.

You may think your doctor is a “trained physician,” but unlike the “trained professionals” at the Pope Paul VI Institute, she doesn’t have an MD in the Rhythm Method.

The pill kills the environment

Ah, this sounds like our old friend Geoffrey Botkin’s argument about oral contraceptives turning our salmon into sissies. Let’s see if the Sims at thepillkills are equally as fretful…

Q: I’ve heard that male fish have become more feminine because of the pill. Is that true?

I don’t know, the Incredible Mr. Limpet seemed pretty butch.

Each of these statements is based on irrefutable evidence.

My friend, you have seen this incident, based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn’t happen?

Even so, most of the media seems content with continuing the lie started more than 45 years ago by those committed to destroying marriage and discarding children prior to birth.

Well if you discard them after birth then you also have to discard the afterbirth, and a lot of times that’ll make the raccoons knock over your trash cans.

The result of this furtive campaign toward total moral devastation has resulted in the sexually saturated society of 2010. And, according to plan, most Americans have no clue that there’s anything wrong with the current state of affairs. Pardon my pun.

Let me find it first.

That’s how the architects of death designed it.

With puns?

The challenge is developing a knack for holding the attention of our fellow citizens long enough to make the point that contraception, regardless of the method, is piercing the heart of family life and destroying the souls of our children. Such a statement is unpopular but it remains the single most important message we can share. Even those who are committed to protecting the innocent at the same time refrain from making note of the devastating sociological consequences of contraception.

No one can doubt Judie’s bona fides as an opponent of legal abortion; the site for her primary organization ALL American Life League (which sounds like some sort of farm club for fetuses) has a post defending Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the Arizona cleric who excommunicated a nun for allowing staff at a Catholic hospital to perform a life-saving abortion:

Bishop Olmsted reminds us that a unique and unrepeatable preborn baby is at the center of this tragic case and his or her murder strikes at the very core of the Gospel of life and the call of Jesus to see His face in those less fortunate.

Some people might think it’s the dying woman who actually belongs at the center of this tragic case, rather than her 11-week old fetus, but as Judie’s colleague Matt C. Abbott reminded us today, this isn’t about a woman’s right to life, it’s about a snotty ultra-orthodox Catholic’s right to scare quotes:

(This “hard case” abortion story is exposing the true colors of the Catholic left — also known as the seamless garment Catholics — many of whom will say that abortion should not be outlawed because, gosh, there are times when abortion is actually necessary to save a woman’s life, as this case “proves.”)

Back to Judie:

Here’s one very recent example. A new report…compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, using interviews with 2,767 teens, ages 15 to 19, between 2006 and 2008, reveals that almost 30 percent of those surveyed have already had at least two sexual partners in their brief lifetime.

Not to inject myself into the debate — Pardon my Pun — but I’d had more than two sexual partners by the time I was 19, so either I was a slut, or today’s kids are lazy and really need to put down the PS3 controller.

And — as if that were not evidence enough to suggest a deep-seated problem that has permeated the home, the classroom, the internet and elsewhere —

Wait — they’re having sex in the classroom? When I was in school, that was considered homework.

the study says that 42 percent of never-married teen females and 43 percent of never-married teen males are sexually experienced.

This is worrisome, because an increase in sexual experience means that more evangelical Christians will have a chance to discover they’re gay before they get married and start a megachurch.

Such statistics are appalling, not to mention devastating to those who have played Russian roulette with their bodies.

Which is even more dangerous than that scene in The Deer Hunter, because unlike a revolver with a single bullet, the penis always goes off.

Be that as it may, this latest report seems to become fodder only for those who want more sex instruction in the classroom, improved access to birth control and better availability of abortion. Few in the pro-life movement will ponder these same numbers and begin teaching the facts about the contraceptive connection to disease, death and destruction.

I’m not sure what diseases you can catch from the pill, but you need look no further than Iraq to see all the death and destruction caused by roadside IUDs.

Sacred cows abound in a society blessed with money, fast cars and loose morals, and among them, the most revered is contraception.

As we recently learned, once women have been given the sacred cow of contraception, they naturally and immediately begin to rut like cattle!

But as this grandmother knows all too well…

Nothing better than getting advice on your sex life from Granny.

…there will not be a victory over the direct killing of the preborn child unless and until there is unanimous agreement among the pro-life leadership of our nation that first we have to focus on contraception, discuss it openly and often, and do so armed with as many facts as we can present.

I look forward to the American Life League filing an amicus brief in the first wrongful death suit brought by a spermatozoon inside a Trojan Magnum Twister.

Easy to do? Hardly! Nonetheless, it is an absolute necessity unless we want to be struggling against the surgical abortion beast for another 36 years. Personally, I do not!

Once we’ve eliminated contraception and increased the rate of unwanted pregnancies, the surgical abortion beast should just lay down and die. They we can really roll up our sleeves and start building the Republic of Gilead.

If you want to root out the monster, here’s my prescription for truth:

PROTEST the pill Saturday by witnessing to truth outside a local pharmacy or Planned Parenthood office.

And if you wind up screaming in the face of a woman who was only buying toothpaste and Correctol, just remember…spittle is an excellent humectant, so you’ve saved her a trip to the Beauty aisle.

Troll (Concern) | 22 Comments »

Fantasy Camp Follower Hannah Giles is peeved that you people aren’t paying attention to her anymore, and I don’t blame her.  It’s hard to believe the country could have so quickly forgotten the Faux Ho and her boyfriend — a loaf of Wonder Bread dressed in a leopard pelt and Plastic Man’s goggles — who went around the country saying crazy things to bemused, overworked black people, and videotaped the results.  This was a serious story, America!  Probably the most consequential piece of investigative reporting since the New York Journal uncovered a Spanish conspiracy to sink the Maine!  Why, just look at the photo accompanying Hannah’s column on Townhall, which clearly proves that a clerk at the local ACORN office in Baltimore took the two strangely costumed crackers completely at face value:

The fact is, Hannah saw a problem and decided to use her skills as an aspiring journalist and slutty dresser to bring down SPECTRE.  Or ACORN.  Or maybe it was AAMCO…Hannah was a little fuzzy on the details at first.  When asked by Glenn Beck why she did this, the perky Brenda Starr-fucker replied, “To expose ACORN.  I saw them as a thug organization that was getting my tax dollars . . . I want to be a journalist, I had a summer internship with the National Journalism Center . . . and they set me up with a job, but one day I was jogging after work and I saw an ACORN, um, I was like, hmm, you know, I’ve never seen them before, I don’t like them . . . and, um, I came up with the idea, I was, like, what if a prostitute walked into ACORN, had no legal paperwork at all, and wanted a house to set up her business. And I called up O’Keefe because I knew he would be down for something like that . . . we planned for six weeks and we went to Baltimore.”

Hannah could intuitively tell that THRUSH was helping ethnic minorities register to vote; and worse, it was aiding and abetting in the sexual slavery of imaginary Salvadoran children by skinny white co-eds who dropped in on their way to a Halloween party — and exhaustive research only confirmed her telepathy!  “There’s a pattern and, um,… we knew what we were going into. We’d studied ACORN. We didn’t know about them before we came up with the idea, really. And then we studied them. And we learned what they’re about so the way we approached them was, was what got it.”

So there you go.  Faux Ho Hannah and her accomplice, MC Miracle Whip, threw open the drapes and exposed the dirty inner workings of ACME to the harsh light of day; but after a spasm of self-righteous tongue-clucking, the attention of the public has drifted off to fresher hells.  And all the Ho’s down in Hoville cried Boo-Ho-Ho.

The “Pimp and Pro” story, exposing ACORN’s willingness to advise a prostitute on tax evasion and child sex trafficking, hit America a few weeks ago.

Hm, “a prostitute,” eh?  I guess James O’Keefe III was blocking Hannah’s limelight, and she’s given her limp pimp the hook.

There were a myriad number of angles to report, yet the Mainstream Media’s favorite approach seems to be the method in which James O’Keefe and I orchestrated and gathered the information

Illegally, in many cases, but more important are the multiple angles that first grabbed America’s attention.  Let’s review them, and fall in love all over again:

Here’s the ventral exposure…

…and here’s the dorsal angle.

Granted, Hannah’s streetwalker costume is slightly less convincing than Bugs Bunny’s attempts at drag, so if you’re still having trouble getting as excited by the saga as Hannah might hope, just think about this…the fake hooker is the daughter of a  preacher!  Okay, his “church” exists one day at week in the Royal Palm Ballroom (2nd Floor) of a Residence Inn, but still, it’s pretty pervy.

It’s like going fishing, but instead of taking a picture and raving about the 750lb Mako shark you caught, you blather on about the bait that was used.

Sounds like Hannah is talking about her daddy, who is not only a self-described “big game hunter,” but also a “shark master,” so I think we’re safe in adding “Electra Complex” to the other angles.  By the way, I’d never noticed this part of Doug’s bio before:

Doug earned his Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from Texas Tech University and studied for his Master of Arts in Christianity and Culture from Knox Theological Seminary.

Did Doug obtain his ordination from an ad in the back of Kerrang!, just like our local own clergyman, Actor212?  Anyway, back to Hannah…

What happens when people get bored? They stop paying attention.

And Hannah will not be ignored…!

Rather than simply complaining about the MSM’s negligence on the story, here are some loose ends the media ignored, from our footage alone, that warrant attention.

With regard to the children:

• Baltimore- Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?

Perhaps they belonged to some of the other people who were waiting to speak with a counselor?  Of course, that’s still rather shameful, since their problems could hardly have been as pressing as your hooker fantasy and your illusory prepubescent brothel, or else they would have gotten a sitter.  Or maybe word got around about your interest in child prostitution, and the toddlers were there to apply for work.  Times are tough.

• San Bernardino- The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where ACORN worker Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband.

Yes, it’s amazing that once it became clear Ms. Kaelke was laughing up her sleeve, the media seemed to lose interest in the many other varied and entertaining ways in which she fucked with you.

What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won’t want to work for us? Or when we talked about making money off of clients who would physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?

I agree, Hannah, Ms. Kaelke was hilarious, and it’s all the more remarkable when you realize she improvised the whole thing!  It was like “Whose Line is it Anyway,” except the audience consisted of just two people, and neither one of them got the joke.  Next time you go to the San Bernardino ACORN office masquerading as Bozette the Clown, see if you can get her to do a structure called “Yes/And.”  I think it’ll kill.

Attention to the masses:

Hannah’s Ass is having a Blue Light Special.

• Washington, DC- Why were we counseled by ACORN during a first time homebuyer’s seminar, while 30-40 other first time homebuyers sat crammed in a hot room?

Maybe their internet was down and the counselors couldn’t watch funny cat videos on YouTube, but were still looking for a laugh on their lunch hour.

The political games:

• San Bernardino: What happened to the list of politicians that Ms. Kaelke rattled off when she spoke of her ACORN office’s community involvement and influence? Has anyone set out to uncover just how close these politicians’ relationships are with the San Bernardino ACORN? Does anyone even remember the names?

Don’t you have a copy of the tape?  Why don’t you go investigate these politicians, assuming they exist?  Tell ‘em the Black Widow sent you.

• San Diego: Has anyone questioned why ACORN employee Juan Carlos would want to help smuggle girls across the Mexican border right after an ACORN-sponsored immigration parade???

Hannah, when you get to Girl Reporter School and begin to pursue your dream of becoming a Fox News Talking Wigstand, one of the first things you’ll  learn is that the likelihood of a question being taken seriously is in inverse proportion to the number of question marks you append to it.

I would hate to be known as the journalist

Then I think you can relax.

who never saw the bigger picture, lacked the creativity and ambition to approach a story from a fresh perspective, and contributed to the apathy of an entire nation.

And I honestly, from the bottom of my heart, think every wannabe and professional journalist has the same attitude.

They just lack the gumption and the crotchless panties to get the job done.

Troll (Concern) | 148 Comments »

Dr. Professor Mike Adams has apparently discovered that nobody’s much interested in his wan mockery of imaginary feminists, gays, and racial minorities anymore, so he’s decided to steal William Bennett’s idea that President Obama is bankrupting Social Security by permitting black women to get abortions, and then pretend to be upset about it, which gives him another excuse to verbally joust with someone who isn’t there, and doesn’t know he exists.  (Stick around for the big finish, when Dr. Mike does an end zone dance in his Fruit of the Looms and cranks up Queen’s “We Are The Champions.”)

The Un-Aborted Obama

The title is presumably an allusion to the wingnut claim that, had abortion been legal in Hawaii in 1960, Obama’s mother would have terminated her pregnancy rather than endure the shame of the world knowing she’d slept with her husband.

Did you know that about 150 young black people were admitted to Howard University School of Law this year? But, unfortunately, about 1370 black babies were aborted today. How can we effect “social justice” if the health profession kills far more blacks than the legal profession is currently accepting into its ranks?

Well, Dr. Mike, if your contention is that every abortion terminates a potential lawyer, then I think you’ve just made a pretty eloquent argument for abortion on demand.

Isn’t abortion sort of like liberalism in a nutshell? It’s just a way of asking others to suffer the consequences of your own bad decisions.

So I guess that would mean that forced pregnancy is sort of like conservatism in a nutshell?  It’s just another way of asking others to suffer for your erectile dysfunction.

You been supported by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals throughout your political career. What if I trapped a dog in a cage and dismembered him slowly with a pruning tool I stuck through the bars of the cage? What if I then sucked out the bloody body parts with my Black & Decker power vacuum?

I’d say your idea of a progressive dinner, and mine, are very different.

Would PETA demand my arrest? Would they succeed?

Yeah, but you’d probably still wind up playing for the Philadelphia Eagles.

Would this not be eerily similar to what licensed doctors do to babies?

Not really, since a pregnancy is not the same thing as a “baby.”  However, I’ll concede that your fantasies about women gestating canine fetuses is a little eerie, yes.

Isn’t that more serious than animal abuse? Even more serious than ACORN funding brothels with tax-payer dollars?

Once again, you master debater, you’ve backed me into a corner and forced me to admit that Doug Giles’ daughter dressing up like Joan Blondell in Here Come the Brides in an effort to win cash on America’s Wingnuttiest Home Videos is not quite as serious a public threat as cockfighting.

When a white abortion doctor kills a black baby is it a hate crime?

When Dr. Mike Adams attempts to formulate a logical argument, is he really just hate-fucking Aristotle?  Anyway, one assumes the women having the abortion is also black, so you might want to factor her in, unless this is one of those Mandingo scenarios you guys seem to get so hot and bothered about, in which case, please close the door, keep it down, and throw the sweat sock in the hamper when you’re finished.

What would happen if we started shooting unborn babies with guns?

Well, considering you’ve gone to “game ranches” where you basically pay to assassinate the inmates of a petting zoo, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear you’d gone to a hospital and tipped the attending nurse to let you hunt infants in the neo-natal ward.  And while tracking a preemie isn’t exactly the Most Dangerous Game, it’s incubator can serve as a lovely display case once you’ve had the newborn stuffed and mounted.

Update:  I missed this in my brief period of lucidity while writing the post, but as TM points out in comments:

“Well, as they’re still unborn and inside women, I guess that means you’d be shooting people, Dr. Mike.

This is ultra creepy, but I somehow suspect that Dr. Mike was inadvertently admitting to a fantasy of inserting a pistol into a woman’s vagina and firing it.”

(See above photo)

I was recently told that, as a Christian, I should support your health reform bill. But I would not want to be treated in a universal Canadian-style health care system.

I fully support your principled decision to bleed out after a tragic shotgun-cleaning accident.

I just ran into a fellow who was wearing a “Jesus” fish around his neck and an “Obama” hat on his head. That’s like wearing a Star of David around your neck and carving a swastika on your forehead.

Either Dr. Mike thinks progressive Christians are the moral equivalent of Charles Manson, or he was very confused by the plot of Inglorious Basterds.  Still, it’s clear that his anguish over black abortion rates is due solely to his deep love and abiding respect for the African American community.

Since abortion kills so many black males, shouldn’t we call it “homie-cide”?

Or not.

Troll (Concern) | 45 Comments »

Bruce (Betty-Jo) Bialosky is founder of the “Republican Jewish Coalition of California,” (a position which offers slightly less opportunity for human interaction than the job of Major Appliance Repair Specialist for the Maytag Corporation), as well as a columnist for Townhall; and it’s in the latter capacity that he has a special message for President Obama:

Oh, I’m sorry, that’s not the message.  The actual message reads, “Psyche!”

Mr. Obama, your speech in Cairo encouraged me to reconsider my thoughts on how I view Islam as a religion in today’s society. I have really thought it over and decided to fully accept Islam … with just a few caveats.

Betty-Jo is one of the Caveat Creeps!

First, they have to stop treating women as second class citizens.

Except when it comes to abortion — we’re actually kind of on-board with that part of the program.  And the staying home and raising children, and submitting to her husband, and…  Okay, look.  Basically, we demand that women in Muslim countries be treated as second class citizens with the option to buy an upgrade to first class if they’re light-skinned and rich enough.

Don’t tell me those head covers are worn by choice. They are forced on them just like honor killings.

Well now I feel bad for all those Orthodox Jewish women I pass on my way to the New Beverly Cinema.  I always assumed the scarves and snoods were consensual.

Halacha (Jewish law) requires married women to cover their hair…

It is sad the French have it right and we don’t on this issue. This is a country where we have worked for a hundred years to bring equality to women.

Just give us another couple hundred more and I’m sure we’ll nail it.

Allowing any woman to be subservient is disgraceful.

Couldn’t agree more.  Still, we better check the directions first…

Corinthians 11:  Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

So come on, ladies, we’re at war — dishonor your head!

And come to think of it, tell your Secretary of State and Speaker of the House to stop covering their heads on visits. They are supposed to be beacons of the women’s movement. By covering their heads, they are not being respectful to their hosts– they are disgracing every woman who ever fought for equal rights.

Don’t mind me, hum-de-dum, just disgracing my sex, la-la-la…

Next, tell the Islamists to stop killing gays. Maybe gays are not totally accepted in this society, but we have made great progress in the last 50 years. We may not agree on gay marriage, but we certainly agree on equal rights for gays.

“…in that we agree they shouldn’t have any…Okay, I admit, that’s another point for the Islamists, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

We don’t allow them to be killed just for being gay.

They’ve got to be gay and do something offensive, like cruise Tucker Carlson in a public toilet.  Then it’s on, bitch!

How about the issue of freely elected democratic governments in the Muslim world? Not too many of those around, are there Mr. Obama? When the Islamic world stops being run like feudal societies given up by the rest of the world half a millennium ago, I think it would then be a grand time to accept the Muslims.

(Offer void in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, and Qatar.)

I know it is sometimes politically expedient to deal with dictators…But please explain to me why in today’s world, where the great majority of people live in democracies, that we need to make nice-nice with dictators. This country is all about not accepting autocracies, Mr. Obama.

Just their tongues.

Troll (Concern) | 31 Comments »

Our internet connection was down for about a day and a half, so I’m a little behind in my wingnuts, but popping into Townhall I immediately noticed they’re still blaming the Enlightenment for Playboy’s Party Jokes.

Ashley Herzog, author of the self-published, self-hatehelp book , is in a fierce, Valerie Solanas-grade rage over leftist chauvinism:

This year has been Misogyny Mania for liberals who claim to be “pro-woman.”

Perhaps I shouldn’t have picked the Washington State Gynophobes for my NCAA bracket.

First there was the character assassination of Miss California Carrie Prejean, in which liberals thought a deft response to her anti-gay marriage comments was to call her a slut.  By saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, Prejean did nothing more than restate the official position of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bill Clinton

Only the last of whom is a proven slut.

That’s how liberal woman-haters think. Male politicians are allowed to have opinions; young beauty pageant contestants aren’t.

Ever since the jackbooted liberals shut down the beauty queen think tanks, our national debate has become so shallow.

Meanwhile, Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, was feeling sad that he had no shoes, until he met a vest that had no sleeves.

While ["pro-family"] groups meditate on the political ramifications of recent marriage regulations and decisions, new alliances are being formed and millions of nameless and faceless Americans will soon join the struggle to affirm biblical marriage.

Um, “nameless and faceless Americans,” Bishop?  So you’re recruiting an army of mindless zombies, hideously disfigured by decay, to beat back the tide of marriage-minded homosexuals?

Dude, that’s awesome!

The New Hampshire legislature muddied the waters in the marriage debate by attempting to throw the religious community a bone, declaring that conservative ministers would not be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Despite the New Hampshire governor’s attempt to paint this as a compromise position, the religious services exemption is tantamount to giving pro “biblical” marriage proponents the sleeves out of one’s vest. In most cases openly gay people will not seek out conservative ministers to perform their weddings.

Hey, wasn’t that one of the religious right’s primary arguments against gay marriage — that clergymen would be forced to officiate at homosexual weddings, or go to jail?  And didn’t you just poke a big hole in it and let all the air out?  Personally, I think that’s great, but listen — if you see Maggie Gallagher?  Hide.

Knowledgeable pro-traditional marriage advocates understand that the real danger lies with the unintended consequences of gay marriage on the next generation…In California five-year olds are asked to become gay “Allies” and they can join such a club, which meets during breaks in their elementary classrooms.

Well, you can’t really blame that on gay marriage, since, thanks to you folks, we don’t have it in California.

What will the landscape of America look like if same-sex marriage is legalized across our nation?

Tidier?  Better color-coordinated?

According to the writings of Dr. Stanley Kurtz, nations who have gone this way see a dramatic increase in out of wedlock births, long-term singleness, and other symptoms of the devaluation of the institution.

So no change, then.  Damn.  I was hoping we could at least do something about these drapes…

Consider these statistics. Over half of Americans studied in a survey in 2001 by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government believe that the high number of single-parent families is a major cause of poverty.

Consider these statistics:   “Most Americans believe that angels and demons are active in the world, and nearly 80 percent think miracles occur”

Repeatedly, scholarly studies focused on adolescence show that early onset of puberty in girls is a major problem.

And clearly, gay marriage is the culprit.  Back when homosexuality was the Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name, girls were content to wait until 13 or 14 years of age before they rushed into menses; and they frequently put off lesbian experimentation until summer camp in high school, or even until they pledged a sorority, but these menstruating, boob-popping brats have apparently never heard of “delayed gratification.”

An eight year study of girls and their families showed that a father’s presence in the home, with appropriate involvement in his children’s lives, contributed to later pubertal timing of the daughters in the seventh grade.

In the old days, a father was a young girl’s ideal, a source of love, support, and guidance.  Now he’s mostly there as a hormone inhibitor, which — according to my brief survey of the medical literature — helps to prevent the apple of his eye from acquiring pubes or prostate cancer.

In conclusion, let me cite the fact that even former Vice President Al Gore sees the need for strong fathers to remain in the nuclear family.

Even that sexual anarchist Al Gore, with his retinue of common-law wives and litter of semi-feral bastards recognizes a role for fathers?  Can another Great Awakening be far behind?

Let’s set our sights high. Let’s not fall victim to the inevitability argument of our opposition.

Especially when we wake up in some strange, damp, and aromatic bed the morning after the Greenwich Village Halloween Parade, still a little drunk, and naked except for a Bedazzled tank top and a pair of assless chaps made from Mylar.

Troll (Concern) | 20 Comments »

Hey, great news everybody!   Author and conservative radio host Dennis Prager has offered to support a rigorous and independent investigation into Bush Administration torture policies!  Now this is quite the coup, because as you know, Prager is no ordinary drive time chat jockey.  No, far from it; in fact, he’s a thoughtful, literate, deeply religious man who is less concerned with scoring cheap partisan advantage, than with dispensing chalky pellets of moral wisdom like a self-righteous Pez head.  And all we need to do in return is to answer a series of questions about when we stopped beating our wives.

Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture

Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:

As a member of the Left (oh don’t deny it, you’re pinker than Helen Gahagan Douglas) you may be wondering why you “need” to complete this pop quiz before you’re entitled to feel sickened by the U.S. government’s use of torture.  The answer is simple: Dennis is worried that you may be faking your revulsion in order to pass for human, which means you’re probably a replicant.  Fortunately, he’s developed a foolproof questionnaire designed to expose counterfeit empathy in androids.  Now, you’re walking through the desert, when you come upon a tortoise…

1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny?

Wow, that question’s loaded like a Bacon, Chedder, ‘n’ Sour Cream-stuffed skin at 1 Potato 2.  Well, Dennis, let me put it this way:  I didn’t support starting a war to stop Saddam Hussein from torturing because that wasn’t the excuse we were given for invading Iraq; you may recall that at first the casus belli was a dessert topping, and only later did it become a floor wax.  Of course there are a multitude of countries which practice torture — in many cases, on clients we’ve referred to them — so the premise of your question raises another:  Are we morally obliged (let alone entitled) to invade and conquer (in a half-assed, Whack-A-Mole way), all those other countries too, or only nations ruled by dictators whose overthrow will prove at last to Barbara Bush that her first born’s dick is bigger than her husband’s?

So I guess my answer is, if I noticed a black widow spider in my neighbor’s garage, I probably wouldn’t feel entitled to respond by splashing gasoline around the front porch and setting his house on fire.

One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

So you assume the Bush Administration invaded Iraq so we could put a stop to Saddam’s gruesome, Industrial Age torments, and introduce the populace to our more rustic and artisanal torture techniques?  Well, the good news is that a lot of those people did get a chance to be waterboarded, and they didn’t even have to beg.

2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable?

We’re making legal, not ethical distinctions.  I find you morally objectionable, but I don’t argue that’s legitimate cause for some GS-14 to force water into your lungs.

In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture

No.  Let’s move on to question number three.

as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.

Oh, must I?  The line has already been drawn, torture is defined and proscribed in our laws, and I’m not inclined to play the incremental game of Well If I Can Do This, Why Can’t I Do That?  Because you guys are like some horny teenager in the back seat of a parked car on prom night, telling your date, “I’ll just put the head in, I promise.”  And we all know that can only end in one of two ways for us: bukkake or pregnancy.

3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time — even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives — wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida — for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured — could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?

I thought we needed to answer nine questions, not one question reworded nine different ways?  Anyway, for the sake of clarity, let’s assume an alien lands in Los Angeles.  And not a handsome, suave, Michael Rennie in The Day the Earth Stood Still type, but a real Lovecraftian cephalopod kind of horror.  It slithers into your radio studio at the top of the hour and declares it has detailed intelligence about an impending invasion from outer space, and it will vouchsafe this information if it can fornicate with your (for the sake of clarity) young child, using all three of its penises at once, plus its prehensile ovapositor.  Also, the monster wants to videotape the act, because that kind of thing sells like hotcakes on certain hentai websites.

Anyway…Sorry, I got lost in my hypothetical.  What was your question again?

4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area?

I certainly hope it would inhibit lawyers from giving illegal advice to clients who can order torture and suspend habeas corpus.

5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos.

You’re quite presumptuous, aren’t you?  If I had a martini right now I’d dash it in your face.

Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

Let’s put it this way:  If you were serving on the jury of a racially charged trial, and the prosecution proved the defendant guilty of murder beyond a shadow of a doubt, would you be morally responsible for any subsequent riots if you voted to convict?  Because according to my Field Guide to Conservative Tropes, the only people to blame would be the rioters themselves.

6. [N.B.  Question 6 was removed by curators from the Museum of Question Begging and placed on exhibit because it was considered such a flawless specimen.  However, feel free to click through the link above to Townhall if you wish to see the species in its natural environment.

7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?

How do we know what they were told?  The briefings were classified and they were forbidden from discussing them even with their own staffs, let alone their colleagues, so how were they supposed to register an objection?  With music?  Should Speaker Pelosi have stood under Dick Cheney’s window, holding a boombox over her head that played “In Your Eyes (and Water-Filled Lungs)”?

8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos — or at least photo re-enactments — of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?

Yes, but it’s not context, it’s moral equivalence.  Which, again, I thought you guys considered the epitome of a weak and mendacious argument.  And why don’t you leave the “re-enactments” to America’s Most Wanted and the Weekly World News?

9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly.

Actually, that was the Pentagon:  “The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel,” says the document, an unsigned two-page attachment to a memo by the military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency.”

It’s a common mistake; we sound very similar on the phone.

Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war?

The Japanese weren’t signatories to the Geneva Convention, so they felt free to torture and summarily execute prisoners.  Yet, despite their willingness to make the tough decisions and do what needed to be done, they still lost.  Go figure.

Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?

I don’t actually care what “evil people” think, since I assume they’re capable of rationalizing any statement or action, no matter how false or despicable.  (If not, I’ll refer them to you for technical support.)  I do care if the rest of the world, particularly our allies, think of America as evil, because that Canadian flag patch I sewed on my backpack in 2003 is starting to peel off.

If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.

Consider Morality and Torture addressed, Denny.  When does the Vengeance start?

Troll (Concern) | 25 Comments »

Many conservative pundits, even those on the split-end fringes of the movement, seem hilariously flummoxed by Barack Obama, unsure how to vilify a black president without turning their tacit racism explicit, and ruining all the mystery.  It’s like the terror experienced by a teenage boy as he watches his mother collect dirty laundry, and prays that she doesn’t turn that one particular sweat sock inside out.   But RenewAmerica has found the solution in Nathan Tabor, a politically savvy man-child who Jerry Falwell once dubbed, “the young Jesse Helms,” right around the time Nathan ran for Congress (against Vernon Robinson, “the black Jesse Helms”) by pouring nearly a million dollars into an eight-way primary, and then losing; or possibly it was during his subsequent campaign for the North Carolina state senate, which he also lost.  At any rate, who better than “the young Jesse Helms” to dynamite this rhetorical beaver dam of self-censoring racial sensitivity, and let the bracing cataract of criticism flow free, like a cool clear stream of propaganda to a parched and barren land, thirsty for talking points:

The media lovefest over our new President makes much of the fact that he is the first African-American to hold the highest office in the land. One would expect, then, that the nation’s most prominent black leader would pursue policies that would benefit blacks as never before.

Obama’s entire presidential campaign was an elaborate scheme to give black folks free abortions and bottomless refills of Motherfucking™ iced tea.  Oh, and access to nuclear weapons.

However, based on his statements on the campaign trail, it appears that Barack Obama is poised to implement programs that will wreak havoc on the black family — and could, in fact, decimate the African-American population.

He could also step on a dandelion on the South Lawn of the White House and wipe out an entire colony of Whos.

For instance, Obama has embraced an old-school liberalism which will put Uncle Sam on a high-octane spending spree, creating massive government programs which will weaken American initiative. Minorities are likely to be especially vulnerable to such strong-arm government tactics.

Future historians will tell how Obama set his goons loose in the ghettos, to brutally club minorities into prosperity with the axe-handles of opportunity.

Obama told Planned Parenthood in 2007 that the first thing he’d do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act — a radical piece of legislation which would go beyond Roe versus Wade in declaring abortion to be a fundamental right, such as the right to free speech.

So radical that it apparently repeals Article V (requiring that changes be made only after a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate, and approval by three-fourths of the states) and grants Obama the power to amend the Constitution at whim.  He probably takes a copy into the crapper with him and scribbles additions to the Bill of Rights (“Amendment 78 declares that Silly Putty which has picked up the image of a five dollar bill may be used as legal tender”…”The right of the people to be secure in their houses, illusions, underpants, pre-conceived notions, and special effects, against unreasonable searches, seizures, and reach-arounds, shall not be violated…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the Mark Eden Bust Developer…”

Since the Freedom of Choice Act would result in the elimination of virtually all restrictions on abortion, abortion rates under Obama could conceivably skyrocket. African-American women already obtain a disproportionate number of abortions, meaning that the African-American child could be particularly at risk under the Obama Administration. The black genocide, which has already claimed millions of lives since 1973, could escalate.

Ah yes, it’s our old friend Not Having a Baby is the Moral Equivalent of Shooting a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die.  It seems that jailing and executing African Americans at wildly disporportionate rates, and standing idly by while they suffered from poverty, inferior schools, and poor health care just wasn’t getting the job done.  But a new generation of ethnic cleansers — people like Obama, who are educated, organized, and ergonomically aware — realize that by increasing abortion rates, they can nip these black people in the bud.  It’s like taking a hot air balloon up to the fluffy cloud where baby souls wait to be born, wading into the queue and clubbing them like baby harp seals.

Remember those shots of African-Americans, young and old, weeping with uncontainable joy as they stood on the Mall and watched the inauguration?  Just imagine their expressions when Obama cranks up the Black Genocide and they realize, “Well, I guess the jokes on us!“  Of course, it’s perhaps a shade ironic to hear anti-choice activists like Nathan declare that Blacks are committing racial suicide, since the anti-abortion movement arose from a fear that Slavs, Celts, Latins, and other inferior flavors of white people — let alone Negroes — were outbreeding the Anglo-Saxon middle class.

But blacks are not the only minority group which could suffer under the Democratic regime in Washington.

The streets will run red with the blood of Freemasons.

Democratic leaders believe that children must be taught evolution, and they cringe at the common-sense notion of intelligent design. The evolutionary theory promoted by Charles Darwin teaches survival of the fittest. That would place homosexuals at the bottom of the chain, since they cannot procreate.

Nathan, if your entire case against homosexuality depends upon natural selection, then I’d suggest you check out the guys parading down Santa Monica Boulevard on a hot day, because if it all comes down to survival of the fittest, there’s going to be nothing left after the apocalypse but cockroaches and West Hollywood.

Under evolution, they are destined to die out, forced out of existence by the heterosexuals who can procreate.

Brilliant plan; except for all the heterosexuals who keep making new homosexuals.

The idea that our nation’s Democratic leaders are anti-black, anti-minority, and anti-homosexual is an inconvenient truth. It is uncomfortable to read because it is uncomfortable to write.

“And it’s particularly uncomfortable to write while wearing this titanium alloy chastity belt with the Kryptonite lock, which is fearfully chafing my naughty batch.”

But, as an old adage goes, the truth will make you free. Only when Democrats confront their own bigoted demons can true progress begin, can we finally heal as a nation.

And perhaps — one day — Democrats will even become progressive enough to elect an African-American president.

*Post relabeled at Mark S’s suggestion.  I have a feeling this is going to be a growth category over the next couple years.

Troll (Concern) | 22 Comments »