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 »

To the ramparts, Leftists!  Obama’s approval ratings may be be high, but his Index of Evil is plummeting!  It seems like only weeks ago he was widely acknowledged throughout Wingnuttia as the One True Antichrist.  But by the time the Teabaggers were gathering to steep and have their rabbles roused, the President was able to score no higher than a Hitler, which experts in political iconography suggest is indicative of a cooling trend.  Then this evening, as I took a postprandial stroll through Newsmax, I saw that Obama had been demoted to Pinocchio.  Pinocchio!  Yes, I realize that referencing the puppet with the telescoping proboscis is obligatory when denouncing your opponent as an habitual liar, but it’s a rather vertiginous drop from Nicolae Carpathia to marionette.

First comes John L. Perry, “a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer” — a phrase which suggests he once successfully ate his way to the bottom of a box of Crackerjacks — “who served on the White House staffs of two presidents.”  Which two he does not say, presumably because presidents, like bloggers, prefer to work anonymously (although that weirdly grinning Guy Falkes mask the previous chief executive wore whenever he gave a speech really creeped me out).

Obama, the Puppet President

All the while, the new president has been a frenetic jumping jack. The press can’t keep up with his next moves. It’s unlikely most Americans can, either. Yet, throughout, he has remained cool as a cucumber…

I’d like to have been a fly on the wall during some of Mr. Perry’s Oval Office presentations, if only to discover at what point a president will summon the Secret Service to escort a member of his own staff out of the building.  I imagine it usually happened right around the time John said, “Mr. President, we have learned that your opponent is a frenetic, yet cool cucumber who does jumping jacks as part of a plot to make the American people feel flabby and winded.  I suggest you call a press conference.”

[W]ho is in charge of the Obama presidency? Who is it who’s pulling Obama’s strings? Whose puppet is he? … Could this be why Obama pitched a fit until the Secret Service let him keep his cell phone to receive calls he absolutely had to take?

“Excuse me, Mr. President, I have the Puppet Master on line 3…No sir, the one from Puppet Master III: Toulon’s Revenge…”

In the Pinocchio allegory, an insignificant wooden figure yearns to become a real little boy. But his proclivity for stretching the truth causes his nose to lengthen each time.

You know, if you have to explain “the Pinocchio allegory” to your readers, maybe you should play it safe and also take a moment to remind them that the toilet and their pants are two separate things.

The full story of Barack Obama, the puppet president, remains untold: Who is the Geppetto who carved this herky-jerky stick figure? Who now pulls the strings that control the movements that affect the daily lives of all Americans?

“And who keeps singing ‘High on a hill stood a lonely goatherd’?!  Enough with the yodeling…!”

Just a few columns down from John’s effort we find Pat Boone, who also believes the President of the United States is an articulated pinewood golem imbued with unholy life.

President Pinocchio Takes Us on Road to Perdition

Well, this must have been embarrassing for John and Pat.  It’s like that episode of I Love Lucy, where Lucy and Ethel both wear the same gown to their women’s club talent show and wind up tearing each other’s clothes off during a performance of the Cole Porter standard, “Friendship.”

Day after day, week after week, as I watch the actions and decisions of our new, untrained, and apparently naive young president in amazement, I find myself thinking of Pinocchio.

So much so that I actually looked up Italian writer Carlo Collodi’s original story, published in 1883. It told of a piece of pinewood that a woodcarver named Geppetto carved into a wooden puppet.

Pat also pauses to recount the entire plot of Pinocchio for the benefit of those readers who can’t walk and blink at the same time without tripping a circuit breaker in their nervous system.

I wish I could foresee a happy ending for us and our President Pinocchio — I mean, President Obama — in real life, but right now, I’m very pessimistic.

Pat fears for the future because our president is black.  He goes on to list the many times Obama came to a fork in the road of life, and sadly, chose the black one.

Obama’s first autobiographical book told of his childhood-long insecurity, the absence of a father, his indecision about whether he was white or black

He reveals that a strong friendly influence on his teen years was an alienated black man in Hawaii. Then, along the way, both at Columbia University and Harvard, he fell in and communed with others who encouraged his black identity, as well as a certain distance from his white friends and acquaintances.

If only Obama had resisted the influence of alienated Negroes in the tropics, and Sith Lords at Columbia who tempted him toward the Dark Side, and instead joined the melanin-free team when he was still young and relatively obscure enough to pass for white.  Then we wouldn’t have to put up with a Black Separatist in the White House who serves Shabazz Bean Pies at state dinners.  Anyway, Pat goes on about the president’s Unbearable Blackness of Being…but after awhile you get the impression that his beef with Obama isn’t so much a matter of conflicting political philosophies, Pat’s just pissed off that the president won’t hire him to deliver a White cover version of the State of the Union address.  Just for the heartland; they’re not really comfortable with all that jungle wonkishness.

Meanwhile, Zazzle advances the debate with this white on moronmaroon Beefy-T:

Worst blaxploitation film ever.

Can I Peek Under Your Hood? | 22 Comments »

After enduring yesterday’s mutterings from Shermp (h/t to TM), who is a lot less fun than you’d expect the love child of Moe Howard and Carol Channing to be, I thought it might not be a good idea to go cold turkey; so I dropped by WorldNetDaily this afternoon for what we might call a nicotine patch of paranoia.

Thou shall not lie

I end my series on the Ten Commandments with the ninth commandment; “Thou shall not lie.”

Unfortunately, when the Ten Commandments were syndicated, they had to trim the last one to make room for more commercials.

George Orwell (1903-1950), that magnificent literary prophet from a bygone era, eloquently warned us that demagogues, dictators and tyrants would arise as wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Actually, I believe you’re thinking of Aesop.  But they both wrote allegories using animals, so I can see where you might easily confuse them.  Here’s a little trick I learned for telling them apart:  Orwell’s the one who did not appear on the Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.

“Big Brother,” the State, if you will, was the invisible, ubiquitous, omnipresent figure that followed you everywhere you went, even into the deep recesses of your mind. It told you what to think, how to think and when to think (which wasn’t very often).

And Woody Allen kidnapped his nose in Sleeper.

Another sinister figure from Orwell’s “1984″ was “Goldstein.” Although not as prolific as Big Brother, nevertheless Goldstein was a salient figure in Orwell’s work and in his futuristic society called “Oceania.” If Big Brother was the equivalent of Die Fuhrer (The Leader) as in Germany’s dictator, Adolf Hitler, then surely Goldstein would be the counterpart to Hitler’s minister of propaganda (Josef Goebbels).

If Goebbels had been a renegade ex-Nazi who formed an underground resistance movement and was constantly vilified by the Third Reich for writing a book which exposed the rotten foundations of fascism, then…sure.  Yeah.  I can see that.

I cite Hitler’s Third Reich only as a point of reference, for I believe Goldstein to be such an evil, diabolical figure as to be beyond the sphere of mere men, but is in the realm of ideas much like Rousseau (a return to a savage state of nature); Karl Marx (From each according to his ability, to each according to his need), or Nietzsche (God is Dead; Will to Power).

Right.  Have you actually read Nineteen Eighty-Four?  Because Emmanuel Goldstein, as far as I recall, wasn’t exactly Big Brother’s spin doctor.

All of these infamous men are liars, and their philosophies are lies and damn lies – yet these men and their ideas are lionized even to this day. Why? Exhibit 1:  President B. Hussein Obama.

Okay, hang on here, Professor — let me just make sure I’m following you.  Rousseau is more evil than Hitler and Goebbels; Nietzsche really thought God was alive, but just had to be a dick about it; and kids today think Karl Marx is cool because Obama has him in his Fave Five.  That about right?

No, Obama is not a Hitler, but he is utilizing many of the techniques Hitler outlined in his treatise, “Mein Kampf.”

So then Obama’s worse than Hitler, right?  I mean, say what you want about the Fuhrer, at least he didn’t plagiarize his books from Bill Ayers.

For example, once power is secured, move quickly to take more and more of the liberty and natural rights of the people in exchange for an ever-expanding, nationalist, socialist State. This is the Big Lie Orwell wrote about.

Actually, that was Hitler in Mein Kampf.  Hey, now you’re doing it!

To demonstrate how vast and acceptable lying has become in public discourse, when was the last time you heard one journalist in the propaganda media refer to a politician, a political appointee, a judge, or a CEO of a corporation as a liar (unless he is a conservative)? Yet Washington, D.C., and the halls of power throughout America are teeming with liars like maggots over a fresh corpse.

That’s how you can tell when meat is really fresh:  all the maggots.

Why is there not a single Republican with the courage and the intellect to call a weekly 5 p.m. press conference in the alcove of the U.S. Capitol and, line by line, precept by precept, lie by lie, state what Obama has promised – transparency, bipartisanship, reasonable policies, truth – versus what Obama has delivered in his first 100 days in office –

Because that kind of thing is usually more effective when screamed at commuters by a stinky, ragged, wild-eyed man standing on the edge of the subway platform, urinating on his shoes.

…obstructionism, Saul Alinsky partisanship, Marxist economic policy, genocidal abortion policy and giving away for free our most sensitive interrogation techniques to Osama bin Laden.

…even though bin Laden only signed up for the Basic Membership, and it was clearly stated in the Terms of Service that our most sensitive torture techniques are only available to Premium and Gold Club Members!

Indeed, Obama is a pathological liar.

You’re making that up.

Every speech, every domestic and foreign policy, every executive order, every economic policy, every political appointee and every future Supreme Court nominee … all LIES!

Wait — he’s taken out an advance on future lies?  Doesn’t he know what kind of interest those places charge?!

If the Supreme Court ever gets the guts to grant certiorari (allow a full appeal) of one of the dozens of pending cases that have brought a constitutional challenge regarding Obama’s “natural born citizen” status according to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution…

Hoo boy, here we go…

…then my statement in the previous paragraph will become more than a literary flourish.

So diagnosing the President of the United States as a pathological liar is just a “literary flourish?”  You know, that’s the kind of thing that can get a fellow’s poetic license revoked.

In other words, if B. Hussein Obama isn’t a legitimate American citizen according to the Constitution, then every executive order, policy, appointment and treaty will become null and void because Obama has treasonously violated God’s ninth commandment, Thou shall not lie.

“Treasonous?”  Are we talking about commandments or amendments here?

Returning to Orwell’s “1984,” which character would Obama be if instead of “1984″ Orwell wrote “2009″? While most would probably answer Big Brother, I would disagree, for Big Brother was the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent machinery of the State. Obama, the transcendent, messianic, FDResque figure is more akin to Goldstein, the minister of propaganda who with the help of his fascist legions spent day and night following one credo: Your liberty, your money, your property, your soul all belong to the State (federal government).

You realize that Emmanuel Goldstein is not the “minister of propaganda” in the novel, that he’s not analogous to Joseph Goebbels.  You know that, right?  Goebbels and Hitler were on the same team; Goldstein was the ne plus ultra of treachery, Public Enemy Number One, the focus of the Two Minute Hate.  Goldstein was to Big Brother as Al Franken is to Bill O’Reilly.

Now it has, I admit, been many years since I’ve read the book, and I don’t have a copy close at hand, but I really think you could find a better candidate for your weird little analogy.  But that’s just me…

This is the Big Lie Orwell so eloquently wrote against in his books, “1984″ and “Animal Farm.” What is different about 2009 versus 1949 when these literary works were conceived?  The major difference is that 60 years ago the Stalinist state-run public schools hadn’t taken full control over the education of all citizens. However, in modern times tens of millions of people here in America gleefully accept the propaganda and lies of the State (Big Brother) as delineated by Obama (Goldstein) because, in the words of Orwell, “Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him.”

Right…I apologize for harping on this, but if Obama is the Stalinist dictator who’s robbing us of our liberties, shouldn’t he be Big Brother?  Goldstein was not a member of the Inner Party; in fact, it’s possible his existence was a government hoax.  And anyway, if Orwell based him on anyone, it was most likely Leon Trotsky, so unless Obama went into exile during his recent trip to Mexico City and was killed by a blow to the skull with an ice axe and no one in the media’s thought to mention it until now, I’m thinking your parallel may be a little shaky.

Since the ideal of a universal Veritas (truth) is viewed by many as a relic of a bygone Christian past, it is therefore both irrelevant and inconsequential to societies’ march toward utopia. Obama’s willing accomplices in Congress, the secular academy, the propaganda media, Wall Street, corporations, unions and the anti-Christian courts across America slavishly bow to his will.

You left out International Jewry and the Freemasons.

One of my many intelligent readers

Sorry…just need a second…got something stuck in my throat…

…recently answered this question when he wrote: “Obama is trying to destroy the U.S. ASAP, and when he is done by 2012, there will be no law, no regulation left that will allow a fair opponent to compete against him – and the constituency will be so beholden to big government they wouldn’t dare vote against their jobs.

I’m tempted to say something snarky, but I know better than to get in a debate with somebody that smart.

America, choose Veritas over liberalism, job security, doublespeak, propaganda and treason. Go with God! – Thou shall not lie.

Join Ellis Washington for another edition of Literary Criticism the 10 Commandments Way.  Next week:  It’s E.B. White’s charming and heartwarming childhood favorite, Charlotte’s Web of Lies and Deceit.

Get the Butterfly Net! | 35 Comments »

This morning, as I was standing in the kitchen making coffee and toast, it suddenly hit me:  Why must the left destroy the USA?  I mean, I know they must, that’s a given, but why must they?  Is it mandatory — something to do with zoning compliance or insurance regulations?  Is it prophylactic — taking out the USA because it possesses weapons of mass destruction (which it has used before!) and refuses to disarm?  Is it recreational?  Or is it purely business; the Left put in a bid to dismantle the United States, the American people voted to accept it, and now it’s all, Hey, this ain’t fun for us either — we’re just doing our job.   I guess what I’m saying is, while I may not like that the Left is destroying the USA, I’m not about to go stand in front of some tank in Tianamen Square; but I sure would like to know the reason.

Then, as I sipped my Freedom Roast, I clicked on RenewAmerica, and it was suddenly as though my wish had been granted by a bitter and paranoid genie:

The reason the left must destroy the USA, by Sher Zieve

Sher, the Forgotten Stooge

In order for global (AKA “one world”) government (AKA “rule”) to come into being

AKA, “stuff that’s here”

…the United States of America must be destroyed.

Also Frankenstein.  We’ve really been putting that off.

For many years now, I have included in my Bio “if Leftists ran the country (and left to their own inane devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign nation.”

“All my friends thought for sure it was going to become a hilarious national catchphrase, like Don’t worry be happy, or Where’s the beef?, but so far none of the major fast food franchises will return my calls, and the baby tees and hoodies in my Cafe Press store are selling like pre-owned tampons.”

Unfortunately and tragically, I was — and still am — correct.

Well…You’re half right.

The United States Constitution is a document that was designed and implemented to severely restrict government interference and control over individual states and We-the-People.

“But due to a typo, it actually only restricts government interference over members of Up With People.”

Here we see sovereign minstrels exercising their Constitutionally protected rights to Hootenanny.

But the exciting news is, Sher got a peek at the plans for “the global secular New World Order (NWO)” that’s shortly going to replace nation states and We-the-People, and she’s gone spoiler crazy!

This NWO will consist of — but not be limited to — the following for the USA

• Higher prices for all goods and services

For more information, ask your librarian for the following books: The Twenty Percent Mark-Up: A Generation of Treason, and Cost Plus DEATH:  Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Thirst for an Unreasonable Profit Margin.

• Total government control of the media (See Rosa Brooks “news” bail out proposal)

Dancing with the Stars will be replaced with Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy.

I’m actually sort of okay with this one.

• The end of free speech (US state police have already been apprised by the Obama administration’s DHS Chief Napolitano that all who hold conservative or third party viewpoints are to be considered ‘enemies of the state’)

Conservatives and third party thinkers won’t be imprisoned or executed for their heretical beliefs, but the New World Order does plan to shun them.

• Abortions on demand

Anytime!  Anyplace!  At the free clinic!  Jiffy Lube!  Baskin-Robbins!  (Note:  Abortions on Demand may be ordered through your TV only if your cable box supports On Demand technology.)

• Infanticide for failed abortions

So wait — a doctor botches an abortion, and to punish him they go kill a baby?

• Total government control of ALL industries Obama et al deem “essential” (which is subject to change at a moment’s notice)

You’re on notice, Christmas Tree Flockers, bakers of erotic novelty sheet cakes, and Amish guys who make that fake fireplace thing:  Obama decided you weren’t “essential” anymore, so you’re on your own!

• The end to small business unless it supports the Left

Well, at least my cafe specializing in clove-flavored Victory Gin should be safe.

• The criminalization of all political thought that is deemed non-supportive of the Left

This has long been a goal of the global left, but was considered impractical because it required reading minds.  That obstacle, however, was recently overcome when the NWO hired Santa Claus as a contractor.

• The rescinding of Amendment 22 to end presidential term limits

Of course, repealing an amendment to the Constitution is a difficult and time-consuming process, and the NWO is a very busy Order.  So a decision was taken by the Inner Party to get a Mac and some OCR software and just rewrite the amendment when nobody was looking.  Of course, as the Obama birth certificate job proved, you have to take great care when producing forgeries nowadays, because any tiny flaw will be exposed by right wing bloggers; and as the evening wore on, and more Red Bulls and Twizzlers were consumed, the Inner Party got a little punchy.  At first, they just changed the Constitution around so it established a presidential speed limit; but by the end of the night the 22nd Amendment seemed to mandate a presidential sperm limit (he’s allowed two).

• The prosecution of President George W. Bush for protecting the country against terrorists (in order to distract the masses from what Supreme Leader Obama and Co are really doing)

Robbing five Las Vegas casinos in one night!

• The elevation of terrorists to a protected class (Islamists soon to be the global power elite’s Secret Police force?)

Oh, crap, I don’t know the answer — I’ll just have to guess.  Really glad this wasn’t a Daily Double.

These are just a few of the stark horrors that are forthcoming — or have already arrived at our doorstep. Without a real revolution can they be stopped? You will need to answer that question for yourself.

Damn!  I hate when these columns end like those mental hygiene films in junior high — with a big question mark.  I know it’s designed to stimulate discussion, but whenever we break up into smaller groups to debate whether we should take up arms against the elected government of the United States and wear our hair in a bowl cut as a badge of revolutionary honor,  I always wind up with the weird kid who smells like Beef-A-Roni.

Get the Butterfly Net! | 19 Comments »

Yesterday we had occasion to mention the Law of Diminishing Returns.  Today, we’ve found one of those fun experiments which proves the concept, similar to the kind of thing Mr. Science would do with billiard balls and an inclined plane to demonstrate Galileo’s laws of motion.  This particular exercise is quick, easy, and can be done with ordinary items you find around the house.

Step 1:  Take one used Clifford May…

Step 2:  Have your kids build a three dimensional representation of Cliff’s resume (this is where the inclined plane comes in handy).  Start here, and try to draw a straight line:

He holds masters degrees from both Columbia University’s School of Public and International Affairs and its School of Journalism. He earned his BA from Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, N.Y.

Sarah Lawrence only went co-educational in 1968, and even today the student body is roughly 75% female, so apparently Cliff, like Jonah Goldberg (a graduate of Goucher College, co-ed since 1986), took advantage of the Affirmative Action for Unappealing Virgins program offered by such recently integrated institutions.

Roving Foreign Correspondent for Hearst newspapers.  Provided special coverage for CBS Radio News and Bill Moyers’ Journal on PBS.  Reporter for The New York Times.  Editor of The New York Times Sunday Magazine and a foreign correspondent. Bureau Chief of the Times’ West Africa bureau.

Associate Editor of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, Colorado.

From 1997 to 2001, he served as the Director of Communications for the Republican National Committee. He also served as the Editor of the official Republican magazine, Rising Tide.  Later, he was named Senior Managing Director of a Washington D.C. PR firm.

Okay kids, here’s where you can help!  Take a shot putt in one hand, and Cliff’s credibility in the other.  Drop them both at the same time and watch closely!  See?  Even though the shot putt is heavier, Cliff’s credibility falls faster!  That means Galileo was wrong, and the Pope gets to slug him in the arm with no tag-backs!

Today, as you know, Clifford D. May is a columnist for Townhall and the Washington Times, and the President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism created immediately following the 9/11 attacks on the United States.  He is also the Chairman of the Policy Committee of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), where he’s in charge of thinking up new committees that sound like Tom Clancy novels.  Additionally, Cliff is founder and president of Sinecures, an online dating service that specializes in pairing cashiered neocons with right wing think tanks and lonely NRO editors.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the terrorist atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001. If U.S. intelligence operatives had spotted him in a remote area of Pakistan, and killed him with a Predator missile, most people would have said: “That’s justice.”

See, I would have said: “That’s amore.”  Shows you just how out of step I am with the American People.  And while I have issues with our habit of shooting Hellfire missiles into terrorist safe houses, terrorist trucks, and terrorist weddings, I’m glad to see we’ve finally eliminated that artificial distinction between “hot pursuit” and “killing in cold blood,” because nuance is hard, and it makes Barbie’s plastic head hurt.

Instead, of course, KSM was captured in an urban area of Pakistan by U.S. intelligence operatives who then interrogated him — including through use of the technique known as waterboarding — thereby leaving him alive and eliciting from him information about other terrorist plots in which innocent Americans had been targeted. Why are so many people insisting that’s an injustice, a scandal and a crime for which intelligence operatives and former government officials ought to be prosecuted?

Because we’ve already prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime and it kind of set a precedent?

“After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.”

During a time of asymmetrical war, such questions deserve serious debate. But the current administration doesn’t appear to have the patience and much of the mainstream media don’t seem to have the interest.

Cliff May demanding we have a serious debate about the usefulness of torture reminds me of a cable access show I saw years ago in New York, where the local chapter head of the North American Man-Boy Love Association was arguing for the repeal of all age of consent laws.  He couldn’t seem to figure out why no one else on the panel was taking him seriously either.

President Obama ordered a review of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) to determine which he would — and would not — authorize. Presumably, he’d want to know which techniques are (A) effective, and (B) not so brutal as to rise to the level of torture. But the President’s decision to release — against the advice of his CIA director and four former CIA directors — top secret Justice Department memos on the interrogation program have rendered that study moot.

Cliff seems to think no one knew we were torturing people until the memos came out, and he’s not the only one.   I saw a clip of Karl Rove on FoxNews shouting, “Now these techniques are ruined!”  Guys?  It’s not the frigging end of The Crying Game.  “Whew, That was close!  I might’ve let something slip when they electrocuted my scrotum, but fortunately I went on torturespoiler.com last night, so I totally knew what was coming.”

On the same day those memos were released, Obama’s national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair, told colleagues in a private memo that the now banned EITs did indeed “produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.”

“Former FBI Director Robert Mueller, a Bush appointee” said they didn’t.  Catfight!

Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran a front-page piece on “ethicists” alleging that psychologists and physicians who supervised CIA interrogations “broke the law and shame the bedrock ethical traditions of medicine and psychology.”

“Ethicists?”  What kind of made-up, politically correct, bullshit field of study is that?  Cliff is right — “ethicists” are nothing more than flim flam artists who spread the false and dangerous idea that there’s some set of intrinsic behaviors and ideals that separate us from the animals.  But Cliff doesn’t think we should be separate from the animals.  If anything, he believes we should get closer to animals.  A lot closer…

Left unexamined was the likelihood that these health professionals had been tasked with ensuring that interrogations did not cross reasonable legal, medical and ethical boundaries, did not reach the point that they would “shock the conscience” which, as former CIA Director Michael Hayden told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, is the “American standard” for torture. Hayden added: “You have to know the totality of circumstances in which something takes place before you can judge whether or not it shocks the conscience.”

And the American Standard is the Gold Standard of torture.  Sure, we may have off-shored and out-sourced some of it in recent years, but our domestically produced torture is still the envy of the UnFree World.  Why, in no other country is your scientifically induced torment attended by both a psychologist and a physician.  And unlike in Canada, you don’t have to wait three months for an appointment.

Left unexamined is why Cliff May believes that a government he’d like to see shrunk until it can be drowned in a bathtub should remain just big enough to drown people in a bathtub.

Among the released memos is one from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee emphasizing that waterboarding “will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm.” Another memo makes clear that supervising physicians were empowered to stop interrogations “if in their professional judgment the detainee may suffer severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” What’s severe?

Exactly!  This is where empowering sadists to commit torture subject only to meaninglessly vague limits really pays off.

Again, circumstances matter and judgments may differ. Attempting to criminalize such differences is appallingly unethical — not least when done by people who call themselves “ethicists.”

If only Cliff could have applied this same persuasive logic as a defense attorney at the Nuremberg Trials, the hangman at Spandau Prison would have enjoyed a lot more leisure time.

Former Justice Department attorney David Rivkin has pointed out that the EITs described in the memos had been adapted from a U.S. military training program “used for years on thousands of American service members with the full knowledge of Congress.” That meant also that there was a large body of information on which to draw regarding both the effectiveness and the physical/psychological impact of the techniques.

Well, John McCain was waterboarded by the Navy as part of his training, and yet when the North Vietnamese did it, he seemed to regard that as torture.  But then, he’s famously thin-skinned.
From Small Wars Journal (a shorter version of this piece also appeared in the NY Daily News):

As a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, California I know the waterboard personally and intimately. SERE staff were required undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Well, when you put it that way, I can see why Shepherd Smith got a little worked up.  But back to Cliff:

What’s more, extraordinary measures were taken to protect even the vilest subjects. Al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah was slammed against only a flexible wall, with cushioning around his neck to prevent neck injury.

I saw Admiral Hayden make this same indignant point when questioned about our slamming people face first into a wall.  “It was flexible!  And we put a cervical collar on him so he wouldn’t get whiplash!”  Yes, you’ve certainly seized the moral high ground there, skipper.

In the end, he provided the intelligence used to capture KSM who in turn “yielded critical information” — according to one of the released memos — that helped foil additional terrorist plots including a “Second Wave” with Los Angeles as the target.

Or, you know, not.

Reasonable people ought to be able to reach consensus on a few key points: Harsh interrogation methods should be used only as a last resort.

Or when you’ve gone ahead and booked a Middle Eastern country for a war and the party planner still hasn’t shown up with your casus belli.

They should never be used for revenge, punishment or to force confessions.

However, if Dick Cheney is enjoying his rare seasonal boner and there’s no good whacking material on Cinemax…

There should be no torture — no hot pokers through the eyes, no pulling fingernails out with pliers. But a few nights of sleep deprivation?

Eleven straight days shackled to the ceiling?  Why, throw in a free Continental breakfast and that’s your average vacation deal on Expedia!

A few weeks of boredom?

You know Cliff, “reasonable people” might be more inclined to reach a consensus on this subject if you were morally capable of distinguishing between torture and summer school.

Such techniques inflict “stress and duress” but they hardly “shock the conscience”

Cliff?  These things don’t “shock your conscience” for the same reason they don’t “rub the velvet from your antlers.”

By all means, let’s have a decent respect for the opinions of others.

Really?  Starting when?

But let’s not sacrifice a single American life to score public relations points in the cafes of Europe.

Because the U.S. government torturing people in secret prisons is fine, as long as those snooty French don’t find out about it.

We should fight this war in as civilized a manner as possible — understanding that this is a war against an enemy who is utterly ruthless and unscrupulous and who should not be permitted to prevail anytime, anywhere.

Nothing sadder than an angry, resentful nerd with unscrupulous ruthlessness envy.

Revenge of the Nerds | 19 Comments »

Taking a break from work — and apparently, leave of my senses — I followed a link from Townhall over to The American Vision (rose-colored glasses in about an hour), where I was treated to a front page article entitled Homosexual Marriages: Square Peg, Round Hole, written by a fellow with the super-butch moniker, “Gary DeMar,” (which I believe was also the name of the choreographer in The Producers).  For those who may be unfamiliar with The American Vision, the masthead reads, “Exercising Servanthood Dominion,” which leaves it unclear whether they consider themselves tops or bottoms, although frankly it sounds like they’re trying to have it both ways.

Abortion opinion has shifted in the past thirty years from majority approval or indifference to majority dissent

Or not.

…because more Americans are aware that abortion kills a preborn baby.

Previously, most Americans believed that having an abortion merely sprained the fetus, and women who had suffered miscarriages would often hear their husbands exhorting the zygote to “get up and walk it off.”

Technology has given us a window to the womb. Take a look at the GE 4D Ultrasound. The images are astounding. If the media ever tell the truth about homosexual behavior, public opinion will change. Homosexuals know this, so they are working overtime to get laws on the books that will eventually negate any later shift in public opinion.

Once GE perfects an ultrasound machine that can detect frottage, those queers will be on their way to Reading Gaol before you can say “Oh, snap!”

Stephen Hendricks, vice president of PRIDE, a Montana homosexual “rights” advocacy group, has argued for homosexual marriage for some time.

While Gary’s “brain” has argued with Merriam Websters about the proper use of quotation marks for even longer, leading the frustrated sub/dom to take his dictionary to a local obstetrician and demand it be given an ultrasound to reveal the homosexual grammarian within.

His latest entry was published on January 9, 2009 in celebration of “National Freedom to Marry Day.” He writes: “Fortunately, prejudice is starting to [crumble]. Polls show 75 percent of Americans think gay marriages will eventually be legal. About a third want it to happen, a third don’t and another third don’t care. (Among college students, three in five think gays should be able to wed.)” The reason there has been a shift in opinion is because the mainstream media refuse to define and describe what homosexuality actually is as a lifestyle.

Fabulous?

The euphemism “gay,” like the use of “pro-choice” for killing pre-born babies, masks what homosexuality really is. It doesn’t take long to get young people to reject homosexual behavior. I’ve accomplished it in less than 15 seconds.

“In fact, I was still struggling with my zipper when the undercover vice cop threw me up against the bathroom stall…”

Aversion to abortion, the holocaust, and lynching are made more real when people see the images of the behavior or hear them described as defined.

So fully one-third of American women are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann with Nathan Bedford Forrest sprinkled on top.  This may be the first time in history that a single sentence has broken Godwin’s Law, Newton’s Law of Inertia, the Law of Diminishing Return, and, I’m pretty sure, Ape Law.

Hendricks attempts to refute anti-homosexual arguments. Most of them are standard-issue in the homosexual community. Here are some of them with my rebuttal:

Rebuttal on rebuttal action!  I better go get my assless chaps.

Anti-Homosexual Claim 1:
“Marriage has always been the way it is; you can’t change it just to fit the times.”

Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Gay marriage is perfectly in keeping with the evolving nature of the institution. Once blacks couldn’t marry whites, Jews couldn’t marry Christians and wives were property of husbands. Such features changed as notions of equality did.”

Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Notice that Hendricks assumes the validity of marriage. Why is marriage legitimate in the first place? He never says.  He must assume the biblical origin of marriage in order to reject it.

Or he might have looked at all the married and divorced people around him and realized it’s a common legal arrangement between two consenting adults which confers a variety of privileges and obligations, so long as the parties to the contract can produce no more than one penis and one vagina between them.  As for “biblical origin of marriage,” the Bible isn’t a history text, and even if it were, marriage is pre-historic.  Just look at the Flintstones.

Hendricks borrows the biblical institution of marriage to deny the biblical definition of marriage.

Yes, true, he borrowed the biblical institution of marriage, but he brought it back, while you still have his Garden Weasel!  And what has the Bible got to do with marriage, anyway?  You can’t contract a marriage with just a Bible — you need a license to make it binding, but I know for a fact that you can get married without a Bible anywhere in the building.

Animals don’t marry; they only mate.

And unlike humans in the Red States, some animals mate for life.

So why should the human animal be bound by such outdated religious restraints?

You refer to what Doghouse Riley has dubbed, “Our Abiding Respect for All Forms of Bronze Age Superstition”?

If you’re going to use the word “marriage,” it’s necessary that you account for its origin.

Sure.  Just look what happened to you guys when you used the word “teabagging” without first performing a little etymological due diligence.

Hendricks doesn’t; he can’t unless he appeals to the Bible’s creation story.

“I’m sorry, but we cannot approve your ballot initiative requiring the renegotiation of public employee pension contracts in budget deficit years until you can explain how Osiris managed to impregnate Isis with Horus after he’d already been killed by his brother Set.”

Hendricks then moves on by discussing the “evolving nature of the institution.” Of course, if evolution is true, then he’s right. Marriage can be anything we want it to be. But if we begin with the biblical origin of marriage, then there’s nothing evolutionary about it: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4–6).

As we’ve said, marriage pre-dates the Bible, and even heterosexual marriage doesn’t derive its legal standing from Genesis.  Otherwise, in the case of divorce, men would have to give their ex-wives the house, the car, and a rib.

In biblical terms, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. There’s nothing in the Bible that says blacks can’t marry whites.

That’s the amazing thing about the Bible.  You can get it to say just about anything:

“Judge Leon Bazile looked down at Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving as they stood before him in 1959 in the Caroline County, Va. courtroom. “Almighty God,” he intoned, “created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” With that, Judge Bazile sentenced the newlywed Lovings to one year in jail. Their crime: Mildred is part Negro, part Indian, and Richard is white.”

In some cultures, wives are considered property, but not in the Bible where the definition of marriage is found. If, as Hendricks says, marriage is an evolving institution, then what would make any of these man-made prohibitions wrong?

We’ve evolved beyond them?

Anti-Homosexual Claim 2:
“Homosexuality is immoral; the Bible condemns it.”

Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “In the Bible, the book of Leviticus does say gays should be killed. But the Bible would also have us kill women who have premarital sex and men who masturbate, and it forbids tattoos, working on Sunday, eating shrimp and playing with pigskin (in other words, football). With good reason, America is a democracy not a theocracy.”

Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: This is a loaded one. I’ll start from the bottom and work my way up. America is a republic not a democracy.

Well, this is gonna take a while…You know what, I’m just gonna nip out the kitchen, grab a soda.  Anybody want anything?  Pringles?  Chex Mix?

If America were a democracy, then if 51% of the people wanted to prohibit homosexual marriage, then homosexuals would have to live with the democratic consensus, like the vote against homosexual marriage in California! But, of course, we know the homosexual community didn’t go along with the voice of the people. They intimidated those who supported Proposition 8 and have turned to the courts to overrule the vote of the majority. It’s the homosexual minority that believes in a theocracy, a theocracy where man is god. This was much in evidence at this year’s Miss USA Pageant where Miss California stated that she did not believe homosexual marriage was right. One of the judges, a flaming homosexual named Perez Hilton, stated that Carrie Prejean most likely lost the crown because of her heresy. She had blasphemed.

If you’ve ever wanted to visit an alternate universe where Jim J. Bullock is Cotton Mather, I hope you enjoyed the preceding paragraph.

Footballs are not made from pigskin, and even if they were, only religious observant Jews might be prohibited from handling the ball. There are no civil sanctions against handling pigs or their skin. The prohibition against eating shrimp is also religious and does not carry civil sanctions.

Okay!  See — he almost gets it!   Marriage — in America — is a CIVIL contract.  Gah!  It’s like you spent all day Saturday training your dog to sit on command, and you think he understands what the word means, but then on Sunday you go to show the family what Sparky can do now, and when you say “sit!” he just stares at you.

The Bible does prohibit work on the Sabbath and the Constitution acknowledges this (Art. I, sec. 7). Sandy Koufax made the personal decision not to pitch in Game 1 of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur. I don’t see how the Sabbath an argument against the Bible since the Bible also prohibits murder, rape, incest, bestiality, kidnapping, theft, perjury, and other acts that remain on our law books. Would homosexuals call for these laws to be rescinded in order to normalize sodomy? Given an evolutionary worldview, none of today’s crimes should be considered unlawful.

Please.  “An eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth” was in the frigging Code of Hammurabi,  circa 1760 B.C.  The Code of Ur-Nammu, circa 2100 – 2050 B.C. also forbids the following:

• 1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
• 2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
• 3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.

So Mr. Old Testament is a bit of a Johnny Come Lately insofar as lawgiving is concerned.  Moreover, “murder, rape, incest, bestiality, kidnapping, theft, perjury” are not the moral equivalent of two guys pledging their troth in Boise.  Just ask the ancient Sumerians.

There is no death penalty for masturbation.

You better hope not, Gary.

The issue of premarital sex is more complicated.

Ooooh, “complicated?”  Suddenly we’re doing nuance, are we?  Methinks somebody didn’t come to the marriage bed an unspotted virgin.

Contrary to what Hendricks claims, the Bible does not say “gays should be killed.” Public acts of sodomy are condemned with civil sanctions (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:18–32). The main purpose of these laws is to keep homosexuality closeted.

That’s why everyone in the Bible went around with a beard.

Anti-Homosexual Claim 3:
“Gay Marriage doesn’t lead to children, the purpose of marriage.”

Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Wrong on both counts. States give marriage licenses to straight couples who don’t or can’t procreate. And like many straight couples, gays raise children thanks to adoption or sperm donors.”

Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: The State does not know whether heterosexual couples can or can’t procreate.

If two 70-year old pensioners meet at Leisure World and decide to legally pool their Social Security checks, who is the State to assume that Joe’s limp, wizened, liver-spotted manflesh won’t be planting a seed in Martha’s arid, post-menopausal womb.

The question is never asked. The State does know that homosexuals who engage in same-sex sex will never be able to conceive. Hendricks is equivocating in the way he uses “lead to children.” It’s a biological fact that homosexual sex will never lead to children. (I have a great line for this truth that I can’t put in print.)

I’ll just bet you do.  (Okay, I’m going to take a little break.  Have some dinner, get drunk.  See you all a bit later…)

Okay, I’m back.

Given what we know about male and female anatomy, the vast majority of heterosexual couples will be able to conceive and have children.

I have a great line about your mother, but I can’t put it in print.

Men and women are anatomically suited to procreate. They were made that way by God. The fact that homosexuals have to use extraordinary means in every case to make children a part of their manufactured family—artificial insemination—is good evidence that there is something biologically wrong with homosexual marriages.

Yeah.  I know two gay and one lesbian couple who fathered and mothered children, and in two of the three cases, the “extraordinary means” involved a fifth of Chablis and a pint of vodka.  Which is pretty much the same way my heterosexual parents managed my conception.

If a child keeps hammering a square peg into a round hole after he’s been shown that the round peg goes into the round hole, we must assume that his intellectual abilities are somewhat diminished.

Gay men aren’t attracted to members of their own sex, they’re just too stupid to find the vagina.

Does it ever register with homosexuals that maybe God is telling them something when they get life-threatening diseases because of their sexual practices and can have no children no matter how hard they try? Like Dr. Frankenstein, homosexuals take God’s design of marriage and manufacture an artificial monster from its parts.

All the straight victims of AIDS are just collateral damage in God’s war against fags.

Anti-Homosexual Claim 4:
“If gays marry, next people will want to marry horses or children.”

Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “The equine argument is a Montana favorite, as it was for foes of interracial marriage. But marriage gay or straight is a contract between two consenting adults. Nobody proposes changing this.”

Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: No one right now proposes changing this like no one 20 years ago thought there would be any consideration of homosexual marriages today. Homosexual groups have been trying to lower the age of consent. If your son or daughter can marry at the age of fifteen or sixteen

Then you might want to consider moving out of Alabama or Alaska.

then what will stop homosexual marriages of the same age? The definition of consenting adult can change. “Consenting adult” would also include the marriage of sister and brother, mother and daughter, father and daughter, father and son, and any other combination you don’t want to think about (1 Cor. 5:1).

Here’s what I don’t get about the slippery slope, Gary, perhaps you can help me.  When the Supreme Court overturned the laws of many states banning interracial marriage in 1967, why didn’t men immediately start marrying their brothers, their sisters, their ventriloquist dummies, and women start wedding their coat-trees, anacondas, or the odd Barbershop Quartet?  I mean, the brakes were off, right?  Anything goes!

Anti-Homosexual Claim 5: “Gay sex is disgusting.”Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “So are, to many people, some ‘straight’ sex acts. It’s not the state’s job to intrude in the bedrooms of consenting adults.”

Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Yes, homosexual sex is disgusting and dangerous.

Gary?  No offense, but I don’t think anyone wants to watch you fuck, either.

Anti-Homosexual Claim 6:
“You can’t force a church to marry gays.”

Attempted Rebuttal by Hendricks: “True, but irrelevant. Gays are asking for state-issued licenses. Religions will remain as free to ban gay weddings as they are to ban women ministers.”

Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Maybe right now. The way “hate crime” legislation is moving, churches may find it difficult in the near future to say anything critical of homosexuality in general.

When my sister decided to get married, she and her hubby-to-be drove around every church in Corvallis, Oregon looking for a venue for the wedding.  Every single church turned them down, even though they were one man and one woman, because they weren’t members of their denomination or congregation.  They finally found a female Unitarian minister who agreed to perform the ceremony in a lovely, if somewhat rural, location.  So why don’t you quit borrowing trouble from the imaginary Think Pink Though Police of the future, Gary?  We bend over backwards to allow clergy their tax-exempt bigotry, and that’s not likely to change just because gay people are denied one less right the rest of us enjoy.  As my friend’s 90-year old Polish mother once said to me, “Don’t call the wolf from the woods.”

Anti-Homosexual Claim 7:
“Why do gays need to marry anyway?”Rebuttal by Hendricks: “Many basic rights and protections are conferred by marriage, like the rights to visit a hospitalized partner, receive family health benefits and inherit a partner’s property.”

Rebuttal of Hendricks by DeMar: Property can be passed on to anyone. You don’t have to be married to inherit. In fact, you don’t have to be a human being to inherit.

Gary?  Fuck.  You.

Fundamentally, marriage is not about certain economic rights and protections. Redefining the family and the nature of marriage for economic and personal reasons is off the mark and falls outside the jurisdiction of the State

But the medical insurance I have thanks to my wife certainly came in handy when I herniated that disk and desperately needed an MRI.

Hendricks is counting on the majority of Americans not being able to think clearly on this topic. The fact that he is willing to have his own poorly reasoned arguments published only goes to show how gullible and unthinking he considers most Americans to be on this topic. And maybe they are. Only time and the law will tell.

And if things don’t seem to be going your way legally, you can always blow a trumpet at the marrying gays and make the County Courthouse collapse on them, or grow your hair out and kill 10,000 homos with the jawbone of an ass, thus proving that Biblical ways are as relevant today as they were 2500 years.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go find out which of my asshole neighbors slew a 10th of my kine.

Teh GAYZ! | 33 Comments »

In the wake of all the teabagging this week, WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah can’t seem to get his mind out of Anderson Cooper’s mouth.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper should have his dirty, little gutter mouth washed out with soap.

“Then he should be severely disciplined by a heavily-mustachioed Daddy who knows how to give his bare, taut buttocks, and tender upper thighs the spanking they deserve with a latigo leather paddle that just happens to be in my bottom drawer, next to a jar of Elbow Grease.”

Then he should be fired.

Hey Joe, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves here.  First administer the punishment, and then, if you’re not too spent, you can satisfy your demands for Cooper’s discharge.

Cooper, a cover boy on the homosexual magazine “The Advocate” and listed as among the most powerful “gays” in the country by OUT magazine, made what can only be characterized as an obscene and disgusting comment during CNN’s biased coverage of Wednesday’s “tea party” protests around the country.

For me, there were few things more frustrating about the Bush years than the ease with which the Republicans controlled the terms of debate, repeating their talking points ad nauseam and unchallenged on every channel, like frat boys teaching profanity to a parrot.  So I hope you’ll pardon my delight that the party of traditional values is not only responsible for introducing the word “teabagging” into the general lexicon, they’ve also been reduced to insisting on the term “tea party” as the butch alternative.  I mean, sure, we’ve all painted ourselves into a corner at one time or another; but very few of us have added a second coat.

“It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging,” he said.

That was a revolting attempt at “inside humor” by Anderson Cooper.

He was sending a secret message to the gays!  And in case you don’t know it, there’s a Culture War on, which means Cooper’s joke was treason!   I say chuck him in a POW camp for the duration and watch him closely to make sure he doesn’t blink out the word T-E-A-B-A-G-G-I-N-G in Morse code.

“Tea-bagging” is known in the homosexual subculture as a practice involving a particular form of oral sex.

Only the homosexuals would be depraved enough to think up different brands of oral sex.  Heterosexuals, who are not so jaded as the sodomites, are perfectly content with the one, traditional form of oral sex, which the woman — make no mistake about that — performs on the man, after he’s begged and whined and she’s had three wine coolers and it’s his birthday.

Just as sickening to me was the reaction from pervasive pundit David Gergen, who giggled in response to the comment.

No wonder we’re losing the war against the jihadists.  Their guys can survive for years in deserts and caves and go on fighting; our guys hear a euphemism for sack-sucking and suddenly they’re laid out on the Chesterfield with a hot water bottle at their feet.

Cooper, meanwhile, seems almost incapable of concealing any longer his own agenda on matters of sexual obsession.

Back in February, I addressed his compulsion for insinuating his own inaccurate and warped views about homosexuality in his so-called “newscasts.” [...]

Is [Cooper] becoming an open advocate for the homosexual agenda in his role at CNN, as his popularity with the homosexual press suggests? Is he ready to reveal his own sexual preferences to the world? Is he ready to discuss his own faith? Does he understand what the Apostle Paul had to say about homosexuals? (Romans 1:22-27) Is he more of an expert on Christianity and homosexuality than Paul?

Possibly.  If Anderson Cooper is gay, then he’d have an advantage over Paul; in that case, the only way the Apostle could know more than Cooper about Christianity and homosexuality would be if Paul were…

Ohhhhh.  I get it.

About statement two: Let’s see now. Cooper handpicks the guests he has on his program. How many members of Exodus International has he chosen to interview? My guess? None.

Is it my turn?  Okay, my guess is — Actually, why guess?  I mean, it’s the internet after all, so why risk looking like an ill-informed jackass who’s too lazy or stupid to type a Google search if you don’t have to?  Let’s see:

Dated: February 6, 2007

Tune in tonight at 10:00 p.m. EST when Alan Chambers discusses the topic of change in homosexuality, faith and the ex-gay movement on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360. The show will also feature a segment in which Melissa Fryrear, Director of Gender Issues for Focus on the Family’s government and public policy division, is interviewed as well

That would be Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International.  And judging by this transcript, Exodus International was mentioned again in April 2007 during a segment on “ex-gay” ministries, when Alan Chambers was questioned on camera.

If he did, he might not get so much favorable coverage from the homosexual press.

And without that fawning attention from the gay press, Cooper would wither and die, unnoticed, unloved, and unlamented, because it’s as sure as Hell is for Homos that no heterosexual magazine is going to waste its cover on some obscure nancy-boy.

Just look at this piece of poncy propaganda.  Outside magazine.  Outside?  Get it?  The homosexuals are talking in code again, but they haven’t fooled Joe!  Clearly this is some obnoxious, in-your-face piece of rough boy rabble-rousing designed to make the sodomites come out of the closet, leave their wives and children, abandon their churches, and do it under the stars, like those cowboys in Brokeback Mountain!

And look where his hand is!  He might as well be peeling a banana!

Now this one isn’t even trying to be subtle.  I mean, first of all, Vanity Fair?  Not exactly Guns and Ammo, is it?  Vanity, thy name is Woman, and this evil Queen doesn’t even have to ask who’s the Fairest in the land.   And if that weren’t enough, they’ve got the word DICK on the cover, right by his face!

It’s not even physically possible for a magazine cover to be more gay, unless they took a picture of him stringing Skittles like Thai butt beads so he could get cornholed by a rainbow!

It doesn’t take a cerebral but manly heterosexual with an penetrating grasp of the queer demimonde to catch the coded message here.  “In the life” is well-known gay slang for a homosexual who is “out,” and here we have Anderson Cooper.  In Life!  It doesn’t take a genius…

This magazine is not only obviously queer, it’s also shockingly anti-heterosexual.  As if it wasn’t bad enough that they’re “in the Life,” they claim that being homosexual is the Best Life!

You don’t have to look inside to tell this is some kind of gay pornography, when the cover itself is littered with filthy, provocative, arousing words like strip, belly, sexual, upgrade, and money.

The question on the table before Cooper’s foul-mouthed, offensive comments on Tea Party day was whether or not he was capable of delivering the news straight.

Said the man with the fake online newspaper and the upper lip stolen from a 1983 Spunk Video production. (In a nicely Green touch of literary recycling, Joseph used this same “straight news/delivering the news straight” bit in the February column linked above.)

That’s what CNN has pretended he does at the network.

CNN:  The Most Trusted Beard in News.

After this incident, there’s little question left as to whether he can continue to pretend to be a straight newsman.

I’d complain about this innuendo, but Farah Fawcett-Majors here would just accuse me of sending more coded messages to the .

Smell the Man Musk | 30 Comments »

“Your marmalade and I are very worried about you…”

“Are you on drugs?  You’re on drugs, aren’t you.”

Wild Things | 7 Comments »

Now let’s go to David E., our World O’ Crap NYC correspondent, who witnessed nuts — specifically, wingnuts — being openly teabagged in City Hall Park, and filed this report.  David?

….EXCLUSIVE!….BY DAVID E….MUST CREDIT WORLD O’ CRAP….

So, the New York teabag party — I mean, the one the conservatives called, as opposed to the general atmosphere below 14th Street on the weekend — was great fun. Stretching an ENTIRE city block and a half, this intrepid group of angry white stood in the cold for 2 whole hours and listened to about 12 speakers interspersed with that NYC favorite, country/bluegrass music.

Two favorite moments:

1) An hour before the official start time of the protest, about 50 of ‘em were in City Hall Park. At the T-45 minute mark, the cops were shutting the park down and moving everyone onto the street, which is where the stage was set up and where the protest was actually set to happen. The anguish some of these folks experienced at being told they had to move was priceless. “You wouldn’t be doing that if we was ACORN,” one said.

2) Woman holds up a sign that says “Atlas will shrug.” (What the hell does that even mean?) Suddenly another woman, clutching her well-thumbed copy of Atlas Shrugged to her chest rushes up to her, saying in thick Lawn Guyland, “I found my soulmate, I found my soulmate!” She thrusts the book under woman #1′s nose and they both begin gabbling. It’s kind of like how when dogs meet each other and sniff their butts.

Pictures and a video with some audio from one of the songs can be found here.

Scott again:  Definitely check out the photo essay, and many thanks to David for his snappy, one-the-spot reporting.

My Country Right, Wrong or Decline to State | 19 Comments »

Why am I supposed to get upset about all the teabagging going on today?  I live on the border of West Hollywood.  Everyday we stop at 4 PM for High Teabagging.

UPDATE:  Now some strict message discipline!  [via The Bloggess]

My Country Right, Wrong or Decline to State | 4 Comments »