Over at Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, the newspinion comes in two flavors: stories lifted whole from another source, usually the AP, or stories lifted whole from another source and leavened with innuendo and schoolyard-quality satire, such as replacing the “r”s in a Barney Frank quote with “w”s in an effort to make him sound like more like a homosexual.  Of course, as even the most dull-witted gay-basher knows, you counterfeit a lisp by replacing the “s” with the “th” sound; Tucker’s method only succeeds in making Frank sound like Barbara Walters, which is unpleasant, but tends to render pointless the cascade of anal sex jokes that inevitably follow.  (Unless he’s deliberately evoking an image of buggering Barbara Walters trapped in the body of Rep. Barney Frank, in which case Tucker is publicly acting out a far more elaborate fantasy life than I would have given him credit for.)

Anyway, lately the lads over at the DC have been on a sniggering jihad against Michelle Obama’s program to stem childhood obesity. I’m not clear on the source of their outrage, but I assume Tucker and other select members of his class believe that A Modest Proposal is the next logical step in the evolution of our tax code, and he doesn’t want his larder filled with a tithing of tough and stringy infants.  After all, if the underclass in this country can’t produce plump, tender, and sweet offspring whose every cell bursts with flavor and high fructose corn syrup, then they don’t deserve our noblesse oblige, although you can still turn the chewier cuts of children into baby jerky and store it in your bomb shelter or mountain aerie as a hedge against nuclear winter or peasant uprising.

But the thing which appears to steam Tucker most about the First Lady’s efforts is her rank hypocrisy, since an undercover sting operation by Daily Caller investigative reporters has revealed that Mrs. Obama is secretly obese.

I appreciate Tucker’s Madonna-like ability to continually reinvent himself, from George F. Will-manqué, to cable news carbuncle, to sinkhole on the information superhighway.  But I have a feeling that his efforts to ride around like the and bleach rap songs is going to end up the same way his stint on Dancing With The Stars did, although it will probably leave his closet clogged with fewer Capezio pumps and Lycra tops with pearl snap details and sequin knit collars.

(By the way, if you check out the video, look for beloved character actor George Cisar, playing a working class stiff who is turned ultra white as he leans against a panel truck that says “FOX.”)

Behind the Subtext | 20 Comments »

According to his Townhall bio, “Douglas MacKinnon is former White House and Pentagon official who spent three years working in a Joint Command,” although he’s perhaps better known as Bob Dole’s former press secretary.

I’m kidding, nobody knows who the hell he is — except perhaps for certain fundamentalist Christians, who got their snakes in a twist over Doug’s 2008 novel, The Apocalypse Directive, about a U.S. President who believes Jesus is telling him to start Armageddon.

The story was loosely based on Christian Embassy, an evangelical group which confused the U.S. Armed Services with the Knights Templar and went about the corridors of the Pentagon trying to recruit their own khaki-clad, mayonnaise-flavored mujahideen. Spoiler Alert:  At the end of the book we learn that Jesus did tell the President to launch a nuclear first strike, but it was just a prank for what turned out to be a failed reality show pilot (the Lord figured He could defray the cost of the Second Coming by selling it as a series to TLC).

But as Jimmy Stewart said in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, false equivalencies are the only equivalencies worth fighting for, so this week Mr. MacKinnon is going to blaspheme the “bible for the left” (The New York Times) and its new Revelations section, which offers theater and restaurant reviews, and combined listings for Movies, TV, Trump-Sounding, and Seal-Breaking (This Friday, November 19, Beast of the Sea will be at the Jones Beach Theater, with Special Guests The Jonas Brothers and Demi Lovato!  Doors open at 6.  Mouth of Hell opens at 8).

The New York Times, The Far-Left, and Their “Messiah” Obama

With the results of the mid-term election still fresh in our minds, the question needs to be asked again. That being, is Barack Obama the Messiah?

Well, if the Messiah has returned, that would make George W. Bush the Antichrist, wouldn’t it?  But since the he didn’t actually end the world, just wrapped it around a telephone pole, it would seem he screwed up the Apocalypse, too.

Or, more to the point, do a number of delusional liberals and far-left radicals still truly believe him to be a deity or their deity?

Since “a number” could mean “one,” I’m going to say yes.  I don’t personally know any people who consider Obama a god, but this is America — we’re always looking for a savior’s palm to grease, from Joseph Smith to L. Ron Hubbard to Sun Myung Moon — and if you can’t get at least one person to believe you’re a prophet, then you don’t deserve your megachurch, or cable network, or money-losing DC newspaper.

(Oh, and Rev. Moon?  If you ever get glum about the way people mock your godhead, try to remember that they were a lot more demonstrative about it in the 1st Century AD; besides, nowadays you have apostles like R. Emmett Tyrrell, who feast on the wisdom of your faith-based broadsheet every day, along with their morning roughage.)

Uber-liberal New York Times columnist Gail Collins just seemed to confirm that dangerous possibility.

I’m a little shaky on the whole liberal taxonomy, although I know it spans the gamut from Far Left Communist to Far Left Fascist, but are there any circumstances in which we can legitimately classify Gail Collins as a “uber-leftist” without the Oxford English Dictionary  just hauling off and punching us in the sack?  Or to put it another way, Doug just heaved a rock and broke the Overton Window, then stuck his hands in his pockets and sauntered off, whistling; which to my mind illustrates the shocking way our culture has declined since the early 20th Century, because in a silent film the cops would have chased him all over town for that.

In her latest offering in the bible for the left entitled “Believing in Barack,” Ms. Collins seemed to be reciting her version of a prayer in support of her deific leader as she tried to excuse those horrible mid-term results. Said Ms. Collins, “I have faith in Barack Obama…even though he is testing us sorely…I believe the president will pick the right course…”

For some reason Doug doesn’t link to Ms. Collins’ piece, probably because he worked hard on those ellipses, and he doesn’t want us to ruin the effect by reading all the unnecessary words in between (it’s like getting close enough to Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte to see the dots. Respect the artist, people!).  Just for the record, here’s her opening paragraph:  ”I have faith in Barack Obama. Of course, I also have faith in the New York Mets.”

Interesting and telling choice of words.

Once you reassemble them in the right order.

As many liberals and atheists don’t go to church or religious service, they are going to have to take my word for it that when someone generally says they have “faith” in someone and that “He is testing us sorely,” that person is almost always referring to God.

Unless that person is a liberal or an atheist who doesn’t go to church, in which case he almost never is.

I find your faith in Obama disturbing…

Now, through recorded history, various Pharaohs, Emperors, Kings, dictators, and garden variety thugs have declared themselves God or a God. To my knowledge, President Obama has not granted himself this mother of all affirmative actions.

“Oops — I wish I’d hadn’t gotten halfway through this column before I realized my premise was bullshit.  I could have written a snappy thing on political correctness instead, or maybe just done recipes this week.  Oh well, I can crap out another 300 words of this standing on my head.”

Unfortunately, his followers have assigned him that title on their own. Not good.

Ellipses don’t lie.

Belief in God — much like the belief in the “brilliance” of Mr. Obama — requires no proof. None.

And since you declare later in the column that by any rational standard, Obama isn’t brilliant — in fact, he’s kind of a dunce — then, uh…Hm.  I guess Richard Dawkins thanks you for the unsolicited testimonial to atheism.

Those who believe in God will tell you it’s an act of faith. While they believe — and I agree — that they can logically explain the existence of God, they also feel it’s a waste of time to argue with the liberal and closed minds of atheists and “scientists” with an agenda.

Or a “degree.”

Yikes.

This is just my personal prejudice, but I don’t think an eminence grise should say “Yikes” (although if he’s spent three years in a Joint Command, he should be allowed to say “Whoa”).

On and on it goes. First we had the unhinged Louis Farrakhan say that when Obama was talking, “…the Messiah is absolutely speaking,” to now Gail Collins at least figuratively getting down on one knee to genuflect before the presence of Mr. Obama and reaffirm her faith in his power and glory.

Or, more specifically, the Virgin Gail reaffirmed her faith that Obama will give due consideration to the tax and entitlement policy recommendations by the “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform,” which was the original title of the novel, but the American publisher thought it was too provocative, and might needlessly antagonize the Legion of Decency.

Behind the Subtext | 29 Comments »

Okay, you know the story:

When Barbara Bush miscarried at home, she had young George drive her to the hospital. In her lap, Barbara Bush held a jar containing the remains of the fetus, George Bush said.

“She says to her teenage kid, ‘Here’s a fetus,’ ” the former president told Lauer. “No question it — that affected me — my philosophy that we should respect life.”

Um, okay. “Here’s a fetus, kid.” That taught George to respect life.

And here’s an earlier version of the incident:

Once, in the mid-1960s in Houston, when his father was out of town, he drove his mother to the hospital when she was having a miscarriage.

Halfway there, Barbara Bush told her son, “I don’t think I’ll be able to get out of the car.”

“I’ll take you to the emergency room, don’t worry,” her son assured her.

“He picked me up the next day. … He talked to me in the car and he said, ‘Don’t you think we ought to talk about this before you have more children?’ ” his mother recalled.

That’s from the same profile where we learn that his parents didn’t tell George that his little sister was dying of leukemia — they just showed up to pick him up at school one day and Robin wasn’t there. And then they told him that she had died two days earlier.

Now, ponder this bit from a NY Times story:

The image of a mother handing her teenage son a jar containing the remains of her just-miscarried fetus may be a disturbing one.

But the scene, described by former President George W. Bush in his interview with Matt Lauer of NBC News on Monday night, has started a national conversation — both about his mother, Barbara Bush, and about the complex psychological fallout from miscarriage.

Mr. Bush called his mother’s action “straightforward,” and added that it illustrated “how my mom and I developed a relationship.” Some opponents of abortion reacted approvingly. Other commentators called Mrs. Bush’s behavior the action of a depressed and angry person.

But experts say the incident is hard to interpret half a century after the fact.

I don’t know what it says about miscarriage, but I think it does point to really twisted family dynamics. But maybe that’s just me. Maybe in upper class circles it’s considered appropriate to show your teenage kid a dead fetus (and then talk with him about family planning the next day). But it’s vulgar to tell that kid that his sister is dying – and, in fact, that she’s been dead for two days.

In other news, Robin of Berkely has done another column in which she psychoanalyzes President Obama:

Now at the helm, Obama is avenging the Sins of the Fathers, even though the fathers are long since dead and buried. Consequently, the Department of Justice drops all charges against the new generation of domestic terrorists, the New Black Panthers, who verbalize their desire to kill “cracker babies.”

The DOJ turns a blind eye toward egregious acts of injustice towards whites. The Feds will even go so far as suing Arizona and threatening other states should they not toe the party line of importing as many people of color as possible.

It all makes sense now! Obama is mad at the African father who deserted him, so he wants to “import” a whole lot of Mexicans into Arizona to get his revenge on white people!

Anyway, because of her expertise, I look forward to her interpretation of how the healthy, positive mother-son bond between little George and mother Barbara formed a man who joked about executing a woman on Texas’s death row.

Behind the Subtext | 22 Comments »

Apologies for my poor rate of posting around here lately, but the herniated disc seems a bit less responsive to painkillers than it’s been in the past, so I can only sit at the computer and read wingnuts for about 15 minutes (a unit of time known in the metric system as a “spasm”).  But I did want to express my appreciation to Ivan of Thrilling Days of Yesteryear, and the inimitable Anntichrist for the kind shout-outs on their blogs. And above all, to thank Sheri for her generous words, the inspiring Crow T. Robot quote, the more horrifying than usual horoscope, and of course, the brand new photo, in which Ann looks like a wizened version of that goofy dancer from the Feiffer cartoons.

So I’m feeling invigorated by all the love; but rather than laboriously pan the right-wing blogosphere for pyrite, I think I’ll just sink my shovel directly into the Mother Load:

Jimmy Carter: liar extraordinaire, by Warner Todd Huston (seen here slumming in mufti, rather than swanning about the Internet in the sort of meticulously recreated Nazi uniform that says, “My country is richer than Scrooge McDuck.”)

As you may recall from previous appearances, Warner’s RenewAmerica bio modestly celebrates his “thoughtful commentary, sometimes irreverent often historically based,” and his contributions to “several history magazines.”  So he’s basically Herodotus, if Flowbee technology had existed in the 5th Century BC.

Every once in a while one must risk breaching decorum and call a spade a spade.

…while dancing around the room with a sheet thrown over you, pausing every few moments to give your vintage Aunt Jemima bobblehead doll a festive jiggle.

In this case sentient people cannot avoid affirming the stark truth that former President Jimmy Carter is one of the world’s greatest liars.

Turns out that wasn’t actually lust in his heart, it was just really sexy arteriosclerotic plaque.  But I’m glad to see Warner really knows how to pick his battles, and I look forward to his thoughtful, irreverent, and historical insights on how we, the sentient readers at home, can avoid affirming stark truths.

This melodious storyteller’s latest misconstruction of the truth comes from the Deseret News of Salt Lake City, Utah where Carter regaled reporter Jessica Harrison with his blinkered view of reality.  His most extreme lie was his assessment of his own administration: “We had almost complete harmony with every nation on Earth. We not only preserved peace for our country, we never went to war. We never dropped a bomb. We never fired a missile.”

Really?  That’s his most extreme lie?  Okay…and you don’t want to build up to that at all?  Maybe start with some of his whitest lies and most transparent evasions?  You just want to shoot your wad in the first paragraph, huh.  Because if the idea is to one-up Carter by dropping a bombshell of your own, then I’m afraid it was either a UXB, or you dropped a deuce by mistake.

Not firing a missile or dropping a bomb is not the sole criteria for “harmony.”

Well, the former President didn’t say it was, and it’s probably a good thing it’s not, otherwise contestants in the Barbershop Harmony Society’s International College Quartet Contest would be judged not only on the quality of their four-part chords, but on how well they limited collateral damage to surrounding handlebar mustaches through the use of laser-targeted “smart” weapons.

At the very least we had the Iranian hostage crisis on Carter’s watch, a crisis that revealed a dearth of that “harmony” Carter was rambling about.

You know, Warner, that’s a legitimate point.  I hope you don’t ruin it by saying something stupid.

But even that aside we had two U.S. soldiers killed by North Korea in 1976 an action that caused President Ford to send additional U.S. forces to the Korean theater

People who lack a gift for historically-based commentary often forget that Carter is responsible for the actions of all previous presidents, because of Original Sin, or something.  For instance, FDR sent U.S. forces to the European and Pacific theaters in 1942, which is obviously why everyone hated us in late 70s.

…not to mention the continued belligerence of the United Soviet Socialist Republic, the implacable communist foe that faced us down for 50 years by that point. The U.S.S.R. was still working against U.S. interests unabated and was hardly indulging any sense of “harmony” with “every nation on Earth” during Carter’s term.

If I read the interview correctly, Mr. Carter was talking about our foreign policy (“We not only preserved peace for our country, we never went to war”), not the Soviets’.  Still, it’s a little disingenuous on his part to ignore all those bombs and missiles the Russians dropped on our cities in the late 70s.

East Germany and West Germany were still spilt

But united in their hatred of us, apparently.

Cuba still worked against the U.S., South and Central America still had governments that opposed America…

Yes, Latin America got much more harmonious during successor Administrations, what with the invasions of Grenada and Panama, our support for death squads and military juntas in El Salvador and Guatemala (known for their homicidal ruthlessness and bouncy four-part harmonies); and who can forget all the cool anti-nun weapons we bought for the “moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers,” the Contras?  Well, Warner, apparently; but that’s just because he has so many historical facts in his head he can never find the one he needs.  Mary’s the same way when she’s sorting through all her cookbooks looking for one particular recipe.

So.  Anyway…Carter’s a big fat liar.

in short all that “harmony” Carter dreamed about existing was a mirage residing only in his head. Jimmy Carter did not foster “harmony” as much as he simply ignored and abdicated to others any attention to the foreign policy situations we faced during his few short years in office.

Reagan walked into the Oval Office his first day as President and found that Carter had left behind a whole stack of pregnant Nicaraguan women who needed to be disemboweled with bayonets.  Gee, thanks, Mr. Procrastination!

That he basically ignored substantive foreign policy is one of the reasons he became the only elected president in decades to be denied a second term. Carter’s next guffaw inducing claim in the Deseret News interview was his lament about all that evil money in politics.

The evils of money in politics is a typically skewed Democrat contention but it is a false one — or at least misleading talking point.

While conservative pundits — like Warner — often decry the “politics of personal destruction,” they don’t believe that money is the cause of this unsavory climate, since the loudest and stupidest smears are often the work of unpaid volunteers — like Warner.

It is true that there is more money in politics than ever and it is true that the money is coming from all sides, business, politics, unions, and foreign sources alike. But while there is a lot of money flowing into politics — so strictly speaking it is true —

“…but I’m going to make up a far-fetched reason why it’s really an extreme lie!  Watch.  Me.  Rock.”

what leftists don’t do is explain why all that money is flowing like never before into election campaigns.

Apparently everything Jimmy Carter doesn’t say is also a lie.

Leftists simply state that there is too much money in politics and then leave it at that leading listeners to the vague feeling that the money itself is the great evil.

Yep, nothing scares the average American more than money.  Why, when I was little, I could never go to sleep until my mother looked under the bed for lurking wheat pennies.

But the money is not the evil. The government is. You see, the only reason more and more money keeps flowing into politics is because government keeps taking more and more power unto itself. Money follows power. It’s not the other way around.

Except the Koch brothers and the Chamber of Commerce and all the other wealthy interests who have flooded this campaign season with hundreds of millions of dollars haven’t given all — or even any — of that money to the party in power.  No doubt they simply misaddressed the envelope.

The more power government steals from individuals by taking away our liberties and freedoms with layers upon layers of regulations and laws, the more money will be directed to the politicians that can dole out favorable government action to those with enough money to buy that favor. Take away government power and control and the money in politics will miraculously melt away.

Similarly, in the final stage of Communism, the State will just wither away somehow.  And one has to look no further than the Gilded Age for a historical parallel; government regulation was minimal, and rich people were as remote from the centers of political power and as disenfranchised as blacks in the Jim Crow South.  This probably explains the haunting Negro spirituals that would so often waft from the Beaux-Arts facade of the New York Yacht Club.

Carter knows this to be a fact.

All he has to do is look at Somalia to see that a committed laissez-faire, or anarchist society is wholly untroubled by negative campaign ads.  And we know the former President has been to Africa, so he’s obviously seen for himself how a powerless government empowers its citizens and unleashes their entrepreneurial spirit (I understand there are many Somalian start-ups involved in the shipping business).  If Carter had an honest bone in his body, he’d admit that a touch of genocide and warlordism is a small price to pay for lifting the yoke of OSHA from our shoulders.

But he simply refuses to acknowledge the truth in public. After all, to formally recognize the truth would reveal an out of control government power grab and grabbing power is his most desired goal.

Aside from ensuring the integrity of elections in emerging democracies, and building homes for the poor, Carter spends most his time in a bloody quest for the One Ring.

Carter simply refuses to tell the truth about all this. Now I cannot say Jimmy Carter is a stupid man

…because there are too many syllables involved.

so that excuse to explain his behavior is untenable. I can’t say he’s misinformed or ignorant, either.

Because Warner never sees him at the meetings.

After all, he was there during the times he is discussing. He knows full well that he is misrepresenting the truth. So that leaves us with liar being the only explanation. The fact is Jimmy Carter is the worst ex-president since Teddy Roosevelt gallivanted across the American media landscape attacking Wilson and Taft. But at least Teddy didn’t give succor to America’s enemies like Carter does.

This seems like a rather non-sequitorial way to wrap up a column (Jimmy Carter is a big liar who reminds me of that Taft-bashing bastard, Theodore Roosevelt?), but as a student of Warner’s oeuvre, I recognize a common theme: he’s jealous of TR’s big stick, and the way our enemies want to succor it.

Behind the Subtext | 11 Comments »

You know that urban legend about an American tourist in Mexico who gets picked up by a prostitute, dosed with Rohypnol, and wakes up fourteen hours later in a bathtub full of ice?  The real shocker comes when he finds a card on the rim of the tub telling him that he’s now missing a kidney, and needs to get to the emergency room, because who takes the time to send a card anymore?  Nowadays you’re much more likely to get a Thank You email, or worse, a text, and taking the time to handwrite a card — especially in these difficult circumstances — just seems like a really thoughtful gesture.  I mean, most people I know, even my close friends and family, wouldn’t bother to send a traditional greeting card if they’d stolen one of my kidneys.  They’d probably leave a voice mail, or at best — if they got a good price for it on the transplant black market — they might splurge and send me one of those animated e-cards, which I’m not even sure would be appropriate in this situation.

Anyway, the point is, what if nude, barely legal lesbians, and hunky guys with oily pecs were performing brain surgery on you when you least expected it?  You’d be miffed, right?  Well, according to Texas neurosurgeon Donald L. Hilton, Jr., MD, pornography is a game changing brain changer, and Cinemax is doing to America what the Ludovico Technique did to Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange.

SLAVE MASTER:  How Pornography Drugs & Changes Your Brain

Pornography is a visual pheromone, a powerful, $100 billion per year brain drug that is changing human sexuality by “inhibiting orientation” and “disrupting pre-mating communication between the sexes by permeating the atmosphere,” especially through the internet. I believe we are currently struggling in the war against pornography because many continue to believe two key fallacies:

Fallacy No. 1: Pornography is not a drug.

This is obviously a fallacy, since under Federal law, no pornographic film can be released to consumers before it’s first been tested on animals and approved by the FDA.  However, some critics maintain that if pornography were really a drug, there’d be more pictures on TMZ of Lindsay Lohan trying to snort a Hustler magazine.  Also, it’s harder than you’d think to cook a Realdoll in a spoon. But Dr. Hilton Jr., MD proves that pornography is so a pharmaceutical, by pointing out that the body produces adrenaline and dopamine, and yet both these substances can also be administered by physicians.  Similarly, the brain manufactures sexual fantasies, and yet Larry Flynt is allowed to sell you porn without first graduating from medical school.

Which raises another issue: Viagra is regulated as a drug, so why does the FDA still allow men to get erections without a prescription?

Let’s review some of the important components of the reward system of the brain. On the outside is the cerebral cortex, a layer of nerve cells that carry conscious, volitional thought. In the front, over the eyes, are the frontal lobes. These areas are important in judgment, and, if the brain were a car, the frontal lobes would be the brakes. These lobes have important connections to the pleasure pathways, so pleasure can be controlled.

This is explained more fully in Dr. Hilton Jr.’s book, Pleasure? Hit the Brakes!

It’s the overuse of the dopamine reward system that causes addiction…This resetting of the “pleasure thermostat” produces a “new normal.” In this addictive state, the person must act out in addiction to boost the dopamine to levels sufficient just to feel normal. As the desensitization of the reward circuits continues, stronger and stronger stimuli are required to boost the dopamine. In the case of narcotic addiction, the addicted person must increase the amount of the drug to get the same high. In pornography addiction, progressively more shocking images are required to stimulate the person.

Say you enjoy looking at pictures of women with big breasts.  At first you may be content with that Christina Hendricks spread in Esquire; but as your nucleus accumbens gradually becomes desensitized, you will be driven to seek out images of increasingly larger breasts — Lynda Carter in Bobby Jo and the Outlaw, Anita Ekberg in Call Me Bwana, Heidi Montag in various acts of desperation — until finally you’re incapable of feeling arousal except when watching that one scene from Woody Allen’s Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex with the monstrous, free-roaming tit. In the interests of dopamine conservation, the Department of Energy and Pornography recommends setting your pleasure thermostat at 68°F in winter.  But pornography, like a homeopathic Superfly, pushes other naturally occurring drugs on the brain too:

Oxytocin and vasopressin are important hormones in the brain with regard to physically performing sexually. Studies show that oxytocin is also important in increasing trust in humans, in emotional bonding between sexual mates, and in parental bonding. We are wired to bond to the object of our sexuality.

So porn can interfere with a parent’s natural desire to commit incest.

It is a good thing when this bonding occurs in a committed marriage relationship, but there is a dark side. When sexual gratification occurs in the context of pornography use, it can result in the formation of a virtual mistress of sorts. Dr. Victor Cline, in his essay, “Pornography’s Effects on Adult and Child,” describes this process as follows:

“In my experience as a sexual therapist, any individual who regularly masturbates to pornography is at risk of becoming, in time, a sexual addict, as well as conditioning himself into having a sexual deviancy and/or disturbing a bonded relationship with a spouse or girlfriend.A frequent side effect is that it also dramatically reduces their capacity to love (e.g., it results in a marked dissociation of sex from friendship, affection, caring, and other normal healthy emotions and traits which help marital relationships). Their sexual side becomes in a sense dehumanized. Many of them develop an ‘alien ego state’ (or dark side), whose core is antisocial lust devoid of most values.”

As we saw in the Star Wars prequels, Annakin Skywalker was led astray from the path of Light by fear and anger, but in the end he succumbed to the Dark Side — tragically, inevitably — only because he’d been jerking off to too much Twi’lek porn.

Let me use a fishing analogy to illustrate some of these concepts. Every August, if possible, I try to be on the Unalakleet River in Alaska fishing for silver salmon. We use a particular lure, a triple hook called the Blue Fox pixie. As fisherman know, it is important to keep the drag loose just after hooking the fish, when it still has a lot of fight. As the fish tires, though, we tighten the drag and increase the resistance. In this way the fish is reeled into the boat and netted.

This is just a guess, Doc, but if your wife has to hear this story every goddamn year, I bet she’d rather you just rub one out.

Why is it essential to understand the addictive nature of pornography?

Because you’ve got a book to sell?

Below you will find an Excerpt from his Donald L. Hilton’s book, “He restoreth My Soul”

“Most, if not all, families will be affected by pornography.

Really?  Most, if not all?  Well, I grew up in a family affected by addiction, and I’d have been thrilled if my mother had been hooked on porn instead of tranqs and vodka, if for no other reason than I would’ve felt much safer driving with her when she was under the influence of Coffee, Tea or Me? or Jacqueline Susanne’s The Love Machine.

If you are a man, you must first safeguard yourself.

Wear two wetsuits to bed, and insert a dildo to prevent porn from sneaking in the “back door” while you sleep.

If you are secretly involved, hopefully this work will convince you there will never be peace for you until you are healed. If you are free from addiction now, you must still guard yourself against future addiction, as all are vulnerable who are not “sober and vigilant,” as Peter warned. If you are a father, it is essential to understand what your sons will be exposed to and that he will be at serious risk for addiction at some point in his life. If you are a woman…

You’re safe, because women are immune to porn.  However…

please understand that this problem is real and must be confronted head on.

Apply porn directly to forehead.  That way it’s harder to masturbate to.  Unless you’re Carnac the Magnificient.

“Three Men and a Little Labia.”

You also need to be aware of the profound risk your sons face.

One Guess Jeans ad and they’re hooked! But even though your daughters are born with natural porn anti-bodies, they will, like St. Damien of Molokai, daily walk amongst those with a horrible affliction…

studies are showing that the young men whom [your daughters] will date and consider for marriage have virtually all been exposed and many have been or are addicted, to a lesser or greater degree. It is imperative that every young woman understands the scope and seriousness of this problem. Her awareness will help her to be discerning in dating and eventually choosing a marriage partner. Our extended family members are also at risk: sons and daughters-in-law, grandchildren and their spouses, and other loved ones.

Cissy!  Junior!  Aunt Sadie!  Nana and Pop-Pop!  All furiously and constantly masturbating to porn!  Imagine the Walton home, but instead of each day ending with a sleepy but cheerful, “Good-night, Jim-Bob,” “Good-night Mary Ellen,” “Good-night, John-Boy,” you near nothing but low, feral grunts and the restless flipping of magazine pages.

Now, I take addiction seriously, I know it’s a problem that can destroy lives and families, still, this hysteria savors a bit of those 16mm anti-drug films they’d show us in school, where a Jackie Kennedy-like Junior Miss would take one reluctant puff of marijuana at a party, and two seconds later she was selling her body in the Negro part of town.  So after reading his 5000 word article, and lengthy excerpts from his book on porn-dependency,  I guess my question for Dr. Hilton is: how does an obsession differ from an addiction?

We’ll leave you now with this searing image:

If “sex is a river of fire,” dopamine and other brain drugs are the fuel. Like the astronauts of Apollo 11, we can ride this energy to the heavens, or be consumed in its exhaust, depending on whether we are above the engines in the command module or underneath them, thus exposed to the heat.

I think we can all agree, it’s better to ride the rocket.

Dr. Henry A. Bowman said, “No really intelligent person will burn a cathedral to fry an egg, even to satisfy a ravenous appetite,” yet the flamethrower of pornography is torching many cathedrals of marital, parental, and familial love today.

So watch where you point that thing.

P.S. the first commenter corroborates the good Doctor’s theories by citing the pioneering work of human sexuality expert Ted Bundy.

Behind the Subtext | 41 Comments »

Let’s check in with Tucker Carlson’s Daily Galler (I mean, let’s not actually go there, but let’s open the email his flying monkeys sent me [actually, I don't think his monkeys can really fly, but judging by their prose style they tend to drop acid and watch Dragnet, so they probably think they can].  Anyway…).

So if I’m reading these hilarious allegories right (and admittedly the words are a little blurry when viewed through tears of laughter), then workers who vote to organize for better pay and benefits are the moral equivalent of black rats carrying a disease that killed off half of Europe.  On the other hand, the Tuckerites are more sympathetic to Feminist issues in the workplace, and regard women struggling for equal pay and opportunity as no worse than the Spanish Influenza of 1918.

As always, however, the prime similes are reserved for the President, and Tuck’s Medicated Spam does not disappoint, comparing him to a black man vaguely remembered for spousal abuse.  And therein lies the genius; most people going with the domestic abuse analogy would have compared Obama to Mel Gibson, in a pathetic attempt to keep the reference hip and topical, but if there’s one thing Tucker believes in, it’s keeping it real.

Behind the Subtext | 12 Comments »

A quick follow up to our post on Large, Free-Roaming Fetus Mark Crutcher, who spent the weekend soiling his diaper over the bloody-toothed, godless Marxist in the White House and his habit of siphoning the Treasury to fund abortions.  According to an email I received from Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, Mark can relax and sprinkle a little Gold Bond Medicated Powder on his throbbing and erubescent outrage, because women (that is to say, “baby killers”) are irritated by Obama’s failure to secure full reproductive health coverage in the federal insurance exchanges.

I suspect the blurb says “People…should wait to get preggers,” rather than “women,” because women are the natural enemy of the Goo Warriors Who Wield the Sperm Spear, and as we all know from our freshman Myths and Folklore course, to name a thing is to give it power.  So it seems pretty certain that whoever prepared this précis is a man.  Sure, there are plenty of nutty, hateful, blame-finding ladies in the right blogosphere, but to suggest that any woman who’s had an abortion is a murderer seems to savor more of the bitter resentment and sullen impotence that gives birth — paradoxically —  to movements like the Post-Abortive Men.  Which makes me suspect that whoever wrote this doesn’t know a lot of women (and when he does meet one, he tends to point his finger and shriek in the manner of Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers).

So I’m guessing the author is Sean (Jim Treacher) Medlock.  Not simply because he strikes me as a guy who may have issues; I’ve wondered for a long time if he’s the author of these teaser emails because there’s just something about the tone that reminds me of his famous penchant for aping the form, but not the content, of comedy. His posts, as you’ve probably noticed, are all sort of  breezy and irreverent, while at the same time curdled and unfunny, and the result is rather discordant — like a mean junior high girl who writes her slam book in the style of a Gregorian liturgical recitative.

There are those who disagree, of course, including Treacher’s Wikipedia page, which notes that his blog on the Daily Caller “is entitled The DC Trawler (a pun on ‘D.C.,’ and on the multiple meanings of ‘Trawler’).”  Additionally, it informs us that:

Treacher has been involved in other comedy projects within the humorous neighborhoods of the blogosphere, including joint endeavors with…Iowahawk, a short film project, and some work for Greg Gutfeld’s Daily Gut. He’s also had his material read out loud on Dennis Miller’s radio show.

…thus continuing the theme of duality in Medlock’s work, with a Wiki entry that manages to pose as a testimonial while acting as an indictment.  Anyway, the most depressing thing I learned from Sean’s bio is that while he’s a native of Indianapolis, Indiana, he pulled up stakes and moved to the nation’s capital without first being punched by Doghouse Riley.

So be alert, boys!  The barista who serves you your Orange Mango Vivanno Smoothie at Starbucks, your supervisor at work, even the woman lying next to you in bed, may be…a MURDERER!  And since most women who have abortions also have, or go on to have children, I propose that we stop looking the other way and start speaking frankly.  From now on, Mother’s Day will be Murderer’s Day; and if Hallmark is smart, they’ll hop onboard with a series of I Know What You Did Last Summer-style cards from the victims, while FTD could offer a special Withered Rose Bouquet, endorsed by the ghost of Merlin Olsen.

Of course, I’m just spitballing here — how do you guys think we should celebrate Mom and her many murders this year?

UPDATE: Mr. Treacher harks to his name and obligingly appears, à la Candyman, to inform us that he does not, in fact, write the DC Morning (which is a pun on “D.C.,” and on the multiple meanings of ”Morning”).  Duly noted, Jim, and thanks for stopping by.

Behind the Subtext | 29 Comments »

Earlier today Scott reported “the CAPS LOCK-challenged Reliapundit”‘s meltdown regarding President Obama’s Fourth of July speech. Coincidentally (or was it?), American Thinker’s Jeannie DeAngelis frothed at the mouth over the same passage. (But she did manage to maintain control of her caps lock key.)

So, once again, here’s the part of the speech that is causing the controversy:

“We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America — civil rights and voting rights, workers’ rights and women’s rights, and the rights of every American.”

And here is some of what Jeannie had to say about it:

It appears the President of the United States can’t contain his disdain for America’s historical roots. On Independence Day, instead of stressing the awesome concepts of the Declaration of Independence, Obama managed to turn a BBQ into an opportunity to disparage our founders, foster class warfare and further division.

. .and to incite the persecution of the weathy, start the race riots of “Helter Skelter,” and to open the pits of hell and usher in the End of Days.

Eerily comfortable on a balcony delivering a speech to the crowd below,

You know, like maybe, HITLER!

. . .Obama surreptitiously served up the founding fathers of this nation like shish kabob,

Because he’s a space alien, and that’s what they do to humans.

. . . disparaging them as merely “men of property and wealth.”

Instead of eulogizing them as “really awesome men of property and wealth who earned their riches by their own hard work and genius, or maybe by being selected by God to be born into rich families because they were so righteous.”

Then Obama, who identifies himself with a great president who freed slaves rather than made new ones, in an underhanded way elevated Abraham Lincoln above the evil white men who dared to own property and accumulate personal wealth with a simple qualifying “but.”

That one “but” says it all. It also indicates that Obama hates Israel, wants to eat the rich, and is planning on sending all white people to internment camps.

For Obama, the “birth of freedom” at our nation’s founding doesn’t quite cut the hot dog mustard. Instead Barry relishes what followed: “civil rights, voting rights, workers’ rights and women’s rights,” and hopefully soon, illegal immigrants’ rights. Apparently, in the president’s mind, “social justice” is what makes us “uniquely American.”

And because the freedom to cut the mustard is what makes America uniquely great, it’s the only thing that anybody should ever talk about on the 4th of July.

It is a travesty that an ungrateful, misguided American president implied America’s freedom is “a beacon to the world,” merely because of women’s suffrage and workers’ rights.

Because, in Jeannie’s opinion, America should return to he Republic that the Founders intended it to be: one with no rights for workers, no votes for women, and slaves for all those patriotic enough to be able to afford them.

So, tune in next time, when Jeannie and Reliapundit manage to decode the dastardly subtext behind the President’s words, “Happy 12th birthday, Malia.”

UPDATE:  Maybe we unduly shish-kebobbed the Founding Fathers, so here’s Glenn Beck’s favorite patriot, Patrick Henry…

…issuing a rallying cry which we hope will resound from sea to shining sea, from Independence Day picnics to comfortable balconies.

Behind the Subtext | 12 Comments »

Over at The Astute Bloggers, the CAPS LOCK-challenged Reliapundit continues to scream casually, opening with a quote from Obama which is notable for its strange, if correct, punctuation (either because he cut and pasted it from a more timid news source, or because the President’s pusillanimous words don’t DESERVE THE POWER OF THE MIGHTIEST OF ALL KEYS!  CAPS LOCK!)

“We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America — civil rights and voting rights, workers’ rights and women’s rights, and the rights of every American,” Obama said from a White House balcony with first lady Michelle Obama at his side.

This statement, so outrageous in its passivity, drives Reliapundit to simultaneously sneer and shout, which is risky, as there’s always the chance your face will freeze like that, and you’ll have to go through life looking like Conrad Veidt in The Man Who Laughs.

“MEN OF PROPERTY AND WEALTH.”

PASSIVE. [...]  AS IF THEY JUST HAPPENED TO HAVE PROPERTY AND JUST HAPPENED TO BE WEALTHY.

NOT THAT THEY TOILED FOR IT AND WERE ENTITLED TO KEEP THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR.

• LEFTISTS THINK THE RICH GOT THEIR MONEY UNFAIRLY AND THAT MONEY GROWS ON TREES

Which unfortunately has to be harvested by slaves or illegal immigrants, because that’s one of those jobs that Americans won’t do.

• OF COURSE THE SUBTEXT OF THIS COMMENT IS ALSO THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE WHITE SLAVEHOLDERS – ANOTHER OLD LEFTIST CHESTNUT
• WHICH OBAMA – AS POTUS – SHOULDN’T HAVE UTTERED ON THE DAY COMMEMORATING OUR NATION’S BIRTH.

If Congress had any balls, they’d impeach him for high crimes and subtext.

OBAMA: WHAT A PIECE OF ANTI-AMERICAN LEFTIST CRAP.

Later, Reliapundit notices Frank Rich, a “LARD-ASS LEFTIST PIECE OF CRAP,” who compounds the President’s felony by transforming “THIS SAME OLD LEFTIST CHESTNUT” into actual text:

“ALL men may be created equal, but slavery, America’s original sin of inequality, was left unaddressed in the Declaration of Independence signed 234 years ago today.”

SHEESH: AS IF LIBERATING US FROM THE TYRANNY OF BEING SUBJECTS WITHOUT RIGHTS TO A KING WASN’T ENOUGH ON THEIR PLATES!

By “US,” I assume Mr. Pundit doesn’t refer to the more than 600,000 lucky ducky slaves who weren’t obliged to endure the “TYRANNY OF BEING SUBJECTS WITHOUT RIGHTS TO A KING” because they were merely property.  But all things being equal in American, the patriots’ gilt lacquered tea caddies and Hepplewhite pianofortes also didn’t have to suffer the indignity of being subjects.

IN FACT, THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION (WHERE IT WAS FITTING AND PROPER TO ADDRESS IT) AND SLAVERY WAS ESSENTIALLY GIVEN A DEATH SENTENCE IN IT:

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 is a United States federal law that stated, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States.

This act effectively ended the legal transatlantic slave trade. However, slavery continued in the United States until the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

The United States Constitution, Article 1 Section 9 protected the slave trade for twenty years. Only after 1808 could laws be passed to end the slave trade.

This is why capital punishment is such a poor deterrent.  Judges can sentence a criminal to death, but then the defense lawyers will just drag out the appeals for twenty years until it reaches the Supreme Court, and then has to be settled with a war.  You makes you wonder why we even have judges.

REPEAT: “Article 1 Section 9 protected the slave trade for twenty years.”

AMPLIFICATION:

THIS EFFECTIVELY WAS DEATH SENTENCE FOR THE SLAVE TRADE, ALBEIT IT ONE THAT REQUIRED A BLOODY CIVIL WAR TO ENFORCE IT:

So the “fitting and proper” — sorry — “FITTING AND PROPER” venue of the Constitution Convention actually protected the slave trade for a generation, and slavery itself survived for another seventy years, and only ended after the most destructive war in American history.  Maybe if the Founders had addressed the question in an ill-fitting and improper arena, they might have gotten a bit more traction.

ONLY LEFTISTS STILL DWELL ON THE “FOUNDERS AS SLAVEHOLDERS” MEME.  WHY?

Because it’s relevant to a basic grasp of American history?   And because, you know, many of them were slaveholders, and by insisting that their right to hold fellow human beings as chattel be preserved, respected, and written into the Constitution, they guaranteed that the nation they were creating would eventually tear itself apart.

Here’s a brief and incomplete list of Founding Fathers, including Presidents, signers of the Declaration of Independence, and delegates to the Constitutional Convention, who were slave owners:

BECAUSE IT’S ESSENTIALLY AN ATTEMPT TO DELEGITIMIZE OUR CONSTITUTION.

• 650,000 KILLED;
• 650,000 WOUNDED -
• AND THE NATION’S TREASURE DIVERTED TO WAR FOR 5 YEARS.

Well, 4 years, but who’s counting?  And on the bright side, only 360,222 died defending the United States Constitution.  The other 258,000 died trying to “delegitimize” it.

• THEY WANT TO DELEGITIMIZE OUR CONSTITUTION BECAUSE AS STATISTS AND COLLECTIVISTS, LEFTISTS WANT A STRONGER STATE THAN THE FOUNDERS WANTED AND CREATED;
• LEFTISTS NEED A STRONG STATE BECAUSE TO TO INFLICT LEFTISM ON THE PEOPLE YOU MUST FORCIBLY TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS.

Not to belabor — or even engage — Mr. Pundit’s idiotic point, but the phrase “FORCIBLY TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS” seems to better describe what slaveholding patriots did to the men, women, and children they claimed to own, rather than what a democratically elected legislature and executive is doing by passing and signing legislation.  I mean, we’re all for tropes and metaphorical language around here, and while we don’t take the Teabaggers’ slavery and Hitler allusions literally, it appears the Astute Bloggers do, so let’s compromise:  I’ll stipulate that fat and comfortable white people with the leisure time to attend Tea Parties are being enslaved by Congressional Democrats when they can doff their raggedy, homespun shirts and expose a starburst of welts and scar tissue raised by the Majority Whip’s whip.

BY DELEGITIMIZING THE FOUNDERS AS SLAVE-HOLDERS, THE LEFT THINKS THEY LEGITIMIZE THEIR OWN USURPATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ANTI-STATISTS.

IT’S JUSTICE IN THEIR TWISTED MINDS, TIT-FOR-TAT.

WE CAN TEACH BARRY HUSSEIN SOETORO OBAMA JUNIOR AND FRANK RICH AND THEIR COMRADES A LESSON THIS NOVEMBER: VOTE FOR PATRIOTS; VOTE GOP!

Perhaps you could license this image for use on your campaign posters.  Just tell people it’s Kenneth Gladney.

Behind the Subtext | 15 Comments »

I thought the news of Obama’s victory would strike wingnuts in one of two ways.  Either they’d sit, stinking and unwashed in a corner of their room, blinking rapidly and speaking in tongues to a headless Barbie doll — what we might call “the K-Lo Option” — or else they’d attach a hobby horse to their computer chairs, sort of like those Cowboy booster seats you used to sit on at the barber shop, and charge at full gallop into the World Wide Web on a suicidal crusade of blood and thunder, hacking at heretics and heathens and howling in rage and agony like a gutted Mel Gibson at the end of Braveheart.  It never dawned on me that they would arise the next day, scratch their cat under the chin, pour a nice cup of tea, sit down at the keyboard, and in a prim, dainty, ladylike fashion, go quietly batshit insane, as though we’d entered an alternate universe where Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote was the star of Dexter. But color me abashed, because RenewAmerica is proudly offering Mary Mostert’s latest:

As we’ve said before, this wasn’t an election, it was the world’s longest Usenet thread, and Godwin’s Law is no longer an observation on probability, it’s a regulation imposed by wingnuts, sort of like those Homeowner Association bylaws that require everyone to landscape solely from the pre-approved list of shrubs, and to paint all exterior trim a uniform beige.  But who is Mary Mostert, and what qualifies her to perform a textual comparison of Hitler and Obama speeches?  Well, like a lot of people whose bona fides have been vetted by RenewAmerica, what we know about her comes largely from her self-written bio:

“Mary Mostert is a nationally-respected political writer. She was one of the first female political commentators to be published in a major metropolitan newspaper in the 1960s.  After working in President Lyndon Johnson’s failed War on Poverty programs in New York state, she became a Republican. She ran, unsuccessfully, for the New York State Senate and became campaign manager for a number of candidates. She once served as the secretary of “Positive Action NOW!”–a South African women’s group that sought to reduce the hostility among South Africa’s various racial, religious, and political groups.”

As it turns out, Mary’s interest in race relations goes beyond just dabbling with the dying Apartheid regime in 1991, stretching all the way back to 1948, where she first learned about the kind of voter fraud that Obama would later use to filch the Presidency:

In 1948 I was 19 years old and working in Memphis,in the insurance company owned by E.H. Crump, who was also the political boss of Tennessee. Crump was good at ballot-box stuffing. In fact, he routinely brought hundreds of black people by bus from Mississippi to vote in Memphis elections…

And just for the record, Mary resents accusations that she opposes Obama merely because he’s black.  Because he’s not!

This election has been framed in large measure by the claim made by Barack Obama that he is the “black” candidate, even though genetically he is only 6½% black African, and that people who oppose him are “racist.” Obama is 50% Caucasian and 43 ½% Arab. Yet he has kept his white grandmother who raised him out of the limelight and talks about his black “Kenyan grandmother” who is actually no kin to him. She is his grandfather’s fourth polygamous wife.

In fact, if Obama had grown up in my neighborhood in the segregated deep south in the 1930s and 1940s, since he lived with his white mother and white grandparents and his father was no where to be seen and mostly Arab, he would have gone to the white segregated school with me. In fact, I’m actually darker than he is.

What is rather strange in this election is the anger and animosity I have experienced and my readers have experienced from Obama supporters, in spite of the fact that the polls show him to be beating McCain. We are accused of opposing him because he is “black.” Only… he isn’t black. I’ve been accused of being a “racist” because I point out he isn’t actually a black man.

This may come as a surprise to many people who believed Obama’s story that he was the son of an African man from Kenya, but Mary’s close textural analysis proves he’s a liar, because let’s face it, Hitler wouldn’t even shake Jesse Owens’ hand, so he’s obviously not going to go to all the trouble of ghost-writing speeches for some schvartze, unless he really needed the money.  So Mrs. Mostert is obviously a credible source, except for her oddly varying likenesses.  Above, you see the face she shows to her RenewAmerica Readers.  Below, you see the image she presents to people who visit her personal website, Banner of Liberty.

Clearly, this presidential campaign has aged her (but then, I imagine it’s given us all a few new gray hairs).  Anyway, back to the Hitler/Obama collaboration (unrivaled since Lennon and McCartney…)

“In 1933 when Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, he gave an acceptance speech in which he described the then-current condition of Germany as having “seen the unity of the nation vanishing away, dissolving in a confusion of political and personal opinions, economic interests, and ideological differences.” In speeches that mesmerized the German people he promised change, unity and peace if the people would be “obedient” and follow his plans for National Socialism described in his book, Mein Kampf.

Last night Barack Obama made pretty much the same promise. He described this nation as facing the “greatest challenges of our lifetime” and promised change, unity and peace, if only we now will rise and follow him as “one people” into his version of national socialism.”

So if I’m reading Mrs. Mostert correctly, in her opinion George W. Bush fucked up the U.S. even worse than Paul von Hindenberg screwed over Weimer Germany.  I hate to admit it, but when the lady’s right, she’s right…

The remaking of Germany into Hitler’s dream of National Socialism led to World War II and more than 50 million deaths worldwide. I pointed out in March that Obama’s message (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-2008MQC/3-19-2008.1.html) in effect was that MOST Americans are “victims” who can only be saved by Obama as president and a socialist government — apparently entirely financed by the 5% of the population he calls “rich.”

I prefer the term “parasite,” or “fascist insect that preys upon the people.”  Anyway, if Hitler could cause 50 million deaths, then Obama can probably cause twice that many, because despite his many faults, Hitler was at least a white man, while Obama is a mostly Arab pretending to be half black, so there’s going to be considerable extra carnage just due to confusion about bloodlines, faith, and where to park.

Below are comparisons of Obama’s and Hitler’s speeches upon gaining the leadership of their nations. Although there now are many histories written about Hitler’s leadership of Germany, none of them seem to reflect the upbeat mood of his acceptance speech of February 1, 1933.

Adolf Hitler’s Speech to the German Nation, Berlin:

MORE than fourteen years have passed since the unhappy day when the German people, blinded by promises from foes at home and abroad, lost touch with honor and freedom, thereby losing all. Since that day of treachery, the Almighty has withheld his blessing from our people. Dissension and hatred descended upon us.

Why “upbeat” scarcely describes it — I feel like bursting into SONG!  I feel like DANCING!  But if you’re interested in further examles of Adolf Hitler’s giddy, joyful oratory, versus Barack Obama’s grim, lugubrious, and woeful rhetoric, and why they’re eerily similar, then read the rest of Mary’s article, because she obviously can’t get enough of it.  Me?  I’m going to crack open a fifth of 30 year old Highland Park Scotch and curl up in bed with my freshly arrived copy of the (thanks, s.z.!)

Behind the Subtext | 24 Comments »