With the United States declining in every way, thanks to Barack Obama, moderates are really beginning to get on my nerves, especially ones appearing on Fox News with the initials B.O.
If people are for freedom, for example, they should be for freedom.
If a restaurateur opens an eatery in New York and is legally forbade from serving trans-fat, that's "a good thing," according to many moderates, despite the fact that such law hinders freedom for consumers and proprietors. I believe people should be free to eat wherever and whatever they want. In this fit-conscious society, other restaurants could make a killing serving healthy foods while proudly displaying the trans-fat content of each menu item. Adults would be free to choose for themselves.
The next time a moderate enters the bread aisle of his local supermarket to pick up a loaf of the fluffy white stuff and finds a uniformed government official adding bricks of wholegrain bread to every basket, I wonder if said moderate will change his tune. "No thanks; think I'll stick with the white," the middle-of-the-road shopper might say.
"I don't think you understand," the government official will respond. "A new law states you no longer have the option of white, but please don't sell this wholegrain loaf short. Michelle Obama loves it. Seriously, stand between the First Lady and this healthy loaf of bread and you'll lose some teeth... and perhaps get audited by the IRS."
Were the above scenario to come to fruition, moderates would cry out, "The government has gone too far!"
Such a cry is hypocritical because it's another way of saying, "limiting freedom is okay in certain situations but not in others, and I'm the person to decide what's too far and what's just right." Such a stance is harmful to the country because Barack Obama is now the person deciding what's too far and what's just right. And his 'just right' is left of most Americans.
Freedom is freedom. Government protecting us from ourselves is government protecting us from ourselves. You can be for one, but you cannot be for both.
A, "let's limit certain freedoms to save people from harming their bodies," attitude is not having principles and sticking to them; it's lacking the guts necessary to take a firm stand.
Perhaps this entire article is pointless, because moderates have never been accused of having guts.
The Modern Day Liberal: Evil, Weak, Talentless and Submissive
Evil: There are few actions worse than baselessly labeling someone a racist. Liberals accuse all Obama critics of horrific bigotry. They somehow blame racism on Obama's stubborn unwillingness to release a copy of his birth certificate until he'd been in office over two years. No criticism of Obama policies are rooted in racism, yet liberals claim every word of opposition is based on KKK talking points. Liberals pretend, "It makes me sad our children will be riddled with so much debt," is code for, "I do declare, we've got to get that black man out of the White House. In a civilized nation, it is only proper for people of color to domestically serve those of us blessed with pale skin."
Talentless: Liberal "comedians" such as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart have made millions of dollars saying unfunny things like, "conservatives make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein," to thunderous laughter and massive applause. The key to a successful stand-up comedy career is not quality of joke, rather the amount of liberal propaganda you can squeeze into an hour set. Against articulate conservatives, liberals lose every debate. Therefore, instead of being challenged, most leftists would rather watch a comedian stand before them and spew familiar ignorance.
Weak: Wimpy adults such as Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock aren't man enough to live in a world in which they're able to think and make decisions for themselves. Instead of walking by a McDonalds and deciding against entering, they drop to the concrete and weep because "to open the door, or not to open the door," is a dilemma left up to them. "No, it's too hard," they cry. "Removing the Golden Arches forever is the only way my kind can remain physically fit! Don't allow responsible people the choice to enter sporadically, prevent us all from ever stepping foot inside! Better yet, make McDonalds serve only healthy food no one wants to eat so my desire to enter will go away and I can therefore tell myself I am full of willpower."
Submissive: Most liberals aren't happy with President Barack Obama, yet refuse to remove every aspect of their lives from his hands. If Mr. Obama tells his supporters he's transporting them to a secluded compound where they will eventually be castrated, and then forced to drink tainted grape Flavor-Aid until they keel over, these Democrats and moderate Republicans will perhaps complain a smidge, maybe while in line awaiting the order to drop their pants, but would eventually allow their knife-wielding-betters to alter their nether-region. "I don't think drinking this poison will lead to us shedding our vessels before boarding a luxury spaceship headed to a liberal utopia, but it's better than anything the Republicans are proposing. You should hear the GOP criticize Obama's gonad-removing-then-travelling-to-an-all-socialist-planet plan. What a bunch of racists."
Talentless: Liberal "comedians" such as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart have made millions of dollars saying unfunny things like, "conservatives make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein," to thunderous laughter and massive applause. The key to a successful stand-up comedy career is not quality of joke, rather the amount of liberal propaganda you can squeeze into an hour set. Against articulate conservatives, liberals lose every debate. Therefore, instead of being challenged, most leftists would rather watch a comedian stand before them and spew familiar ignorance.
Weak: Wimpy adults such as Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock aren't man enough to live in a world in which they're able to think and make decisions for themselves. Instead of walking by a McDonalds and deciding against entering, they drop to the concrete and weep because "to open the door, or not to open the door," is a dilemma left up to them. "No, it's too hard," they cry. "Removing the Golden Arches forever is the only way my kind can remain physically fit! Don't allow responsible people the choice to enter sporadically, prevent us all from ever stepping foot inside! Better yet, make McDonalds serve only healthy food no one wants to eat so my desire to enter will go away and I can therefore tell myself I am full of willpower."
Submissive: Most liberals aren't happy with President Barack Obama, yet refuse to remove every aspect of their lives from his hands. If Mr. Obama tells his supporters he's transporting them to a secluded compound where they will eventually be castrated, and then forced to drink tainted grape Flavor-Aid until they keel over, these Democrats and moderate Republicans will perhaps complain a smidge, maybe while in line awaiting the order to drop their pants, but would eventually allow their knife-wielding-betters to alter their nether-region. "I don't think drinking this poison will lead to us shedding our vessels before boarding a luxury spaceship headed to a liberal utopia, but it's better than anything the Republicans are proposing. You should hear the GOP criticize Obama's gonad-removing-then-travelling-to-an-all-socialist-planet plan. What a bunch of racists."
Gimme an "F", Gimme an "A", Gimme a "V"...
Most people have an inherent desire to see the underdog cut down the nets at the conclusion of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, hoist the Super Bowl trophy in early February, or chug a bottle of milk on the Brickyard during Memorial Day weekend.
Regardless of favorite team, we get excited thinking about an undersized football player with unequaled work ethic leveling the gigantic all-American from Football U.
Our desire to see the tortoise cross the finish line first is so overwhelming we begin backing those undeserving of support. Simply because the ne'er-do-well has underdog status, we often root for a person who possesses equal or greater ability, yet chooses not to exert 100% over go-getters who don't know the meaning of the word "quit."
By depicting real and fictional corporate heads as evil, both the media and entertainment industry give their customers the impression a passion for hard work is loathsome.
It's one thing for a tingle to shoot up your leg as you cheer on a suddenly inspired brilliant Keanu Reeves type slacker character as he brings down the CEO of a perennially poisoning pesticide company, but America is in real trouble because ignorant people continue casting votes based on the notion that all hard-working CEOs would happily drive to their extravagant homes through streets riddled with dead children if the diminutive corpses equaled a couple extra zeros on the mogul's paycheck.
If neither are evil, on what basis does morality win if a person, who's spent the majority of his or her life resting their buttocks on an uber-comfy couch cushion, brings down an individual who's spent nearly every waking hour behind a desk providing quality goods and services to consumers, employing the jobless, and inspiring other to reach their full potential?
None.
The feeling you get while watching David attempt to slew Goliath on the basketball court doesn't translate to real life. David scoring more points than Goliath has no impact on society; voting for a tax and spend liberal who promises to "destroy the evil insurance CEO who lives lavishly based on his uncanny ability to write fine print so deceptive and cruel his company doesn't have to pay for individuals they've promised to cover," has a devastating impact on society because it creates a country full of citizens who expect Uncle Sam to replace their parents once they reach adulthood in the literal sense.
Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 must learn the underdog is not always good and the favorite is not always bad. In the real world, it's usually the exact opposite. Favorites have typically sacrificed much mindless recreation to create and sell items that make your life easier and more enjoyable.
Who would you hire to protect your family in the event of a local crime wave: a security company who works around the clock to provide their consumers with constant peace of mind, or a ragtag group of misfits who enjoy sleeping in, smoking dope and playing video games?
For the sake of your family I won't root for the underdog. Hopefully you'll return the favor come November 2012.
Regardless of favorite team, we get excited thinking about an undersized football player with unequaled work ethic leveling the gigantic all-American from Football U.
Our desire to see the tortoise cross the finish line first is so overwhelming we begin backing those undeserving of support. Simply because the ne'er-do-well has underdog status, we often root for a person who possesses equal or greater ability, yet chooses not to exert 100% over go-getters who don't know the meaning of the word "quit."
By depicting real and fictional corporate heads as evil, both the media and entertainment industry give their customers the impression a passion for hard work is loathsome.
It's one thing for a tingle to shoot up your leg as you cheer on a suddenly inspired brilliant Keanu Reeves type slacker character as he brings down the CEO of a perennially poisoning pesticide company, but America is in real trouble because ignorant people continue casting votes based on the notion that all hard-working CEOs would happily drive to their extravagant homes through streets riddled with dead children if the diminutive corpses equaled a couple extra zeros on the mogul's paycheck.
If neither are evil, on what basis does morality win if a person, who's spent the majority of his or her life resting their buttocks on an uber-comfy couch cushion, brings down an individual who's spent nearly every waking hour behind a desk providing quality goods and services to consumers, employing the jobless, and inspiring other to reach their full potential?
None.
The feeling you get while watching David attempt to slew Goliath on the basketball court doesn't translate to real life. David scoring more points than Goliath has no impact on society; voting for a tax and spend liberal who promises to "destroy the evil insurance CEO who lives lavishly based on his uncanny ability to write fine print so deceptive and cruel his company doesn't have to pay for individuals they've promised to cover," has a devastating impact on society because it creates a country full of citizens who expect Uncle Sam to replace their parents once they reach adulthood in the literal sense.
Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 must learn the underdog is not always good and the favorite is not always bad. In the real world, it's usually the exact opposite. Favorites have typically sacrificed much mindless recreation to create and sell items that make your life easier and more enjoyable.
Who would you hire to protect your family in the event of a local crime wave: a security company who works around the clock to provide their consumers with constant peace of mind, or a ragtag group of misfits who enjoy sleeping in, smoking dope and playing video games?
For the sake of your family I won't root for the underdog. Hopefully you'll return the favor come November 2012.
Would an America-Loving Obama Seek a Second Term?
It's clear to most of us on the right that President Barack Obama despises the country in which he was allegedly born.
Unlike the majority of his predecessors, the first words out of his mouth after crossing the threshold to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue were likely, "I can barely stand the sight of this lavishly disgusting house of repression!"
The evidence is overwhelming.
"America remains the primary reason injustice and suffering still exist in the world," is the summary of all the speeches President Obama reads from his famous teleprompter.
Mr. Obama seeks a second term.
What more evidence does the "Obama loves America" crowd need!?
Is anybody better off than they were two years ago? Can anybody imagine how bad things will be after two additional years with Obama at the reigns?
Many Americans wanted to see what the inexperienced senator originating from Hawaii, Kenya or Indonesia could accomplish from the Oval Office. They've discovered he can increase the debt. They've discovered he can call a brave police officer "stupid" despite admittedly not knowing what deplorable actions said officer took to deserve the insult. They've discovered he can make countries in need of military assistance scream, "The French will protect us!"
Were Mr. Obama genuinely attempting to help this nation prosper, he would not seek a second term. A true America-lover would be emotionally distraught over the plight of the unemployed. Yet Mr. Obama thinks, "Americans are suffering, but in order to fulfill my double-secret campaign promise of tearing this country down to size, my minions must suffer more."
Were he honest, his 2012 campaign theme would be, "Americans currently feel sorry for Greece; four more years with me at the helm and the Greeks will feel sorry for us!"
Not even his wife is successful. Despite her intrusive "Let's Move" campaign, no one has burst through the door of the dwelling inside which I stand and said, "I had so much elbow room during my afternoon stroll. I know the stimulus package didn't increase the width of American sidewalks, so the additional space must mean everyone is gettin' skinny!"
My local Lane Bryant retailer remains fully operational.
Outside every McDonalds I pass, I see cars waiting to be filled with the wonderful stench of grease that reminds us of carefree childhood summers.
Yet Mr. and Mrs. Obama want one more term...
During your annual review, imagine saying to your boss, "I am aware of the fact that sales have dropped 50% since I became manager of the division, but please disregard those results. 'What will I do differently if my contract is renewed?' Why I will not change my tactics one bit. After all, despite the fact I've single-handedly decimated your operation, after you layoff hundreds of loyal workers, sell off everything you own and put a permanent 'closed' sign out front, your former neighbors will say, 'in its final days, there a noble company stood.'"
Mr. Obama was also going to end racism. But according to African-American Hall of Fame quarterback Warren Moon, any criticism of African-American quarterback Cam Newton is racially based.
If you've spoken against the evils of liberalism your entire life, criticism of Barack Obama is only offered because you despise persons of color.
The bottom line is that every endeavor originating from the Oval Office has failed miserably and we the people are paying the price while the Obama's live it up. In his mind, he and members of his immediately family should stylishly travel the world on our dime because forcing us to suffer is a noble act deserving of great reward.
Citizen to Obama: Sir, since you took office I have lost my job, my home, as well as the ability to feed my family. What I used to consider the basics, I now consider luxuries. Such extreme squalor has not been experienced in America since the Great Depression.
Obama to citizen: You're welcome.
Unlike the majority of his predecessors, the first words out of his mouth after crossing the threshold to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue were likely, "I can barely stand the sight of this lavishly disgusting house of repression!"
The evidence is overwhelming.
"America remains the primary reason injustice and suffering still exist in the world," is the summary of all the speeches President Obama reads from his famous teleprompter.
Mr. Obama seeks a second term.
What more evidence does the "Obama loves America" crowd need!?
Is anybody better off than they were two years ago? Can anybody imagine how bad things will be after two additional years with Obama at the reigns?
Many Americans wanted to see what the inexperienced senator originating from Hawaii, Kenya or Indonesia could accomplish from the Oval Office. They've discovered he can increase the debt. They've discovered he can call a brave police officer "stupid" despite admittedly not knowing what deplorable actions said officer took to deserve the insult. They've discovered he can make countries in need of military assistance scream, "The French will protect us!"
Were Mr. Obama genuinely attempting to help this nation prosper, he would not seek a second term. A true America-lover would be emotionally distraught over the plight of the unemployed. Yet Mr. Obama thinks, "Americans are suffering, but in order to fulfill my double-secret campaign promise of tearing this country down to size, my minions must suffer more."
Were he honest, his 2012 campaign theme would be, "Americans currently feel sorry for Greece; four more years with me at the helm and the Greeks will feel sorry for us!"
Not even his wife is successful. Despite her intrusive "Let's Move" campaign, no one has burst through the door of the dwelling inside which I stand and said, "I had so much elbow room during my afternoon stroll. I know the stimulus package didn't increase the width of American sidewalks, so the additional space must mean everyone is gettin' skinny!"
My local Lane Bryant retailer remains fully operational.
Outside every McDonalds I pass, I see cars waiting to be filled with the wonderful stench of grease that reminds us of carefree childhood summers.
Yet Mr. and Mrs. Obama want one more term...
During your annual review, imagine saying to your boss, "I am aware of the fact that sales have dropped 50% since I became manager of the division, but please disregard those results. 'What will I do differently if my contract is renewed?' Why I will not change my tactics one bit. After all, despite the fact I've single-handedly decimated your operation, after you layoff hundreds of loyal workers, sell off everything you own and put a permanent 'closed' sign out front, your former neighbors will say, 'in its final days, there a noble company stood.'"
Mr. Obama was also going to end racism. But according to African-American Hall of Fame quarterback Warren Moon, any criticism of African-American quarterback Cam Newton is racially based.
If you've spoken against the evils of liberalism your entire life, criticism of Barack Obama is only offered because you despise persons of color.
The bottom line is that every endeavor originating from the Oval Office has failed miserably and we the people are paying the price while the Obama's live it up. In his mind, he and members of his immediately family should stylishly travel the world on our dime because forcing us to suffer is a noble act deserving of great reward.
Citizen to Obama: Sir, since you took office I have lost my job, my home, as well as the ability to feed my family. What I used to consider the basics, I now consider luxuries. Such extreme squalor has not been experienced in America since the Great Depression.
Obama to citizen: You're welcome.
NFL Players vs. Slaves: A Real Photo Finish
Because at least two current NFL players have compared themselves to slaves, I decided it would be a good idea to give everyone a brief history lesson to make certain the differences between slaves and football players are clear.
Knowing how cruel slavery was, such a comparison irks me. I don't agree that, I, a non African-American, should keep my mouth shut regarding such matters. Slaves were people and I am a person. I refuse to sit by while fellow non-slaves compare themselves to slaves, regardless of skin color.
Slaves were owned by other people. Football players are free.
Young NFL players are not allowed to play for any team they wish but can remain members of their immediate and extended families. Slave families were often broken apart because their owners chose to split them up before shoving them under a "for sale" sign.
Comparing yourself to a slave because you aren't allowed to play for any team you wish is completely and totally repulsive. If football players are slaves, basically every employee in the world is a slave. If a worker in an automobile plant in Nashville tells his superior he'd like to transfer to a plant in West Virginia and the superior responds, "we need you here," can the employee declare his existence is on par with men and women who were repeatedly beaten for subpar labor habits?
When NFL players are upset with the league brass, they sit in their mansions and tweet about it. When some slaves were at the breaking point, often because their families were torn apart, they retaliated by killing their owners.
With the help of a coaching staff, NFL players learn massive playbooks backwards and forwards. In some states, teaching slaves how to read or write was a punishable offense.
Why don't I try to find a few similarities between slaves and NFL players...
They both work outdoors... Actually, NFL players sometimes play in domes and study film under roofs.
Oh well, I tried.
I challenge you, NFL player who compares your plight to the plight of a slave, to read Africans in America: America's Journey through Slavery. After completion, if you still think you're treated equally, I would warn your friends and acquaintances to stand back, because you're a heartless buffoon.
Knowing how cruel slavery was, such a comparison irks me. I don't agree that, I, a non African-American, should keep my mouth shut regarding such matters. Slaves were people and I am a person. I refuse to sit by while fellow non-slaves compare themselves to slaves, regardless of skin color.
Slaves were owned by other people. Football players are free.
Young NFL players are not allowed to play for any team they wish but can remain members of their immediate and extended families. Slave families were often broken apart because their owners chose to split them up before shoving them under a "for sale" sign.
Comparing yourself to a slave because you aren't allowed to play for any team you wish is completely and totally repulsive. If football players are slaves, basically every employee in the world is a slave. If a worker in an automobile plant in Nashville tells his superior he'd like to transfer to a plant in West Virginia and the superior responds, "we need you here," can the employee declare his existence is on par with men and women who were repeatedly beaten for subpar labor habits?
When NFL players are upset with the league brass, they sit in their mansions and tweet about it. When some slaves were at the breaking point, often because their families were torn apart, they retaliated by killing their owners.
With the help of a coaching staff, NFL players learn massive playbooks backwards and forwards. In some states, teaching slaves how to read or write was a punishable offense.
Why don't I try to find a few similarities between slaves and NFL players...
They both work outdoors... Actually, NFL players sometimes play in domes and study film under roofs.
Oh well, I tried.
I challenge you, NFL player who compares your plight to the plight of a slave, to read Africans in America: America's Journey through Slavery. After completion, if you still think you're treated equally, I would warn your friends and acquaintances to stand back, because you're a heartless buffoon.
America the Fat Farm
I was recently watching Heavy on A&E. For those of you unfamiliar, it's a reality program about people desperate to shed pounds. In order to lose the weight, these dangerously obese individuals are taken to an exotic beachfront location for six months where a waifish staff tells them what to eat, when to eat, which exercises to perform and for how long. Every day is dictated by people who know better.
To liberals, this fancy fat farm is a mini-version of the ideal America.
It's impossible to retain a job while residing at the fat farm, therefore Heavy producers pay for the entire adventure. In other words, everything is taken care of and attendees have no real responsibilities other than to follow orders.
I will now detail how officials of the U.S. Government are like executives at a fat farm. Thankfully Americans are not yet required to abide by every word written on a .gov website, but our options will soon go from vast to two: comply or be punished.
Fat farm: The powers-that-be instruct every resident when to rise-and-shine.
America: The CDC.gov website says adults need 7-9 hours of sleep. Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website says, "Most children under age five need to sleep for 11 hours or more per day, children age five to 10 need 10 hours of sleep or more per day, and children over age 10 need at least nine hours per day."
Fat farm: attendees are told what to eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
America: The CDC.gov website says adult males need 56 grams of protein per day and conveniently point out that 3 1/2 cups of dry beans will do the trick; so eat up America. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which can be downloaded from the website run by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, is a whopping 112 pages long!
Fat Farm: An experienced trainer is provided to all residents. This fitness guru sets their daily exercise routine and corrects any movements made in error.
America: Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website says sitting still during commercial breaks should be forbidden in every household, and a walk around the block after each meal should be mandatory.
The bottom line is that you can literally find advice on how to complete every daily action "the government way," on a website run by President Obama and his cronies. We've already discussed how much sleep you need, which covers waking up. The CDC website has a large section on proper oral care for your morning trip to the bathroom. I'm not going to research whether or not the government offers tips on how to perform other bathroom activities for fear Mrs. Obama has taken the lead. Her mountains of unsolicited advice already make her face difficult to stomach. I'm sure the aforementioned 112-page Dietary Guidelines for Americans will help you select a suitable breakfast. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency will instruct you how to safely drive to work while limiting your contribution to climate change. The EPA, for example, suggests you, "Unload unnecessary items in your trunk to reduce weight. If you have a removable roof rack and you are not using it, take it off to improve your fuel economy by as much as 5 percent." Please keep in mind however that the EPA also suggests you completely ditch your car in favor of public transportation or a bicycle. Should you choose the public transportation route, the Department of Transportation can suggest the best bus or train in your area. President and Mrs. Obama both insist working for the government is a "higher calling," so that covers the middle-third of your day. In order to comply with the CDC and Michelle Obama, a trip to the gym should follow work. As with breakfast, reading material provided by the government will help you select a suitable dinner. After all, if combined into one book, the length of governmental writings on nutritional standards make Atlas Shrugged look like a leaflet on famous Jewish sports legends. For your brief post dinner enjoyment, the U.S. Congress makes sure every television program you view with your family has been rated based on content and Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" website says gazing at the idiot box should be limited, i.e., you and your ankle-biters should watch five-minutes of Hannah Montana and like it. After putting the plate, off which your clan ate celery in accordance with regulations set by the CDC, The Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion, in the dishwasher, you hit the sack, eager to get up and start a brand new day of borrowing Mrs. Obama's brain.
"Life is just like everybody else's," is the new, "Life is good."
For those of you who would present it; the argument, "Government websites provide useful information only for those who choose to use it," would only contain merit if leftists refrained from constantly attempting to make mandatory what the government now simply suggests.
If you care to make the dreams of the liberal come true by having the government plan your every hour, I'm sure the overpaid bureaucrats at the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity in concert with the CDC, in concert with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in concert with the DOT, in concert with the White House, et al. would be happy to send you a daily itinerary.
Gotta go: it's almost midnight and I must be awake at 7:00 a.m. I want to get accustomed to a routine so my system isn't shocked once Emperor Obama begins automatically shutting off lights at a certain hour in hopes both citizens of the United States and Mother Earth have brighter futures.
To liberals, this fancy fat farm is a mini-version of the ideal America.
It's impossible to retain a job while residing at the fat farm, therefore Heavy producers pay for the entire adventure. In other words, everything is taken care of and attendees have no real responsibilities other than to follow orders.
I will now detail how officials of the U.S. Government are like executives at a fat farm. Thankfully Americans are not yet required to abide by every word written on a .gov website, but our options will soon go from vast to two: comply or be punished.
Fat farm: The powers-that-be instruct every resident when to rise-and-shine.
America: The CDC.gov website says adults need 7-9 hours of sleep. Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website says, "Most children under age five need to sleep for 11 hours or more per day, children age five to 10 need 10 hours of sleep or more per day, and children over age 10 need at least nine hours per day."
Fat farm: attendees are told what to eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
America: The CDC.gov website says adult males need 56 grams of protein per day and conveniently point out that 3 1/2 cups of dry beans will do the trick; so eat up America. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which can be downloaded from the website run by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, is a whopping 112 pages long!
Fat Farm: An experienced trainer is provided to all residents. This fitness guru sets their daily exercise routine and corrects any movements made in error.
America: Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website says sitting still during commercial breaks should be forbidden in every household, and a walk around the block after each meal should be mandatory.
The bottom line is that you can literally find advice on how to complete every daily action "the government way," on a website run by President Obama and his cronies. We've already discussed how much sleep you need, which covers waking up. The CDC website has a large section on proper oral care for your morning trip to the bathroom. I'm not going to research whether or not the government offers tips on how to perform other bathroom activities for fear Mrs. Obama has taken the lead. Her mountains of unsolicited advice already make her face difficult to stomach. I'm sure the aforementioned 112-page Dietary Guidelines for Americans will help you select a suitable breakfast. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency will instruct you how to safely drive to work while limiting your contribution to climate change. The EPA, for example, suggests you, "Unload unnecessary items in your trunk to reduce weight. If you have a removable roof rack and you are not using it, take it off to improve your fuel economy by as much as 5 percent." Please keep in mind however that the EPA also suggests you completely ditch your car in favor of public transportation or a bicycle. Should you choose the public transportation route, the Department of Transportation can suggest the best bus or train in your area. President and Mrs. Obama both insist working for the government is a "higher calling," so that covers the middle-third of your day. In order to comply with the CDC and Michelle Obama, a trip to the gym should follow work. As with breakfast, reading material provided by the government will help you select a suitable dinner. After all, if combined into one book, the length of governmental writings on nutritional standards make Atlas Shrugged look like a leaflet on famous Jewish sports legends. For your brief post dinner enjoyment, the U.S. Congress makes sure every television program you view with your family has been rated based on content and Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" website says gazing at the idiot box should be limited, i.e., you and your ankle-biters should watch five-minutes of Hannah Montana and like it. After putting the plate, off which your clan ate celery in accordance with regulations set by the CDC, The Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion, in the dishwasher, you hit the sack, eager to get up and start a brand new day of borrowing Mrs. Obama's brain.
"Life is just like everybody else's," is the new, "Life is good."
For those of you who would present it; the argument, "Government websites provide useful information only for those who choose to use it," would only contain merit if leftists refrained from constantly attempting to make mandatory what the government now simply suggests.
If you care to make the dreams of the liberal come true by having the government plan your every hour, I'm sure the overpaid bureaucrats at the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity in concert with the CDC, in concert with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in concert with the DOT, in concert with the White House, et al. would be happy to send you a daily itinerary.
Gotta go: it's almost midnight and I must be awake at 7:00 a.m. I want to get accustomed to a routine so my system isn't shocked once Emperor Obama begins automatically shutting off lights at a certain hour in hopes both citizens of the United States and Mother Earth have brighter futures.
Admit You Submit
Matthew Perry recently slammed moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly for failing to be humble in the presence of President Barack Obama.
I'm actually glad the former Friends star said this, because at least he's mature enough to admit he's a submissive man. Were Mr. Perry to enter a room in which President Obama stood, I'm quite certain the actor would immediately bow down to the Commander in Chief just as Mr. Obama bows to dictators whose power he craves.
Why can't all you liberals admit you submit?
When Mrs. Obama tells you what to eat, admit you put down your fork and abide. "Those fries are too fatty!" she insists. Admit you respond, "You're right First Lady, my waistline cannot afford another French fried potato drenched in salt. Please tell me what I can consume or else I'll starve to death screaming, 'Why won't she tell me what to put in my mouth!'."
Admit you hate making decisions that impact your own life.
Admit you're so ignorant regarding money matters that you deem anyone suggesting you personally handle the investing of your salary "evil".
We conservatives understand there will be differences of opinion, but we strenuously object to liberals fibbing for the express purpose of convincing the ignorant masses that they're not trying to control the entire population.
You often hear President Obama and Vice President Biden claim to be proponents of freedom, yet, for the first time in her history, citizens of the United States will soon be forced to purchase a product.
They can't have it both ways.
If everyone in America was a conservative, would ObamaCare be required, or would the country be full of individuals with either insurance or the financial means to pay for their treatment in full?
The Republican National Convention is wall-to-wall folks with ability to fend for themselves. The Democrat National Convention is full of whiners who cry out, "Pass legislation that allows me to scratch health care from my list of complicated issues with which I must concern myself. Though I am able bodied, please make it possible for me live the life of a helpless invalid. Seriously, how about a bill that mandates the mailman actually place Netflix rental's in my DVD player."
Why can't you liberals just admit you want to be average in every way? You want to spend a maximum of eight hours per weekday at work, then go home and watch mindless television until it's beddy-bye time. This is all you want out of life and freedom makes it impossible for you to proceed through such a vapid existence without worry. With liberty, you still have to pay for retirement and your own healthcare. "Take away everyone's freedom to prosper so I have comfort in knowing my laziness will never land me in the poor house."
If that means you're told what to eat and how many jumping jacks to perform nightly, you'll happily defile your face with the official White House wheat germ after working out with intensity typically displayed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright after he's dreamed up yet another way America has kept him down.
Just admit it, that's all I ask. Admit your ballot was cast for Barack Obama on November 4, 2008 so you could turn off your brain come January 20, 2009. You voted for him so future visits to the doctor wouldn't include the removing of your insurance card, driver's license and co-pay from your wallet and then presenting these items to the nurse/receptionist. You voted for Mr. Obama so you could walk into the office of any doctor and say, "ObamaCare".
Admit you attempt to shame people into believing this big bad world is too complex for conservatism. "Championing freedom and limited government isn't sufficient; we need complex solutions to complex problems," you say, hoping to force individuals to cheerfully give up their freedom for fear they'll otherwise be labeled stupid.
You liberals probably think your attempts at helping the masses are heroic, but how often do Herculean motion picture protagonists shout, "I will put down my weapons and wait for an elected official to get me out of this seemingly unsolvable circumstance!"
I'm actually glad the former Friends star said this, because at least he's mature enough to admit he's a submissive man. Were Mr. Perry to enter a room in which President Obama stood, I'm quite certain the actor would immediately bow down to the Commander in Chief just as Mr. Obama bows to dictators whose power he craves.
Why can't all you liberals admit you submit?
When Mrs. Obama tells you what to eat, admit you put down your fork and abide. "Those fries are too fatty!" she insists. Admit you respond, "You're right First Lady, my waistline cannot afford another French fried potato drenched in salt. Please tell me what I can consume or else I'll starve to death screaming, 'Why won't she tell me what to put in my mouth!'."
Admit you hate making decisions that impact your own life.
Admit you're so ignorant regarding money matters that you deem anyone suggesting you personally handle the investing of your salary "evil".
We conservatives understand there will be differences of opinion, but we strenuously object to liberals fibbing for the express purpose of convincing the ignorant masses that they're not trying to control the entire population.
You often hear President Obama and Vice President Biden claim to be proponents of freedom, yet, for the first time in her history, citizens of the United States will soon be forced to purchase a product.
They can't have it both ways.
If everyone in America was a conservative, would ObamaCare be required, or would the country be full of individuals with either insurance or the financial means to pay for their treatment in full?
The Republican National Convention is wall-to-wall folks with ability to fend for themselves. The Democrat National Convention is full of whiners who cry out, "Pass legislation that allows me to scratch health care from my list of complicated issues with which I must concern myself. Though I am able bodied, please make it possible for me live the life of a helpless invalid. Seriously, how about a bill that mandates the mailman actually place Netflix rental's in my DVD player."
Why can't you liberals just admit you want to be average in every way? You want to spend a maximum of eight hours per weekday at work, then go home and watch mindless television until it's beddy-bye time. This is all you want out of life and freedom makes it impossible for you to proceed through such a vapid existence without worry. With liberty, you still have to pay for retirement and your own healthcare. "Take away everyone's freedom to prosper so I have comfort in knowing my laziness will never land me in the poor house."
If that means you're told what to eat and how many jumping jacks to perform nightly, you'll happily defile your face with the official White House wheat germ after working out with intensity typically displayed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright after he's dreamed up yet another way America has kept him down.
Just admit it, that's all I ask. Admit your ballot was cast for Barack Obama on November 4, 2008 so you could turn off your brain come January 20, 2009. You voted for him so future visits to the doctor wouldn't include the removing of your insurance card, driver's license and co-pay from your wallet and then presenting these items to the nurse/receptionist. You voted for Mr. Obama so you could walk into the office of any doctor and say, "ObamaCare".
Admit you attempt to shame people into believing this big bad world is too complex for conservatism. "Championing freedom and limited government isn't sufficient; we need complex solutions to complex problems," you say, hoping to force individuals to cheerfully give up their freedom for fear they'll otherwise be labeled stupid.
You liberals probably think your attempts at helping the masses are heroic, but how often do Herculean motion picture protagonists shout, "I will put down my weapons and wait for an elected official to get me out of this seemingly unsolvable circumstance!"
Collective Bargaining is a Four Letter Word
A lot of Wisconsin teachers are protesting against their governor because he wishes to take away the right of their union to collectively bargain.
An end to collective bargaining doesn't mean the state can pull people off the street and say, "You will teach the first grade for $10,000 a year or face up to thirty-years in a gulag."
No more collective bargaining means a potential educator will walk in, receive an offer for his or her services, and then decide if they will accept said offer or find employment at a private institution. It's how most of us negotiate our salary and benefits. Despite right-to-work states like Florida and Texas prospering through these difficult financial times, this is yet another way Democrats claim to "save" the ignorant masses. They're saying, "If we leave you alone to work out a deal for yourself, you'll end up with a $50 gift card from Wal-Mart as a health plan."
Teacher unions have stooped to comparing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Hitler. I remember Adolf Hitler slaughtering millions of Jewish people, not telling them they must negotiate their contracts individually, which Jewish people would have almost assuredly preferred. In other words, had they the option of being shipped to Auschwitz or negotiating their employment contracts individually, the latter would have been selected by the same margin Saddam Hussein won presidential elections.
The left-wing media has of course failed to mention the fact that Wisconsin teachers make great money. You'd do a spit take if informed how much they annually earn including salary and benefits. If their pay was pittance, 60 Minutes would profile three kindergarten teachers who are so poor they're forced to live together in a one-bedroom apartment with no indoor plumbing. The trio exists exclusively on noodles and dry cereal. Though Wisconsin winters are harsh, only one jacket between them do they have with which to keep warm.
Wisconsin teachers are like a child who demands their $75,000-a-year parents set his or her allowance at $80,000 annually. When the child is told there is literally not enough money, and including the house, car and utility payments, the child must sacrifice a small percentage of their weekly income, the youngster throws a conniption fit. This is understandable because you can't always reason with people whose brains haven't fully developed. It's a shame fiscally responsible politicians are unable to reason with adults charged with teaching the youth of America.
Why are American children testing so low in comparison to the rest of the world? Is it because they lazily play video games 24/7, or is it because their teachers aren't able to grasp the simple concept that employers can't dish out more money than they take in? No wonder we have a generation believing they're owed the moon and the stars; their teachers tell them, "The owners of the company that eventually employs you will undoubtedly posses a bottomless piggy-bank. If they don't pay you at least six figures, it's strictly because the CEO needs the funds to greedily attach an additional game room to his fifth vacation home."
An end to collective bargaining doesn't mean the state can pull people off the street and say, "You will teach the first grade for $10,000 a year or face up to thirty-years in a gulag."
No more collective bargaining means a potential educator will walk in, receive an offer for his or her services, and then decide if they will accept said offer or find employment at a private institution. It's how most of us negotiate our salary and benefits. Despite right-to-work states like Florida and Texas prospering through these difficult financial times, this is yet another way Democrats claim to "save" the ignorant masses. They're saying, "If we leave you alone to work out a deal for yourself, you'll end up with a $50 gift card from Wal-Mart as a health plan."
Teacher unions have stooped to comparing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Hitler. I remember Adolf Hitler slaughtering millions of Jewish people, not telling them they must negotiate their contracts individually, which Jewish people would have almost assuredly preferred. In other words, had they the option of being shipped to Auschwitz or negotiating their employment contracts individually, the latter would have been selected by the same margin Saddam Hussein won presidential elections.
The left-wing media has of course failed to mention the fact that Wisconsin teachers make great money. You'd do a spit take if informed how much they annually earn including salary and benefits. If their pay was pittance, 60 Minutes would profile three kindergarten teachers who are so poor they're forced to live together in a one-bedroom apartment with no indoor plumbing. The trio exists exclusively on noodles and dry cereal. Though Wisconsin winters are harsh, only one jacket between them do they have with which to keep warm.
Wisconsin teachers are like a child who demands their $75,000-a-year parents set his or her allowance at $80,000 annually. When the child is told there is literally not enough money, and including the house, car and utility payments, the child must sacrifice a small percentage of their weekly income, the youngster throws a conniption fit. This is understandable because you can't always reason with people whose brains haven't fully developed. It's a shame fiscally responsible politicians are unable to reason with adults charged with teaching the youth of America.
Why are American children testing so low in comparison to the rest of the world? Is it because they lazily play video games 24/7, or is it because their teachers aren't able to grasp the simple concept that employers can't dish out more money than they take in? No wonder we have a generation believing they're owed the moon and the stars; their teachers tell them, "The owners of the company that eventually employs you will undoubtedly posses a bottomless piggy-bank. If they don't pay you at least six figures, it's strictly because the CEO needs the funds to greedily attach an additional game room to his fifth vacation home."
Why Do Liberals Want One Bad Guy Ruling Each Nation, yet Oppose One Great Nation Ruling the World?
Liberals are big admirers of Mao. Oliver Stone receives as much fan mail from aspiring directors as he sends to the palace of Fidel Castro. Sean Penn acts like a kid on Christmas Eve as he waits for his flight to Venezuela to take off. The actor has called for the imprisonment of American journalists who refer to Hugo Chavez as a dictator.
It doesn't matter how many citizens these monsters murder, liberals have no shortage of admiration for brutal thugs who rule with fists of iron.
While working for President Obama, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn named Mao Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers.
Liberals love single immoral leaders, yet are adamant American lawmakers have little ability to protect the very citizens that voted them into office. "We must militarily even the playing field," they say.
Rulers with no qualms about murdering thousands of their innocent subjects are elevated by today's liberals. These left-wing "defenders of the common man" insist America, the most prosperous, noble and generous nation in the history of civilization should chunk our protective weapons in the ocean so we don't have an unfair advantage over countries whose constitutions may as well include the words, "Kill all the Christians and Jews."
According to liberals, many U.S. leaders are to blame for the massive casualties suffered by the U.S. on 9/11 because our policies led to the justified outrage of the Muslim terrorists.
Yet evil dictators who literally order the murder of their own subjects are never referred to as "killers" by the left.
To liberals, demanding your troops brutally execute political adversaries does not make a murderer, yet instructing your troops to protect citizens around the world is equivalent to slaughtering innocent men, women and children.
Liberals often speak about a socialist utopia, but only if every country in the world begins living in accordance with the U.S. Constitution can a worldly utopia exist. Instead, the United States is abandoning the aforementioned sacred document and we're living in a world where protecting the innocent is labeled murder and brutal murder is deemed necessary to further social justice.
It doesn't matter how many citizens these monsters murder, liberals have no shortage of admiration for brutal thugs who rule with fists of iron.
While working for President Obama, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn named Mao Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers.
Liberals love single immoral leaders, yet are adamant American lawmakers have little ability to protect the very citizens that voted them into office. "We must militarily even the playing field," they say.
Rulers with no qualms about murdering thousands of their innocent subjects are elevated by today's liberals. These left-wing "defenders of the common man" insist America, the most prosperous, noble and generous nation in the history of civilization should chunk our protective weapons in the ocean so we don't have an unfair advantage over countries whose constitutions may as well include the words, "Kill all the Christians and Jews."
According to liberals, many U.S. leaders are to blame for the massive casualties suffered by the U.S. on 9/11 because our policies led to the justified outrage of the Muslim terrorists.
Yet evil dictators who literally order the murder of their own subjects are never referred to as "killers" by the left.
To liberals, demanding your troops brutally execute political adversaries does not make a murderer, yet instructing your troops to protect citizens around the world is equivalent to slaughtering innocent men, women and children.
Liberals often speak about a socialist utopia, but only if every country in the world begins living in accordance with the U.S. Constitution can a worldly utopia exist. Instead, the United States is abandoning the aforementioned sacred document and we're living in a world where protecting the innocent is labeled murder and brutal murder is deemed necessary to further social justice.
Al Gore Could Actually Do Good
Perhaps there was a time I felt pity for people who bought into the whole man-made global warming hoax. Warnings the earth was near destruction spewed from the mouth of every member of the traditional media.
But I no longer feel a tinge of sympathy for people afraid their actions are causing the end of the world. There is simply too much information available if you're worried the earth is doomed and you are partially responsible. We now have proof that scientists, who for years insisted man is causing global warming, manipulated data and suppressed dissent. It's gotten so bad for Al Gore and his ilk that they now say with a straight face, "Whatever is falling from the sky outside your window, whatever the current temperature, whatever the five-day forecast; it's all due to man-made global warming."
Now that it's clear Al Gore is a complete fraud, I wonder why liberals don't admonish the former Vice President for failing to use his celebrity to help people they typically champion.
Conning average Americans out of their money to fill his overflowing pockets equals food out of the mouths of hungry children. Think of the good Mr. Gore could have accomplished if he'd spent the last 10-plus years raising money for the underprivileged instead of misleading folks into believing they need to purchase certain products or else the earth will explode.
He's similar to individuals who spend their life scamming and spamming. They run sophisticated operations, yet choose not to use their inherent intelligent to run legitimate businesses. IQ wise, Al Gore is a smart guy. Were he a noble man, he would use his fame to help the downtrodden instead of profiting from middle class American men and women whose trust he gained as a politician.
I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, and he's undoubtedly made a fortune since leaving office, but at least he teamed up with George H.W. Bush to raise money for charity.
Is Mr. Gore's chicanery a result of bitterness over not being elected President? Did he say, "Since I won't reside in the White House for at least four years, I'm going to take everyone's money on false pretenses and use it to buy a plethora of bigger homes! To prove how pathetic the American people are, I'm going to exclusively travel on private aircraft and use a thousand times more energy annually to power my dwellings than the average resident uses in his or her lifetime! To put it in a way even the dolts I rip off could easily understand: I'm going to convince everyone to turn off 80% of their lights while I increase the number I switch on tenfold."?
I don't know how many crimes Mr. Gore has committed, but I seriously doubt he would face prosecution if he came clean, especially if he spent much of the money he's nefariously obtained on meals to occupy plates that would otherwise remain empty.
But I no longer feel a tinge of sympathy for people afraid their actions are causing the end of the world. There is simply too much information available if you're worried the earth is doomed and you are partially responsible. We now have proof that scientists, who for years insisted man is causing global warming, manipulated data and suppressed dissent. It's gotten so bad for Al Gore and his ilk that they now say with a straight face, "Whatever is falling from the sky outside your window, whatever the current temperature, whatever the five-day forecast; it's all due to man-made global warming."
Now that it's clear Al Gore is a complete fraud, I wonder why liberals don't admonish the former Vice President for failing to use his celebrity to help people they typically champion.
Conning average Americans out of their money to fill his overflowing pockets equals food out of the mouths of hungry children. Think of the good Mr. Gore could have accomplished if he'd spent the last 10-plus years raising money for the underprivileged instead of misleading folks into believing they need to purchase certain products or else the earth will explode.
He's similar to individuals who spend their life scamming and spamming. They run sophisticated operations, yet choose not to use their inherent intelligent to run legitimate businesses. IQ wise, Al Gore is a smart guy. Were he a noble man, he would use his fame to help the downtrodden instead of profiting from middle class American men and women whose trust he gained as a politician.
I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, and he's undoubtedly made a fortune since leaving office, but at least he teamed up with George H.W. Bush to raise money for charity.
Is Mr. Gore's chicanery a result of bitterness over not being elected President? Did he say, "Since I won't reside in the White House for at least four years, I'm going to take everyone's money on false pretenses and use it to buy a plethora of bigger homes! To prove how pathetic the American people are, I'm going to exclusively travel on private aircraft and use a thousand times more energy annually to power my dwellings than the average resident uses in his or her lifetime! To put it in a way even the dolts I rip off could easily understand: I'm going to convince everyone to turn off 80% of their lights while I increase the number I switch on tenfold."?
I don't know how many crimes Mr. Gore has committed, but I seriously doubt he would face prosecution if he came clean, especially if he spent much of the money he's nefariously obtained on meals to occupy plates that would otherwise remain empty.
Live Like You Work Hard
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for you. You're telling the four-year-old eating a delicious ice cream cone, "Screw your chocolate covered face. I'm leaving you a mountain of debt because I want all I can get while I can get it. I don't care about your future financial well being and I certainly don't care if America is taken over by China, causing you to spend your entire adult life earning four cents per day assembling smart phones for elites. My only goal is making sure enough Democrats remain in power to provide me all the handouts I need to live like I work hard."
A few years ago I could see a politically ignorant individual voting Democrat because he or she truly believed every politician with a D beside their name was truly looking out for the downtrodden.
Today, however, a vote for any Democrat is clearly just another way of saying, "Don't take away my entitlements; take away any hope those soccer playing first graders have of living comfortably. They should only be allowed to eat after I spend my life gorging on government provided sustenance."
Despite the fact that America is at the breaking point; that today's child will begin adulthood well behind the starting line, Democrats, and those supporting them, still won't man up. They refuse to say, "We're adults and our refusal to act our age is ruining the future for children across this once great country. It's one thing to claim that reaching into the pocket of a rich man is noble, but even we can't spin the inherent evilness behind stealing from children. We're one step away from literally taking candy from a baby."
If a family of five for years has consumed fifteen pieces of chicken per meal, three pieces per member, and then one day find they're unable to afford a single piece more than ten, would it be socially just for the parents to increase their chicken consumption while reducing the poultry intake of their own children? "Times are tough; therefore the chicken ratio must change. Your mother and I will now eat four pieces each and you lads can split the remaining two," is it okay for the patriarch to say?
Evil conservatives are of the mindset that adults should make sacrifices that benefit the youth of America.
Liberals, on the other hand, demand endless gut expansion regardless of the tiny empty bellies their gluttony leaves behind.
A few years ago I could see a politically ignorant individual voting Democrat because he or she truly believed every politician with a D beside their name was truly looking out for the downtrodden.
Today, however, a vote for any Democrat is clearly just another way of saying, "Don't take away my entitlements; take away any hope those soccer playing first graders have of living comfortably. They should only be allowed to eat after I spend my life gorging on government provided sustenance."
Despite the fact that America is at the breaking point; that today's child will begin adulthood well behind the starting line, Democrats, and those supporting them, still won't man up. They refuse to say, "We're adults and our refusal to act our age is ruining the future for children across this once great country. It's one thing to claim that reaching into the pocket of a rich man is noble, but even we can't spin the inherent evilness behind stealing from children. We're one step away from literally taking candy from a baby."
If a family of five for years has consumed fifteen pieces of chicken per meal, three pieces per member, and then one day find they're unable to afford a single piece more than ten, would it be socially just for the parents to increase their chicken consumption while reducing the poultry intake of their own children? "Times are tough; therefore the chicken ratio must change. Your mother and I will now eat four pieces each and you lads can split the remaining two," is it okay for the patriarch to say?
Evil conservatives are of the mindset that adults should make sacrifices that benefit the youth of America.
Liberals, on the other hand, demand endless gut expansion regardless of the tiny empty bellies their gluttony leaves behind.
No Boundaries is the New Talent
Normally I don't pay attention to Hollywood trash, but, because I write a column, have decided to call out a couple celebrities who've made a name for themselves by, "telling it like it is."
Kathy Griffin and Chelsea Handler are famous for their ability to say what everyone else won't. These two "women" do this because they weren't properly raised.
Children can now legitimately respond to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," with "Okay, but I'll never make millions of dollars in the entertainment industry."
Calling Sarah Palin's children degrading names normally reserved for grown streetwalkers is somehow considered talent in 2011.
I've actually heard seemingly reasonable people say, "That Chelsea Handler has no inhibitions, a quality I greatly admire."
Such a statement begs the question, "What happened to the days in which people with an uncanny ability to generate laughter based on wit and originality were popular figures, while people who regularly spewed jaw-dropping vulgarity were shunned by decent Americans?"
I miss those days; not because I'm a traditional man, but because I enjoy turning on the television and laughing at clever material.
Perhaps I, as a conservative, am too critical of filth. Perhaps, if people like me shrug our shoulders when vulgarity is uttered then those impossible to offend will realize their "ooooooooo's," "ahhhhhhhh's" and uncomfortable laughs aren't reactions to talented performers working their magic, rather reactions to dime-a-dozen hacks uttering words common decency prevents others from letting flow from their lips.
It's similar to a girl bringing home a complete jerk to meet mommy and daddy. As long as the authority figures have a huge problem with the bad-boy beau, the girl finds the relationship exhilarating and wild, but, once the parents apathetically say, "Do what you want," the daughter realizes her romantic interest lacks even a single worthy quality.
Therefore, on behalf of all traditional Americans, I say to those who equate uninhibited vulgarity with brilliant showmanship: "Do what you want."
Kathy Griffin and Chelsea Handler are famous for their ability to say what everyone else won't. These two "women" do this because they weren't properly raised.
Children can now legitimately respond to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," with "Okay, but I'll never make millions of dollars in the entertainment industry."
Calling Sarah Palin's children degrading names normally reserved for grown streetwalkers is somehow considered talent in 2011.
I've actually heard seemingly reasonable people say, "That Chelsea Handler has no inhibitions, a quality I greatly admire."
Such a statement begs the question, "What happened to the days in which people with an uncanny ability to generate laughter based on wit and originality were popular figures, while people who regularly spewed jaw-dropping vulgarity were shunned by decent Americans?"
I miss those days; not because I'm a traditional man, but because I enjoy turning on the television and laughing at clever material.
Perhaps I, as a conservative, am too critical of filth. Perhaps, if people like me shrug our shoulders when vulgarity is uttered then those impossible to offend will realize their "ooooooooo's," "ahhhhhhhh's" and uncomfortable laughs aren't reactions to talented performers working their magic, rather reactions to dime-a-dozen hacks uttering words common decency prevents others from letting flow from their lips.
It's similar to a girl bringing home a complete jerk to meet mommy and daddy. As long as the authority figures have a huge problem with the bad-boy beau, the girl finds the relationship exhilarating and wild, but, once the parents apathetically say, "Do what you want," the daughter realizes her romantic interest lacks even a single worthy quality.
Therefore, on behalf of all traditional Americans, I say to those who equate uninhibited vulgarity with brilliant showmanship: "Do what you want."
The Party of "We Will Not Let You Molest This Land"
If there are more Republicans than Democrats in the House beginning in January 2013... if a member of the GOP resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... if that same party controls the Senate, will Nancy Pelosi vote with her adversaries in the Grand Old Party because the American people will have clearly spoken, or will she vote "no" on everything they propose? Will Harry Reid tell his constituents, "In accordance with the desire of my fellow citizens, I will vote for massive tax cuts for the likes of Rush Limbaugh."?
If Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi vote against Republican proposals, will the media claim they lead the "Party of No" or will a euphemism be created to make uncooperative Democrats appear noble in the fight against oppressive authority? "The Party of Helping the Downtrodden Survive a Hitler-esque regime" and, "The Party of We Will Not Let You Molest This Land," both come to mind.
Throughout the first two years of the Obama Presidency we constantly heard liberals say, "How can they expect America to prosper if Republicans vote no on every single poor person-helping, job-creating, earth-saving bill we propose?"
Translated, that of course means, "I'm exploiting the Republicans bad habit of voting in accordance with values they hold dear for the express purpose of making Joe Six-pack think they're Gordon Gekko types who have contempt for any American earning an income of less than seven figures."
If the media is non-partisan they will admonish any Democrat who doesn't vote with the Republican majority just as they've been scolding the GOP.
If former Speaker Pelosi is a fair-minded lady, she will put her own view of right and wrong aside and vote with her political adversaries without fail. After all, she slammed Republicans for their failure to accept her agenda as their own.
However, I have a strong feeling that, if the GOP controls Washington beginning in January of 2013, every criticism of Republicans from January 2009 to January 2011 will not apply to the Democrat minority.
It will be interesting to see everything change 180 degrees.
Voting against the majority will go from treasonous to noble.
Criticism of the 2013 Republican president will come from courageous individuals, whereas questioning the constitutionality of the unconstitutional ObamaCare bill is clearly racist.
I bet all of you can, within one second, tell me which president occupied the White House when Hillary Clinton said, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"
The more things change the more things change...
If Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi vote against Republican proposals, will the media claim they lead the "Party of No" or will a euphemism be created to make uncooperative Democrats appear noble in the fight against oppressive authority? "The Party of Helping the Downtrodden Survive a Hitler-esque regime" and, "The Party of We Will Not Let You Molest This Land," both come to mind.
Throughout the first two years of the Obama Presidency we constantly heard liberals say, "How can they expect America to prosper if Republicans vote no on every single poor person-helping, job-creating, earth-saving bill we propose?"
Translated, that of course means, "I'm exploiting the Republicans bad habit of voting in accordance with values they hold dear for the express purpose of making Joe Six-pack think they're Gordon Gekko types who have contempt for any American earning an income of less than seven figures."
If the media is non-partisan they will admonish any Democrat who doesn't vote with the Republican majority just as they've been scolding the GOP.
If former Speaker Pelosi is a fair-minded lady, she will put her own view of right and wrong aside and vote with her political adversaries without fail. After all, she slammed Republicans for their failure to accept her agenda as their own.
However, I have a strong feeling that, if the GOP controls Washington beginning in January of 2013, every criticism of Republicans from January 2009 to January 2011 will not apply to the Democrat minority.
It will be interesting to see everything change 180 degrees.
Voting against the majority will go from treasonous to noble.
Criticism of the 2013 Republican president will come from courageous individuals, whereas questioning the constitutionality of the unconstitutional ObamaCare bill is clearly racist.
I bet all of you can, within one second, tell me which president occupied the White House when Hillary Clinton said, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"
The more things change the more things change...
Mr. Obama is Clinton; No He's Uber-Clinton
As we approach the 2012 Presidential Campaign, I have a strong feeling Mr. Obama and his minions are sitting around a large mahogany table dreaming up lies they'll soon feed American citizens who, "just don't have the time to follow politics."
Because he promised the moon and stars, everyone assumed he was going to do exactly what they wanted him to do: close Gitmo, stop drone attacks, issue an executive order legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States, and get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely.
Let's say your first priority in 2008 was voting for a man who would close the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay. Candidate Obama said, "I will bring hope and change this country so desperately needs," which made you think an "out of business" sign was on its way to Cuba.
Because Mr. Obama failed so many of you, who somehow believed a political philosophy unbreakably connected you, what can he now say to convince you 2013-2017 will be the four years during which your political dreams finally come true?
The media has been in campaign mode since the 2010 midterm elections. Recently on a supposedly unbiased news website were listed headlines regarding early GOP stumbles, the smoking habit of new Republican Speaker John Boehner, and how a random conservative pseudo-celebrity has publicly deemed Sarah Palin "un-presidential". They also ran headlines about how Barack Obama was focused on economic growth and had taken a page from Bill Clinton by moving to the center. This was only a couple weeks after running nonstop stories regarding Mr. Obama's historically productive lame duck session in which journalists claim he completely redeemed himself after two years of struggles.
More than ever before, the media will enter their offices every morning with a, "what can we do to ensure the reelection of President Barack Obama," attitude.
Will you be convinced by two simple words: "He's Clinton."? Or will they need to expand by claiming that Mr. Obama is Clinton sans marital baggage? "Mr. Obama's presidency has mirrored Mr. Clinton's, but Mr. Obama is actually better because he's a true family man. Mr. Obama would never have any reason to lie to a grand jury. Like Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama has moved to the center. Unlike Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama is nice to Hillary."
He's uber-Clinton.
If the Obama campaign, as well as members of the media, continues asserting that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama are basically twins, then no ignorant voter will be required to learn a single piece of information regarding the state of the world. All they'll need to say, if asked why Mr. Obama earned their vote, is that he's uber-Clinton. "Clinton was too liberal at first, and then, after losses by Congressional Democrats, he moderated. The next six years were heaven on earth. Things are shaping up about the same, only this time we won't have to deal with blue dresses, cigars, or voluptuous interns we're too ashamed to tell anyone we find smoking hot."
The uber-Clinton angle makes certain every ignorant voter will have their talking point and therefore come off as enlightened.
Loyal lackeys of Obama are hopeful you're still dumb enough to believe that the vapid rhetoric that will undoubtedly spew from the mouth of a campaigning President Obama translates to, "If you vote for me, I'll do exactly what you want. Seriously, it'll be just like you're in the White House."
Because he promised the moon and stars, everyone assumed he was going to do exactly what they wanted him to do: close Gitmo, stop drone attacks, issue an executive order legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States, and get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely.
Let's say your first priority in 2008 was voting for a man who would close the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay. Candidate Obama said, "I will bring hope and change this country so desperately needs," which made you think an "out of business" sign was on its way to Cuba.
Because Mr. Obama failed so many of you, who somehow believed a political philosophy unbreakably connected you, what can he now say to convince you 2013-2017 will be the four years during which your political dreams finally come true?
The media has been in campaign mode since the 2010 midterm elections. Recently on a supposedly unbiased news website were listed headlines regarding early GOP stumbles, the smoking habit of new Republican Speaker John Boehner, and how a random conservative pseudo-celebrity has publicly deemed Sarah Palin "un-presidential". They also ran headlines about how Barack Obama was focused on economic growth and had taken a page from Bill Clinton by moving to the center. This was only a couple weeks after running nonstop stories regarding Mr. Obama's historically productive lame duck session in which journalists claim he completely redeemed himself after two years of struggles.
More than ever before, the media will enter their offices every morning with a, "what can we do to ensure the reelection of President Barack Obama," attitude.
Will you be convinced by two simple words: "He's Clinton."? Or will they need to expand by claiming that Mr. Obama is Clinton sans marital baggage? "Mr. Obama's presidency has mirrored Mr. Clinton's, but Mr. Obama is actually better because he's a true family man. Mr. Obama would never have any reason to lie to a grand jury. Like Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama has moved to the center. Unlike Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama is nice to Hillary."
He's uber-Clinton.
If the Obama campaign, as well as members of the media, continues asserting that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama are basically twins, then no ignorant voter will be required to learn a single piece of information regarding the state of the world. All they'll need to say, if asked why Mr. Obama earned their vote, is that he's uber-Clinton. "Clinton was too liberal at first, and then, after losses by Congressional Democrats, he moderated. The next six years were heaven on earth. Things are shaping up about the same, only this time we won't have to deal with blue dresses, cigars, or voluptuous interns we're too ashamed to tell anyone we find smoking hot."
The uber-Clinton angle makes certain every ignorant voter will have their talking point and therefore come off as enlightened.
Loyal lackeys of Obama are hopeful you're still dumb enough to believe that the vapid rhetoric that will undoubtedly spew from the mouth of a campaigning President Obama translates to, "If you vote for me, I'll do exactly what you want. Seriously, it'll be just like you're in the White House."
Lies About Gitmo
Those on the left adamantly argue that the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay is so deplorable that any caring person would feel an overwhelming desire to comfort Adolf Hitler had the Nazi leader been forced to spend more than fifteen minutes taking abuse within its walls. In reality, Gitmo is a very nice prison in which to reside if you've been apprehended attempting to kill innocent women and children.
But we're supposed to close Gitmo because terrorists are ignorant of the fact that the place would easily receive 5-stars if there were a Zagat guide for prisons? "If you're addicted to prayer, this prison is for you!"
Locked in your bedroom, let's pretend your wife gives you a massage for one hour each night. The neighbors begin to wonder what exactly you're doing in there from 7-8 PM, and, because one busybody swears he or she saw a fishy shadow through the window shade, spread rumors your wife is horrifically abusing you.
You attempt to tell them that the hour is strictly dedicated to massage, but the lies fail to cease.
"Sorry," your wife informs you. "But, based on the fact that others incorrectly believe I'm committing spousal abuse, I must stop treating you much better than you deserve."
America is run by such politically correct pansies that we allow incarcerated terrorists to practice the religion that instructs them to kill us!
We actually further their desire to murder our friends and family! Maybe a couple months sans religious propaganda would make them realize, "You know what, maybe we all should just live and let live."
Why not give wayward teens, jailed for minor offenses, a collection of works by Charles Manson and let them devour his nefarious words while they await release! What harm could come!?
Not only do leftists, as well as opponents of the United States (what's the difference, really?), pretend Gitmo is a location where unimaginable horrors take place; they also pretend it's a huge recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.
Recent transcripts of conversations between terrorists have proven the existence of Gitmo's military prison is extremely low on the list of things jihadists tell potential Al-Qaeda members for the express purpose of getting them all riled up. (I think it's in between the fact that the straight guy who plays one of the gay guys on Modern Family won the Best Supporting Actor Emmy and a lack of Muslim managers in Major League Baseball.)
Despite proof to the contrary, Mr. Obama still insists Osama Bin Laden is signing up thousands of recruits simply because each and every one is irate over the fact that the glorified pre-school known as Gitmo remains operational!
Many of you expected Mr. Obama to move mountains, but he can't even look you in the eye and tell the truth. It is factually confirmed that Al-Qaeda does not often use Gitmo as a recruiting tool, yet the Commander in Chief is on television moments later insisting the exact opposite is accurate.
Quick: count up the number of overall campaign promises Mr. Obama has kept. Now count up the number of lies he's told... today.
Not even close, is it?
But we're supposed to close Gitmo because terrorists are ignorant of the fact that the place would easily receive 5-stars if there were a Zagat guide for prisons? "If you're addicted to prayer, this prison is for you!"
Locked in your bedroom, let's pretend your wife gives you a massage for one hour each night. The neighbors begin to wonder what exactly you're doing in there from 7-8 PM, and, because one busybody swears he or she saw a fishy shadow through the window shade, spread rumors your wife is horrifically abusing you.
You attempt to tell them that the hour is strictly dedicated to massage, but the lies fail to cease.
"Sorry," your wife informs you. "But, based on the fact that others incorrectly believe I'm committing spousal abuse, I must stop treating you much better than you deserve."
America is run by such politically correct pansies that we allow incarcerated terrorists to practice the religion that instructs them to kill us!
We actually further their desire to murder our friends and family! Maybe a couple months sans religious propaganda would make them realize, "You know what, maybe we all should just live and let live."
Why not give wayward teens, jailed for minor offenses, a collection of works by Charles Manson and let them devour his nefarious words while they await release! What harm could come!?
Not only do leftists, as well as opponents of the United States (what's the difference, really?), pretend Gitmo is a location where unimaginable horrors take place; they also pretend it's a huge recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.
Recent transcripts of conversations between terrorists have proven the existence of Gitmo's military prison is extremely low on the list of things jihadists tell potential Al-Qaeda members for the express purpose of getting them all riled up. (I think it's in between the fact that the straight guy who plays one of the gay guys on Modern Family won the Best Supporting Actor Emmy and a lack of Muslim managers in Major League Baseball.)
Despite proof to the contrary, Mr. Obama still insists Osama Bin Laden is signing up thousands of recruits simply because each and every one is irate over the fact that the glorified pre-school known as Gitmo remains operational!
Many of you expected Mr. Obama to move mountains, but he can't even look you in the eye and tell the truth. It is factually confirmed that Al-Qaeda does not often use Gitmo as a recruiting tool, yet the Commander in Chief is on television moments later insisting the exact opposite is accurate.
Quick: count up the number of overall campaign promises Mr. Obama has kept. Now count up the number of lies he's told... today.
Not even close, is it?
Siding with Celebrities
What decisions in life would you trust with a celebrity?
Without hesitation, would you allow them to decide the best way to raise your child? Or would you tend to shun their parental advice?
Celebrities enjoy getting drunk. Celebrities enjoy exposing their crotches. Celebrities enjoy letting their nipples slip with the express purpose of increasing ticket sales the night their movie premiers on both coasts.
Because they view him as an artistic genius, most celebrities think it abhorrent that authorities wish to punish Roman Polanski for sexually assaulting a child. It's a good thing for children everywhere that most molesters are jailed for their crimes, regardless of the aptitude they've shown for performing vocational related duties.
I've never seen footage of Martin Scorsese pleading for the release of his world renowned gardener who moonlights as a pedophile. "Had you seen the likeness of me he carved into our shrubs you too would fight for his right to molest anyone that catches his fancy," the acclaimed director has never said while pounding his fist on a podium at the Beverly Hilton.
There are conservatives throughout the country that have as much artistic talent as the hottest liberal star, but instead of dedicating their life to entertaining the masses, they've chosen to produce goods of value. They've chosen to enhance the lives of their fellow citizen, not with two hours of mindless escape, but with products that improve mankind's ability to function.
The invention of the cotton gin was much more beneficial to humanity than was the 2010 release of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.
But, because those who wear shirts made of cotton don't have a picture of Eli Whitney as their desktop wallpaper; many would rather hear the political ranting of uber-dreamy thespian Shia Labeouf.
Nobody would say, "Unless citizens begin emulating celebrities in their daily lives, America will never again be great."
No parent would say, "Unless my daughter begins behaving more like a pop starlet I will ship her off to boarding school so fast her head will spin. I am sick to death of her failure to smash up a single SUV with an umbrella in between rehab stints!"
Yet, when it comes to politics, it's a badge of honor that liberals share the philosophy of those whose mug shots have made millions of dollars for The Smoking Gun.
Without hesitation, would you allow them to decide the best way to raise your child? Or would you tend to shun their parental advice?
Celebrities enjoy getting drunk. Celebrities enjoy exposing their crotches. Celebrities enjoy letting their nipples slip with the express purpose of increasing ticket sales the night their movie premiers on both coasts.
Because they view him as an artistic genius, most celebrities think it abhorrent that authorities wish to punish Roman Polanski for sexually assaulting a child. It's a good thing for children everywhere that most molesters are jailed for their crimes, regardless of the aptitude they've shown for performing vocational related duties.
I've never seen footage of Martin Scorsese pleading for the release of his world renowned gardener who moonlights as a pedophile. "Had you seen the likeness of me he carved into our shrubs you too would fight for his right to molest anyone that catches his fancy," the acclaimed director has never said while pounding his fist on a podium at the Beverly Hilton.
There are conservatives throughout the country that have as much artistic talent as the hottest liberal star, but instead of dedicating their life to entertaining the masses, they've chosen to produce goods of value. They've chosen to enhance the lives of their fellow citizen, not with two hours of mindless escape, but with products that improve mankind's ability to function.
The invention of the cotton gin was much more beneficial to humanity than was the 2010 release of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.
But, because those who wear shirts made of cotton don't have a picture of Eli Whitney as their desktop wallpaper; many would rather hear the political ranting of uber-dreamy thespian Shia Labeouf.
Nobody would say, "Unless citizens begin emulating celebrities in their daily lives, America will never again be great."
No parent would say, "Unless my daughter begins behaving more like a pop starlet I will ship her off to boarding school so fast her head will spin. I am sick to death of her failure to smash up a single SUV with an umbrella in between rehab stints!"
Yet, when it comes to politics, it's a badge of honor that liberals share the philosophy of those whose mug shots have made millions of dollars for The Smoking Gun.
From King to Jester in Sixty-Two Million Seconds
Two short years ago a tingle would instantly shoot up the leg of 80% of people fortunate enough to witness Barack Obama enter the room in which they were standing. Even those who didn't vote for the political juggernaut recognized he'd been blessed with an immense gift.
Today the leg of only 20% of folks who come in contact with our esteemed Commander in Chief feel such tingle. 2008 was a huge year for sensations darting up lower appendages. 2010, however, saw the limbs of many suffer massive withdrawal.
An additional Twenty percent of current citizens who encounter Mr. Obama think, "I understand our President has implemented some controversial new laws but I'm sketchy regarding the details. Doesn't the First Lady look radiant!?"
The remaining 60% laugh.
The laugh of some says, "Man did that guy fool me."
The laugh of others says, "I warned as many people as I possibly could."
The laugh of the rest says, "During the final two years of the Bush Presidency, I paid exactly the same number of bills as I did during the first two years of the Obama Presidency. No hope and no change."
Let's dissect the current state of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.
In their attempt to get unemployment benefits extended, liberals claim that paying people not to work actually assists the economy. I'm sure there are thousands of jobless twenty-somethings who've recently informed their parents, "Taking money from you helps your financial situation immensely! Were I to join the workforce, the value of your portfolio would likely plummet! By taking your money, I give and give and give!"
Because everyone believed his lies during the campaign, he assumes everyone will continue nodding along with each word he utters, no matter how asinine.
President Obama is supposedly compromising with Republicans by proposing the Bush tax cuts be extended for every American, including the filthy-rich. "Give him some credit," moderates and liberals in the media beg of conservatives. "He's finally moving to the center as you've been wishing."
You genuinely want us to credit President Obama simply because he took a stand for a policy he does not support due to the fact that otherwise would have secured the demise of his political career!? Please remember we're talking about a man who purposely ran the economy of the United States into the ground for the express purpose of creating what he considers a socially just society!
Had Jeffrey Dahmer given you a hug instead of slicing you up and storing your head in the fridge, would you have declared, "Jeffrey's a new man!" or would you have said, "I wonder if the unusually sweet gesture was an attempt to convince me I needn't be on guard while in his presence?"
I'm not comparing Mr. Obama to a horrific serial killer (at least not until members of his death panels report for duty); I'm simply saying that, after dozens of questionable acts, a single seemingly good deed doesn't mean anyone can confidently declare Mr. Obama is now a rational moderate.
Two years ago Mr. Obama was one of the most successful human beings in the history of our world, now he's the butt of jokes. His name is associated with incompetence and arrogance. He's shown nothing but contempt for the people who faithfully elected him to lead.
From king to jester in a matter of seconds.
Today the leg of only 20% of folks who come in contact with our esteemed Commander in Chief feel such tingle. 2008 was a huge year for sensations darting up lower appendages. 2010, however, saw the limbs of many suffer massive withdrawal.
An additional Twenty percent of current citizens who encounter Mr. Obama think, "I understand our President has implemented some controversial new laws but I'm sketchy regarding the details. Doesn't the First Lady look radiant!?"
The remaining 60% laugh.
The laugh of some says, "Man did that guy fool me."
The laugh of others says, "I warned as many people as I possibly could."
The laugh of the rest says, "During the final two years of the Bush Presidency, I paid exactly the same number of bills as I did during the first two years of the Obama Presidency. No hope and no change."
Let's dissect the current state of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.
In their attempt to get unemployment benefits extended, liberals claim that paying people not to work actually assists the economy. I'm sure there are thousands of jobless twenty-somethings who've recently informed their parents, "Taking money from you helps your financial situation immensely! Were I to join the workforce, the value of your portfolio would likely plummet! By taking your money, I give and give and give!"
Because everyone believed his lies during the campaign, he assumes everyone will continue nodding along with each word he utters, no matter how asinine.
President Obama is supposedly compromising with Republicans by proposing the Bush tax cuts be extended for every American, including the filthy-rich. "Give him some credit," moderates and liberals in the media beg of conservatives. "He's finally moving to the center as you've been wishing."
You genuinely want us to credit President Obama simply because he took a stand for a policy he does not support due to the fact that otherwise would have secured the demise of his political career!? Please remember we're talking about a man who purposely ran the economy of the United States into the ground for the express purpose of creating what he considers a socially just society!
Had Jeffrey Dahmer given you a hug instead of slicing you up and storing your head in the fridge, would you have declared, "Jeffrey's a new man!" or would you have said, "I wonder if the unusually sweet gesture was an attempt to convince me I needn't be on guard while in his presence?"
I'm not comparing Mr. Obama to a horrific serial killer (at least not until members of his death panels report for duty); I'm simply saying that, after dozens of questionable acts, a single seemingly good deed doesn't mean anyone can confidently declare Mr. Obama is now a rational moderate.
Two years ago Mr. Obama was one of the most successful human beings in the history of our world, now he's the butt of jokes. His name is associated with incompetence and arrogance. He's shown nothing but contempt for the people who faithfully elected him to lead.
From king to jester in a matter of seconds.
You Call That a Tease!?
While searching for a laugh, I recently perused the onscreen guide displaying information about television programs airing now and in the future on my cable system. Because there is currently only one situation comedy worthy of my eyes, I was forced to look elsewhere. Of course I immediately turned to America's number one cable news network: MSNBC.
"Only a handful of people watch MSNBC, how could they be number one?" you ask.
They are at the top of their game at creating unintentional comedy. Though it's not their goal; every host, contributor and guest is laugh out loud funny.
According to my onscreen guide, MSNBC personality Chris Matthews "moderates hard-hitting debates on key political issues." That same onscreen guide informed me that Fox News host Glenn Beck "provides an unconventional look at the news."
I suppose my onscreen guide defines "debate" as, "with a beet red face and thinning hair askew, shouting down anyone with whom you disagree." And it appears as if that same guide defines an "unconventional" person as someone who, "Believes America is on the decline because its people are straying from God and the Constitution."
Like liberals wish to do with "marriage", it looks like my onscreen guide is changing definitions based on its own political philosophy.
It's amusing how radical leftists are viewed as mainstream, while typical conservatives are considered far-right kooks.
Yahoo! News routinely insinuates stories, written and distributed by the uber-left Huffington Post website, are regular ole news stories. Funny how Yahoo! doesn't trick everyone into reading radio rants of Rush Limbaugh by transcribing his words and pretending they were formulated by unbiased reporters.
I no longer get angry at discovering extreme left-wingers are attempting to manipulate the general public, but do find it hysterical that even my onscreen cable guide tries to persuade everyone into believing that radical Democrats, who throw-up in their mouths a little bit whenever a right-winger speaks, enjoy robust debate, while conservatives calling for lower taxes and expanded freedom are "unconventional."
"Only a handful of people watch MSNBC, how could they be number one?" you ask.
They are at the top of their game at creating unintentional comedy. Though it's not their goal; every host, contributor and guest is laugh out loud funny.
According to my onscreen guide, MSNBC personality Chris Matthews "moderates hard-hitting debates on key political issues." That same onscreen guide informed me that Fox News host Glenn Beck "provides an unconventional look at the news."
I suppose my onscreen guide defines "debate" as, "with a beet red face and thinning hair askew, shouting down anyone with whom you disagree." And it appears as if that same guide defines an "unconventional" person as someone who, "Believes America is on the decline because its people are straying from God and the Constitution."
Like liberals wish to do with "marriage", it looks like my onscreen guide is changing definitions based on its own political philosophy.
It's amusing how radical leftists are viewed as mainstream, while typical conservatives are considered far-right kooks.
Yahoo! News routinely insinuates stories, written and distributed by the uber-left Huffington Post website, are regular ole news stories. Funny how Yahoo! doesn't trick everyone into reading radio rants of Rush Limbaugh by transcribing his words and pretending they were formulated by unbiased reporters.
I no longer get angry at discovering extreme left-wingers are attempting to manipulate the general public, but do find it hysterical that even my onscreen cable guide tries to persuade everyone into believing that radical Democrats, who throw-up in their mouths a little bit whenever a right-winger speaks, enjoy robust debate, while conservatives calling for lower taxes and expanded freedom are "unconventional."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)