FERRET-FACED FASCIST FRIENDS

NO NEWTS!

2012-01-28T12:02:00.000-08:00

.

In this first short video, Ron Paul puts Newt Gingrich down like a rabid dog. The video probably should have been titled “Old Yeller” rather than . . .

Ron Paul CASTRATES Newt Gingrich!

[And in case you’re wondering, the word in question that Ron Paul had previously applied to Gingrich is “chickenhawk”. Get it? That’s a cowardly war hawk.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIx8quNGwhQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1

In this second short video, Newt offers us a half-assed remedy wholly insincerely; followed by a young Ron Paul giving us the whole truth and with full sincerity. This video also illustrates that Ron Paul has consistently given the American people the same warning/message throughout his three decades in Congress:

Newt Gingrich Vs Ron Paul: Federal Reserve Question - Huckabee Forum, Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y75AJfU6bAs&NR=1&feature=endscreen

OK, in this final short video, a “Faux News” talking head has some positive words about Ron Paul’s candidacy:

Fox News says Ron Paul is the biggest threat to Barack Obama. Not Mitt Romney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwn5lIJ-_cQ

That seemed positive, didn’t it? And in some respects it was. But are you an astute enough observer of psychological manipulation and media spin magic to spot the couple of places where that “Faux News” talking head very deceptively slipped in a kind of subliminal negative commentary against Dr. Paul?

In response to another poster’s comment in which he wrote “It's clear that Dr. Paul isn't the brawniest guy”, someone going by the name Deet wrote the following on 01/08/2012:

Are you aware that Dr. Paul played professional baseball with the Astros? That he is the ONLY congressman to ever hit a home run at the congressional baseball game? Or that he is an intellectual heavy weight without equal?

Can you even imagine the intestinal fortitude required to state a true but unfavored position on national TV, be laughed at, ridiculed, and demeaned, never strike back, blow up, or totally lose it, while standing your ground and be proven right. Can you even fathom the strength it takes to maintain one's positions under the weight of peer pressure that that would implode the deepest underwater sub ever made by man?

Could YOU even begin to take on, single handedly, some of the most powerful interest groups IN THE WORLD, including the unlimitedly funded Federal Reserve, and the MILITARY Industrial Complex, AND BE WINNING! He "may" not look "muscled up", but I can assure you, Dr. Paul is a real life "Superman" merely disguised as a harmless grandfather!

Well, Deet has it all right except for one detail. Dr. Paul did not play professional baseball with the Houston Astros, but he DID appear in an Astros uniform (remember that Dr. Paul is a TEXAS Congressman) at one of the Congressional baseball games.

["Ehh... nice swing, Doc!"]

When going to the polls during the Republican primaries, all voters need to keep in mind the adage
“No Newts Is Good Newts!”

It is patently clear to anyone with even two brain cells to rub together that a vote for any presidential candidate other than Ron Paul is a vote for “Mr. More O. Thesame”.

RON PAUL: HONESTY FOR A "CHANGE"

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

ADDENDUM:
The following video came recommended by my friend Br'er Marc (the originator of that classic political analogy in which Republicans and Democrats were likened to "filtered and nonfiltered cigarettes" - both of which will kill ya, only at slightly different rates of speed).

At any rate, Br'er Marc's only criticism of this video was the mention of Ronald Reagan. And I agree wholeheartedly with Br'er on that; mentioning Reagan in the same breath with Ron Paul is to place "Dr. No" in inferior company. And, of course, Judge Napolitano is careful not to say too much and spill all the really important "New World Order" beans. Nevertheless, the following video is well worth watching.

**The Real Reason Why Ron Paul Is Feared And Censored**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxG062CeD2w&feature=watch_response

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

WHERE WAS GOD ON SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH?

2012-01-23T22:14:00.000-08:00

.
“...But even to say, ‘God allowed 9/11 to happen’...”

“It happened, Nouriel. Therefore it had to have been allowed to happen. That’s not the question. Rather, the only question is whether it was allowed to happen for no reason or whether there was, within it, a redemptive purpose.”

“On 9/11 people were asking, ‘Where was God?’”

“Where was God?” he said, as if surprised by the question. “We drove Him out of our schools, out of our government, out of our media, out of our culture, out of our public square. We drove Him out of our national life, and then we ask, ‘Where is God?’”
~ ‘The Harbinger’ by Jonathan Cahn
Page 31

Early last year I posted a blog bit here called THE “HO BIB” TELLS ME SO. Therein I shared with my vast following of loyal readers [*sarcasm*] some insights that I believe were given to me about Biblical End-Time references related to the United States of America.

It wasn’t pretty, and if my interpretations were correct, some prophetical verses in The Holy Bible indicate that in “The Last Days”, so to speak, New York City will be detroyed in an hour, and with it, America’s place in the power structure of “this world”.

Well, just a couple weeks ago, my brother Nappy directed my attention to the World Net Daily’s website review of a newly released book by Jonathan Cahn titled
‘THE HARBINGER: The Ancient Mystery That Holds The Secret Of America’s Future’.

The book proposes that there was a connection between the Old Testament verse Isaiah 9:10 and the destruction that came to New York City on 9/11/2001.

I found the review sufficiently intriguing to special order the book from my local book store (because at the liquor store, where I spend most of my money, they said they didn’t have a copy and couldn’t get one delivered).

The book is only 253 pages long and it is a very fast and light read, considering the weighty subject matter. As far as the topic is concerned, this “stuffs” is right up my alley; I absolutely love books that delve deeply into the most remarkable artifact on planet Earth: The Holy Bible.

I myself have always enjoyed digging deep into Bible passages, contemplating them, seeking that mystical, half-cloaked, esoteric gold ore that only the most diligent Bible students are able to bring to the surface (with the necessary assistance of God’s Holy Spirit).

In some ways, ‘The Harbinger’ reminded me of those Robert Cornuke books I dig so much – ‘In Search Of The Mountain Of God’, In Search Of The Lost Ark Of The Covenant’, ‘The Lost Shipwreck Of Paul’. The primary difference being that whereas Cornuke’s books were facts written in a nonfiction format, Jonathan Cahn’s book presents facts that are written in a fictional format. And that brings up the only negative remarks I have to make about ‘The Harbinger’ . . .

I’m sure the book’s author (and Messianic Jewish believer in Jesus Christ) Jonathan Cahn realizes that few Americans read nonfiction anymore. (Sadly, I think STMcC is a dying breed, as nonfiction is about all I read.) And so he decided to take these facts pertaining to 9/11 and his incredibly awesome insight into the Isaiah 9:10 Old Testament passage and wrap them inside a very superficial, fictionalized outer shell. Think of it as an M&M: thin candy coating on the outside; deep, rich, substantial chocolate on the inside.

Personally, I feel that the book would have been better had it been stripped of all the fictional dialogue and “mysterious prophet” candy coating and presented strictly as nonfiction. I’m a Dragnet - “Just the facts, Ma’am!” - kinda guy. But to be entirely honest, had Mr. Cahn NOT wrapped these amazing insights inside a thin, candy, fictionalized coating, it’s likely that only Stephen T. McCarthy and a small handful of other “Dragnet” Americans would have ever considered reading the book. (You know Americans today, they just gotta be entertained.)

Cahn’s characters are merely vehicles for the dissemination of the information, so they’re rather cut-out cardboard-like one-dimensional. The exception being his nameless prophet character. “The Prophet” actually has some personality, but I couldn’t help thinking that he seemed and sounded so much like “The Master” – Don Shimoda – in Richard Bach’s ‘ILLUSIONS: The Adventures Of A Reluctant Messiah’, that I strongly suspected Cahn must have read ‘Illusions’ at some point in his life.

Cahn’s dialogue is actually pretty natural sounding, but I eventually grew weary of it regardless. All of the words and sentences that get repeated by the listener in the dialogue exchanges and the interruptions where the listener completes the speaker’s thought, finally got tiresome for me. But you know what? Putting up with that pattern was a very small price to pay for the astounding information that one will surely take away from this book.

And now on to what I liked about ‘The Harbinger’:

The Biblical insight that is revealed in these 253 pages is jaw-droppingly amazing!

What happens is that one “coincidence” relating to Isaiah 9:10 and September 11th gets placed on top of another “coincidence”, and then another one on top of that. And then another one, and another one, and pretty soon the incredible “coincidences” just begin dog-piling on top of each other until it finally reaches the point that only a blind person (or a “pseudo-atheist”) could deny that what Jonathan Cahn has unveiled is an authentic, Divine prophetic warning from the Old Testament that relates every bit as much to contemporary America as it did to ancient Israel!

Speaking in general terms, nothing I encountered in ‘The Harbinger’ caught me by surprise. Read through my old blog bits and comments and you will find countless allusions and outright, direct statements in which I make known my unshakeable certainty that the United States of America is going to be severely punished for its sinful, immoral, wicked ways. On at least three different occasions, I have posted this Billy Graham quote on my blogs:

“If God doesn’t judge America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Not long ago, I read a little gem of a book titled ‘Can God Bless America?’, published by John MacArthur the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The book had been sent to me by my old friend Kevin, “The Kansas Kid”.

Now I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I don’t agree much with John MacArthur, but he surely nailed it in ‘Can God Bless America?’ Here are a few selected quotes from it:

Originally, “God Bless America” was a prayer for Divine blessing. In its current form it sometimes seems nothing more than a patriotic battle-cry. …

If God did bless America, what would He be saying about His holiness? What would He be saying about our morality? What would He be saying about our spiritual condition? Can God bless America without compromising His reputation as a holy God? That is the vital question. …

Frankly, our nation is in no position at the moment to be blessed. We’re actually more likely to be cursed by God. … All who resist God are, in effect, in league with the devil, whether they realize it or not. …

Perhaps no society has ever taken a more dramatic turn against God than America did in the latter half of the twentieth century. Divine judgment seems inevitable if our nation continues down that road. … We have no right as a nation to anticipate anything but God’s judgment.

So, no, it didn’t surprise me to find ‘The Harbinger’ making the claim that 9/11 was a chastisement from God and a warning that even worse chastisement is coming unless this nation repents from its wickedness and turns toward God. [Overturning the concept of legal abortions is the VERY FIRST step I would recommend to you, America!]

But what did catch me by surprise in ‘The Harbinger’ was seeing how remarkably the Isaiah 9:10 & 11 verses apply to America’s 9/11 disaster and the subsequent events and prideful attitudes adopted by our so-called “leaders”. Even down to the smallest details in that Bible verse and the smallest details of those tragic events a decade ago – the how, when, and where of their unfolding – are captured in this truly mind-boggling book.

Regardless of how much or how little a reader currently knows about The Holy Bible and Biblical prophecy, ‘The Harbinger’ is going to snap his or her eyes wide open and shake their being to the very core.

And if it doesn’t? Then that reader is in the midst of a personal, spiritual crisis from which likely only prayer and the Grace of God can save them.

I wholeheartedly urge everyone to read ‘THE HARBINGER’ by Jonathan Cahn. It will dramatically alter the way you think about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the relevancy of The Holy Bible to our modern times.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Link:
THE ISAIAH 9:10 PROPHECY: IS U.S. UNDER GOD’S JUDGMENT?

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

RON PAUL: “THERE’S NO FREE LUNCH, AND NO FREE WAR”

2012-01-21T11:21:00.000-08:00

.
It’s true that Ron Paul is the only 2012 presidential candidate who is a medical doctor, but let’s not forget that Mitt Romney is a doctor, too. Mitt earned his Ph.D. in Flipflopology.

I couldn’t decide which of those two images of flip-flops (or “thongs” as they were known in my boyhood days) I should use for this blog bit, so I did what Mitt himself would have done: I selected BOTH of them.

[At the bottom of this blog bit you will find a very interesting video that illustrates many of Romney’s most outrageous examples of Flipflopology. The guy is a true doctor of that science.]

I’ve read some of Ron Paul’s writings – a couple of books and a number of articles – but I think my favorite is his book ‘A FOREIGN POLICY OF FREEDOM’ which I read in 2007 or 2008.

In the Introduction, Doctor Paul writes:

This book is a collection of statements I have made over the past 30 years dealing with foreign policy from the date I was first elected to Congress in 1976. Though I wrote and spoke less about foreign policy during my 12-year hiatus from Congress (1985-1997), I remained interested and continued to study carefully the case for noninterventionism. … In various places throughout the book I have inserted current thoughts and insights into my reprinted speeches and articles.

The book also contains selected notes from Ron Paul’s personal diary, and it is so chock full of wisdom, inconvenient truths and valuable views that I had a hell of a time trying to select just a small sample to quote here.

As everyone knows, there are two types of lies: Lies of commission and lies of omission. Every political personality/talking head who presumes to explain to the Americonned People what the biggest SECULAR problems in this country currently are, and yet does not repeatedly return to the subjects of the ‘Federal Reserve’ system (being privately owned and having no reserves, is the most misnamed entity imaginable) and the ‘Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) is committing a lie of omission.

In other words, all your Neoconservative heroes, from Glenn Beck, to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, and (the devil himself) Michael Medved, et al., are all DELIBERATELY committing lies of omission when they presume to educate you about politics.

You’ll learn more truth about American politics from reading this one Ron Paul book – ‘A FOREIGN POLICY OF FREEDOM’ – than you would from five years worth of watching and reading the aformentioned NeoCons (and getting unwittingly conned by them).

They’ll not argue with Dr. Paul about economics because they know he’d hand each and every one of them their own neoconservative ass on a silver platter. So what they do instead is try to convince YOU, the voter, that Dr. Paul is an “isolationist” with a dangerous view of foreign policy. This book will set the record straight for you. Let’s look at a little of what Congressman Ron Paul has said through the decades . . .

'Commerce with all nations, alliances with none', should be our motto.
~ Thomas Jefferson
(from Page 9)

2007:
During the Reagan years I began to realize how special interests, with bipartisan support, drive our policy of foreign intervention. We sent troops to Lebanon and Granada; financial aid to Nicaragua; weapons to Iran and Iraq; military assistance to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein; and bombed Libya – all for reasons other than American national security.
. . .
These events motivated me to speak out more frequently on foreign affairs, and vote (often by myself) to make that point that we should follow the Constitution and the Founding Fathers by staying out of the affairs of foreign nations – especially when our meddling has nothing to do with national security interests.
~ Pg. VI

10/14/1981:
I believe that the American people are sick and tired of supplying, either deliberately or through accident, both sides in the conflicts since World War II. We saw this happen in Vietnam. We were shipping both wheat and weapons to the Soviet Union, who, in turn, shipped them to North Vietnam, at the same time that we were shipping wheat and weapons to South Vietnam. We have seen this happen in the border wars between India and Pakistan. We have seen it happen in the wars between Israel and her neighbors.
~ Pg. 8

2007:
To this day we still prop up Communist China through the Export-Import Bank, thus subsidizing oppression while harming our own competitiveness.
~ Pg. 16

9/14/1982:
It is outrageous that the American taxpayers are being forced to subsidize Communist China while domestic programs like Social Security are in jeopardy.
~ Pg. 17

9/19/1984:
Recently, the national Taxpayers’ Union gave me their annual Taxpayers’ Best Friend Award for voting for the least amount of taxes and spending of any Member of Congress.
. . .
This past year, I am recorded as having voted against 99 percent of all spending – to me that means voting FOR the taxpayer 99 percent of the time and AGAINST the tyranny of the state at the same percentage.
~ Pg. 42

9/19/1984:
Our official policy currently is to be tough on communism, but at the same time promote low-interest loans, allowing Red China to buy nuclear technology, F-16’s and other military technology – all this by the strongest anti-Communist administration that we’ve had in decades. We participate in the bailout of bankrupt Argentina as she continues to loan money to Castro’s Cuba, which prompts us to send men, money and weapons to counteract the spread of communism formed by Castro.
~ Pg. 44

9/19/1984:
Our Export-Import Bank financed the building of the Kama River truck plant in Russia – trucks then used in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan over a road built by our own Corps of Engineers. Our response? Draft registration and an Olympic boycott!
~ Pg. 45

9/19/1984:
Campaigns are won on promising tax cuts; some are given, but are quickly canceled out by numerous tax increases associated with accelerated federal spending.
. . .
We routinely preach about helping the poor, then plunder the working class to subsidize foreign socialist dictators … through abusive taxation and inflation.
~ Pg. 46

7/15/1997:
The best way to support our troops is to bring them home as quickly as possible.
~ Pg. 61 [Yep! 1997. Some things never change!]

4/21/1999:
But when a foreign war comes to our shores in the form of terrorism, we can be sure that our government will explain the need for further sacrifice of personal liberties to win this war against terrorism as well.
~ Pg. 120 [Yep! Spoken in Congress on 4/21/1999!]

11/15/2000:
The USS Cole … disaster was needless and preventable. … It’s positively amazing that, with a military budget of $300 billion, we do not have the ability to protect ourselves against a rubber raft, which destroyed a $1 billion vessel. Our sentries on duty had rifles without bullets and were prohibited from firing on any enemy targets. This policy is absurd, if not insane.
~ Pg. 137

2/8/2001:
The excuses are endless. But it is rarely mentioned that the lobbyists and the proponents of foreign intervention are the weapons manufacturers, the oil companies, and the recipients of huge contracts for building infrastructures in whatever far corners of the Earth we send our troops. Financial interests have a lot at stake, and it is important for them that the United States maintains its empire.
~ Pg. 140

2/8/2001:
For over 50 years, there has been a precise move towards one-world government at the expense of our own sovereignty.
~ Pg. 141

3/19/2003:
It’s surreal! It’s almost as though our policies are controlled by an external force, and not a good one.
~ Pg. 251

3/20/2003:
Congress is like Tony Blair, a puppy dog that tags along and wags its tail when told what to do. But the amount of power the president has didn’t come overnight. It gradually was ceded to successive presidents over many decades. This president, for whatever reason, has relished his omnipotence. Probably the worst thing that can be said about George W. Bush is that he sleeps well at night, without remorse and without concern for the death and destruction he causes.
~ Pg. 253

7/10/2003:
Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals.
~ Pg. 264

1/26/2005:
The #1 function of the federal government – to provide for national security – has been severly undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual Department of Defense budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 different countries.
~ Pg. 307

1/26/2005:
Before 9/11, our C.I.A. ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support from Pakistan – our “trusted ally” that received millions of dollars from the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Laden and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it’s safe to say we have used billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years pursing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very dangerous foreign policy.
~ Pg. 308

9/8/2005:
There’s no free lunch, and no free war.
~ Pg. 337

4/5/2006:
Though many Americans are starting to feel the economic pain of paying for this war through inflation, the real pain has not yet arrived. We generally remain fat and happy, with a system of money and borrowing that postpones the day of reckoning. Foreigners, in particular the Chinese and Japanese, gladly participate in the charade. We print the money and they take it – as do the OPEC nations – and provide us with consumer goods and oil. Then they loan the money back to us at low interest rates, which we use to finance the war and our housing bubble and excessive consumption.

This recycling and perpetual borrowing of inflated dollars allows us to avoid the pain of high taxes to pay for our war and welfare spending. It’s fine until the music stops and the real costs are realized, with much higher interest rates and significant price inflation. That’s when outrage will be heard, and the people will realize we can’t afford the “humanitarianism” of the Neoconservatives.
~ Pg. 357 [Yep! Spoken in Congress on 4/5/2006!]

2007:
War, and the threat of war, are big government’s best friend. Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate and support big government across the board – always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare/warfare state and its promises of unlimited entitlements and endless war.
~ Pg. 365

And now, let me ask YOU, my dear reader: Are you...

Still Voting For 'Mitt Romney'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

YOU’RE A MEAN ONE, “ATHEIST”

2012-01-08T23:02:00.000-08:00

.

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
~ Psalm 14:1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness … For since the creation of the world, [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made … so that [unbelievers and the unrighteous] are without excuse … professing to be wise, they became fools…
~ Romans 1:18-22

The Greek word translated “fools” there is moraino – literally, “simpletons.” It is the root of the English word “morons”.
~ John MacArthur
‘Can God Bless America?’

Most of the self-professed unbelievers aren’t really atheists.
They’re just haters.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Now that Christmas has come and gone, I can stop trying to “play nice” and get back to telling you what I REALLY think:

In December of 2009, I posted a blog bit here titled “Fighting For The True Meaning Of Christmas”, in which I wrote about the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee (SMNSC) in Southern California. [See the link at the bottom.]

Of all the charitable organizations I donate money to throughout the year, the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee has always been my favorite. In a nutshell, here’s what it’s all about . . .

Every year in December, a coalition of 13 Santa Monica Christian churches and the Santa Monica Police Officers Association erect 14 life-sized dioramas or crèches along Ocean Avenue so that people driving or walking along the Palisades Park can see the unfolding of the Christmas story - the birth of Jesus Christ.

2011 marked the 57th year of this tradition which, due to the number of scenes and their arrangement, is unique in the United States, as far as I know. I literally grew up with this tradition (being younger than 57) and I can distinctly recall our family driving alongside that 14-part Nativity Scene on Christmas Eves when I was young.

Over the decades, the SMNSC has had to fight off one obstacle after another in order to keep the tradition alive – from funding issues to bogus “Separation of Church and Stage” challenges to ordinance maneuverings by the City Liberals in “The Soviet Socialist Republic Of Santa Monica”. Keeping this tradition alive hasn't been easy.

"Why for fifty-six years I've put up with it now!
I MUST stop Christmas from coming.
But HOW?"

Well, this year, the so-called “atheists” (who are largely “pseudo-atheists” as I will explain shortly) came up with a new dastardly trick from their black bag of evil in an attempt to kill the Nativity Scene tradition in Santa Monica.

Damon Vix, a self-professed atheist (sorry, Damon, ain’t buying it, man!) appealed to a number of out-of-town atheist organizations (filled with pseudo-atheists) and prompted them to petition the city of Santa Monica for spaces to occupy along Ocean Ave. thus competing with the SMNSC and trying to wrest control of the area from it.

A new lottery system was introduced by the notoriously liberal leaders of “The People's Republic Of Santa Monica” to secure the lots available along Ocean Ave. The many pseudo-atheists who applied for the available lots got all but four, leaving one for a Jewish organization to erect their yearly menorah, and the SMNSC’s 14-booths showing the story of Christ’s birth were reduced to three this year.

According to one article, the atheists didn’t even use all of the lots they’d won in the lottery [and most of those that they did use were occupied by a single, simple sign saying something stupid].

Why did pseudo-atheist Vix go to all this trouble, and why did the so-called “atheist” organizations rally around him? Well, Vix says that the Nativity Scenes depicting the birth of Jesus and His family’s flight to Egypt and later to Nazareth “are offensive."

A Los Angeles Times article, “In Santa Monica, Battle Over Christmas Displays Takes A New Twist”, informs us that:

Damon Vix called national organizations seeking help because he felt marginalized by the display, and tradition alone didn't merit saving it. Vix, a 43-year-old prop maker from Burbank, said the display "defines Santa Monica as a Christian city, and I feel very excluded by that."

Well, my first response is this: Hey, Damon Vix, you whining weenie! If you don’t like it, if you find it offensive, if it makes you feel “marginalized” and “excluded”, then why the f##k don’t you just stay in Burbank? Who the hell said you had to go to the western-most edge of Santa Monica and then drive down Ocean Avenue along the Palisades Bluffs and look at the Nativity Scenes displayed there? Me, I generally just DON’T GO to places where I feel uncomfortable. Problem solved!

Secondly, is there any good reason why the “fool”, the “simpleton”, the “moron” Damon Vix SHOULD feel “marginalized” and “excluded”?

Of course there is, and of course he should - it’s only natural, seeing as how a 2011 Gallup poll found that 92% of Americans believe in a God, and 78% of that 92% identify themselves as “Christian”. [Christianity Remains Dominant Religion In The United States]

So, the fool, Damon Vix, has - by his own “supposed” lack of belief - marginalized himself. Like all (pseudo-)atheists he CHOOSES to be in the minority, and like most of them, he then whimpers because he feels he’s being “excluded”. What a puss!

(Dude, if you’re going to act like you’ve got the courage to hold a minority opinion, at least follow through with it like a man and stop crying like a little girl because the rest of us don’t share your non-belief!)

See, here’s the thing: According to that recent Gallup poll, only 8% of Americans do not believe in a God. Of that 8%, some are probably agnostic, the rest are presumed to be atheists. But I don’t believe that 7% or 6% or 5% of the remainder are genuine atheists.

Real atheists believe that this material life is all there is, and after death . . . NOTHING .

Well, when you believe in Nothing, there ain’t nothing to talk about. Therefore, I contend that the vast majority of real atheists out there (of which there are very, very few) probably rub elbows with us believers without us ever even becoming aware that they’re atheists.

During my life, there have been a few persons I had known for quite awhile whose unbelief I was blissfully unaware of for the longest time until it eventually just happened to come out in the course of casual conversation. These folks didn’t feel compelled to inform me, loudly, shrilly, angrily, that they didn’t believe in God and a hereafter; they felt there was nothing to talk about so they simply didn’t talk about it.

But these self-professed “atheists” who wear their atheism on their sleeves - who shout, who carry signs, who protest, who post bullcrap on blogs and in chat rooms, who make it a point at every turn to inform you that they “don’t believe in God”, who make certain that everyone within the scent of their anger knows that they are unbelievers, who pull out the same tired cliches (“God is a myth”; “there is no Santa Claus!”), who file lawsuits and join organizations devoted to suppressing Christianity and promoting atheism/secularism – there’s one thing I’m certain that all of these people have in common: They’re not atheists.

These, my friends, are “pseudo-atheists”, also known as “haters”.

Their blatant anger and their efforts to interfere with the traditions of believers and the public expressions of faith by Christians gives them away as poseurs. These people just want to rain on everybody else’s parade simply because they are MAD AT GOD! They hate Him.

Something has happened in their lives to make them angry at God, and so they lash out at Him and those who love Him in a vain attempt to hurt God or “get even” with Him. Maybe their faces are scarred from terrible acne as a teenager, or they were abused by a parent when they were little, or a beloved friend or family member suffered a painful disease and died, or they caught the clap from some mousetrap they bought last night. Whatever the reason or reasons, because these pseudo-atheists do not understand the ways of God (and are unwilling to attempt learning about them), and have wrongly concluded that God is “mean” because He didn’t intervene to save them from some form of pain, they attempt to strike Him and strike at what is His.

But since there is nothing they can realistically do to harm God – their arms are too short to box with God - they attempt to get even by the only means they think is available to them: they pretend to disbelieve in God’s existence. These sad, pathetic creatures think:

I won’t believe in You, God! And I will do all I can to persuade others to give up their belief in You! And I will try to kill the joy of those who do believe by interfering with their celebrations. I will eradicate the teaching about You and the references to You from every school and public place. You’ll see, God! I won’t believe in You anymore!

And so they launch into their pseudo-atheism with a religious fervor that rivals and sometimes even surpasses the fervor of those who publicly profess belief in God. They dogmatically accept every stupid-ass theory and pseudo-scientific explanation that erroneously presumes to explain how we got here WITHOUT God.

Do not be misled by them; all the loud and obnoxious, self-proclaimed atheists you know are really operating from the meanness of their hearts, not from any authentic atheism of their minds. As I said, their own emotional investment in this Nothingness that they claim to believe in gives them away as atheistic poseurs. Nobody who truly believed in Nothing could possibly get so upset with those who do believe in Something. It’s laughable right on its face.

And for 2,000 years they have attempted to crush Christianity and Christians.

Note: Christianity and Christians are STILL standing!
How could it be so?

When will they finally become intelligent enough to concede that their arms are too short to box with God, and if God wills that Christianity shall remain in “this world”, no professed believer in Nothing will ever reverse that ruling?

A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere -- ... Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side.
~ C.S. Lewis
(former atheist turned major Christian thinker/writer)

Let’s suppose that 92% of Americans believed in a Great Pumpkin, and of those believers, 78% of them believed in the version of The Great Pumpkin that supposedly was born to a virgin pumpkin and later sacrificed his life by volunteering to be made into a Pumpkin Pie Of Salvation, by which all true believers in The Great Pumpkin Pie Of Salvation were saved from their sins.

And let’s say these folks also believe that The Great Pumpkin wants them to be good to others, to love and pray for their enemies, to help the less fortunate and to spread these teachings of The Great Pumpkin.

Now let’s suppose you are one of the 8% of Americans who really and truly believes that The Great Pumpkin and His Pie Of Salvation is a myth, a joke, a preposterously stupid, retarded belief.

Do you think you would spend a lot of time trying to debate with these Great Pumpkin believers? Would you waste the minutes of your life writing rebuttals to the Great Pumpkin myth in books and on Internet sites?

I wouldn’t. No. In the first place, I would probably be laughing too hard to accurately strike the correct letters on my keyboard or to put pen to paper. And even if I COULD write or speak rebuttals despite my laughter, I wouldn’t even bother. Why should I? If belief in The Great Pumpkin by these fools, these simpletons, these morons, actually causes some of them to behave better than they might otherwise do – if their fear of The Great Pumpkin’s retribution, or their love of The Great Pumpkin’s principles made them less likely to burglarize my house or steal my car or rape your daughter - I would be GRATEFUL for their belief in that ridiculous myth!

I damn sure wouldn’t join a group with a title like “The Anti-Great Pumpkin Brigade” or “Americans United Against Great Pumpkinism” (or "American Civil Liberties Union"). How utterly laughable would THAT be? What need would there be and what good could come from joining other Great Pumpkin disbelievers in some formal organization?

And I definitely wouldn’t be saying to them:

“There is NO Great Pumpkin! In fact, the reality is, there’s nothing but you and me and these 80 years we’re living through. Oh, and incidentally, you shouldn’t burglarize my house or steal my car or rape my neighbor’s daughter because that would be... uhm... well... that would be mean… er... that is, in my opinion... it would be mean... and in my neighbor’s daughter’s opinion, too. Even if we really have no right imposing our opinions on you in this ‘survival of the fittest’ environment”.

What, am I a friggin’ idiot? If their belief in The Great Pumpkin and his Great Pumpkin Pie Of Salvation makes my life a little more secure, a little less crime-infested, I would be a fool, a simpleton, a moron, to try to convince these people that there are no moral restraints on bad behavior other than that a majority of society’s members might think it to be “mean”.

And lastly, The Great Pumpkin would provide me with a lifetime of laughter. Surely, I would be immensely entertained and looking forward to every October when the Pumpkin Festivals started up again and I could take pictures of people singing songs in praise of The Great Pumpkin, giving orange gifts to each other, and setting up Pumpkin Patch scenes in booths along Ocean Avenue so they could drive along and watch as the story of the birth of The Great Pumpkin unfolds.

I would hardly feel “threatened” by The Great Pumpkin and his hordes of foolish followers! And I sure wouldn’t put up signs alongside the Great Pumpkin displays, arguing for the sake of passersby that the Great Pumpkin is just a myth. What a colossal waste of my time, energy, and money THAT would be!

Make no mistake about it: The minuscule number of genuine atheists go quietly about their business, their unbelief rarely even mentioned, for they say nothing when they believe there’s Nothing to talk about. Meanwhile, the greater number of obnoxious, radical, loudly self-proclaimed pseudo-atheists prove themselves to be liars; lying not only about the “Separation Of Church And State” myth, but lying even about their supposed “atheism”.

If I could work my will, every idiot pseudo-atheist would be boiled in figgy pudding and buried with a stake of holly through their heart. After that, I would sentence them to ten years and one day in a Russian gulag or the Chinese laogai. That would give ‘em a firsthand chance to enjoy the zero-tolerance-for-God environment they claim to so desire.

Damon Vix and his “atheist” organizations HADN'T stopped Christmas from coming.
IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same.

All you radical, strident, so-called “atheists”, it’s well past time you acknowledged the simple fact that you are not nearly as “atheistic” as you are “assholeyistic”.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of love, The Great Pumpkin tells his believers:

Liberals’ creation myth is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor.
~ Ann Coulter

100 REASONS WHY EVOLUTION IS STUPID - Kent Hovind [Full Length]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v6WyeQJTwc

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

Links:

FIGHTING FOR “THE TRUE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS”

ATHEISTS SQUANDER NATIVITY SCENE SPACES AT SANTA MONICA'S PALISADES PARK
.

THE 'WIN A GREAT BOOK CONTEST' FROM FERRET-FACED FASCIST FRIENDS

2012-01-04T13:10:00.000-08:00

.
In an ill-fated attempt to garner a larger readership for 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends', my ol’ blogging buddyette, Judy, once wrote the following about me:

Do you like people with a dry sense of humor and that love to talk about subjects that are popular, only [their] take is usually the opposite? I'm still trying to get a handle on Stephen, but I've never been disappointed leaving his posts! Some are funny and some I think, does he really believe that or is he pushing buttons!

Well, the truth is, rarely am I pushing buttons, and the vast majority of the time my iconoclastic view of things is genuine. This is rather ironic because deep down I am an Old School Traditionalist, and believe it or not, I do not enjoy swimming against the (main)stream so often and being forced to defend my credibility by explaining in detail why I’ve come to accept the “alternate” view so often, rather than the “accepted” view. But Mark Twain wrote . . .

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.

Unfortunately, objective research has shown me that this is the case more times than not. That’s not to say that the mainstream view of a thing is NEVER correct, but frequently it is not.

If you’ve read much of my blogs over the years, you know that my view of some subjects – like “orthodox” Christianity, Senator Joseph McCarthy, the attack on the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, etc. – is not in line with the generally accepted belief.

Another topic in which I am forced to take a contrarian view is that of President Abraham Lincoln’s legacy. Yes, I hate slavery; yes, I believe all men are brothers because regardless of our race we have the same Creator/Father in Heaven. But that doesn’t necessarily mean I view Abraham Lincoln as an American hero.

The fact of the matter is that Lincoln’s political life was one that should be remembered less for The Emancipation Proclamation and more for the economic boondoggles, the tyrannical dictatorship he established, the mass murders he was responsible for, and the lies he told.

Yes, my friends, I’m afraid that as children we were indoctrinated into false beliefs by Uncle Sam’s brainwashing centers (also known as “public schools”) and we were bamboozled to the nth degree when it comes to ol’ Honest Abe. “Honest Abe” was a liar.

If I were asked to compile a top ten list of what I consider the best and/or most important political books I’ve ever read, I’d have to give that a good deal of thought because I have read so many excellent politically-themed books in my lifetime.

However, there are a few I can state right from the get-go that would certainly make my list: ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island’, ‘Foundations: Their Power And Influence’, and ‘None Dare Call It Treason...25 Years Later’ would definitely be among my top ten.

Another one that would certainly be included is the 2003 update of Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s ‘THE REAL LINCOLN: A New Look At Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, And An Unnecessary War’.

There are a lot of surprising things about Abraham Lincoln that you will find in DiLorenzo’s excellent book. For example, Did you know the following? . . .

Lincoln was a racist. Yep, a White supremacist! In 1858 he said:

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. … I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”

Lincoln also said that he was not and never had been “in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” (Pgs. 11/12)

The Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a political gimmick.

Lincoln, one of the nation’s preeminent lawyers, was careful to craft the Proclamation in a way that would guarantee that it would not emancipate any slaves. …

Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, mocked the Emancipation Proclamation by saying, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” (Pg. 36)

Lincoln ordered the arrest and imprisonment of virtually anyone who disagreed with his views. …

One victim of Lincoln’s suppression of Northern newspapers was Francis Key Howard of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key. Howard was imprisoned in Fort McHenry, the very spot where his grandfather composed “The Star-Spangled Banner”, after the newspaper he edited criticized Lincoln’s decision to invade the South without the consent of Congress and his suppression of civil liberties in Maryland.

After spending nearly two years in a military prison without being charged and without a trial of any kind, Howard wrote a book about his experiences titled ‘The American Bastille’. (Pgs. 132-134)

Hundreds of Southern churches were put to the torch, and priests and ministers were imprisoned for not saying prayers for Abraham Lincoln. (Pg. 180)

Does this sound like a book you’d be interested in reading? It just so happens that I have an extra copy of it – a brand-spanking new $16.00 paperback – that I am willing to give away, free of charge. I’ll even cover the postage.

Below are photographs I took this past New Year’s Eve. The first person who can accurately tell me what is depicted in these pictures will receive my extra copy of ‘THE REAL LINCOLN: A New Look At Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, And An Unnecessary War’.

It’s a rather abstract image and I kind of doubt anyone is going to guess correctly. Should this prize go unclaimed for the next two weeks, I’ll go to Plan B. I don’t know yet what Plan B is but I’ll come up with something. (Maybe a contest to see who can best tell me how handsome, brilliant and humble I am in 1,000 words or more.)

Good luck, y’all. (Gee, I sure hope someone enters this contest!)

I took two photographs of the same thing. What is it? Anyone? . . .

WE ALREADY HAVE A WINNER!

Congratulations to Farawayeyes!
She wrote: "Picture looks like your looking up someones Christmas lights. Inside of a tree, maybe?"

More than "maybe" - precisely.

Not far from where I work there is a small company - I don't even know what product they sell or service they provide - and they had created a large Christmas tree of lights against one side of their building. One night I stepped inside the middle of it and looked up. Why? I dunno. Just because I've always done weird things, and because there's still a remnant of the "little boy" in me.

Well, looking up through this Christmas tree, I thought: That would make a pretty neat, abstract photograph.

Several nights later I returned with my Brother's cell phone camera and took the pictures. Here's the full image:

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

HAPPY MARGARITA DAY - 2012

2012-01-01T00:39:00.000-08:00

.

It’s Margarita Day! - It’s Margarita Day!
Hooray! - Hooray! – Hooray!
For Margarita Day!

Well, 2011 is in the books, and mostly . . .

It was a year for the birds
That went to the dogs
‘Cause the cats in Washington
Turned out to be rats
Who golfed and fished while
The Eagle flew the coop
Leaving We The People
To clean up the poop.

Or something like that. At any rate, that sentence is a reasonable facsimile of 2011.

Nope, it was not a banner year for anyone I personally know, and for some of them it was downright lousy.

Nevertheless, my Christmas was fairly good. Here’s a few photos of it:

Brother Nappy and I kept alive our “MAKE A WISH FOR TINY TIM” on Christmas Day tradition by driving to Park Central Deli near downtown Phoenix, tossing a couple quarters into the fish pond on the back patio and making wishes with the fishes that Tiny Tim will someday score a second Top 40 hit song.

While we were there to cast our wishes into the fish pond, I took a picture of my “Ron Paul For President” baseball cap to “cap”ture the moment:

My friend the Flying Aardvark sent me a couple things that really tickled me. One was a photo she had seen somewhere of two houses decorated for Christmas... somewhere. Talk about stealing someone else’s thunder, and with minimal lighting:

Also, on a Christmas gift the Aard had sent me, she had integrated into the wrapping a margarita Christmas tree ornament (she wraps beautifully, too!) I loved the ornament so much that I immediately removed it from the gift and hung it on my tree. It’s very appropriate that I am revealing this here on Margarita Day 2012:

The maggie ornament goes perfect next to my other ‘New Year’s Day’ Christmas tree ornament – a pink elephant holding a champagne glass, that I purchased in Westwood Village circa 1988:

And the margarita ornament segues beautifully into the real point of this January 1st blog bit: I want to wish y’all a . . .

HAPPY MARGARITA DAY!

“A Tradition Since 1986, Except For 1994.”

To those with less imagination, “Margarita Day” is known as “New Year’s Day”. On this day I always ring in the new year with a margarita or two; a tradition that my dear Pa (may he rest in peace) inadvertently started in ’86, and which we both somehow inexplicably forgot to maintain on New Year’s Day 1994, thus giving birth to what I think is a funny slogan.

I have one pretty hysterical Margarita Day story I could tell, but you’d need to get to know me “personally” rather than “virtually” to hear that one in detail because I’d be too embarrassed to reveal it publicly.

Now think about that for a second. After some of the ~~shit~~ stuffs I’ve written on my blogs, here is something too embarrassing to write! How embarrassing is THAT? Here’s just a snapshot of it and you can fill in the blanks with your imagination:

This was perhaps 1989 or 1990, when I overindulged my enthusiasm for the celebration a bit and Margarita Day turned into Irish Coffee Night at El Torito Mexican Restaurant/Bar in Marina Del Rey. Then, after setting what was almost certainly the all-time point total record on the video game PAPERBOY in a nearby arcade, I got on my “real” bicycle and attempted to ride home. Let’s just say “video games ain’t real life!” and leave it at that.

Anyway, feel free to join me by celebrating a new year with a margarita. Well, you’re only going to get ONE Margarita Day 2012 in your lifetime, so why not?...G’wahn and have two. What the hell! Besides, ya know, if there turns out to be any truth in all that Mayan Calendar end-of-the-world prophecy yakking, you’ll look back with regret that you... only had one maggie on Margarita Day.

You lucky folks living in L.A. can enjoy the BEST margaritas (as seen in the pictures above) by going to El Coyote Mexican Restaurant on Beverly Boulevard. Me, I’m going to have to settle for maggies here in Airheadzona.

Regardless, I raise my salt-rimmed glass and wish a Happy Margarita Day to you all! May we bless and be blessed in 2012.

Oh, and – psst! – don’t be a maroon by
forgetting to remember on election day . . .

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

“THERE’S A SADNESS IN THE HEART OF THINGS”

2011-12-26T00:19:00.000-08:00

.

Doggs & Doggettes ~

Christmas 2011 ended here in Phoenix, Arizona, a little over an hour ago. For a number of reasons – which I could explain in excruciating detail, but which I’m sure you’re not the least bit interested in – Bobby Darin’s song ‘Christmas Auld Lang Syne’ makes me think of my dear departed Ma, who returned to her Creator in the Summer of 2005.

Darin recorded this song on August 18, 1960, exactly one year and ten days after my birth, and it did not do very well on the Billboard music charts. Nevertheless, it has become my custom to close every Christmas Day by listening to it.

For a number of years, it has also been a tradition of mine to remove all of my outdoor Christmas decorations on December 26th (my Brother’s birthday), to send the message that what I have been celebrating is not Happy Holidays or Winter Solstice or Winter Wonder or Season’s Greetings or Frosty’s Fruitopia or any other euphemism for “The Birth Of Jesus Christ”.

My lights and decorations were meant as a symbol of Christ’s birth. And after December 25th, the Birthday Party has come and gone, and my celebration has ended.

But, I fear I have gotten a bit sidetracked, as I often do.

What I really meant to say here is that Bobby Darin’s song, ‘Christmas Auld Lang Syne’, is a window into my soul. Not that anyone will or should care to know.

Every Christmas ends with me honoring my Mother by playing Darin’s Christmas song and acknowledging that, indeed, "there’s a sadness in the heart of things".

Bobby Darin - Christmas Auld Lang Syne
(lyrics and slideshow + good quality)
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfXYSb-KsSQ

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

BIG BLOW-HARD BUMBLE MONSTERS

2011-12-23T14:29:00.000-08:00

.
"CAMERA . . . ROLLING! And . . . ACTION!"

I was putting up Christmas decorations, thinking about something my friend Arlee Bird of the “Tossing It Out” blog had said, and-- uhm...

"CUT!"

[An Off-Camera Aside: Recalling what I had been taught in school as a young whippersnapper (whatever’n hell a “whippersnapper” is!), I used to assiduously avoid starting any written piece with “I”. But then as I got older, I came to realize that some of the classic and most influential written pieces in history began with the word “I”. For example: ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Henry David Thoreau, and ‘On The Road’ by Jack Kerouac both begin with “I”. So I decided that nonsense about NEVER starting any written piece with “I” was just more of that bolshevik that they crammed into my brain when I was a captive of Uncle Sam’s federal indoctrination centers, also known as “public schools”.]

"Alright, TAKE TWO. CAMERA . . . ROLLING! And . . . ACTION!"

I was putting up Christmas decorations, thinking about something my friend Arlee Bird of the “Tossing It Out” blog had said, and I was drinking this good beer that I’d just discovered from the Lagunitas Brewing Company in Petaluma, California. What Arlee Bird had said was-- ...er . . . hmmm...

"CUT!"

[Another Off-Camera Aside: In case you’re interested, the beer in question is called “New DogTown Pale Ale” and it has a rich, robust bitter hop bite right upfront, but it has a nice, clean, soft finish, without all that heavy aftertaste that normally hangs around in your mouth after the sip of a potently hopped-up brew has gone down the pipe.]

"TAKE THREE. CAMERA . . . ROLLING! And . . . ACTION!"

I was putting up Christmas decorations, thinking about something my friend Arlee Bird of the “Tossing It Out” blog had said, and I was drinking this good beer I’d just discovered from the Lagunitas Brewing Company in Petaluma, California. What Arlee Bird had said was this:

"I listen to [radio station KFI] in the early morning then shut it off when loud-mouth Limbaugh comes on."

It being Christmas time, I then made the mental association between Rush Limbaugh (or “Limboob”, as I often call him) and the “big blow-hard” Bumble Monster from the TV special ‘Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer’. And I remembered what the wannabe dentist Herbie (or, Hermie) said about the Bumble Monster after he had defanged him:

“Don’t let this big blow-hard scare you anymore.
Just walk right past him!”

To which Yukon Cornelius added:

“…He’s nothing without his choppers. Let me at him!”

And that’s when I got the idea to create this LOL at the
‘I Can Has Cheezburger’ website:

Awhile back, blow-hard bumble monster Rush Limboob said, “This Ron Paul is going to destroy this [Republican] party...”

To which I say: “From Limboob’s lips to God’s ears!”

"CUT! . . . PRINT . . . THAT'S A WRAP!"

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

"MANKIND SHOULD BE OUR BUSINESS, BUT WE SELDOM ATTEND TO IT"

2011-12-19T23:02:00.000-08:00

.
It was in December, probably 1987 or ’88. I was at work in one of the offices of UCLA’s Parking Department, when two of my best friends there, Lonnie and The Countess, broke out in song. They began singing . . .

Thank you very much, thank you very much! That’s the nicest thing that anyone’s ever done for me . . .

When the singing finally came to an end, I asked them, “Where did you hear that song?” Their mouths hung open for a minute or two and they looked at me as if I had lobsters crawling out of my ears.

And then at once they both shouted (as if I were hard of hearing because of the lobsters), “SCROOGE!”

And that’s how I first learned there was a 1970 movie musical called ‘SCROOGE’, based on Dickens’ famous ‘A Christmas Carol’.

Yes, SCROOGE is a musical.

Now look here, I’m a “dude”, as in, “guy”. If you don’t believe me, you can ask my friend The Flyin’ Aardvark. Exactly one week ago, after I had made a rude remark, she wrote this to me: Ahem. ... You are such a GUY! Ha!

I was on my high school’s sophomore football team. I was on my high school’s varsity wrestling team. I NEVER cry (where anyone else can see it) and I DO NOT like musicals!

Well, except for Roy Rogers oaters.

And ‘Singin’ In The Rain’.

And ‘My Fair Lady’.

(Alright, I also like ‘The Sound Of Music’, but so help me, if you ever tell that to anyone, I – will – hunt - you - down - and - KILL - you! Twice!)

Therefore, I was predisposed to dislike SCROOGE. But I saw it anyway. With The Countess. I told her, “If it’s a musical, I won’t like it.” And I was right because... I LOVE it! It is by far my favorite filmed version of 'A Christmas Carol'. And, yes, I've seen the vast majority of them.

How good is this movie? Well, ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ and ‘Scrooge’ are both on my Top Ten favorite movies list. No, NO, NO! I do not mean “Top Ten favorite Christmas movies list”. I mean Top Ten list PERIOD!

In fact, I’m not sure which of those Christmas movies I love most. It pretty much depends upon which one I’m watching at the moment.

SCROOGE stars Albert Finney and was filmed in England with an all Great Britain cast. For those who know anything at all about acting, that means the acting is way, Way, WAY friggin’ better than what you will find in most American movies!

The direction is fantabulous, the sets are spectacular, the cinematography is delicious, and the music is so addictive it should be considered a controlled substance. For such an old movie, even the special effects are still pretty good.

Two of my all-time favorite quotations come from the movie SCROOGE:

Mankind should be our business, but we seldom attend to it.
~ Jacob Marley

There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish; the thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember, …time is short, and suddenly you're not there anymore.
~ The Ghost Of Christmas Present

I have only one negative remark to make about SCROOGE: There is one song in the score, sung by Tiny Tim, that is so high-pitched, stepped-on-a-cat’s-tail awful that I fast-forward through it every other year.

[Note: I watch my four favorite Christmas movies only every other year, so they don’t cease delivering to me the emotional impact I watch them for. This year, it’s the “modern” classics – ‘Scrooge’ and ‘A Christmas Story’ – next year it will be the old school classics – “It’s A Wonderful Life’ and ‘Miracle On 34th Street’.]

But even that awful song by Tiny Tim has become a part of the Christmas tradition that I share with my brother, Nappy. Every other year, we TRADITIONALLY fast-forward through it!

There’s a part in SCROOGE where - in anticipation of the second ghost’s appearance, and temporarily feeling bold and brave – Ebenezer yells out, “I’m ready for you!”

Well, this year, just as Tiny Tim’s dreadful song was about to be sung, I raised the DVD gizmo, my finger on the fast-forward button, and I yelled out, “I’m ready for you, Tiny Tim!”

Nappy and I both laughed. Yeah, you can make a “Christmas tradition” out of just about anything.

If you’re having trouble finding “The Christmas Spirit” this year – as it seems many people are – then you need to watch SCROOGE.

Here’s a link to about ten minutes of this wonderful ~~life~~ movie! (This is a future Christmas, in which Ebenezer has died, and the people indebted to him are joyfully singing "Thank you very much!")

Scrooge the Musical (1970) Part 9

See it mo’ bigger at YouTube by clicking here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BF5ZcMgd0Q

[Note: In actuality, the movie’s visuals are not as dark as they appear in this video.]

~~Dog~~ God bless us, every one!
~ TinyTim @Dyslexia.moc

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

NEWT: THE ESTABLISHMENT’S TOADY

2011-12-05T16:47:00.000-08:00

.
Everytime I see an image of Newt Gingrich I can’t help thinking immediately that he looks like a big fat toad.

And that’s not too far from the truth either. Being a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) – [see the link below] – Newt is indeed a toady or a lap dog for ‘The Establishment’, that International Banker-controlled power behind the scenes that is instrumental in setting the policies for both major political parties in this country.

Below is a copy of the Email I received this morning from the ‘RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT’ campaign people. It tells you all you need to know in order to determine that a vote for Newt is a vote for 'the road always taken' :

Dear Stephen,

I am going to describe a candidate for you right now, and I want you to think about whether or not you would support him.

This candidate was for the individual mandate that served as the model for "ObamaCare." He was originally for the TARP bank bailouts before he was against them. He joined with Nancy Pelosi to promote the anti-business "global warming" agenda.

He slammed Paul Ryan's budget plan as "extreme," calling it "right wing social engineering."

You might think I am talking about Mitt Romney. Heck, you might think I'm talking about a liberal Democrat. But I'm not.

That candidate I'm talking about is Newt Gingrich. He is what I like to call a "counterfeit conservative."

And I have barely even scratched the surface!

My campaign team has put together a great video that tells you more about Gingrich and his liberal positions over the years. It tells you how he flip-flopped on a host of important issues.

And it shows, despite his claims, he is simply not a conservative.

You can take a look at the video HERE, which has spread like wildfire across the web, as it's received almost 600,000 views.

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=youtu.be

You might have seen recently that Mr. Gingrich traded on his former political office to land a $1.8 million lobbying contract with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why is this so disturbing?

Because while these out-of-control federal agencies were ruining the housing market and causing millions of homeowners to lose their homes and life savings, Newt Gingrich was earning millions advising them.

At that same exact time, I was publicly declaring they needed to be stopped before they ruined the economy.

I guess Newt Gingrich and I have a different idea of what to do with federal bureaucracies. I fight to rein them in and shut them down before they can do harm. He pads his personal bank account while they wreck our economy.

While I was fighting environmental extremists, the out-of-control EPA, and the Soros-funded green movement, Newt Gingrich was filming commercials with Nancy Pelosi.

While I was fighting government bailouts, Newt was saying he would have voted FOR them.

Don't be fooled by the words candidates use when they are running for office. Look hard at their records. My record is one of true limited government, anti-Washington, D.C. conservatism.

Newt Gingrich has a long record of liberal appeasement, flip-flopping on key issues, and lobbying for insider millions.

Millions. That's right. Remember the individual mandate I mentioned earlier that Newt supported? His healthcare group received nearly $40 MILLION in contributions from the healthcare industry.

I have rarely seen a candidate who represents so much of what is wrong with Washington and what is wrong with our political system.

We can and must demand better.

We must demand REAL conservative values. We must demand a person who puts faith, family, and freedom ahead of all else. And we must demand a candidate who has remained true to principle his entire career.

I believe I am that candidate, and I ask you to take a look at my Plan to Restore America ...

You can tell I mean every word in it -- just as I've meant every word I have said in public life. And that's something that everyone will admit, whether they agree with all of my positions or not.

With me, what you see and hear is what you get. Wouldn't that be a nice change?

I am the only true conservative in the top tier of candidates running for the GOP nomination. And I ask for your support.

Together, we can stop the counterfeit conservatives AND the liberals in the White House. We can take back and Restore America Now.

For Liberty,
Ron Paul

P.S. Whether it's flip-flopping on TARP, supporting the individual mandate that served as a model for "ObamaCare," joining with Nancy Pelosi in support of the global-warming crowd's radical agenda, or making millions off of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they helped destroy our economy, Newt Gingrich is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

He's what I call a "counterfeit conservative."
. . .
The Iowa caucuses are less than 1 month away. So please click here to make your most generous contribution so my campaign has the resources necessary to blitz the airwaves in Iowa with the message of Newt Gingrich's serial hypocrisy.

Also, VizFact’s Video Blog recently made aware of a couple other pro-Ron Paul videos that are brief but well worth watching. Here they are:

Blacks for Ron Paul 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCNS72iQ9Do

Democrats Leaving Party to Vote for Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M34BNvlbsU

Newt Gingrich is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) . What’s that? Glad you asked . . .

Link:
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) : Conspiracy? Nah, Coincidence.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

WHEN THE LIES COME TUMBLIN', TUMBLIN' . . . DOWN!

2011-11-17T09:08:00.000-08:00

.
Dear Loose Doggs & Doggettes of the ‘Loyal American Underground’ ~

Are some state leaders truly (finally!) waking up to the crimes of the “Undocumented Socialist Acting as President”? Let us hope and spread the news . . .

Below is just a few brief excerpts of an article appearing on the World Net Daily website. You can read it in its entirety by clicking HERE.

WOW! NEW HAMPSHIRE WAKES UP TO OBAMA'S ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD

Hearing Friday As State Lawmakers Also Probe President's Eligibility

Posted: November 16, 2011
8:43 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND

A hearing, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, is scheduled before the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz that alleges Barack Obama has used fraudulent documents and a fraudulent Social Security number.

The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building, and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.

[Lawyer Orly Taitz]
. . .
Further, "The most staggering evidence is Mr. Obama's lack of a valid Social Security number and his use of a fraudulently obtained Social Security number from the state of Connecticut, a state where he never resided, which was never assigned to Obama, according to E-Verify," the complaint states.

It alleges not only is the Obama birth documentation a modern printout, there are numerous experts who attest it is fraudulent.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

“TEST YOUR VOTER I.Q.” (Or, “YOU ARE WHAT YOU VOTE”)

2011-11-13T11:34:00.000-08:00

.
Following is a single-question “Pass” or “Fail” test.

When you enter your polling place, accept your ballot and step into your booth or up to your partitioned cubicle to record your 2012 Presidential Republican Primary vote, you are being asked to mark the box that indicates . . .

[ ] 1: The candidate that the mainstream media claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 2: The candidate that Fox News claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 3: The candidate that the NeoConservative voices on the talk radio station you listen to claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 4: The candidate that the Democrat or Libertarian party claims has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 5: The candidate your Mommy, Daddy, Husband, Wife, Boyfriend, or Girlfriend claims has the best chace of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 6: The candidate that the most recent polling figures claim has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 7: The candidate that YOU believe has the best chance of beating Barack Obama.

[ ] 8: None of the above.

----------------------------------------------

If you checked number eight you answered the question correctly. If you marked any box other than number eight you have failed this test.

When you vote in the 2012 Presidential Primary election, you are being asked one very simple question, and yet it’s amazing how election after election so many voters get confused and waste their vote.

The only question you are being asked to answer on your ballot is this:

“Which presidential candidate would YOU most like to see occupying the White House for the next four years?”

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. You’re not being asked to speculate on anything; you’re not being asked to display your political prognosticating skills or your psychic prowess; you’re not being asked to answer any question that you are not immediately fully equipped, prepared, and informed enough to answer.

You are being asked one simple question that you and you alone, in the entire world, are uniquely able to answer:

“Which presidential candidate would YOU most like to see occupying the White House for the next four years?”

“WASTING MY VOTE?”

In the 2008 presidential election, many registered Republicans voted for a candidate they didn’t really want – John McCain – but they voted for him because they had been convinced that he was the only Republican candidate who had a chance of beating the Democrat. And in the end, McCain lost by a very large electoral college margin to Barack Obama. My candidate – Ron Paul – didn’t beat Obama either. So, did I ultimately waste my vote more than the others wasted theirs?

My vote did not lead to victory but it did lead to peace of mind, knowing that when push came to shove, I gave my one vote to the candidate I believed was the best person for the job.

If you voted unenthusiastically for John McCain, with a “lesser of two evils” mind-set, then your vote was wasted even more than my vote was wasted because not only did your vote not lead to victory but it did not lead to peace of mind either.

We both lost, but I cast my vote “honestly” – with no intellectual compromising - for the one man I genuinely wanted to see in the White House. You compromised your vote and won neither the election or the good feeling that comes with knowing that you truthfully did the very best you could for your candidate.

One hundred out of one hundred times I’ll take a loss with no compromising of the integrity of my vote over a loss WITH compromised integrity.

Regardless of what the talking heads and the polls claim, if you think the best man for the job is Ron Paul, you should vote for Ron Paul. Period. If you think the best man for the job is a woman, then you should vote for Michele Bachmann, etc. Cast only honest votes, my friends.

In 2008, nearly every voter I personally spoke with said they wanted Ron Paul to win the election. But when it came time to actually cast their ballots, most of them voted for McCain because they had been convinced by the media that he was the only one who had a chance to win the general election.

But I can’t help thinking that if everyone who said they most wanted Ron Paul had simply voted for Ron Paul regardless of the unfounded “rumors” that he couldn’t win, Ron Paul might really be residing in the White House this very day.

“EXPOSING THE LOOP”

Here’s the Loop:

International Bankers and major Corporation Leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in America – neither wants to upset the apple cart or kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs.

The controlling entities of most major corporations are in fact International Bankers and other very wealthy individuals.

Mainstream media organs are major corporations.

The controlling entities of most major corporations (i.e., including manstream media organs) are in fact International Bankers and other very wealthy individuals.

International Bankers and major Corporation Leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in America – neither wants to upset the apple cart or kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs.

“YOU GET THE PICTURE?”

OK, you see what I did there? That little display of “here we go ‘round the mulberry bush” illustrates why the talking heads of the mainstream media (which absolutely includes so-called “conservative” talk radio and Fox News) attempt at every turn to sway your vote by repeatedly telling you in overt and subtle ways “who has a chance to win the upcoming election”.

If you watch or listen to political programs, you are being constantly conditioned to vote a certain way by dogmatists and propagandists representing International Bankers and Corporations. There are approved candidates and unapproved candidates, and it is the job of these media mercenaries to influence you to vote for the candidates that have been approved by the Bankers and/or Corporation Leaders.

The Bankers and/or Corporation Leaders want to make certain no person reaches the White House who might throw a monkey wrench into their money and power-making machines; they NEED you to vote into office a candidate who is secretly in bed with them, or whom they feel, at the very least, they can ultimately control.

A real “rogue” candidate (e.g., of the Ron Paul variety, not the Sarah Palin variety) is the last person the Bankers and major Corporation Leaders want to see reaching the White House.

Most political shows, debates, and polls are controlled and manipulated by these powerful people to influence the way you will vote. When it gets down to the point where you are voting for the lesser of two evils, they have already won and couldn’t care less which of them you vote for because they “own” both candidates.

But, if you could actually propel with your primary election vote a genuine Constitutional patriot/free market economist into the general election, you could, for the first time since Grover Cleveland was in the White House, experience real change – and I mean real “good” change!

Here is one fine example of how “they” – the plain and fancy “they” – have slipped it into the minds of voters that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote:
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54WFoV-veCM&feature=related

Please feel free to copy and paste this blog bit or a link to it all over the Internet, and Email it to your family and friends.

And please vote “RON PAUL” in 2012.

Links:

Why I Would Never Vote For These 2012 Presidential Candidates…

You Just Don't Know How Much That Hurts Me!

Are You A Member Of The “Republocrat” Party?

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

WHY I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR THESE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES . . .

2011-11-12T12:49:00.000-08:00

.
Ron Paul’s speeches and voting record after about 21 years as a Congressman have been so consistent with what is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution that for someone to say they do not support Doctor Paul it is synonymous with saying, “I do not support the Constitution”.

Do you think that is hyperbole? If so, then I challenge you to tell me one political act or piece of legislation that you do or do not agree with, in which your position is in opposition to Congressman Paul’s view on the matter, and the Constitution explicitly supports your view rather than his. Go ahead. Just one.
~ Judge Yoey O’Dogherty
Superior Court Justice from the great State of Clarity

The August 22, 2011 edition of The New American magazine included a section titled “GOP Candidates’ Credentials” in which they examined each candidate’s political history and platform in some detail. [Also available online: GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials]

I have said it loud and proud . . . I support RON PAUL For President In 2012! I voted for him in 2008 and will surely vote for him again in the upcoming Republican primary.

I have copied and pasted below (in italicized red text) some snippets of information found in the aforementioned ‘New American’ profiles which illustrate points of contention I have with all of the candidates not named “Ron Paul” in the GOP presidential race.

Although these are not necessarily the ONLY reasons I would not vote for these candidates, these facts alone make voting for them an impossibility for me. To read the entire profile for each candidate, rather than just these few excerpts, click on the article link at the bottom of this blog bit.

[Be Forewarned: Although the information below I take very seriously, I am going to have a bit o’ sport with the accompanying photos. Please understand that I don’t mean to insult anyone. That is to say, I don’t mean to insult anyone other than these candidates and the people who will foolishly vote for them.]

MICHELE BACHMANN

[Michele Bachmann comes prepared to play
with the big boys!]

In January 2010, Michele Bachmann wrote an installment for the Townhall.com blog in which she argued against the effectiveness of “stimulus” money in turning around our economy. While I don’t have any issue with her stance on that subject, it’s her byline at Townhall.com that gives me the willies! Townhall is a NeoConservative media organ as evidenced by its constant praise and promotion from NeoCon guru Hugh Hewitt.

Like Sarah Palin, Bachmann is a genuine “social conservative” and I applaud her for that, but . . .

Her voting record on key issues scored in this magazine’s first “Freedom Index” for the new Congress shows her with a 90-percent ranking, having voted “right” on nine out of 10 issues, ranging from repealing ObamaCare to defunding Planned Parenthood to ending American military action in Libya.

The one exception was her vote to extend provisions of the PATRIOT Act that authorize federal authorities to listen to suspects’ telephone conversations without specifying what they’re looking for and to seize personal papers, records, and “any tangible thing” that may be relevant to an investigation. (Over her congressional career, her cumulative Freedom Index score is 81 percent.)

While she voted for the Libyan withdrawal, Bachmann has supported the ongoing war in Iraq, arguing in a debate over President Bush’s troop surge in 2007 that the “radical Islamists” can only defeat us “if they crumple the resolve of America to fight and to win this war.” In June of this year, Bachmann argued against the drawdown of the surge troops in Afghanistan, even though this year’s reduction would still leave more U.S. forces there than when Obama came into office.

Last November Bachmann spoke at a symposium hosted by Freedom Watch, a lobbying group that supported the Iraq War and now calls for “western intervention to remove this dangerous Islamic regime” in Iran. While Bachmann did not explicitly call for military action against Iran, she spoke of “the need to do more than the simple engagement strategy of talking.” In a guest blog on the Heritage Foundation website this year, Bachmann argued against any reductions in the overall defense budget.

HERMAN CAIN

[Herman "Munster" Cain]

Oops. Sorry. Wrong photo . . . although the mix-up was certainly understandable. Here’s the correct photo:

[Herman "Munster" Cain]

I’m not even going to address all these recent sexual harrassment allegations against Herman Munster because I don’t know what’s true and what’s not, and besides that, there are plenty enough political/economic reasons not to vote for Cain without even delving into questionable personal affairs.

Until recently, Herman Cain was a largely unknown businessman whose major claims to fame included a high-level appointment in the Federal Reserve System

On top of his advocacy on behalf of the Fed as an institution, Cain has also expressed opposition even to a congressional audit of the Fed that would allow Congress and the American people to find out what exactly is going on at the central bank. He suggested contacting one of the Fed’s “PR people” if Americans wanted answers. Making matters worse for supporters of the growing anti-Fed movement, Cain said an audit was “not necessary” and that calls for government oversight were simply the product of ignorance.

In recent years and months, a great deal of secret information about the Fed has become public. The institution was, for example, clandestinely bailing out foreign banks — including one owned by the Libyan dictatorship of Moammar Gadhafi — with trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, it was manipulating the markets for stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, and more.

In addition to central monetary planning, Cain has also been an ardent supporter of various bailouts, especially the so-called “banker bailout” of 2008, officially known as TARP. An opinion column he wrote during the height of the debate blasted “free market purists” for opposing the $700 billion program.

Cain has actually donated to a broad array of political campaigns. Democrat U.S. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Danny Tarkanian, Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle’s primary opponent, have both benefited from his largesse. So have many others.

NEWT GINGRICH

[Newt . . . after he "got better".]

Prior to the 1994 elections, Gingrich and his Republican associates unveiled a list of agenda items that they pledged to act upon, should they win majorities in the House and Senate. Called the “Contract With America,” the plan received an enormous amount of media coverage at the time.

Although widely credited with propelling the Republicans to their takeover of both houses of Congress in 1994 (the storied “Republican Revolution”), few of the agenda items in the contract were ever implemented, with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 probably being the most significant outcome. In the end, business as usual prevailed over electoral promises.

Lost in the hubbub of policy debate was the fairly obvious point that a “contract with America” — between the federal government and the American people — already existed in the form of the U.S. Constitution; were its limits on government power and spending observed faithfully, no further electoral gimmickry and grandstanding would be necessary.

Following the Republican takeover of the House, Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House in recognition of his leadership in bringing the Republicans back to power on Capitol Hill. He became Bill Clinton’s most vocal adversary, leading the effort to impeach Clinton on sundry charges of corruption and malfeasance.

Although the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the defining event of his presidency, it fell short of holding him accountable for crimes more significant than his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. Under Gingrich’s leadership, charges of giving military secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions were dropped from the letters of impeachment, and Clinton was able to defend himself successfully against what were portrayed as minor charges arising from a personal sex scandal.

Gingrich, the “social conservative,” has been married three times, most recently to Callista Bisek, a former House of Representatives staffer with whom he carried on an extramarital affair during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

As a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) [see link at blog bit's end], the country’s premier organization promoting world government, it is not surprising that Gingrich has supported many pet programs of the CFR globalist elites, including expanded powers and more money for the UN and World Trade Organization, and more money for foreign aid.

He was for many years an alarmist on global warming and even starred in a TV commercial with Nancy Pelosi warning of the imminent dangers of climate change. He ardently supported mandatory cap-and-trade legislation and ethanol subsidies, but now that the alleged science behind global warming is being thoroughly exposed and discredited, he has flip-flopped on climate change and some energy issues.

Newt Gingrich’s guiding philosophy, like that of many “conservatives” of his political generation, is that big government is better tamed and reformed than abolished - that Leviathan, subject to virtuous leadership, can be turned to virtuous ends.

JON HUNTSMAN

[Huntsman’s hunt is petering out.]

During his time as Governor of Utah, Huntsman was also responsible for the state’s “Alliance for Prosperity” with the Mexican government. Among other schemes, the alliance sought to create pressure for “immigration reform” and “mobility of the work force.” Apparently then-Mexican President Vicente Fox, who met directly with Huntsman, was very pleased with the Governor and with Utah’s adoption of “driving-privilege” cards for illegal immigrants.

In addition to negotiating the unconstitutional interstate “climate” compact with foreign authorities, Huntsman has an impressive “globalist” record on other issues too. For example, he was a longtime member of the powerful world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations [see link at blog bit's end]. He even served as a founding director of the Pacific Council on International Policy, established in 1995 in partnership with the CFR.

Even worse for Huntsman’s candidacy is a leaked handwritten note he sent to Obama. “You are a remarkable leader,” Huntsman wrote in August of 2009, even underlining “remarkable” for added emphasis. “It has been a great honor getting to know you.” In another leaked letter, Huntsman praised former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary.

The “establishment” press has generally been kind to Huntsman. More than a few media outlets have even tried to distort the facts — for example, by ignoring Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson and claiming that Huntsman was the first or most well-known GOP contender to call for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. And while Huntsman has garnered public support from the likes of Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger, conservative pundits of all stripes have ridiculed and attacked his campaign. Some even suggested he was running in the wrong party.

RICK PERRY

[Rick "W" Perry having a "Bush-Brain" moment.]

I previously chronicled some of my issues with Rick Perry in a series of videos posted on ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’. It was titled ‘Just Say “NO” To Rick Perry!’ [You can visit it by clicking HERE.]

As if all that and his proposal to reward illegal immigrants with work visas weren’t enough, I have to agree with the person who posted a YouTube video of Rick Perry’s mental collapse at the November 9, 2011 GOP Debate under the title of “Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes”.

On NeoCon Hugh Hewitt’s deceptive talk radio program the following day, that non-Constitutionalist, warmongering phony was attempting to do damage control for his George W. Bush-alike hero Rick Perry, but I think it’s of no use. If there’s even half an ounce of brains left in the Republican wing of the United States of the Americonned electorate, then practically speaking Rick Perry’s presidential bid came to an end the other night.

Watch this brief video and see what happens when a phony “conservative” fake “Constitutionalist” tries to emulate Congressman Ron Paul and co-opt that man’s honest platform and sincere talking points. If Rick Perry truly meant what was coming out of his mouth - if his words really represented what was genuinely in his heart – then his mind wouldn’t have shut completely down like it did.

Sure, we’ve all had those “blank brain” moments, but do they happen when we’re speaking of something we are totally committed to and passionate about? NO!

And it’s almost hysterically funny when Rick W. Perry looks over to Doctor Ron Paul beside him and Perry’s body language just pleads – BEGS! – Ron Paul to save him. This is an absolutely “must-see” video! Anybody who would vote to put Rick W. Perry in charge of this nation after this display of falsehood and ineptitude should be put away in the Cuckoo County booby hatch for their own protection.

Watch Rick Perry's Campaign End Before Your Eyes

Link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/12/rick-perry-s-debate-performance-anxiety-why-he-chokes.html

MITT ROMNEY

[Miracle Mitt – Let’s give him "the third degree!"]

Mitt Romney’s candidacy is something of a miracle. “Miracle Mitt” continues to claim — falsely — that he didn’t seek to raise taxes as Governor of Massachusetts. And he appears to be getting away with it, as enough Republican voters remain ignorant of his record for Mitt to retain his “frontrunner” status in the 2012 Republican presidential primary race.

The Cato Institute reported of Romney’s 2003 proposals as Massachusetts Governor:

He scared some conservatives when he said that he was opposed to tax increases but he couldn’t rule them out. His first budget, presented under the cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix.

However, the “fees” were really taxes — i.e., they had nothing to do with actual costs incurred by government services they provided. Romney’s claim of not raising taxes is based upon a simple deception: He called his tax increases “fees.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, NBC’s Meet the Press host, the late Tim Russert, exploded Romney’s claim that he hadn’t proposed tax increases as Governor:

Mr. Russert: The AP says it this way: “When Romney wanted to balance the Massachusetts budget, the blind, mentally retarded and gun owners were asked to help pay. In all, then-Gov. Romney proposed creating 33 new fees,” [and] “increasing 57 others.” The head of the Bay State Council of the Blind said that your name was “Fee-Fee”; that you just raised fee after fee after fee. That’s a tax.... A fee’s not a tax?

Gov. Romney: A fee — well, a fee — if it were a tax, it’d be called — it’d be called a tax. But…

Mr. Russert: Governor, that’s, that’s gimmick.

Gov. Romney: No, it’s, it’s reality. It is. But — and I have no — I’m not trying to hide from the fact we raised fees. We raised fees $240 million.

Romney argued with Russert: “But a fee is different than a tax in that it’s for a particular service.”

Of course, Romney increased fees upon gun owners (gun permits) and for people who needed duplicate licenses. Neither of these is a “service” that the government provides; they are simply licenses needed to comply with government-established mandates.

The independent FactCheck.org noted that “the Massachusetts Department of Administration and Finance says that fee increases during Romney’s tenure added up to $260 million per year, with another $174 million raised from closing some corporate tax ‘loopholes.’ The independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation puts the revenue total of fee hikes and tax loophole-closings at between $740 and $750 million a year.”

The RomneyCare championed by the Massachusetts Governor in 2006 is nearly identical to national legislation enacted in 2010, mandating all of the major provisions that are present in ObamaCare:

• Mandating individual healthcare (and a fine for not purchasing insurance);

• Mandating employer healthcare for employees (and a fine for non-compliance);

• Banning insurers from exempting “pre-existing conditions” from policies;

• Mandating that young adults may stay on their parents’ plan until age 26;

• Creating government regulated “insurance exchanges”; and

• Instituting heavy subsidies for the poor to purchase insurance.

Yet the costs of Massachusetts’ RomneyCare are out of control. An April 2011 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Foundation Report on Massachusetts healthcare reform says that Massachusetts has the highest healthcare costs in the nation, and those costs are expected to nearly double by 2020.

Romney supported the TARP bank bailout in 2008, a bailout that sparked the Tea Party movement’s ire at the use of taxpayers’ money to bail out a few super-rich banks that lost risky gambles on a real estate market bubble. Romney continues to say that the TARP bailout was a good deal today, but has tried to modify his stance by saying that Obama implemented the law poorly. In essence, Romney has defended the principle of corporatism — bailout of super-rich banks with the tips of waitresses and cab drivers — while condemning those who managed the corporatism.

On the political Left, former Democratic National Committee staffer Matt Ortega has put up the particularly clever website MultipleChoiceMitt.com, which quotes Romney on both sides of more than a dozen issues.

Front and center in “Multiple Choice Mitt” is Romney’s rhetoric on the abortion issue. During his 2002 run for Governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s position on abortion was identical to Ted Kennedy and the rest of the liberal Democrats in the state: “Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose,” Romney said during the 2002 gubernatorial debates with Democratic candidate Shannon O’Brien. Since going on the campaign trail for President in 2008, Romney has claimed a conversion to the pro-life side of the issue.

RICK SANTORUM

[Rick Sanatorium, attempting to "get better"
. . . like Newt did.]

A strong supporter of the Iraq War — which was initiated without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war against a country that had never attacked the United States…

Santorum had this to say, in the same Townhall.com manifesto: “We need to embrace the challenge to dedicate a larger percentage of our GDP to foreign aid,…

Rick Santorum announced his candidacy for the presidency on June 6, 2011. Measured by a “conservative” yardstick, Santorum’s voting record in the Senate frequently belied any conservative rhetoric. In the second half of 2005 alone, for example, Santorum voted for $31.8 billion in foreign aid appropriations, for $7.7 billion for the EPA, and for $100.7 billion for the Agriculture Department and the FDA,…

And now you know why ONLY Ron Paul deserves my vote in 2012 !

[Ron Paul gets behind one of his sincere slogans.]

Links:

RON PAUL’s ‘New American’ Magazine Credentials Profile

The New American Magazine: “GOP Presidential Candidates' Credentials”

What Is The 'Council On Foreign Relations' (CFR)?

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

YOU JUST DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT HURTS ME!

2011-11-11T09:41:00.000-08:00

.
Are you against raising taxes?

Are you against bank and big business bailouts?

Are you against excessive government spending?

Are you against our foreign wars that kill our soldiers needlessly?

Are you against someone placing their hand on the Holy Bible, swearing before God and country to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and then turning right around and ignoring most of what the U.S. Constitution clearly says?

If you’re AGAINST ALL OF THOSE THINGS, then I have surprising news for you:

You are FOR . . . RON PAUL !

Whether you realize it or not, the presidential candidate for you in 2012 is DOCTOR PAUL! He has the right prescription for this country's ailment.

People!, People!, People! You’re being given one last chance to put a genuine Constitutionalist patriot and free-market economics expert into the White House. Are you going to blow it yet again? (You just don’t know how much that hurts me!)

I have shouted my fingers hoarse trying to explain what the NeoConservatives stand for (big government, foreign intervention and imperialism), explaining that the Republican and the Democrat parties are really only ONE two-sided political party. (Congressman Ron Paul is the only non-NeoConservative rogue Republican in the 2012 race.)

I have not only said this but I have SHOWN it on this blog time and time again. I have strained my eyes far into the night providing evidence and book recommendations proving that our biggest enemy is a group of moneyed Insiders that for all intents and purposes controls the president, the Congress, and the judicial system and which is ultimately responsible for every major problem we face in America today. God knows I’m tired of banging my fingers raw on this keyboard trying to reach We The People but getting through to nearly no one.

You're not really going to do it, are you? You’re not going to choose six of one or half a dozen of the other by reelecting Barack “USAP” Obama or by replacing him with yet another Illuminati puppet and, once again, let slip the dogs of war, oppression, terrorism, tyranny, and economic devastation. Please tell me you're not!

Will the Americonned People screw up their last chance to right the sinking ship? Will the Fig-Bottom Americans fig it up again?!

Look, don’t hurt me anymore. Please!

Please watch the following 6 videos – excepting the last one, they're all extremely short (you can see the total running time in the bottom left corner of each video). I’m not saying you’ll necessarily agree with Ron Paul on every single point (I myself disagree with him perhaps 5%-7% of the time), but one thing you can be sure of: Ron Paul’s plan of action is consistent with the U.S. Constitution ALL OF THE TIME.

No, he’s not the most polished speaker. But who do you want in the White House, the slickest orator or the most honest candidate?

VERY, VERY SHORT VIDEOS:

Yes, this first video I posted on 'Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends' once before, but it is so damned good I can’t resist leading off with it again.

No More Liars: Ron Paul for President 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWe-RFxVfXU

Dr. Ron Paul: Protect Life, Protect Liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyC6ieSFOFM

From Prophet to President - Ron Paul 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RkASRPRZjE&feature=channel_video_title

Ron Paul Ad - Consistent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RaYbToq7Q

"Banned" Commercial: Ron Paul 2012 (Unofficial)
A Beijing, China, economics class in 2030

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2rMnov4Ae8

"2012: One on One" series of interviews:
Ron Paul 2011-11-06 Sunday (Fox News Sunday)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R_9rb-6tdY

Links:

10 REASONS RON PAUL CAN WIN IN 2012

RON PAUL OFFICIAL 2012 CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

WTF HAPPENED ON 9/11? (ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTARIES ON THE TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT YOU NEED TO SEE)

2011-11-04T01:30:00.000-07:00

.

QUESTION #1: Why did ‘World Trade Center’ Towers #1 and #2 collapse into their own footprints on September 11, 2001?

What’s that? Speak up, please – I didn’t hear you.

Oh.

Something about burning airline fuel and melted steel beams, eh? You say you don’t really understand the whole thing but it’s something to that effect, huh?

OK.

QUESTION #2: What caused 'World Trade Center' Tower #7 - which was NEVER hit by an airplane – to collapse hours later in an identical manner to Towers #1 and #2? . . . And have you ever – EVER! – in your entire life, seen another building anywhere collapse in like manner which was not the result of a 'controlled demolition' project?

If you are going to maintain a large national security state, there must be a threat to justify its continued existence. ... For the security state to continue, there must sometimes be large terrorist acts in the U.S. The last thing the national security state wants is peace and no enemies.
~ Gurudas (real name: Ronald Lee Garman)
(from the book 'Treason: The New World Order' - 1996)

Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place. ... They revolted against much more mild oppression.
~ Congressman Ron Paul
(commenting on HR-3162, The USA/PATRIOT Act)

It is my hope that all the unconscious lemmings will join us rebellious loose dogs of the Loyal American Underground (LAU) in shining the light of truth on the most significant treasonous act in America thus far into the 21st Century.

But before an unwitting lemming can become a 'loose dog rebel' and spread the truth, he or she must learn the truth.

There is much more to know about the September 11th terrorist attacks than what is covered in just these two documentaries below, but these are the two best films I’ve found on the subject so far, and they form a fine foundation from which to begin your earnest quest for truth and understanding (translation: see... be shocked and... inspired to... read).

I do not claim that these two documentaries alone will prove anything to you other than this . . .

UNCLE SAM'S "OFFICIAL" 9/11 STORY IS SO FULL OF HOLES IT'S USEFUL ONLY AS A COLANDER.

Too many vital questions pertaining to 9/11 remain unsatisfactorily answered . . . if answered at all.

The foremost issue of our time is to restore Constitutional government.
. . .
The response of the Washington crowd is to call protesters racists and paranoid, passing more laws to take away more rights. Criticism of the government is called criticism of the nation.
~ Gurudas
(from the book 'Treason: The New World Order' - 1996)

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
~ Edward Abbey

To view these documentaries full-screen at YouTube, click on the URL links (in blue) that I have included below each video here . . .

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup - (Part 1)

Click this URL link to see the movie full-screen at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUGLp5TAVpQ

I'm so pissed off at the American people; I'm so pissed off at this government because of this cover-up!
~ Bob McIlvaine
(from the movie "9/11: Press For Truth")

9-11 PRESS FOR TRUTH

Click this URL link to see the movie full-screen at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsKfM_LDUc

Counterfeit philosophies have polluted all of your thoughts
Karl Marx has got ya by the throat
And Henry Kissinger’s got you tied up in knots.
. . .
Adulterers in churches and pornography in the schools
You got gangsters in power and lawbreakers making rules
When you gonna wake up?
~ Bob Dylan
(from his song "When You Gonna Wake Up?")

Loose Change 9/11 An American Coup (2009) Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiORwAlT-KI

9/11 was (at minimum) predominantly an inside job! Rogue elements within the United States government were principally responsible for what happened. Let’s not be fooled further; let’s not be fooled again!

A new... a “real”... an objective investigation into 9/11 needs to be conducted. And this time, an investigation that is NOT Elite-orchestrated for maximum cover-up.

Be a part of the Loyal American Underground (LAU) by learning the truth and telling the world!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
A Loose Dog of the 'Loyal American Underground'

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

B.O.’s B.C. B.S. (Or, ARIZONA SHOWS THE WAY . . . AGAIN)

2011-11-01T09:20:00.000-07:00

.
Well, hot dog and cold, hard facts! Arizona’s Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has already done more with this 'Barack “USAP” Obama Fake Birth Certificate Issue' than I expected him to. I figured he’d just make a little noise over it for awhile to get some ink and then he’d drop it in someone else’s lap.

Then again, maybe Joe sees this as his official entrance into politics – a desire on his part that has been rumored for some time. Sorry to sound so cynical, but I’ve been living in Airheadzona now for 17 years going on 6 lifetimes, and I don’t have much respect for Sheriff Joe or anyone else “serving the public” in this desert wasteland hell hole.

Anyway, read and applaud . . .

SHERIFF JOE'S POSSE DELIVERS PROMISED OBAMA SURPRISE

Panel Probing Eligibility For 2012 Ballot Wants To See Original Birth Certificate

Posted: October 31, 2011
8:38 pm Eastern
© 2011 World Net Daily

Arizona's maverick Sheriff Joe Arpaio promised surprises in his jurisdiction's investigation of Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidential ballot and his Cold Case Posse is delivering – raising questions that touch on the authenticity of the long-form birth certificate issued last April and the possibility Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security Number.

Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see original birth records before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012, not an electronic file or scanned copies.

The sources say the panel needs to examine the microfilm documenting Obama's birth, as well as the ink-and-paper original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health is holding in its vault.

The PDF file and various scanned copies of the birth certificate that the White House released April 27 are simply not good enough, the posse has determined.

Earlier this month, WND senior staff reporter Jerome R. Corsi spent 18 hours over a two-day period in Arizona briefing the Cold Case Posse on a wide range of evidence regarding Obama's eligibility.

"The posse wants to see the entire microfilm roll containing Obama's birth certificate, not just a microfilm copy of Obama's long-form birth certificate in isolation," Corsi explained. "An individual microfilm copy could be forged, but forging the entire microfilm reel on which Obama's birth certificate is in sequence would be almost impossible."

Also, Corsi said, the posse wants the ink-and-paper original 1961 Obama birth records still held in vault by the Hawaii Department of Health to be released publicly and subjected to independent court-authorized forensic examination.

Corsi affirmed that the posse's conclusion it needs to see the Obama birth certificate microfilm is part of the "shock" that Arpaio warned would be forthcoming, when he spoke last week to the Surprise Tea Party group meeting in Surprise, Ariz.

The focus on the microfilm records of Obama's birth arose after Arpaio's investigators realized the birth certificates of twins born the day after Obama, the Nordykes, had been released as white-on-black copies of microfilm to the family by the Hawaii Department of Health in 1966.

WND reported in July 2009 that Mrs. Eleanor Nordyke made public the copies in an article by the Honolulu Advertiser.

WND also has reported that the Obama birth certificate's number appears to be out of sequence with the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins.

The Nordyke twins were born Aug. 5, 1961, one day after Obama, and their birth certificates were registered Aug. 11, 1961, three days later than Obama. Yet their birth certificates have lower numbers.

Eleanor Nordyke displays photostats of her twin daughters' birth certificates (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

Susan Nordyke, the twin born first, has certificate number 10637, and her sister Gretchen has certificate number 10638. Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961, and registered Aug. 8, 1961, has certificate number 10641.

"In 1961, Barack Obama was not a celebrity," Corsi commented. "If the Nordyke twins birth certificates were reduced to microfilm or microfiche by 1966, the date Mrs. Nordyke got the copies she made public, then Obama's birth certificate should have been reduced to microfilm or microfiche at the same time."

Corsi also indicated that the Arizona posse has interviewed court-certified forensic examiners who have advised that they can only issue an expert opinion on whether Obama's birth certificate is a forgery if they can examine the original ink-and-paper records.

Corsi told WND the Arpaio investigation is far-reaching in scope.

In addition to examining whether or not the long-form birth certificate is a forgery, the Cold Case Posse is examining evidence that Obama may have a fraudulent Social Security Number. The posse also is looking at records pertaining to Obama's birth narrative that suggest Barack Obama Sr. may not be the biological father.

"In total, the Cold Case Posse has assembled some 2,000 pages of evidence in the case," Corsi explained, "and is now preparing to conduct interviews to examine a wide range of questions, including that Obama may not be qualified to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution because he was a dual citizen at birth, given that his father was listed as a citizen of Kenya when the future president was born."

Corsi said the Cold Case Posse is currently in the process of briefing various Arizona state officials about the progress of the investigation.

"Sheriff Arpaio said this would be a thorough and diligent investigation," Corsi said, "and that is exactly what the investigation has become. Sheriff Arpaio once again has proven to be a man of his word."

Well, I would hardly go so far as calling Joe a man of his word, nevertheless, he does seem to be sincere in pursuing this treasonous issue and my Stetson’s off to him for that . . . for now.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

I MAY BE A BORING, BRAGGADOCIOUS, PSEUDO-SOPHISTICATE BUT . . .

2011-10-28T11:43:00.000-07:00

.
.
. . . to quote a friend of mine:

~ McDogg

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

HOLEY ATHEISTS VS. NED FLANDERS (Or, #$&% THE SUPREME COURT!)

2011-10-16T23:22:00.000-07:00

.
.

If there is such a thing as an intellectually honest atheist, I’ve yet to meet him or her. Experience has taught me that there is something psychologically far deeper and more nefarious to atheism than mere skepticism or disbelief. In fact, I suspect it involves something more than just psychology, too; I believe it is sometimes spiritual in nature.

I don’t know how many times I have encountered professed “intellectually honest” atheists to whom I have recommended certain books that examine the evidence for God and Christ, and have had those so-called “honest” atheists fail to explore my recommended texts.

See, here’s the deal: If there is a God to whom we are accountable and who will ultimately judge our behavior, the atheist, well, he or she don't wanna know! Eyes closed, fingers jammed in the ears, mouth goin’ “La!-La!-La!-La!,
I can’t HEAR you!”

But the Evolutionary theory is so full of holes it’s “holey”; while the evidence for a Creator is so overwhelming it is almost “Holy”. (I know, I know . . . “La!-La!-La!-La!”
You can’t hear me.)

In the July 4, 2011 edition of The New American magazine, there was a good article pertaining to the mythological “Separation Of Church And State” concept that the holey atheists have brainwashed most Americans with. In that article, the author, Mr. Wolverton, wrote:

“Regardless of the source of the assault on constitutional principles, constitutionalists should be able to defend those principles by relying on history and reason, without ad hominem disparagement of the attackers. The polestar of defenders of the Constitution is the document itself, not emotional recriminations of those opposed to their position.”

In theory, I agree with that viewpoint. In practice, well . . . I don’t always practice it anymore. The success of the holey atheists in conditioning We The People to accept the premise that any Christian idea must be entirely eradicated from every public sector is one of the most significant reasons that the U.S.A. has become a moral cesspool and a rotting corpse; it’s one of the principal reasons that the U.S.A. will ultimately and utterly fall. Recognizing the factually flawed and underhanded tactics of the God-haters, and seeing the devastation that their dishonest work has wreaked upon my country, I have lost all patience with them.

I do not consider myself a “Christian” by the modern definition, and therefore I do not play patty-cake with the holey atheists the way these Ned Flanders types do. I’ve seen what the “kid glove” treatment from the Ned Flanders Crowd has resulted in: Atheists: 666 Trillion - Flanders: 0. That’s what you call “a blowout”. If you’re an atheist and you want to debate me about this topic, be forewarned that I get a ‘D-minus’ in “Plays Well With Others” and you’ll get no “Heidely-ho, neighbor!” from me.

To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven: A time to reason, and a time to fight. And the season to reason has passed.

Did any of you God-haters want some book recommendations to help straighten you out (or to “make your hair curl”)? I didn’t think so. The article - alright, let’s get on it! . . .

“THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE”
by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus and Thucydides, for Newton and Euclid; and I find myself much the happier.” Constitutionalists surely sympathize with the Sage of Monticello when they read the chronicling of the evisceration of our Constitution that is printed daily in newspapers around the country.

From Article I to the Tenth Amendment, every essential protection of liberty enshrined by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution is being attacked (successfully) and set at nought by those determined to divest the United States of the rule of law and the freedoms it ensures. No single aspect of American constitutional liberty is more misunderstood, misapplied, and manipulated than the First Amendment’s defense of religious freedom.

For example, a recent opinion piece published in the Baltimore Sun accused the U.S. Naval Academy of “defying the Constitution — specifically the First Amendment.”

Specifically, the author (an adjunct instructor at the academy) asserts that the Naval Academy administration is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment through the practice of saying grace before meals. As the author describes the tradition: “They [Naval midshipmen] are marched into the mess hall, called to attention to listen to announcements, and then to prayer by a chaplain before sitting to eat. They are not permitted to leave, and thus they are forced to listen.”

To support his accusation, the author cites a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. He provides the following history of the case:

That is the opinion of our courts and the compelling reason to end it. In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th District ruled in Mellen v. Bunting that the Virginia Military Institute’s suppertime prayer was unconstitutional: “Put simply, VMI’s supper prayer exacts an unconstitutional toll on the consciences of religious objectors. While the First Amendment does not in any way prohibit VMI’s cadets from praying, before, during or after the supper, the Establishment Clause prohibits VMI from sponsoring such a religious activity.”

Moreover, in April 2004, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the Court of Appeals’ ruling, thus affirming the lower court’s decision.

After rehearsing this bit of jurisprudential precedent to his end, the author gloats over the fact that the other service academies fell into line and discontinued the practice of preprandial prayer. Then, he provides for the reader the logical (to him) conclusion of the argument he has presented: “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Let’s get the Naval Academy to act to fully support and defend it — not defy it.”

Further proof is found in the story recently published by The New American online describing how a federal district court held that “the Medina Valley Independent School District of Texas could not include prayer in its commencement ceremonies, nor use any language perceived to be religious in nature.” The lower court ruling was later reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the fact that such a challenge was originally upheld by the district court is disturbing. In the Medina Valley case, the complaint was supported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a group dedicated to scouring religion from every nook and cranny of American society.

A Principled Foundation

Regardless of the source of the assault on constitutional principles, constitutionalists should be able to defend those principles by relying on history and reason, without ad hominem disparagement of the attackers. The polestar of defenders of the Constitution is the document itself, not emotional recriminations of those opposed to their position. In an effort to follow that injunction, it is necessary to examine the legitimate purpose and provenance of the so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the oft-cited “wall of separation” between church and state, and the role of the Supreme Court in defending or destroying those ideas.

First, we must base ourselves firmly on the premise that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In fact, the Constitution itself proclaims such in Article VI: “This Constitution … shall be the supreme law of the land.” With that, constitutionalists have no quarrel, as it is that supremacy that we long to have recognized and respected by legislators and Presidents. This article, as applied to the issue of the Naval Academy’s mealtime prayer, however, does not support the opinion piece’s author. Furthermore, those challenging the prayer at school commencements will find no fuel for their fire. To the contrary, the history of Anglo-Saxon law, the words of our own Founding Fathers, and the plain language of the Constitution itself all testify that the Establishment Clause was never enacted to proscribe such piety.

First, the three branches of the federal government have enumerated powers — that is to say, they may not act outside of the defined theaters of action ceded to them in the Constitution. One of these branches, the legislative, is composed of a Congress, and to that Congress is granted by the Constitution “all legislative powers.” Therefore, no other branch may make laws.

Furthermore, Congress itself may enact only those laws which address subjects found within the sphere of specifically enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. As there is no grant of power to Congress to legislate with regard to “religion,” it may not pass laws in that area.

Second, the Constitution in the First Amendment reads in relevant part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The threshold question of this analysis is the understanding of what is meant by the “establishment of religion.” We may begin with a cursory review of the history of the practice of establishing religion in England.

Throughout the tumultuous history of the monarchs of England, the official and exclusive recognition of religion has swung (usually violently) between the Roman Catholic faith and the Protestant (Anglican) religion. Whichever of the two denominations held sway in England, the “establishment” thereof consisted chiefly in the mandatory payment of (and forceful collection of) tithes. These “donations” were used to support the church and the clergy.

The critical aspect, then, of the establishment of a religion was the employment of the sword of state in the collection of tithes to support that state-sponsored religion. The people were compelled at the point of a sword (quite literally) to provide the funds necessary to perpetuate the control of the approved clergy through the payment of their living expenses.

In America, the establishment of religion continued in most of the colonies. Non-conformists could be imprisoned or fined (or worse) for failing to pay the mandated tithe. The history of the founding of America, however, made the establishment of a religion by the civil authorities more difficult than in England. This was to be expected, given that many of the earliest settlers of America fled England to escape the persecution heaped upon them by the crown and its representatives for refusing to support a faith they considered errant and perverted from the straight and narrow.

By the time of the outbreak of the War for Independence, prominent Americans were advocating the end to established religion and the support of religion built on voluntary donations, as made by congregants according to their conscience, without influence or compulsion on the part of the civil authority.

In 1772, Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia wrote in a letter to a London newspaper:

Now to determine on the justice of this charge against the present dissenters, particularly those in America, let us consider the following facts. They went from England to establish a new country for themselves, at their own expence, where they might enjoy the free exercise of religion in their own way.

Alexander Hamilton expressed a similar view of history in remarks written three years later:

While tithes were the free, though customary, gift of the people, as was the case before the passing of the act in question, the Roman Church was only in a state of toleration; but when the law came to take cognizance of them, and, by determining their permanent existence, destroyed the free agency of the people, it then resumed the nature of an establishment, which it had been divested of at the time of the capitulation.

Finally, James Madison, the very man endowed by history with the honorific title of “Father of the Constitution,” in 1832 wrote in a letter to a reverend:

In the Colonial State of the Country, there were four examples, R.I., N.J., Penna., and Delaware, & the greater part of N.Y. where there was no religious Establishments; the support of Religion being left to the voluntary associations & contributions of individuals.

The testimony of these three witnesses corroborate one another and provide compelling evidence that early on in its history, the establishment of religion was contrary to the will of the American people and the spirit of the founding of our nation by those seeking freedom to practice religion according to the dictates of their own conscience, without fear of royal repercussion.

Finally, in light of the steady dissolution of established religions throughout America, it is useful now to read the specific language of the First Amendment so as to understand the metes and bounds of its proscriptions.

A Control Over Congress

A careful reading of the plain language of the 10 amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights reveals that there is one organization that is prohibited from making laws establishing a religion: Congress. Read the First Amendment again: “Congress shall make no law.” When this restriction is read in concert with the last of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, it is clear that the states and the people retain the right to establish religions, if that is their desire. In fact, many states retained their established religions after ratification of the Constitution: New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, for example.

To recap the scope of the Establishment Clause, then, the intent is to forbid Congress from establishing a national religion (as was done by the British Crown, often at the point of a sword); Congress is forbidden from restricting the right of individuals from worshiping as they choose; and Congress, therefore, has no constitutional authority (and, remember, all the authority of Congress is enumerated and is not natural) to infringe at all upon the right of the states and the people to fully and freely exercise their liberty of conscience.

As with so many other matters of constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court has not bound itself nor based its decisions on the pure principles of freedom as explicated in the Constitution.

In the early years of the 20th century, for example, the high court decided that the 14th Amendment applies not only to the states, but that it incorporates (or imposes) the First Amendment (which, remember, applies only to Congress) on the states, as well. In the case of Benjamin Gitlow v. People of the State of New York (1925), the Supreme Court overturned the decision in the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government (Congress) and that, consequently, the federal courts could not stop the enforcement of state laws that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The court in Gitlow found that the guarantees included in the First Amendment were “fundamental personal rights” and could not be impaired by state governments. That represents a radical revision of American constitutional jurisprudence, the first of many such decisions that would rewrite not only the First Amendment, but redraw the boundaries around the power of Congress to abridge the right of worship.

As for the abolition of prayer from the public school, subsequent Supreme Court decisions piggybacked on Gitlow and its progeny to accomplish that end. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) the majority (6-1) decided the voluntary recitation of a non-denominational prayer in a New York public school represented the “establishment of religion” as proscribed by the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, “religious activity” was substituted for “establishment of religion,” thus outlawing prayer based on a completely unsupportable judicial sleight of hand. All of this damage to the Constitution was done without a single word of explanation of how the definition of an “established religion” (a denomination supported by the civil government) as understood for centuries included the voluntary recitation of a non-denominational prayer. The deed was done.

In 2000, the Supreme Court continued perfecting its skill at misdirection by citing itself in a decision that created a new constitutional standard for the “establishment of religion.” In the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the majority held that student-led, voluntary, non-denominational prayer was “perceived” government sponsorship of prayer, thus a violation of the Establishment Clause. Further, the court held that any policy that made “nonadherents” feel like “outsiders” was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court, in defiance of centuries of Anglo-Saxon law, the words of our own Founders, and the plain language of the Constitution itself, had in the course of about 80 years obliterated the Constitution and altered the proper relationship between government and religion. The next plank of the platform was carved from a phrase Thomas Jefferson likely never knew would be so wrested.

Everyone has heard the phrase “separation of church and state.” The anti-religious wail those words as a war cry against any “actual” or “perceived” influence of faith on government. As is evident from the analysis presented above, that phrase exists nowhere in the Constitution. It has its origins in a letter sent by our third President in response to one sent to him by a church in Connecticut.

As mentioned above, Connecticut maintained an established religion (the Congregational Church) until 1818. In 1801, members of the Baptist denomination in Danbury sent a letter to Thomas Jefferson, plaintively setting forth their difficulties at being an officially disfavored community of faith.

In his response, Jefferson sympathized with his correspondents and declared his hope that “their [Connecticut’s] legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Far from being advocacy of the relegation of religion to solitary confinement in the private sphere, Jefferson cites the Establishment Clause itself as the model for other legislatures. As President, and as a student of the law, Jefferson undoubtedly understood that the First Amendment applied those restrictions on Congress, not on the church. As a perhaps relevant bit of context, the day after Jefferson penned the letter to the Danbury Baptists (January 3), he attended a worship service conducted in the House of Representatives presided over by a Baptist minister. Hardly the behavior of a man opposed to the offering of prayer in a government venue.

So we see that despite efforts of the Supreme Court to redefine the borders of the First Amendment (and all other articles and amendments of the Constitution), the misunderstanding and misapplication of the clear language of the First Amendment, and the unjustified conflation of the “wall of separation” phrase in a private letter, there is no evidence that the Establishment Clause was included in the Constitution to prevent students from asking the Lord’s blessing over their food or from giving Him thanks for it. To the contrary, the Establishment Clause was written into our Constitution to prevent Congress from impinging upon that right.

Written by Joe Wolverton II, J.D.

Published by The New American magazine

Posted by Stephen T. McCarthy

As a dog returns to his own vomit,
so an atheist repeats his folly.
~ Proverbs 26:11

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

“THE VIEWS OF A MUSICIAN - YEAH, I’VE GOT SOME”

2011-10-10T01:18:00.000-07:00

.
ESPN changed the lock on our front door
Now my key don't fit no more …
Move over old dog ‘cause a new dog's movin' in

If you haven’t been following the poop-flinging, then here, in a nutshell, is what happened:

Bocephus, or Rockin' Randall (or “Hank Williams Jr.”, for those of you who ain’t “Country”) has been dumped from ESPN’s Monday Night Football program for making some anti-Obama / anti-Biden comments.

The Monday Night Football theme song, “Are You Ready For Some Football?”, is a reworked version of Hank Junior’s original Country song “All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight”. It’s become almost an American anthem because it has opened the Monday Night Football games since . . . uh . . . I don’t know, maybe since about the time Howard Cosell died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyzuVk7SoI

In a recent Fox News interview, Bocephus said of Obama playing golf with House Of Representatives speaker Boehner: "It'd be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu."

Bocephus also categorized Barack “USAP” Obama and Joe Biden as “the enemy."

For further details, you can click the headline below:

ESPN, HANK WILLIAMS JR. PART WAYS

According to the article linked above:

On his own website, Williams said he was the one who made the decision:

"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision," he wrote. "By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It's been a great run."

It seems that ‘Rowdy Rockin' Randall’ has yet to “settle down” :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ieC3mKJ78A

So, you’re probably wondering what my take on this is. Actually, you’re probably wondering who the hell I am and what makes my opinion worth reading. Well, I’m a patriotic American, which is just another way of saying “an old school Constitutionalist”.

So, what do I think about ‘ESPN’ (‘Extra Sensitive Puszy Network’) dumping Bocephus? Were his First Amendment rights trampled?

Well, first of all, let me say that I was and still am a Bocephus fan. Hank Williams Jr. is one of only a small handful of Country-Western musicians I really like (and all of them “Old School”, by the way). I once saw Bocephus perform live at The Greek Theatre in Los Angeles. I’ve always liked to say, “I think Bocephus was intoxicated on stage that night. But then again, perhaps I was the only drunk at The Greek.” (In truth, it was probably both of us. I had just come from "Margaritaville" [a.k.a. El Coyote Mexican Restaurant] and Bocephus was probably trying to balance on Jim’s Beam.)

Hank Junior has never made a secret of the fact that he's a musician with political views ("Yeah, I've got some."); he has even sung this fact . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXnDbOpxU4

But what of Hank Junior’s ‘First Amendment’ rights? Well, the truth of the matter is this: Bocephus had a Constitutional right to say what he said (even though equating almost anyone with Hitler is never a smart move), and the ‘Extra Sensitive Puszy Network’ had a right to dump him. Period. End of issue.

We makes our decisions, we exercises our rights, and we rides the wave of repercussions. It’s a good system.

Hank was right about this much: Barack “USAP” Obama and Joe Biden are indeed enemies of the traditional “American Way”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seRJARhRUd8

I have no real problem with what Bocephus said. Yes, mentioning Obama and Hitler in the same sentence was not an intelligent chess move. But what disturbs me more, personally, is that he said of the GOP presidential candidates, the one he likes best is Herman Cain. Now, with Ron Paul being in the race, that was a really stupid statement! (More about my issues with Herman “Munster” Cain in an upcoming blog bit right here at ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’.)

He may have lost his Monday Night Football deal, and he may have proven his political naivete by half-heartedly endorsing Herman "Munster" Cain, but don’t you worry about Hank Williams Jr., because “A Country Boy Can Survive” . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4s0nzsU1Wg

I was thinking of closing this blog bit with the statement (link -->), “If you don’t like Bocephus, you can kiss my ass!”

But then I saw what someone calling himself bamabrandon13 had posted on one of the YouTube videos I uploaded above, and I admitted to myself that I could never top its use at the bottom:

If You Voted For Obama To Prove You’re Not Racist, Then This Time Don't Vote For Him To Prove You’re Not Retarded.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

I DON'T ALWAYS DRINK URINE, BUT WHEN I DO, I PREFER ‘DOS EQUIS’

2011-10-03T11:31:00.000-07:00

.

Back in my Bay Street Daze, if you had asked me to recommend one beer, I probably would have answered,
“I don’t know. But if you’re only going to have one beer, you might as well make it six Mickey’s”.

I didn’t know Diddley about beer back then. Like every stupid male, I probably thought I did though. Truth is, I knew less about beer than Bo knew about hockey.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjpSH8qJ7c4

To be honest, if you had asked me in 1982 what the best beer was, I probably would have said something like, “Heileman’s Special Export”.

Uhp! I was an idiot! But ‘Heileman’s’ still stood half a degree higher than the Coors Light that Nappy and the other League members generally drank.

Nowadays, Nappy and I both consider ourselves to be something resembling ‘beer connoisseurs’, which is just a ten-dollar way of saying “suds snobs”. We would no sooner touch a can of Coors Light or Heileman’s Special Export as touch your Grandma Gertrude.

So when people today ask me to recommend a beer, I usually say: “I won’t say unless you pay”.

I mean, come on! I spent a lot of money over the years and suffered through a lot of bad beers to achieve my extensive knowledge of beer, and why should I pass all that “extensivisity” on to others free of charge? Isn’t it enough I would save your taste buds from the bad-beer-experimentation process without asking me to do that for nuttin’?

Alright, alright, leggo my arm! Stop twisting it! I’ll say, I’ll say!

The beer-judging template that many adhere to these days goes like this: Look / Smell / Taste / Feel / Overall. So I will keep up with the Joneses by using the same format.

Today we’ll be rating Prescott Brewing Company’s ‘PONDEROSA I.P.A.’ (psst… I.P.A. stands for India Pale Ale, which is a particular type of ale). And here’s my take on it :

Look – It spills out of the can into the glass like a drunken blonde falling out of a limousine, and it forms a large, tightly curled head with the height of a 1975 afro. It’s a deep copper color, the shade of a four-times used but still unflushed urinal. As you consume the ale, the head leaves layers of heavy lacing, reminiscent of your Grandma Gertrude’s bedroom at the trailer park.

Smell - As you begin the pouring process, your nostrils are caressed by a scent best described as a damp dog on an Autumn day, wrapped in a moist wool blanket and left for 30 hours in the closed garage. The middle section reminds me of something smelled but not heard, and toward the end of your whiff, the odor softens out into that intoxicating convalescent home aroma of old flesh and ‘Evening In Pasadena’ perfume that excites your nasal cavity.

Taste – Up front, I noticed heavy notes of Yngwie Malmsteen followed by a hint of chuckberries and Bing cherries, culminating in a trace of Charlie McCarthy woodiness. There’s an astringent undertone of lima bean and things heard but seldom seen. This ale was unmistakably brewed with a generous portion of Harvey hops which gives it that bitter pill to swallow front-end bite, but in the middle I detect the tell-tale signs of mashed potatoes and gravy leftovers. It finishes clean but sharp, like a bullwhip to bare buttocks, with a faint lingering aftertaste of “penumbras, formed by emanations from” undigested bits of corn. For an IPA, it’s a little too balanced with the burnt Sherwood Forest marijuana, but it had “a nice, piquant after-dinner flavor; heady, but with just a touch of mellow smoothness.” (Although “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘piquant’ is.”)

Feel – The mouthfeel has the usual 40-weight chewiness we’ve come to expect from ales of this style, but despite that, I was left with the impression that there’s no ‘there’ there. It also has a unique hair-on-the-back-of-the-throat sensation that I couldn’t quite put my finger on. The carbonation was fizzy but NOT too fizzy, and NOT not fizzy enough. In other words, it had just the right amount of carbonation fizz, but it could have lasted a second or two longer in the mouth which would have improved this ale’s tongue presentation – you know, like, tongue presentation?

Overall – As I clearly said above, this is an excellent India Pale Ale! It could have been improved only by less hops/marijuana balance, a little more ‘there’ there, and an extra second or two of fizz on the tongue. This is a brew that would go great with a hamburger or just a football game. Keep some on hand for when company calls or for when you’re done beating your wife for the day.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I hope you enjoyed that. But here’s the problem with satire:

You can’t make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you’re doing is recording it.
~ Art Buchwald

As a writer I’ve come up against a kind of wall that is starting to exist in America, which is that . . . there’s hardly anything left to parody. Almost anything you try to do satirically comes true within a few months.
~ Cathy Crimmins

If you think those quotes are incorrect, read some of the critiques of beer you’ll find by clicking the links I’m providing below. These are REAL beer reviews, and many of them are scarcely less exaggerated than the “parody” I composed above. I was attempting to be as ridiculous as possible, and yet the pretentiousness of these “serious” suds suckers is hardly any more over-the-top than what I wrote.

Here are the links, but even if you don’t Click ‘N’ Read ‘em, please be sure to scroll down further, as I have mo’ words to pour out into the glass of this subject:

PONDERSOSA IPA

DEANS BROTHERS ESB 6

DEANS BROTHERS IPA 7

O'DELL'S IPA

OLD NUMBSKULL

In all seriousness now, I want you to know that my brother Nappy and I both think that Prescott Brewing Company’s ‘PONDEROSA India Pale Ale’ is one of the best IPAs on the market today. Over the last 6 months we have conducted two blind taste tests, matching ‘PONDEROSA IPA’ against 6 or 7 similar high-quality microbrews, and both of us, both times - with eyes closed - picked out ‘PONDEROSA IPA’ as the winner.

Prescott Brewing Company’s ‘PONDEROSA IPA’ has a distinctive, very pronounced burst of hop bitterness, but it’s not taken to the “xtreme” as are some microbrew IPAs on the market today. In my opinion, it has a slightly too-heavy aftertaste; I would prefer that it finished more cleanly, not lingering quite so long. I have come to the conclusion that there’s no such thing as “the perfect beer”, however, the ‘PONDEROSA IPA’ comes about as close to that impossible standard as any I’ve found. Buy Prescott Brewing Company’s ‘PONDEROSA IPA’ wherever good buzzes are sold!

From ‘Forgotten But Not Gone’ :

FRASIER CRANE: “Dad, tell me if you think this is too subtle for my listening audience: This delightful offering is infused with the brooding, almost dangerous, presence of . . . vanilla”.

MARTIN CRANE: “No, that’s not too subtle . . . unless you want them to know what the hell you’re talking about”.

FRASIER: “Well, you don’t think it’s clear that I enjoyed the wine?”

MARTIN: “I don’t think it’s clear you’re talking about wine”.

Although Frasier Crane and his brother ~~Nappy~~ Niles were wine snobs and would never deign to swill hops with the great unwashed, their pretentiousness was no more or less pronounced than that of the linguistically showy suds-sucking peacocks of the palate I linked you to above.

If you’ve got a spare 21 minutes and an interest in “oenology”, watch the following hysterically funny episode of Frasier and see for yourself why it was the most Laugh-Out-Loud sitcom in television history. Nappy and I would both place this one on our Top Ten list of favorite Frasier episodes, and we still quote some of the dialogue from it regularly:

FRASIER: ‘Forgotten But Not Gone’ – Season 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwNQfa5YJj8

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

SPRAY YOUR TROUBLES AWAY!

2011-10-02T13:59:00.000-07:00

.
Yesterday I told you how I occasionally wake up some mornings with something inexplicable bouncing around in my mind; it might be a word, a new joke, a song lyric, etc. Once in awhile something I wake up with finds its way into one of my blog bits.

Well, it occurred again this morning. It's not often that this happens two mornings in a row. I would estimate that generally these freakish mental manifestations occur maybe 2 or 3 times per month.

But this morning, as my mind was ascending back to the conscious state, I found myself thinking of an imaginary product and I envisioned it being used on the desk in my bedroom :

Is your desk a bit cluttered as is mine? Well, now with the revolutionary new aerosol product .CLEAN SWEEP.., messes like this need not be tolerated!

Just one spraying of .CLEAN SWEEP.. and you can instantly transform this . . .

into this . . .

And .CLEAN SWEEP.. works equally well on bookcases, table tops, refrigerator doors, you name it!

Has your cat used the living room floor for a litter box again? Does your dog continue to urinate on the lawn jockey? It's no trouble at all! With just one spraying of .CLEAN SWEEP.. you can eliminate the crappy cat and the damnable dog forever!

.CLEAN SWEEP.. - it's available exclusively at the Hendrix & Joplin Drug Store near you!

[It's a mystery to me why I awoke this morning with this new product idea in my mind. The only possible clue I have is the fact that yesterday, after the Airheadzona Diamondbacks lost Game 1 of the National League Divisional Series to the Milwaukee Brewers, I had the thought: I hope the D'Backs don't get swept. But how an old baseball term got turned into an imaginary aerosol product, only my subconscious mind knows - and it ain't tellin'!]

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.

YOU TELL ‘EM, MAMA!

2011-10-01T11:19:00.000-07:00

.
HiYa, Dudes and Dudettes, Doggs and Doggesses!
Didja miss me?

Yeah-Yeah, Sure-Sure. I’ll betcha say that to all the fellas.

Well, it’s been awhile now and let me see if I can ease myself back into the driver’s seat of this ablogmination.

I’ve related this to various people at various times, and perhaps I’ve even made mention of it on my blogs once or twice. But here’s the deal . . .

Periodically I will wake up in the mornings with something echoing in my mind. It might be a word, it might be a joke, and oftentimes it will be a song lyric. What makes the whole thing curious to me is that most of the time I have NO IDEA why what is bouncing around in my head is bouncing around in my head. If it’s a joke, it’s a joke I’ve never heard before. If it’s a word or song lyric, it’s one I have not encountered in quite some time. So it’s not as if I recently heard a song or word and now it’s stuck in my mind.

I'll give you an old example: One morning I woke up with the word "parallelogram" in my head. What the--?!

All that having been said, all that background information having been disseminated, it’s a mystery to me why I woke up this morning with the following song playing in my mind. But here you have it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO9SlNJHlsc

I hope to be back soon (maybe as soon as tomorrow) with some Suds Yak. Check in again, boys ‘n’ goils.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

JUST SAY "NO" TO RICK PERRY!

2011-09-08T12:24:00.000-07:00

.
The dude’s in disguise! Whether you call him “Slick Rick” or “Scary Perry” the bottom line is that here you have an Elitist French Poodle trying to pass himself off as a Conservative Pit Bull Terrier.

As I did in my last Pro-Paul blog bit, here I’m posting a collection of some of the better Anti-Perry videos I have culled from days of YouTube surfing – I suffer the sunburns and the wipeouts so you don’t have to.

As before, I have selected predominantly shorter videos because I know that your MTV-attention span is short and “time is ~~money~~ for Harry Potter.”

The longest video in this collection features Alex Jones (just like in my Pro-Paul installment), and again, I urge you to watch it anyway because by now you probably have a jones for Jones that needs to be satisfied. And on top of that, Jones proved himself prescient, so let’s see if he can predict the future yet again – this time as it pertains to Sarah Palin's political future.

Attack of the Texas Chain Saw NeoCon Clones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGXfUKnMai0

I disagree with this following videomaker’s remark that “a Rick Perry presidency would almost promise nuclear war”, and I wish he had urged the viewer to vote Ron Paul with a less defeatist attitude. Despite those couple of missteps, this is certainly a recommended video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8TonY_yVFM

“…Even the damn Democrat opposed it!”

“Republicans Are Democrats Too!”

I like this guy, Mr. Viz Fact, and his snarky asides! Watch his brief but very informative video – you’ll be wiser for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvSnFO4xFfo

Here’s additional info about the "Trans-Texas NAFTA Super-New-World-Order-Highway". You need to dig for the truth about these things, people, because the NeoCon whores like Michael Medved will only lie to you about them. You can't trust the "conservative-costumed" mainstream media outlets like Faux News and the talking heads that pretend to represent Conservatism - warmongers like Medved, Hewitt and Prager. You are responsible for your own education, my ferret-faced fascist friends. And you always were! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piJ6_eInM9M&NR=1

Did you know that back in ’88 Rick Perry served as Al Gore’s presidential campaign chairman in Texas? Yep. That’s about as unconservative as conservatism can get.

Would you elect a Perry/Palin ticket to the White House? According to Alex Jones, that’s likely what The Elite Behind The Sheet are going to push on you. And Jones was entirely correct in announcing Perry’s run for the presidency BEFORE Perry announced it. Watch the video, all you D-FensDoggs & D-FensDoggettes of the ‘Loyal American Underground’ :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79GuMnqNuk&NR=1

For the D-FensDoggs who prefer their political info dressed in nice, young, fine femininity - (“femininity” – ahh, now there’s a fresh idea whose time has come… back again!) - there’s this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fpN96akUPs

OK, you got it now? Repeat after me . . .

“YES to Ron Paul; NO to Rick Perry. YES to Ron Paul; NO to Rick Perry. YES to Ron Paul; NO to Rick Perry . . .”

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

YAK WHEN BAK

2011-08-28T23:43:00.000-07:00

.

Gone Fishin' until Monday, September 5th.
But keep those cards and letters coming. And those comments, too! I will post and reply to comments upon my return to Phoenix, Airheadzona.

~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'
.

DO THE U.S. A FAVOR: VOTE “RON PAUL” OR DON’T VOTE AT ALL!

2011-08-28T23:00:00.000-07:00

.

"…Congressman Ron Paul... you appear to have consistent principled integrity. Americans don't usually go for that."
~ Jon Stewart

True to their lobotomized nature, the Americonned People further jacked up their country in the last presidential election.

Paying undue attention to the Illuminati-controlled, mind-conditioning mainstream media, including so-called “conservative” Talk Radio (think: NeoCon deceivers like Rush Limboob, Hugh Hewitt, and Michael Medved) the people were first convinced that “The Champion Of The Constitution”, Doctor Ron Paul, couldn’t win. So in the primary election, they threw their bone to the dog, John McCain – the McLame, ossified candidate who was essentially the McSame as getting another George W(ish I had a brain) Bush.

McSame (in a sickeningly and overtly undignified attempt to steal the female vote) McLamely selected squeaky-voiced, cheerleader-like Sarah Palin as his running mate. But even Sarah “Social Conservative/Big Dreams & Big Guv’ment Schemes” Palin couldn’t save McSame’s sorry ass.

Prior to McSame’s desperate and revolting running mate selection, Ron Paul was asked if he would accept an invitation to run alongside McSame as his vice presidential candidate. Ever true to his commitment to the U.S. Constitution, Doctor Paul said he would not. (Although phony Palin snatched that offer faster’n you can say “Bridge To Nowhere”.)

And then, of course, the rest is history: the lying, Marxist, un-American half-Black half-wit, Barack “Birth Certificate-less” Obama, went on to hand John McSame an electoral college butt-beatin’.

How many times did we hear a sports announcer say, “Brett Favre would sure like to have that pass back!”? But one seldom gets a chance to correct their biggest mistakes, to take a mulligan, get a do-over.

However, the Americonned People are in rare luck: Ron Paul is running for president again. The intelligence-challenged people from sea to shining sea in “the land of the enslaved and the home of the illiterate, the unprincipled and the depraved”, have been given a second chance to undo their previous error and to choose correctly this time. Let’s hope they don’t muck it up AGAIN!

In a sincere effort to “wisen-up” the Americonned Populace, I have posted below a number of relevant videos – none of them too terribly long, so as not to further tax anyone’s already over-taxed grey matter nor cut into their precious “reality”-television time or keep them away from that all-important novel they’re reading about flying monkeys, buxom vampires, or boy wizards.

If this first video doesn't make you want to stand up and cheer, you can kiss my red, white, and blue behind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWe-RFxVfXU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D58v4eiUuI&feature=channel_video_title

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcE8PTid6qU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3EptrKOms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-2WeHYSwZQ&NR=1

Yes, this last one is about 10-minutes long. Gosh-dang it! Please watch it anyway. It totally nails down the situation exactly! :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNxGoacJ8ac

“The truth is that, while we won the Cold War with political and economic Communism, we lost the war with cultural Marxism, which now is dominant. Those of us who are traditionalists, we are the counterculture."
~ Pat Buchanan

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

WHO IS HARRISON J. BOUNEL?

2011-08-22T21:06:00.000-07:00

.
Who is Harrison J. Bounel?

Dogged if I know.

But he might be a Marxist.

And he might be a Muslim.

And he might be living in The White House.

Links:

ABRACADABRA! 'OBAMA'S ALIAS' VANISHING QUICKLY FROM WEB

Analyst Confirms 'Harrison J. Bounel' Identity Getting Scrubbed From Databases

Must-Read:
THE OBAMA HUSTLE

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

GREEN BALONEY AND PINK UNDERWEAR FOR BARACK "USAP" OBAMA?

2011-08-20T15:25:00.000-07:00

.
Yes, true . . . dogging, deriding, and denigrating Phoenix, Airheadzona, has almost become a pastime of mine. I don’t like cops much to begin with either (let’s agree to call every one of them “Officer Dunkin” - unless it’s an “Officeress Dunkinette”).

And I particularly don’t care for a media-whore like Sheriff Dunkin Arpaio, who never met a TV camera he didn’t lust after, who undoubtedly delights in his label “America’s Toughest Sheriff”, and who loves the attention he gets from making inmates at his infamous Tent City jail wear pink boxers and eat green baloney.

Having said that, I must admit that Sheriff Dunkin Arpaio has met with my approval over two issues recently: 1) In defiance of the Federal traitors in Washington D.C., his hard-nosed, no-nonsense approach to illegal immigrants who are overrunning his Airheadzona district, and 2) this most recent piece of news . . .

It seems that Sheriff Dunkin Arpaio is contemplating undertaking an investigation into whether or not Barack “USAP” Obama has committed a felony by releasing a fraudulent birth certificate to the Americonned People and should therefore have his eligibility as a 2012 presidential candidate in Maricopa County questioned.

Frankly, I’ll be rather surprised if Arpaio doesn’t just milk this topic for all it’s worth (seeing the sort of attention B.O.’s B.C. issue garnered for Donald Trump), and then passes the buck when he thinks he’s extracted all the media coverage he can get from it. But I hope I’ve underestimated him.

You go, Arpaio! C'mon, prove me wrong, Donut Boy TV-Hound!

Here’s the story as it appears at World Net Daily:

ARIZONA SHERIFF PROMISES OBAMA-ELIGIBILITY PROBE

Lawman Responds To Request From Local Tea-Party Leaders

Posted: August 18, 2011
9:20 pm Eastern
© 2011 WND

MARICOPA COUNTY, Ariz. -- At the request of tea-party leaders in Arizona, famed Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has agreed to examine evidence challenging the validity of Barack Obama's purported long-form birth certificate in a determination of the president's eligibility for the 2012 election ballot.

Tea party leaders in Surprise, Ariz., met with Arpaio and WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi Thursday morning to express concern that a fake birth certificate would be used to document the president's eligibility to run in Maricopa County, where Arpaio is the chief law-enforcement officer.

Arpaio's tough crackdown on illegal immigration has made him a national figure.

At a one-hour meeting in Arpaio's office, the tea-party leaders presented the sheriff with a petition that was drafted after a speech by Corsi the previous night. Corsi, author of a best-selling book challenging Obama's eligibility, "Where's the Birth Certificate?", presented evidence from numerous computer-imaging specialists who believe the document presented by the White House April 27 is not authentic.

Arpaio explained in a statement that he has agreed to "simply look at the evidence these people have assembled and examine whether it is within my jurisdiction to investigate the document's authenticity."

"I indicated in this meeting that I will also consider whether there is a more appropriate Arizona agency to determine the document's veracity and ultimately whether the president's name can lawfully be entered onto the 2012 election ballot," Arapaio said.

At a gathering Wednesday night of more than 325 people, sponsored by the Surprise Tea Party Patriots of Surprise, Ariz., and the Liberty Through Action organization, 242 signatures were gathered on the petition, which requested that Arpaio begin a criminal investigation.

The petition calls for the sheriff to investigate the possibility that a crime has been committed against the Arizona secretary of state, who must decide whether to put Obama's name on the ballot.

Arpaio told the tea-party leaders that he expects political pressure, but he pointed out that as the chief law enforcement officer of Maricopa County, he's taken an oath to respond to citizens who approach him about enforcing the law.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Lt. Justin Griffin confirmed to WND that Arpaio is "waiting to receive all the documentation and all the investigative material from Dr. Jerry Corsi, and then he will look into the matter and compare it to the Arizona revised statutes."

The petition states:

We the undersigned citizens are respectfully requesting that you initiate a criminal investigation under the authority of A.R.S. 13-2407 A-C, Into the alleged Certificate of Live Birth, File Number 151 61 10641, State of Hawaii, for Barack H. Obama II. The document was released on April 27, 2011, by the White House to the press and posted on the White House website and distributed and downloaded by computer throughout the nation, including within Maricopa County. Reportedly, several experts have declared the document to be a forgery.

Reportedly, the file number may be out of sequence; "THE" appears to be misspelled as "TXE" in the State Registrar's stamp; there appears to be a "smiley face" in the "A" in the Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar stamp; reportedly the document has computer generated, multiple layers and is not a copy of a single layered document; font types appear to vary throughout the document, reportedly, not possible with a vintage 1961 mechanical typewriter.

We urge you to continue to support the Rule of Law and to investigate and determine whether the alleged Certificate of Live Birth, for Barack H. Obama II, File Number 151 61 10641, is a forgery or an authentic document. A.R.S. 13-2407 A-C, declares that tampering with a public record is a class 6 felony.

"I think what we've seen is history created today," said Surprise tea-party leader Brian Reilly. "This is probably the first time in this country that citizens have gone to a sheriff over a national issue."

Reilly said he's "extremely grateful" that Arpaio will look into the matter is "hopeful that this will achieve what we're expecting to achieve on this issue, which is the truth."

"We're trying to get to the truth," he emphasized.

.
[Sheriff Dunkin Arpaio second from left.]

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

WHERE’S THE SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, BARACK “USAP” OBAMA?

2011-08-18T13:34:00.000-07:00

.

.

.
Anybody with at least two brain cells to rub together already knows that the long-form birth certificate that the Marxist Muslim in the White House presented to the Americonned People last April is patently fraudulent.

And perhaps it doesn’t bother you as much as it bothers me that an innocent American soldier, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, “was sentenced at a court-martial to six months in prison [at Fort Leavenworth] for his decision not to follow deployment orders because Obama had failed to document his eligibility to be commander in chief of the armed services.”

(And, of course, when USAP finally did produce [read: "create"] a birth certificate, it turned out to be a phony, proving that Lt. Col. Lakin was RIGHT not to follow the orders of a phony commander in chief!)

OK, I get it – you’re exhausted and disheartened by all this yak about the bogus birth certificate. Fine. We’ll forget the birth certificate – for a moment – and shift gears a bit. Instead, let’s talk about Obama’s bogus Social Security Number. THAT’S RIGHT! You hadn’t heard about that one, eh? No wonder, seeing as how our mainstream media watchdogs refuse to touch it!

Everything about USAP Obama is a lie. He’s not an American; he’s a Marxist. He’s not a Christian; he’s a Muslim. He doesn’t really have a Hawaiian birth certificate, and he isn’t using an authentic, authorized, valid (let's just call it "legal") Social Security Number.

The World Net Daily article below (slightly edited by me) will explain that last part. For the full story and additional videos, click the headline link to the WND website:

OBAMA SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER TO BECOME ISSUE IN 2012 RACE?

'You Better Probe A Little Harder To Make Sure The Identity You're Dealing With Is A Real Identity'

Posted: August 11, 2011
9:00 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2011 WND

President Obama's potentially criminal use of a mysterious, Connecticut-based Social Security Number should become an important issue in his quest for re-election in 2012, says a former presidential candidate and ambassador in Ronald Reagan's administration.

Alan Keyes, who most recently sought the Republican nomination in 2008, discussed concerns about why Obama has a number reserved for Connecticut applicants, despite the president's never having lived in the Constitution State.

The first three digits of Obama's SSN are 042. That code falls within the range of numbers for Connecticut, which according to the Social Security Administration has been 040 through 049.

"I believe that when you are confronted with a situation that is filled with these kinds of – what shall we call them – anomalies, disparities, it is reasonable common sense to want to try to get straight answers," said Keyes.

"If you're trying to ascertain whether or not somebody ought to be sitting with, as they used to say, their finger on the button of nuclear weapons that can blow up the world, their power extending to decisions that can collapse our economy, their influence extending to areas that can destroy the standards and moral conscience of our people in the eyes of the world, I think you might want to know who they were. It might be a good idea!"

Keyes' comments came during an online interview with Stan Solomon, as he addressed an issue that has been avoided by the White House and almost completely ignored by national news agencies.

"Let's say that you're trying to establish someone's identity for the purposes of an investigation and you come across a Social Security Number that has that person coming from a state that all the other records of their life indicate they've never been to," Keyes explained.

"I think you would look at that as an anomaly that suggests, among other things, that you better probe a little harder to make sure that the identity that you're dealing with is a real identity – that it's not something that's been in some sense fabricated for some particular purpose, because one of the things you want to do if you're tracking somebody down is make sure you're tracking them down, not following some phony figment down to dead ends. That's common sense."

Keyes thinks there are many Americans who are aware of this Social Security Number mystery and simply can't understand why it's not being addressed.

"Is it incompetence? Is it cowardice?" he asks rhetorically. "Is it just indifference and nonchalance of this elite in the courts and in politics, in the Congress and elsewhere?"

Steve Davis, police chief for Southport, Ind., was a co-host on the program, chiming in, "If anyone believes Barack Obama is gonna make an identity-theft commercial soon, forget it. It's not gonna happen."
[...]

In June 2010, WND's Washington correspondent, Les Kinsolving, asked former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs specifically why Obama had a Connecticut-based SSN despite not having lived there, but Gibbs completely dodged the question and changed the subject, lamenting about inquiries over Obama's birth certificate.

[Be sure you watch this two-minute video in which Robert Gibbs does a wonderful impersonation of a stuttering Porky Pig, just before he uses the old 'bait & switch' tactic, dodging the question altogether and then heading quickly for the door. You don't think there's a cover-up going on about Obama's Social Security number? Just wait 'til you see THIS video!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Aahw3NT6E&feature=player_embedded

"There is obviously a case of fraud going on here," said private investigator Susan Daniels. "In 15 years of having a private investigator's license in Ohio, I've never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly."

Just this week, a California lawyer who has been leading the legal effort to probe Obama's SSN made some progress in Hawaii.

As WND reported, attorney Orly Taitz secured an order from United States District Court Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi demanding representatives of the Hawaii Department of Health appear in federal court Sept. 14 to show why Taitz should be prevented from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record regarding Barack Obama's birth.

To date, most national media have refused to even mention the question of Obama's possibly fraudulent Social Security Number.

On April 27, the day Obama released a scanned image of what he claims to be his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell angrily shouted down Taitz to prevent her from exposing on national television what she claims is Obama's Social Security crime…

Also in April, some 11 months after WND began publicizing Obama's Connecticut-based SSN, Bill O'Reilly of the Fox News Channel briefly addressed the issue while reading his viewer mail on the air.

Unfortunately for O'Reilly, the news anchor falsely asserted the president's father lived in Connecticut.

In his viewer email segment April 13, O'Reilly was asked: "What about Obama having a Connecticut Social Security Number? He never lived there."

"His father lived in Connecticut for several years," O'Reilly claimed, adding that "babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents."

In reality, there is no evidence Barack Obama Sr. ever lived in Connecticut. He left Hawaii in 1962 to study at Harvard in Massachusetts and then returned to his home country of Kenya.

When WND publicized O'Reilly's major error, the information vanished from the Fox News Channel's website, as well as BillOReilly.com.
[...]

The BirtherReport.com website, responding to complaints by Fox podcast customers that O'Reilly's Social Security claim, broadcast on Fox, had gone missing from the audio archive, trumpeted the headline: "Busted: Fox News scrubbed Bill O'Reilly's 4/13 mailbag segment on Obama's Social Security Number reserved for Connecticut applicants." The site added, "Not only did Fox News scrub the podcast, they also left out the viewer email about Obama's Social Security number at O'Reilly's website. I report, you decide!"

Related Links:

AIR FORCE SERGEANT AWOL OVER 'FORGED' OBAMA DOCUMENT

Declares: 'Arrest B. Obama Or Arrest Me' In Dispute About Presidential Eligibility

In a case that recalls the months-long challenge to Obama's eligibility by Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the noncommissioned officer, Daryn J. Moran, said he had stopped reporting for duty at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.

He reported he would return when Obama "provides a birth certificate which stands up to professional examination."

"I've read the reports about President Obama. His birth certificate has been proven, to my satisfaction, proven false, fraudulent and a forgery," Moran wrote. [Continued in full-length article at WND.]

INVESTIGATORS: OBAMA USES CONNECTICUT SOC. SEC. NUMBER

3 Experts Insist White House Answer New Questions About Documentation

Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii. [Continued in full-length article at WND.]

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

"IT IS A SCANDAL THAT AMERICANS COULD EVEN CONSIDER ANOTHER CANDIDATE..."

2011-08-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

.
My friend Br'er Marc - who knows more about political reality than do you, your husband, your dog, your cat, your gold fish, and your white picket fence and big, flat-screen TV all put together - sent me the following article. You should read it and investigate its claims if you have even the slightest doubt about whom you ought to vote for in the next presidential election:

RON PAUL SLIDES INTO TOP TIER; WINS DEBATE BY TELLING IOWANS - AND AMERICA - THE TRUTH

by Thomas Woods
AMES, IOWA - August 11, 2011 -

Once again, Ron Paul distinguished himself in a Republican presidential debate by telling Americans the truth, answering the questions he was asked, and refusing to treat his countrymen like ten-year-olds who should be spoken to in bumper-sticker slogans.

On the economy, everyone talked about lower taxes, cutting spending, and a balanced budget - the usual boilerplate. Only Ron Paul sought to explain why we have recessions in the first place. Only Ron Paul mentioned the critical role of the Federal Reserve System in blowing up the bubbles that have popped in America over the past decade. Only Ron Paul explained that the monetary system we have, whereby money can be created out of thin air whenever the political class wants it, is a recipe for the very kind of disaster we are living through right now.

To be sure, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich had some critical words for particular Fed policies, but surely his recent criticism of the Fed is one of the exceedingly rare times, if not the only time, he has made serious mention of the Federal Reserve in over three decades in public life.

The only reason any of them will even talk about the Fed is Ron Paul, who took the issue from the depths of obscurity and turned it into a live issue for the first time in the nearly one hundred years of the Fed's existence.

But where Congressman Paul really stood out, of course, was in foreign policy. He dismissed the comments of the neoconservative former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum as "war propaganda," which indeed Senator Santorum can be relied upon to parrot at every opportunity. He explained that the history of U.S. relations in Iran did not begin with the hostage crisis in 1979, as Senator Santorum tried to pretend. It began with the U.S./British coup in 1953 that brought the oppressive shah to power, and it was resentment over his police state that turned Iranians against the U.S. Before the U.S. government's interventions in the Middle East, Americans had an excellent reputation in that part of the world - another piece of history our political class ignores.

Our delicate ears are not supposed to hear the kinds of things Ron Paul told Americans tonight. We're supposed to hear "USA! USA!" We are supposed to be flattered, told our leaders have infallible judgment, and urged to believe that anyone who questions that judgment, or who thinks anyone around the world might have a legitimate grievance against the American political class, "hates America." Given how many grievances we Americans have with our political class, is it really so hard to imagine that other people might, too?

Everyone on the stage wanted to talk about budgets, but only Ron Paul pointed out that the wars are costing trillions of dollars, with a sixth war being seriously contemplated. This is pure insanity, and the only person who will level with the American people about it is Ron Paul.

It's hard to imagine one person being so consistently and thoroughly vindicated as Congressman Paul. On the economy in particular, he has been warning for decades about the certain outcome of our monetary system and economic policies. The world is now beginning to undergo the exact convulsions he predicted would result.

Ron Paul is the only person on that stage who has the slightest grasp of what is happening in America and around the world right now. All they can do is repeat GOP talking points. Ron Paul knows the economics and the history inside and out.

Dr. Paul, who is often too humble even to say "I," rarely points out in such a setting that he, alone among the candidates on stage, had been so prophetic about all this. That is where Revolution PAC comes in. We're not humble at all. We intend to brag about Ron Paul like crazy. It is a scandal that Americans could even consider another candidate when a man of the intelligence and integrity of Ron Paul stands before them. He alone told us what was coming. He alone can point the way to a better future for America.

Dr. Paul's prophetic words about the economic breakdown we are living through may be the best kept secret in America. At Revolution PAC, we refuse to keep it that way. Please help us spread the message: http://revolutionpac.com/superbomb

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

THE ILLEGAL "ALIEN"

2011-08-08T23:41:00.000-07:00

.

Today being my birthday, I received a couple of nice gifts from my flying friend the Aardvark. She warned me in advance, however, that one thing she had sent was quite goofy and that I might not like it.

Might not like it? Pshaw!

Dogged if she don't know me purty dern well.

The White Elephant-type gift the Flyin' Aardvark sent me was a plate. [Can you serve chocolate-covered ants on it?]

As I unwrapped it (she wraps beautifully, by the way), the first thing I saw was the words, "CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH".

I was already starting to chuckle because I could foresee the direction this was going in. [This couldn't have anything to do with Barack "USAP" Obama, could it?]

I tore away the rest of the paper and the whole plate [as seen in the photo above] was revealed. And it read:

The Good News:
Wally finds Barack Obama's birth certificate.

The Bad News:
He finds it in Roswell, New Mexico.

It's good to be the Birthday Boy who has friends with a good sense of humor!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

WHEN YOU’VE BEEN FED ENOUGH B.S. AND YOU NEED THE CONSTITUTION TO WASH IT DOWN WITH . . .

2011-08-02T14:39:00.000-07:00

.
There is only one 2012 presidential candidate running in either of the two major political parties who is deserving of the vote from a genuine, patriotic American citizen. That candidate is, of course, RON PAUL.

Nothing will change my opening sentence, regardless of who else might eventually enter the presidential race. Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? Your Aunt Fannie? Makes no difference. All the other candidates are either Marxists, Socialists, Phony Constitutionalists, and/or bought and paid for agents of the International Bankers. Ron Paul is the only conservative running, because he is the only candidate who wants to strictly conserve (read: “save”) the U.S. Constitution - the document that once made America the greatest country in the world. My, how the mighty has fallen! And it’s ALL because we abandoned the brilliant document conceived by our brilliant Founding Fathers.

It is not in the best interest of the International Bankers that you learn what Ron Paul stands for. Therefore, you can be certain that the International Banker-controlled mainstream media will ignore Ron Paul as much as possible, and mock and denigrate him at every turn. The lamestream media will minimize Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 presidential race to the exact degree that it can get away with it.

But when you are finally ready to concede that what the other Republican presidential candidates are offering is just “more of the same” cloaked in pseudo-conservative jargon, and you are ready to jettison the diseased dogma that you’ve been fed for decades by both the Democrat and Republican parties, then you will finally be able to make your vote really count as a step backward – toward the Constitution – which will be a step forward – toward a better, more prosperous American future.

I offer, as Exhibit A, the following article, posted on the World Net Daily website July 28, 2011. Written by David Kupelian, it is titled . . .

WHY ARE WE IGNORING SIMPLE, PAINLESS DEBT SOLUTION?

Suppose you were so broke – I mean so hopelessly in debt – that in just a few days your money would run out and you'd find it difficult just to stay in your home and feed your family.

But then, miraculously, you discovered a large stash of money you had completely lost sight of, but which would easily take care of all your family's expenses for the rest of the year, giving you plenty of precious time to figure out how best to deal with your long-term financial situation?

Wouldn't that be cool?

Of course. And that's exactly the kind of overlooked money stash the United States government has at its disposal – right now. Stay with me.

Washington today is dominated by the daily melodrama, propaganda and brinksmanship of the debt-ceiling debate. The Republican House is operating in good faith, but is opposed by the modern federal government's other major branches – the Senate, the White House and the Propaganda Ministry (aka "mainstream media").

The city is approaching panic level. Minnesota congresswoman and GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann correctly notes that Obama, should he invoke a rogue interpretation of the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress to raise the debt ceiling on his own authority, "would effectively be a dictator." Likewise, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, absurdly accuses House Republicans of the same thing, imposing "dictatorship" on the country while trying to "spark panic and chaos."

So here's the question: With this game of cosmic chicken currently being played with its myriad plans – "Cut, Cap and Balance," the "Gang of 6 plan," Harry Reid's plan, Boehner's latest plan and so on – what about the remarkably simple and painless plan offered by GOP presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul?

Oh. You never heard about that one?

Neither have most people – in fact, it seems to be entirely absent from the debate in Congress.

When I called Paul's D.C. office this morning to ask why his plan hadn't gotten more traction, communications director Rachel Mills told me, "It's too bad it wasn't taken more seriously than, say, dependent seniors not getting Social Security checks. We heard plenty about that."

Here's the plan in a nutshell: Out of the current $14.3 trillion federal debt we keep hearing is rapidly approaching the congressionally approved borrowing limit, over $1.6 trillion of that sum is money you and I "owe" to the Federal Reserve, in the form of bonds the Fed bought from the U.S. Treasury over the last couple of years in implementing its controversial "quantitative easing" policy.

Paul, chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and arguably more knowledgeable about monetary policy than any other member of Congress, says just don't pay it back, because it's not a real debt.

Here's how Time magazine senior writer Stephen Gandel explains the Paul plan you've never heard of:

Paul's plan starts with the Federal Reserve. In the last year or two the Fed has been buying up U.S. Treasury bonds in an effort to lower interest rates and boost the economy. The most recent round of that buying has been dubbed QE2, and has come under a good deal of criticism, though most economists agree that it was a generally helpful policy. The result is that the Fed now holds nearly $1.7 trillion in U.S. debt. But that is really phony debt. The Treasury pays the interest on the debt on behalf of the U.S. government to the Fed, which in turn returns 90 percent of the payments it gets back to the Treasury. Nonetheless, that $1.7 trillion in U.S. bonds that the Fed owns, despite the shell game of payments, is still counted in the debt ceiling number, which caps that amount of total federal debt at $14.3 trillion.

Paul's plan: Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It's fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed. A trillion and a half dollars is currently about what spending is expected to exceed tax revenue in 2011.

So, dissolving the phony debt the government (remember, that means you and me) "owes" the Federal Reserve would cover all our government's expenses, when added to expected tax revenues, for the rest of the year.

Now, Ron Paul is a big opponent of the Federal Reserve; in fact he favors its abolition. So does his debt plan require the end of the Fed, and would it therefore be favored only by Fed critics?

Not at all. Even left-of-center economist Dean Baker, co-director of the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research, says it's a good idea. Here's how Baker explains it:

The basic story is that the Fed has bought roughly $1.6 trillion in government bonds through its various quantitative easing programs over the last two and a half years. This money is part of the $14.3 trillion debt that is subject to the debt ceiling. … Each year, the Fed refunds the interest earned on its assets in excess of the money needed to cover its operating expenses. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. In this sense, the bonds held by the Fed are literally money that the government owes to itself.

Unlike the debt held by Social Security, the debt held by the Fed is not tied to any specific obligations. The bonds held by the Fed are assets of the Fed. It has no obligations that it must use these assets to meet. There is no one who loses their retirement income if the Fed doesn't have its bonds. In fact, there is no direct loss of income to anyone associated with the Fed's destruction of its bonds. This means that if Congress told the Fed to burn the bonds, it would in effect just be destroying a liability that the government had to itself, but it would still reduce the debt subject to the debt ceiling by $1.6 trillion. This would buy the country considerable breathing room before the debt ceiling had to be raised again.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, on his excellent Fox Business show "Freedom Watch," plugged the Paul plan twice this week. "With respect to the Fed," intoned the judge, "Congressman Ron Paul has recently pointed out nearly $2 trillion of the $14.3 trillion in national debt is owed to the government's own bank – that would be the Federal Reserve. That should be defaulted first; it's money the government owes itself."

And as Paul himself commented recently: "We owe, like, $1.6 trillion because the Federal Reserve bought that debt, so we have to work hard to pay the interest to the Federal Reserve," Paul said. "We don't, I mean, they're nobody; why do we have to pay them off?"

In fact, last month, Paul told CNN that the world's investors would likely regain confidence in the U.S. were it to wipe out the debt owed to the Fed: "They'll say, 'Hey, they've just reduced the deficit by over a trillion dollars, now they can handle it. They can go back to meeting their other obligations,'" Paul said. "It might give some reassurance to the market."

OK, if this is such a great idea, doesn't require new taxes, doesn't require controversial spending cuts and buys us valuable breathing room, why is almost no one even talking about it?

Good question. Critics have grasped at anything and everything that could conceivably go wrong to discredit Paul's plan: "Ron Paul's plan is just an accounting gimmick." "Paul's plan to tear up T-notes would lead to inflation." "I would think that could indeed cause liquidity problems for banks for low excess reserves." And get this one: "There is no practical difference between raising the debt ceiling with this debt ostensibly outstanding and lowering the debt outstanding by canceling it in order to create space under the existing debt ceiling, except that the Fed loses some flexibility in managing the money supply."

Like what?! You've got to be kidding.

You're telling me that my children and your children are going to have to slave for decades to earn $1.6 trillion to "pay back" a private banking cartel whose stockholders are the nation's best-kept secret, and all because you're worried about possibly causing "liquidity problems for banks for low excess reserves" or the Fed "los[ing] some flexibility in managing the money supply"?

Do you have any clue how much money a trillion dollars is? Let me help you out: If you had gone into business on the day Jesus Christ was born, and your business lost a million dollars every day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, it would take you until October of 2737 to lose $1 trillion.

Here's another way to think of it: Spending money at the rate of one dollar every single second, or $86,400 every day, it would take you nearly 32,000 years to spend $1 trillion.

But it takes the Fed only the time required for the requisite keystrokes to create this kind of money out of nothing. Seriously, even the proverbial printing press is no longer required to create what we call "printing press (fiat) money." It's just a computer entry. But it takes your children and grandchildren umpteen generations of blood, sweat and tears to earn this kind of money.

It's a phony debt. It should not be "repaid" – not now, not ever. So why is there no discernible debate in Congress over Rep. Ron Paul's plan?

The Federal Reserve has devalued our currency – once "as good as gold" – 95 percent since its founding a century ago. It has also caused many major economic downturns during that same period, including, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke himself has admitted, the Great Depression. Here's a chance to finally get a little benefit from this troublesome institution.

Republicans in the House: Is anybody home?

[from: 'WHY ARE WE IGNORING SIMPLE, PAINLESS DEBT SOLUTION?' by David Kupelian]

OK, People, for the sake of your children’s and your grandchildren’s future, go out and make your vote for president really count for something positive this time. We’ve had enough of the empty, one-word slogans, and the phony conservative rhetoric! We need a man in the White House who genuinely understands the problems America faces and who is able to propose workable solutions that originate from “outside-the-box” thinking – that is, the “box of debt” in which we've been ensnared by the slick machinations of International Bankers who take us for fools and who beat us like they own us (which, sadly, they currently do!)

RON PAUL For President In 2012
Click HERE.

LINK:
REPUBLICAN HOPEFULS SPEAK
[Who's A Constitutionalist And Who Ain't?]

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

“SOME FUCKERY” [In Memory Of My Friend Linda Haley]

2011-07-21T15:31:00.000-07:00

.
THE SADDEST NEWS:

LINDA HALEY has passed away. Now that’s some fuckery!
You may have known her best as Anniee451 or (for older-timers) Annie McPhee.

Here is the avatar she used online:

I didn’t even know what that thing was until after she had passed away and I started digging deeper into some of her Internetness. I had often thought of asking her, “Just what the hell IS that anyway?” but we’d get so involved in so many wonderful comment exchanges that I’d always forget to inquire about such a superficiality. Anyway, just so ya know, that’s a “Dumbo Octopus” – it seems Linda, or Anniee (or Lindanniee, as I sometimes addressed her in Emails) had a thang about strange sea creatures.

Her real name was Linda Haley. She was born on December 16, 1966 and passed away on July 5, 2011. She was only 44 years old; born in Edison, New Jersey, she lived in Avenel, New Jersey, for the past six years.

She is survived by her loving husband David Haley, her children David James Haley, Sarah Elizabeth Haley, and a brother Stevn Lindsey.

Funeral services were handled by the Gerity & Chubenko Funeral Home.

[By the way, all blue words found in this blog bit are links to what I am referring to in that portion of the text. It is my hope that Anniee’s friends and fans will actually spend time exploring some of these links. She still deserves our attention.]

Sincere thanks to the kind soul who informed me of Linda’s passing, otherwise I might never have learned what became of my friend.

F-BOMBS & OTHER FOUR LETTER WORDS [Or, ABOUT THIS BLOG BIT’S TITLE]:

I’m not sure if Linda (to be referred to by her Internet pseudonym Anniee for the remainder of this blog bit tribute) could have strung together two full sentences without including a four-letter word. Certainly not a paragraph anyway. The dropping of F-Bombs was the only aspect of her blogging that I didn’t care for, and she was aware of that. I recall her once saying that she had deliberately tried to post a lengthy blog installment with minimal profanity in deference to me. I genuinely felt honored.

Oftentimes the use of much profanity is the sign of a verbally-challenged individual. Not so with Anniee; she had an extensive vocabulary, well beyond the average American’s facility with words. [In one place, she quoted me as having written "do not seem to jibe with…" and she said of that remark: “See, this is why I love you. You didn't say ‘jive’. … Another pet peeve of mine is flaunt/flout (even someone as intelligent and educated as Hillary Clinton recently used flaunt instead of flout; I wanted to punch her. But I usually want to punch her.)”

Ha! Oh, Anniee!

“Hell” and “Damn” come naturally to me (they’re just salt and pepper for seasoning) but I rarely use the A-List four-letter words. It can happen, but I’ve got to be REALLY POed, and even then I will sometimes semi-cloak it by writing “ph” rather than “f”.

Which is why it’s kinda funny to find the “F-word” in the very title of this blog bit. Once upon a time, Anniee posted something on her blog about her idol Stephen King.

I added a comment, which I subsequently deleted. Anniee later remarked: “Stephen McCarthy leaves this comment which for some fuckery got deleted.”

I returned and posted this:
Ah-Ha!-Ha!-Ha! What you wrote made me laugh out loud. (No, I mean that literally.) WHY? Because I AM "the fuckery" that deleted the comment.

I got to thinking about it later and felt like maybe I shouldn't have been posting a disagreeing comment in light of the fact that Stephen King is obviously one of your heroes.

I mean, I know you wouldn't mind if I disagreed on some political issue, but this seemed like more of a "personal" thang, and I later had "poster's remorse" and returned to delete my own comment. So, I was "the fuckery". Ha!-Ha!

That was the first time I had ever encountered the term “fuckery” and it struck me as funny. I later related it to my brother Nappy, and he liked it so much that a week hasn’t passed since that he hasn’t used it. If we’re planning to watch a movie, or go to the grocery store, or go out to lunch, at some point, Nappy can be counted on to say, “Let’s get to the fuckery!”

So, I decided that in order to start this tribute to Anniee authentically, I needed to start it with the word “fuckery”. And the title itself represents the starter’s gun.

Somewhere, Anniee is smiling down with approval.

HOW WE MET AND HOW I FEEL:

I first met Anniee on March 16, 2009 via a comment she had left on a friend’s “I Can Has Cheezburger” LOL. I traced her from the “Cheezburger” site to her blog “PURELY POLITICS. PARTISAN? PERHAPS.” She was using the pseudonym Annie McPhee then; later she’d change it to Anniee451.

It’s kind of ironic that in the first comment I posted on her blog, I was generally in agreement with her but I actually challenged her on a couple of minor points. She handled it in a very civilized, grown-up way and invited me to return. Which I did. From the very beginning I respected her, but over the 2 years and 3 months that I got to know Anniee, I grew to love her like a second sister.

Less than a month from 52 and having lived all of my life in major metropolitan areas, I’m rather jaded. I’ve had a lot of life experiences and met a lot of different types of people, so it really requires something quite out of the ordinary for me to sit up and take notice. And then just when you feel that no one can much impress you anymore, you meet someone who, by the force of their personality, almost demands that you get to know them better, that you make the necessary effort to develop and maintain a friendship with that person. In other words: One day you’re surfing your little strip of Blogosphere Beach when Anniee enters.

As a blogger, she described herself this way:

In Flux. Creature of the night. Lover of liberty. Not "safe". Not "nice".

It seems that Anniee did not have an easy life – she had more than her share of troubles, and throughout her 44 years, poor health was frequently an issue for her. As a result, she was too often in pain, quite sleep deprived, and by her own admission, she sometimes drank more than she should have, and may have at times tried to drink her way to a state of pain-free slumber. (Although I suspect that, like me, she occassionally played up the drinking angle as a form of self-deprecating humor.)

As she once said to me in one of my blog installment’s comment section:

I don't know your life, but I know mine (and you've never judged me for it so I'll be honest) as it says in one of my favorite books, "Your mother doesn't OWE you anything. She clothed you and held you and fed you, and if she did it with a drink in her hand, she still did it with STYLE!" It comforts my ragged soul a bit. I remind myself that I DO all the good works that I am able to do...and well maybe I do them or have done them with a drink in my hand, but that doesn't lessen their worth.

For the above reasons, Anniee tended to blog in sets: a furious amount of activity would be followed by spells of inactivity, some of short and some of long durations. For the most part, she ceased blogging from November 30, 2009 until October 13, 2010 [10 and a half months], when she took it up again and continuted until her death.

ANNIEE’S SECRET BLOG:

I am sure this will come as a surprise to many, but Anniee had a secret blog. It was my natural curiosity that caused me to discover it one day. I had noticed that someone calling themself “The Shredder” had evidently posted a comment to one of Anniee’s blog installments at ‘Purely Politics’, but afterwards deleted it. I had never heard of this person, The Shredder, nor seen them post a comment on Anniee’s blog before. So, curious, I clicked on the name, which was actually a link, and I was transported to this fabulous blog called ‘THE SHREDDER’.

I loved what I was reading there, and found it amazing that another female could hate the ideology of Feminism as much as Anniee did. It almost gave me hope for America to think that there could be two “Anniees” out there. Immediately I attempted to get Anniee to check out The Shredder’s blog; I told her it was as if an identical twin of hers lost at birth had been found. I even told Anniee (at the risk of hurting her feelings) that The Shredder was just like her only “on steroids”.

Anniee ignored my comments. And it didn’t take long for me to recognize the style of writing and to realize that it was impossible that two different women could despise Feminism THAT MUCH. That’s when I told Anniee that I had come to the conclusion that she and The Shredder were one and the same.

Anniee, asked me to keep her secret identity as The Shredder under wraps; she said she just wanted a place where she could shred the feminists without any of her old political enemies discovering her whereabouts and starting a lot of flame wars with her there. I fully honored her request – the only person I had ever told about it was my friend DiscConnected, and that was BEFORE I knew that The Shredder was Anniee. I had told Disc: Man, you GOTTA check out this new blog; it’s like Anniee only maybe even better. To the best of my knowledge, DiscConnected and I are the only persons who knew of the secret blog, although a comment Anniee left on some other site, which I discovered while doing research for this tribute, indicated to me that she may have eventually let a few others in on it.

After much deliberation, I decided to spill the beans about this secret blog because, with Anniee gone now, the need for secrecy hardly seems to be an issue, and honestly, I think too much of what she posted at ‘The Shredder’ was just too good not to be highlighted. I particularly enjoyed the earlier postings at ‘The Shredder’ site, which I felt were as good if not better than the best of ‘Purely Politics’. But those writings are not for the fainthearted.

At ‘The Shredder’, Anniee adopted the pseudonym OhJessie, and here’s how she described her ‘Interests’:

Interests: Politics, Economics, Leftism (shredding it), Tea Party, Progressivism, Feminism, Prejudice, Government

Anniee sez: “That is my mascot; I like to think of myself as a free-market Ninja. I'm trying to get someone to make me one of these to keep; looks like it wouldn't be hard but I am a knitter and just can't sew.”

ANNIEE’S INTELLIGENCE & WRITING STYLE:

Anniee was extremely bright, witty, and well educated. I have rarely if ever known anyone who could speak so intelligently on such a wide variety of topics; it seemed as if there wasn’t anything she didn’t have above average knowledge of. Anniee understood Economics, she was no slouch in world history, she fully grasped the ideologies of Socialism and Feminism, was aware of practices in the medical field, had studied a bit about nutrition, knew the classics in literature, she had learned some tactical theories in the game of chess, had investigated various theological viewpoints and even knew her Bible to such a degree that she could accurately tell you (unlike a lot of self-professed “Christians”) that various Biblical passages make it clear “This earth is satan's dominion for sure.”
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/so-terrorists-have-won.html

However, Anniee’s writing style did not always make for the easiest of reading. At times she’d just jump right into the topic, assuming that the reader was informed enough about it that bringing him or her up to speed first with background information was unnecessary. Her mind was whirring about a thousand miles an hour and she just had so much to say that paragraphs could be jam-packed with info, and NO ONE could shift mental gears faster than Anniee could. One second she’s excoriating President Obama (which she did often) and in the next second she’s saying something that seemed to be only tenuously relevant but funnier’n hell! And I would sometimes be scratching my head and thinking: Wait! How did we get HERE from THERE? She also used initials frequently, and if you weren’t up on what the initials stood for, you could get lost pretty quickly. Anniee was a wonderful trip, but you really had to have your thinking cap on and just keep up as best you could.

THE MULTI-FACETED ANNIEE:

There were so many different aspects to Anniee’s personality, and that’s what really made her so interesting to me. She could be deeply serious and madder’n a wet hen, but she could also be light and joyful, extremely humorous, and about as wacky as I can be (and that’s pretty wacky). She and I had a number of exchanges, both in comment sections of blog bits and in Emails, where we would just start riffing in a goofy, free-form, non sequitur, improvisational way, and Anniee and I would go toe-to-toe, building upon whatever bizarre conversation we were constructing together. She could be such fun!

Here’s Anniee in one of her deep blue moods:
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/p-plans-panic-pessimism-possibility.html

Hope is a very hard thing for me, and suddenly this ray breaks through against all odds. You may tell me there's no God, but...damn. Yeah, there really is. Providence is alive and living. Sure I'll find plenty to worry about, always have, but...there's this ray. And we'll see, won't we?

Guess my final stand may take place right here after all. How can a final stand take place in Jersey?

And here’s an example of Anniee (disguised in her OhJessie identity) having some insane fun with me at the opposite end of her personality spectrum:
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2011/06/cancer-b-gone-or-shredder-n-mccarthy.html

OhJessie:
Because not much makes me scream and run. Even rapscallionery. I might turn aside for a moment if you're going to flop around on the floor like a carp, screaming and yodeling. Do you do that?

STMcC:
I may flop around on the floor like a crap, screaming and yodeling... but I NEVER flop around on the floor like a carp, screaming and yodeling.

So, you have nothing to worry about.

(Although, now that you mention it... perhaps I'll work on a screaming and yodeling carp impersonation to add to my screaming and yodeling crap impersonation. As the radio ads say, it's important to diversify your portfolio.)

OhJessie:
Yeah I end up on the floor sometimes too. Not sure if I yodel. But no one's ever said if I'm a carp or a crap. I thought they were the same genus.

Good luck with the impersonation, though. I hear tight pants work best for that one.

STMcC:
Ha! You may be even crazier'n I am. We needs help.

OhJessie:
But...but if they HELP us we won't be so much fun anymore! Leave the crazy people be, meddlers!

Now here’s a new one for ya: Most people knew Anniee as a very bold, fiery debater who got along with liberals the way canines get along with felines. You might say she was not unlike Ann Coulter but sans the civility (if you can imagine that!) I never met Anniee in person and never even saw a photograph of her, but should it surprise anyone to learn that she had red hair?
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/seems-i-skipped-e-and-h.html

Now here’s something that WILL surprise many: Despite her legendary knock-down drag-out arguments with liberals, Anniee said: “I prayed and prayed that I would be a peacemaker....HAHA!!!”
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/g-gramma.html

Well, before we laugh along with her, it needs to be understood that Anniee was SO multi-faceted that at times she REALLY WAS a peacemaker! Don’t believe me?

Once upon a time I had gotten into an argument with my friend DiscConnected, and Anniee Emailed me, trying to find the words that would repair the breach between my friend and me. (Happily, he and I were later reconciled.)

A fluke, you say? A one-time aberration? Think again! A couple of years prior to that, another one of Anniee’s fans and I had begun to get into a political argument. Recognizing that he and I essentially held the same political beliefs, Anniee stepped in and said what needed to be said to begin building a bridge over that troubled water.

Yes, there were many sides to her, and anyone who thought of her only as “Argumentative Anniee” was certainly missing important pieces of the Big Picture. Anniee’s prayers were answered, for at times she could also be a peacemaker.

She could get into the doldrums, yes, like the time she said to me in an Email: “Oh, my friend...times are sooooo fucking tough right now. … I'm gonna start bawling so I'm gonna end this.”

Despite that, and despite the fact that she was usually posting about politics and economics, she never lost “the little girl” inside. At an Internet site where reference had been made to The Island Of Misfit Toys from the animated TV Christmas special “Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer”, Anniee posted the following:

Nobody wants a Charlie in the box.
And choo-choos with square wheels.
(I have all the misfit toys as Christmas ornaments, heh.)

ANNIEE’S SENSE OF HUMOR:

Anniee had a very pronounced sense of humor, but it was still a bit foreign to me. I was never confident that I had a handle on what she thought was funny. I’d post something I thought she’d laugh at, and she’d not seem to fully appreciate what I believed represented the humor in the piece. Other times I’d say something I thought was mildly entertaining and Anniee would find it laugh out loud funny. I suppose she’d say the same about me. However, below are some things that Anniee wrote, either in blog installments, blog comments, or in personal Emails that really tickled my funny bone:

In an anti-Obama piece she wrote, “Just wait and see what I call you if you fail. (I shall taunt you a second time).”
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/o-obamessiah-hey-obamessiah.html

An obvious allusion to “Monty Python And The Holy Grail”. And here’s another reference to “The Holy Grail”:

Laughter is a balm. Just don't fart in my general direction…
.
I got a hangover and no haire of the dawg . . . They really need to harness the power of the shakes for public use.
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/kitten-update.html

I'm a bit of a blowhard sometimes - went and defended the wrong historical character on a message board and got my ass fairly handed to me ;)

She posted the photo below and wrote: “Well, this marks 275 posts and I ain't been running this blog too long. I'm officially a blabbermouth. Yay!”
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2009/06/blabbermouth.html

Referring to our tendency to leave very lengthy, detailed comments on each other’s blogs, Anniee wrote: You deserve and merit a tad more than superficiality, I'd say. And I'll always say so. Sure, with some people I won't go beyond the surface and will just say "Pass the rum balls" but that isn't you.
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2011/04/pay-no-attention-to-that-god-behind_09.html

Not long ago, Anniee posted something on her blog which included a mildly derogatory remark about vegetarianism.

In a light-hearted way I let her know that I am a longtime vegetarian. Probably fearing she’d inadvertently offended me, she made amends by posting this:

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were vegetarian during their captivity. They weren't going to eat the king's diet, or something. And they looked more hale and hearty than the other schlubs. So don't mistake me.

I replied:
HA!-HA!-HA! I've read the Holy Bible in its entirety like 14 or 15 times and I don't recall seeing the word "schlubs" in it. (You're PRICELESS!)
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/06/those-were-days-random-nostalgia.html

On the fun side I looked at my stats … the funny part was it tells you who searched for what in order to find you, and lemme copy the results because a couple were funny - people who found me searched for:

1. Deep ocean animals
2. jesse jackson sex scandal
3. co-workers withholding information
6. ding ding ding loser
8. fuck the system before it fucks you quotes

There's a couple more but anyway, isn't it funny to wonder what kind of people typed in these search terms and why they led to me?

The alphabet challenge is something a friend came up with...ok a friend of a friend. You start on April FOOL'S day, April 1, and you blog every day (discounting Sundays - apparently somebody's a better Christian than me; usually on Sunday I'm hungover so works for me)
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/03/alphabet-challenge.html

Nothing Anniee ever wrote made me laugh harder than the bit below. She was attempting to keep up with April’s A To Z (a-letter-a-day) Blogfest but she probably hadn’t slept for a day and a half, and she was likely 60 degrees removed from sobriety. Thus she had lost track of what letter she was supposed to be blogging about that day and asked if anyone knew. Someone posted this comment to her: “Hehehe I like your blog. Will be around more often. (Today is L-Day)”. To which Anniee responded:

“Cool; welcome aboard. Just be prepared for a tad of drunkfuckery (if you've read back at all you'll notice it.) But for the most part the people who like it like it and those who don't, just don't. Very few in-betweens. I think I already did L so maybe I'll just go to sleep … God knows I could use it.”

When I read that, I started laughing so hard that, literally, tears were rolling down my face! Here’s another from the A To Z Blogfest:

DEVIL WENT DOWN TO...
GEORGE?!?! I was just looking for a studio recording of the Charlie Daniels song, and there are a bunch of videos labeled "The Devil Went Down to George". Even listing that as the lyric. What in the hell has the internet done to us??? On the other hand, chicken in the breadpan pickin' out dough. Heh. ETA: Apparently I'm gonna have to go dig out my old album Southern Fried Rock to find a copy with son-of-a-bitch, because they all say sonofagun; even the ones that are funny and spelled right. And I don't want a live version. Off to dig out albums. Now, what freaking letter are we on anyway? I really want to make sure I catch up here. Thanks in advance.
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/devil-went-down-to.html

It does my heart good to know that I brought a little laughter into Anniee’s life as well. Perhaps the best laugh I provided her with came when I linked her to a segment from the movie “Hollywood Shuffle” which she had never seen before.

She watched the YouTube video of it – an urban spoof of Siskel and Ebert’s movie reviewing TV program - and then said to me, “That was hilarious - I'm sending that to everyone lol. Salarius. Those two are awesome.” And I know that she meant what she’d said because she later reiterated it to me in an Email and told me she had sent the link to a number of her friends. Here’s the scene that Anniee found so funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfWc47SEPA0

ANNIEE’S CHRISTIAN FAITH:

I am a Christian, and that is first and foremost my identity - before American, before anything else.
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2010/11/burning-holy-books.htm

But burning books in protest? That's dumb. Let the words speak for themselves. On a personal note, Muslims were my allies in the early fight for homeschooling. I know all about HomeGrownJihad, but that isn't what these Muslims were doing. And I am certainly against using Sharia law in our country - assimilate or gtfo. America has a constitution, and we have to start using it again.
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2010/11/burning-holy-books.html

Unfortunately I remember the Camp David accords and [Menachem Begin] going after the PLO while not so much remembering that if I were British I might see him differently. Scottish guy called him a terrorist and how that ruined the Nobels, and I said I hoped he wasn't being anti-Semitic (anti-semitism bothers me on a gut level, badly), after which I got rather schooled. … I don't pretend to know it all; just a lot ;)

I'm not the best witness in the world - I mean, I have a potty mouth and I booze so what if I end up just making the faith look bad? … Being...you know, not in church or anything, and you get all these legalists...well that's their weakness and frankly, we're supposed to support them. I have different weaknesses and I find other support. We all need it, but anyway, that's why I don't often open up about the Lord when talking. But he's put us in one another's path for some reason, so let's enjoy it :) It isn't every day we meet someone who accepts us as we are, either, you know?

ANNIEE’S SONGS:

Not surprisingly, anyone with such a full measure of personality is also likely to have a wide range of musical interests. To illustrate . . . in a blog bit titled “Pretend You Can Build Your Hopes Again” she displayed her love of Simon And Garfunkel’s “A Hazy Shade Of Winter” . . .

Ahhh, seasons change with the scenery
Weaving time in a tapestry
Won't you stop and remember me
At any convenient time
[Yes, Anniee, we will.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wSd4QJBEMvk

She also liked Yngwie Malmsteen and his music, such as “Far Beyond The Sun”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOvjybLQ4Q8

And Anniee enjoyed a lot of other stuff in between those two musical points, including Michael Jackson’s music.

ANNIEE AND HER ENEMIES:

Anniee did not get along at all with some people of the Left. She made plenty of political enemies, and I’m sure they hated her the more because they were not her equal in debates. Read between her expletives and it’s clear she was well informed; the girl knew her stuff(s). As Ann Coulter once wrote: “Liberals think they can defeat the truth with loudness.” And the liberals who argued with Anniee thought they could shout her down. WRONG!

I don’t know if Anniee really hated the people she fought with. Personally, I try to separate the sinner from the sin and refrain from hating the extreme Leftists, but I gotta admit, some of them make not hating ‘em a real challenge for me!

I do know that Anniee once told me that she has found it necessary to forgive others who have wronged her, just as she has needed to be forgiven by others. She was very clear on the fact that forgiveness is one of the primary tenets of her Christian faith. As she wrote: “My life is much happier without grudges.”

She had her politcal enemies to be sure. Like the utterly classless, bleeding-heartless, A-List liberal Jackass who posted the following at Anniee’s online guest book provided by the mortuary that took care of her remains:

“Wow, did her own venom kill her? I wouldn't doubt it for a second, because she was one nasty, hate-filled bitch. Siyonara, you evil scum-bag!”

Well, if nothing else, that Jackass proves that Anniee had impeccable taste in enemies! I mean, if someone who would do a thing like that represents the sort of person who despised our Anniee, then she was certainly angering the correct clowns. Don’t let that Jackass bother you too much though, because Anniee and I had once joked about making political enemies. I had said to her: “You can tell which conservatives are most effective by how hard the Leftists go after ‘em!”

To which she responded, “I hope that's true; it means I'm on the right path.”
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2011/04/pay-no-attention-to-that-god-behind_09.html

No doubt, Anniee was on the right path!

Besides that, Anniee McPhee was in good company. Consider another “Mc”: Senator Joseph McCarthy. When McCarthy died on May 2, 1957, the New York Times’ Editorial page ignored it. The head of that department, Charles Merz, said, “I don’t think we need an editorial on this . . . Why dignify the bastard? Let him pass from the scene without more attention.”

So, if you ask me, that some Leftist Loser would make such a “mean-spirited” (to borrow one of the Left’s own favorite charges) remark in her online guest book only goes to show how effective Anniee was in battering the socialists. I can only hope that when I’m gone, some “good-hearted” liberal will say something equally nasty and incorrect about ME!

Here’s an “I Can Has Cheezburger” LOL that Anniee created. It says a lot about her stance on politics and liberty:

http://cheezburger.com/Anniee451/lolz

Of course, none of this is to imply that Anniee and I saw eye-to-eye on every single detail. In general, we most certainly did, but we parted company occasionally when it got down to the minutiae.

For example, she felt that the best way to oust Barack Obama was through the Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement, while I felt the initially nonexistent and later the obvious bogus birth certificate was the more promising route. I don’t think it’s likely that Anniee recognized the most disturbing fact of all about the 9/11 tragedy: it was partially an inside job. And Anniee, it seems, had not yet fully jettisoned her belief in the Left/Right, Democrat/Republican paradigm, although I still held out hope that if she read my blog installments long enough, she would eventually come to realize that both parties are in fact controlled by a wizard behind the curtain (namely, the Council on Foreign Relations, et al.)

In fact, it is a testament to Anniee’s intelligence and personality that I enjoyed discussing politics with her because, as a rule of thumb, I don’t generally engage in political discussion with folks who still accept that the Democrat and the Republican parties represent two distinctly different ideologies.

And then, of course, there were our more serious disagreements. Such as the fact that Anniee liked absinthe and disliked gin (which she described as tasting “like pine sap”) whereas I like gin and dislike absinthe.
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-idol-stephen-king.html

Our minor disagreements were of no account, however, for as Anniee liked to say: “If two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary.”

But since we’ve broached the subject of booze, let’s look at something Anniee said about absinthe . . .

ANNIEE ON ABSINTHE:

After learning that I had tried a couple different brands of absinthe and didn’t care for them, Anniee suggested: “Well, maybe give the Lucid [brand] a try; I don't know how high the content of the wormwood stuff was in whatever you bought; but the Lucid really is strong enough. And it was a very pleasant dreamy sort of buzz...very nice. And yes, it was almost like an Ouzo or a Sambuca, but...there was something else to it, too; something I've never tasted before.”

And to another person she wrote: “Oh, and let me know if you end up trying the lovely drink [Lucid absinthe] - I tell you, if you can spare the money it was really worth it.”
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/absinthe-antarctica-anarchy.html

As I compose this tribute, I am indeed drinking some Lucid absinthe. I’ll confess that absinthe still isn’t my cup of tea (I’ll always like that “pine sap” better), but I’m drinking it anyhow - in the traditional way - in honor of Anniee. True, we didn’t agree on every point, but nevertheless, I thought she was MARVELOUS! My kind of person!

THE VARIETY OF ANNIEE’S BLOG INSTALLMENTS:

Anniee’s blog installments were all over the map, which really kept her blogs interesting. Just as “Nobody wants a Charlie in the box”, nobody wants to read a One-Note Johnny. Certainly the bulk of her blogging took the form of battering the Leftists generally and Barack Obama and the Feminists specifically, but she really mixed in a lot of other personal interest items as well.

For example, in THIS blog bit she told us about the kittens her Mama Cat had just delivered: “They're really not cute yet; you know how it goes. In two weeks they'll be adorable.”

I consider THIS one an Anniee classic. She was writing about how the Government Nannies of the USDA had just unveiled the new icon replacing the food pyramid symbol that illustrated a nutritionally balanced diet, and how Uncle Sam was ignoring research that indicated something quite different from what the federal agency was suggesting. She wrote: “I'll take butter on my broccoli, a human-sized portion of meat, and you can just put my damned apple in a pie crust where it belongs.”

That blog bit concluded with a chicken enchilada recipe. No one but Anniee would start out on a rant about Government Nannies and nutritional advice and end with a recipe for dinner. By gobs, she was great!

Somewhere Sister Anniee had made a remark that led me to believe that she may have been a Leftist at one time, so I asked her to elaborate. Scroll down to the comment section HERE to see Anniee explain how she went from being an atheistic hard leftist to a Christian, small L libertarian.

I once made the comment that I found it disappointing on those occasions when I’ve written what I feel is a particularly good blog post but it goes essentially unread and/or uncommented upon. Anniee said she felt the same way. Now she never speficially told me this, so I’m merely speculating here, but I have a feeling that one of her blog installments she may have had in mind when she agreed with me was HENNY PENNY – WITH A TWIST; it’s her take on an old children’s tale. It’s about a grain of wheat, a little red hen, a satisfied cat, a smirking dog, a pig, a turkey, and a huge wolf with a federal badge. She turned the well known story into an anti-Socialism piece.

It’s really quite good, and I remember when she first put it up on her blog, but I thought she was merely reposting something that someone else had written. In doing a couple of Google searches for it, Anniee’s blog installment was the only results I got. The reason I believe that among her own writings this may have been one of her favorites is because I’ve found that she posted it on two different blogs. I realize now that it was an Anniee original and I feel bad that not one of us ever left a comment on it for her. [But it’s not too late to read it.]

And speaking of regrets . . .

REGRETS - I HAVE A FEW:

Perhaps I’m mistaken but I seem to recall that somewhere on her “Purely Politics” blog Anniee once referred to herself as the queen of regrets. Well, if she’s the queen, I’m the king. When I learned of her death it hit me extremely hard, and the pain was intensified by the fact that I immediately zeroed in on several regrets of mine. Here’s two of them:

On a few occasions, Anniee and I spoke about our views on abortion. She was “very much interested” in delving into that topic with me, and I with her. She had written:

“All of a sudden I wasn't able to lie effectively anymore (that was like an immediate change) and I realized that abortion was murder. Which was the single issue I switched political sides on. …

The abortion question is a hell of a lot more complex than the rest of the issues - I personally believe it IS murder and yet I have heard enough compelling argument regarding the legalities that I can't say with 100% certainty that it must be illegal. Perhaps you and I could discuss sometime soon why I say that; I haven't found a single person willing to genuinely discuss it with me on the level I need it to be at, and maybe you are just the person to do so. …

“I am open to honest discussion so long as the person genuinely tries to understand what I mean when I make my arguments and understands that I abhor the practice personally. … I most certainly agree it's the taking of a human life; on that much we're already in agreement.”

That was on November 6, 2010. We agreed that I would write a blog installment explaining in detail my view of abortion, then she would submit a comment and we would go from there, engaging in a very in-depth discussion of the subject. But it wasn’t until April 30, 2011 that I finally got around to writing my abortion blog installment. Within days it had already gotten buried by a lot of junk I posted afterwards and evidently Anniee never saw it.

I intended to eventually call her attention to it so we could carry on our dialogue, but I was so busy doing other far less important things and told myself I didn’t have time right then for what would surely be a gargantuan discussion thread. So I made no mention of it at the time and I never did get around to letting her know that the abortion piece had been posted. Now we’ll never have that discussion I had promised her.

Anniee said of C.S. Lewis, “He's about the greatest author ever to live.” She knew I had read 3 or 4 of Lewis’ books and said to me, “By the way, if you've never read ‘The Great Divorce’ I beg you, I've never begged you to read something before, but that one I do. You will be as blown away as you were reading Screwtape. Promise!”
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-should-detesticle-feminism.html

Since I had not read that particular title, I told Anniee that I would. And I did. I got a copy of it from the library and finished it a couple of weeks prior to her passing away, and I found it as good as she promised it would be. I even Xeroxed a number of pages that contained ideas I wanted to discuss with her. In “The Great Divorce” I found one of the best things ever written about man’s relationship to God:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done”, and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done”. All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.
~ C.S. Lewis; “The Great Divorce”

Sadly, over the course of the last two weeks of her life, I never even got around to telling Anniee that I had read the book.

ANNIEE FORGIVES ME:

For several days after learning of her death, I was beating myself up something awful over these regrets and a few others. But then I remembered something Anniee had once written to me. There was some sort of a misunderstanding and one or the other of us (I can’t even remember now if it was her or me) mistakenly thought the other person was upset about something. It turned out not to be the case at all, nevertheless, Anniee wrote, “70X7, if there's ever any need for it.”

At first I wasn’t sure what the heck she meant, but after a minute it suddenly occurred to me: it was a reference to a Bible verse - Matthew 18:21 & 22 – in which our Lord Jesus tells us how many times we are to forgive someone who wrongs us.

So I figure that Anniee has already forgiven me for these faults and I am still 480+ “forgivens” to the good. And if Anniee really was the queen of regrets, then likely she had some "would'ves", “should’ves”, “could’ves” and “ifs” as well. If so, I hereby officially absolve her of all regrets, and she too has a surplus of 480+ “forgivens”.

ANNIEE’S INFLUENCE:

In a way, Anniee was responsible for inspiring a few of my own blog bits. Here are two that, in a sense, we kind of collaborated on:

CANCER-B-GONE! (Or, SHREDDER ‘N’ McCARTHY “SAVE THE WORLD”)

LETTING THE AMERICAN ECONOMY FALL: THE OWEN LATTIMORE MODEL

Recognizing in me that same fighting spirit that she possessed, Anniee once wrote: I love when you go on a good rant! It's like the lion inside the churchmouse : D
http://purelypolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/shit-just-got-real-muslim-on-rampage.html

I treasure every one of Anniee’s complimentary comments, but perhaps the sentences I hold most dear are these: “Hugs - thanks for being a friend through rough times. It means the world to me.”

And it is Anniee I must thank for introducing me to the superextraordinary writer Fred Reed. [Yeah, thanks a lot, Anniee! It was after reading Fred Reed’s stuffs that I came to realize: I can’t write worth a damn!]

ANNIEEISMS:

Here are just half-a-dozen and two – well, make it an even eight - select “Annieeisms” for your edification and/or amusement:

Like all real love it comes from God…

I've said it before and I'll likely say it again; this ain't "Inherit the Wind".
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2011/04/pay-no-attention-to-that-god-behind_09.html

I well remember hippies all over the place; I never asked about them, they were just a fact of life. Though my parents were not hippies or you'd be talking to "Moonbeam" or something. I horrified my mother one time when this dude all decked out like Easy Reader from Electric Company sporting an afro like 2 feet wide was walking towards us, and I pointed and yelled "Mommy! He looks just like a buffalo!" Oh she was worried, but he didn't even blink. … like I say the guy didn't blink an eye. Hell, he knew he was a freak with that insane afro. (OMG spell-check even checks "afro" wtf?)
http://stephentmccarthysstuffs.blogspot.com/2011/04/those-are-hippies-stephen.html

I am so fucking stupid I thought I was only 42. Guess what? I'm 44!!! Or I will be on the 16th. I was shocked and dismayed.

I shall brave the cesspools of leftist hatred for you and bring you back turds that I shall then fashion into gems before your eyes. Or at least I'll mock the shit out of them. There shall be f-bombs. There shall be offensive terms. There shall be hyperbole and metaphor and rhetoric. I hope there shall be laughs. The best thing to do to evil is to laugh at it; the devil can not stand to be mocked. So for those about to mock, I salute you.
http://theshredder918.blogspot.com/2011/01/welcome-noobs.html

The NOW feminists were calling me "Manniee" for at least a year, and assumed I was a man under a false identity. I took it as a compliment.

Anyway I've been the subject of conservative target practice, not as much as leftist air assaults and carpet-bombing, but definitely treated extremely ill. Likely you've had some of the same. Conservatives think I'm a leftist feminist and the feminists think I'm a fascist wingnut teabagging hatemonger who literally wants to throw old and poor people off cliffs out of sheer malice. But the worse insult is being called a leftist feminist.

There are even a few earthly people who still love me too. We'll see how that all plays out in the end I suppose and meet on the golden shores eventually either way.
http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2011/04/pay-no-attention-to-that-god-behind_09.html

On April 27, 2009, Anniee posted a blog bit titled “COULD HAVE BEEN YESTERDAY...”, and in the comment section she wrote to someone: “I really like Mike and the Mechanics (the Christian influence in his music was certainly part of why, but also just the human emotion - The Living Years still kills me, as it came out right after my grandmother died and baby was born...sniff)”

OK, Sister Anniee, this song’s for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdiQWxps5E

The day Linda Haley passed away, Conservatism lost a strong voice, my blogs lost their #1 commenter and at least 25% of their readership, and I lost a good friend whom I already greatly miss.

Rest in peace, Lindanniee. As The Bible says, “A friend loves at all times”, and as you said, “it'll be a grand celebration when we meet on that glorious shore.”

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: Comments are welcome, however, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

PIG STATE, U.S.A.

2011-07-10T23:58:00.000-07:00

.
“I have fear of my government, not green monsters and machines from outer space. I have enough fear from here [Washington D.C.].”

Doggs and Doggettes, the bottom line is this:
That Law Enforcement Officer is NOT your friend!

This one you REALLY SHOULD watch . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbmGZdLMHOA

For a larger screen, click the URL link above and watch it at YouTube.

[My thanks to The Kansas Kid for sending me the link.]

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

FERRET-FACED FASCIST FIEND

2011-07-04T14:11:00.000-07:00

.
What’s more American than denigrating the un-American balderdash of Communism / Socialism? Nothing! And that’s why I have decided to do just that on this Fourth of July.

The June 20, 2011 edition of The New American magazine included an article written by Charles Scaliger titled “FRED KOCH: Oil Man Against Communism” which I found full of truisms about Communist viewpoints and tactics. I don’t know anything about Fred Koch, but my studies of the life and times of Senator Joseph McCarthy have naturally taught me plenty about Communism, and I can certainly confirm that Koch’s understanding was solid.

Following are some excerpts from the article that I suspect will be most valuable to the average reader who may not be so well informed about Communist aims and means. The entire article, however, can be found HERE.

The general thrust of the article pertains to Fred Koch’s business dealings in Russia during the early 1930s and the knowledge he gained about Communist dictatorships – their methods and their aims – while traveling with his Russian handler, a diminutive fellow named Jerome Livshitz. (I’m going to fight hard against the tremendous temptation I am feeling to make some comical and derogatory remark about Livshitz’s surname.)

“[Livshitz] told me that if his own mother stood in the way of the revolution he would strangle her with his bare hands,” Fred Koch once wrote. “This is the mark of a hard-core Communist. They will do anything — anything.”

Below is a photograph of Fred Koch on the left and business associate Jack Giles on the far right. The little ‘shitz in the middle is Jerome Livshitz. (Oops! I guess the temptation was just too great. But I tried to fight it, really I did. [;-)

Livshitz - now there’s a Ferret-Faced Fascist ~~Friend~~ Fiend if I ever saw one!

[My sincere thanks to The Great L.C., the blogger behind the blog DiscConnected, for making that photograph possible! ]

On to the excerpts:

[Fred] Koch was exposed to communism by precept as well as by experience, thanks to the unflagging evangelism of Jerome Livshitz, his handler during his time in the Soviet Union. Livshitz, like many elite Russian revolutionaries, was well educated and eager to debate the alleged merits of the Soviet system with his captive American audience. “In the months I traveled with [Livshitz] he gave me a liberal education in Communist techniques and methods,” Koch recalled:

He told me how the Communists were going to infiltrate the U.S.A. in the schools, universities, churches, labor unions, government, armed forces, and to use his words, “We will make you rotten to the core.” I believe that due to his American experience he was one of the original architects of the Communist plan of subversion of the U.S.A.

[Hmmm . . . no sign that the Commies ever succeeded in those aims, is there?]

But Livshitz — whose life had once been saved by capitalists who plucked him from beneath an automobile — suffered a no less indecorous end than many of Koch’s other Soviet associates; he was liquidated by Stalin in 1936.

But Koch was no reflexive fear-monger; he perceived, correctly as affairs have turned out, the comprehensive character of the communist threat. Where others saw only the military danger, Koch understood, thanks to the indiscreet boasting of Livshitz, that the communists’ aim was to conquer by subversion. He comprehended their patience and their willingness to appear to give ground tactically for strategic advantage. He perceived that the communists were masters at long-term planning:

“If you do not think dialectically, you are at the mercy of any trick they pull. They are working it all around the world today — the dialectic thrust and then retreat.

“When a Communist says he wants peace he means he wants Communism. When he says he wants “peaceful coexistence” he means he wants no outward violence while he bores from within and conquers you by treason and subversion.”

Koch warned that American institutions were honeycombed with communist subversives, from labor unions and tax-free foundations to universities and churches. Art and newsprint, radio and television — all these media had been transmuted into vehicles of communist propaganda.

“The United Nations … has been a rotten core of subversion. It is a haven for subversives and security risks. UNESCO has been spewing forth Communist and World government propaganda into our schools for years. The U.N. was conceived by the Russians during World War II as a device to continue collaboration with the United States which had proven so profitable to them.

The argument that the U.N. is an instrument of peace is entirely fallacious. Is there any indication that since the U.N. has been in existence there is any less war than formerly? As a matter of fact there are more arms, hatred, threats, brush fires and threats of war than there have ever been.... The U.N. will undoubtedly be one of the most important tools for the Communist take-over of America.... Let us give Red China a seat in the U.N. — our seat!!!!”

To those too young to remember the Cold War, some of Fred Koch’s concerns may seem anachronistic. After all, goes received wisdom, the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc collapsed without a shot being fired, and freedom is now breaking out the world over. Yet America is less free now than at any time in her history, excepting perhaps the extreme regimentation during World War II. While we are still a far cry from the Soviet Union of Stalin, Americans now seem willing to tolerate comprehensive attacks on our liberty carried out in the name of a war on terror. ...

Where America once took pride in a laissez-faire business climate, businessmen and consumers alike seem to positively embrace the growing ascendancy of the federal government, with its legions of bureaucrats and regulators, over every facet of the economy. From perverted full-body patdowns in our airports to our newly socialized medical system, Americans — large numbers of them, at any rate — seem eager to participate in a Gadarene rush into full-blown socialism of a sort that would have made the Stalins and Khrushchevs of yesteryear proud.

[D]espite the demise of the Bolsheviks, their program for America, as a wispy little revolutionary explained it to [Koch] so long ago, is still very much in force. The process of subversion, corruption, and compromise of liberty continues apace, even if its authors are nowadays known (to the extent that they are recognized at all) by different names.

And what are those different names? Try “Democrats”, “Socialists”, “Progressives”, “Statists”,
“Collectivists”, “Fabianists”, and in too many instances, “Republicans” as well.

Jerome Livsihitz’s idealism naturally made him a sucker for unrealistic, unworkable, un-Godly Marxist dogma.

My prayer for America is:

“O God, please save us from the atheists and from the idealists. But most of all, dear God, please save us from the idealistic atheists!”

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

SORRY, FRIENDS, BUT IT’S NOT CLEARING UP...

2011-07-02T12:00:00.000-07:00

.

I suspect that even some of my friends wish I’d just drop this Barack “USAP” Obama birth certificate issue. Sorry, friends, but it’s not going away. I even showed it to my doctor but he says he can’t help me. Nothing seems able to clear it up. I’ve tried salves, ointments, creams, and even suppositories, but nothing will alleviate this issue.

I’m probably being viewed now as a bloggin’ boondoggler and being called things even worse, like a f--

...well, never mind.

But apparently I am far from being the only person suffering from this ailment, this condition, this skepticism turned open wound.

According to a recently posted article at World Net Daily (WND) . . .

… a WND Wenzel Poll, produced just days ago revealed that fully half of Americans want Congress to investigate Obama's eligibility – including 28 percent of the self-identified Democrats.

"There's no marginalizing those who want this matter investigated by Congress," said pollster Fritz Wenzel.

"If Barack Obama thought that by releasing an electronic version of what the White House said was his long form birth certificate, the question of his eligibility to serve as president would be settled once and for all, he was badly mistaken. My latest polling shows that only a bare majority of 51 percent believe the release of his birth certificate proves he is eligible to serve, and now, half of adults nationwide want a congressional inquiry into his eligibility to serve," he continued.

"This reflects a deep distrust of the White House on this question. More telling is that 57 percent in this national telephone survey were either greatly or somewhat troubled by assertions that the electronic birth certificate appears to have been either forged or tampered with…”

See:
HEY, MR. OBAMA, WHERE'S THE REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Prez 'Painted Himself Into Corner With An Issue He Can Never Escape'

Now, this next bit of evidence is old news to those who have been following this developing story that is bigger than Watergate and weirder than a traveling carny – I myself have made reference to it on this blog numerous times but I don’t believe I previously posted photographs that illustrate it. Again, this comes from a WND article:

As seen below, the [Alvin T. Onaka] registrar's stamp applied to Obama's April 27 birth certificate has an error in the word "THE" that reads instead "TXE." The error did not show up on the stamp used one month earlier on someone else's birth certificate [and neither did the smiley face in the "A" of "Alvin"!]

To see larger photos of these two stamps click HERE and scroll down to them, then please return.

Only one of two explanations can make sense of that. Either, 1) the forger of this document was sticking his/her tongue out at us, certain that they could do ANYTHING on this fake birth certificate that they wanted to and get away with it, or 2) the forger of this document was deliberately attempting to make it look as bogus as possible in order to “out” the Marxist in Chief.

Considering the almost countless errors and questionable details related to this patently phony birth certificate, I am currently leaning more toward the idea that the forger was semi-secretly attempting to tell the American People that Obama is a fraud and his birth certificate is a fake. I have yet to find any other person well-versed in the glaring problems of this birth certificate forgery who is making the same claim I am, who is more inclined to think that the forger is a “whistleblower” than that the creator of this document was just an almost unbelievably stupid, very bad document-forging “Commiecrat” (to borrow an epithet from Senator Joe).

Maybe I’m giving them too much credit for smarts, but I can’t help believing that even a Leftist is bright enough to produce a more believable phony document than the one that our Undocumented Socialist Acting as President has presented to the American people as “proof positive” that he was hatched in Hawaii.

Nope, no question about it. USAP Obama, my skepticism has erupted, it’s leaking pus all over the place, and no pill's gonna cure my ill; I got a bad case of 'Not Believing You'.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

A VERY GOOD BAD DOCUMENTARY ABOUT THE BEST BAD FILMMAKER!

2011-06-29T01:48:00.000-07:00

.

‘LOOK BACK IN ANGORA’

Narrated by Gary Owens

(1994 - VHS)

When we slightly twisted fans of Ed Wood discuss the merits of his work, we must bear in mind that the very nature of it wreaks havoc on our grading scale. How does one actually assess anything having to do with Ed when "best" is "worst" and "good" is "bad"?

This very funny 50-minute documentary, cleverly written and directed by Ted Newsom and featuring the narration of Gary Owens, is excellent in that it fully achieves its goal. What is that goal? To take an irreverent snapshot of the life and "achievements" of Ed Wood, “Hollywood's Horrible Hack”. And that's good!

See? Now yer catchin' on.

The instantly recognizable voice of Gary Owens with his mock seriousness is a dog 'n' flea collar fit for 'LOOK BACK IN ANGORA.' (The title alone tells you what to expect.) The slapdash style of this documentary mimics the slipshod ineptitude of our hero's best (meaning "worst") work.

Is Owens disrespecting his subject? Well, yeah, of course he is - sort of. (But not in an overtly demeaning manner.) What do you want? A serious documentary about Ed Wood? Serious? About ED WOOD?!!! C'mon, get serious (meaning "loosen up").

We who appreciate Ed for the right reasons admire him because (as Owens says...) "Wood's films have become true cult classics; they triumph over all obstacles, including his own singular lack of ability." Ed Wood refused to quit; he did what he loved doing. Ed followed his dream: a ridiculous nightmare of inadvertent bad filmmaking which was "Stupid! Stupid!" (meaning, "Funny! Funny!") "His stream-of-consciousness dialogue," Owens tells us, "was like a ransom note pasted together from words randomly cut out of a Korean electronics manual." Now that's funny and accurate!

How Much Film Would Ed Wood Chuck If Ed Wood Would Chuck Film? He'd Chuck All The Film That Ed Wood Could If Ed Wood Would Chuck Film.

Fortunately for us, however, Ed Wood would chuck no film - he used it all! And this little biography pastes bits 'n' pieces of it together to give us a hilarious overview.

Sure, I liked Tim Burton's 'Ed Wood' treatment, but a movie by Ed is always going to be "worse" (meaning "superior") to a movie about Ed. So, for me, this goofy collection of clips and brief interviews is the perfect companion tape to my pink, faux angora-covered Ed Wood boxed set.

How's this for an amusing evening? . . . You invite your friends over, serve them hot sake in those authentic little Japanese sake cups, and show them ‘PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE’ and ‘LOOK BACK IN ANGORA’ in that order. You'll be immensely entertained and you'll find out just who your real friends are - because your real friends will love ya for it . . . (or they'll forgive you and love ya anyway).

‘LOOK BACK IN ANGORA': Yeah, it's "pretty bad"
(and that's "very good!")

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT

2011-06-27T11:37:00.000-07:00

.
Well, it certainly seems as if my blog bit “ILLEGAL ALIEN INFESTATION” was a total bust.

I can’t say I’m surprised, as I’ve noticed the pattern over the years: when a blogger makes demands on his readers, you know, writes about deep, serious matters of great importance – matters that can’t really be adequately covered in a paragraph or two - and/or when a blogger posts a multipart video that will require an investment of more than a minute and a half, and which will require the viewer to actually think about and attempt to mentally absorb complex information, that blogger is in deep dog
doo-doo right from the get-go. [“Ouch! It’s making me think. It hurts! It hurts! Make it stop!”]

And when he further compounds the problem by including an obstacle like spirituality and introduces to the topic a respect for The Holy Bible and proclaims that Holy Book’s relevance to his subject matter, that blogger has essentially committed 'Blog Bit Hari-Kari'.

When will I ever learn, and just transform ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ into a forum dedicated to cute cat stories, tasty recipes, and/or the dissemination of vital tips about how to create more believable characters and build better plots for the writers of Young Adult fantasy fiction, romance novels, and Sci-Fi adventure stories? When will I change the name of this blog to 'Bread 'N' Circuses'?

At that point - and only at that point - will this blog acquire a genuine readership.

You know what I think I’m gonna do then, just for the hell of it?

I’m gonna take THIS video, and I’m gonna post it right HERE. And you wanna know something? There’s not a damn thing you’re gonna be able to do about it.

Really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v325wdgoFH4

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

ILLEGAL ALIEN INFESTATION

2011-06-18T15:09:00.000-07:00

.
When you have termite trouble you call the pest exterminator.

When you have stray dogs roaming through your neighborhood you call the Animal Control Department.

When you're being haunted by ghosts who you gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS!

But who do you call when you're having problems with illegal aliens?

Certainly you can't call the United States Government because Uncle Sam ain't yakkin', and he's only inclined to cover up the problem.

Below are the first four installments of a 12-part video concerning our illegal alien problem which you might learn a great deal from. At the end of segment 4 you will see where you're being given the opportunity to click a link for segment 5, and so on and so on, all the way to the 12th and final installment:

[Additional commentary below...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odfsxlm5Fp0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7aZhYoEBo0&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv5efCrqzQc&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j2iLOScmxA&NR=1

LINKS FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE:

Part 5 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpQyIcq2Bnc&NR=1

Part 6 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPHTPc65ZDY&NR=1

Part 7 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exH070rgd8U&NR=1

Part 8 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-smCGBKQocg&NR=1

Part 9 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eie5VEfADuw&NR=1

Part 10 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Obo2MvcqU&NR=1

Part 11 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDL3Z6FjKg&NR=1

Part 12 Of 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cl5w63_b5I&NR=1

You see what I did there? You thought this blog bit was gonna be about Arizona's SB-1070 legislation and illegal immigration, didn't you? By now you ought to know not to try predicting what I will say and do because, if nuttin' else, I'm unpredictable and stumbling to the beat of my own drunken drummer.

I first became fascinated by the subject of UFOs (or "Flying Saucers" as they were often called at the time) when I was in fifth or sixth grade, and before I had graduated junior high school, I had read every book on that topic in my local library; I was aware of Project Blue Book at a very young age.

In my 51 years, I have undoubtedly read at least a couple dozen books on UFOs, and I recommend the following three titles for those who wish to pursue the subject further from a spiritual standpoint:

ALIEN ENCOUNTERS: The Secret Behind The UFO Phenomenon
by Doctor Chuck Missler

ENCOUNTERS WITH UFO's
by John Weldon & Zola Levitt

ALIEN INTERVENTION: The Spiritual Mission Of UFOs
by Paul Christopher

Have you ever seen an Unidentified Flying Object? I've had two unexplained experiences - both of them while living here in Phoenix, Airheadzona. In the first sighting, I saw two "flying things" simultaneously, and they were so close to the ground when I first noticed them that I could have thrown rocks and hit them. Glad I didn't, however, as it's probably not too smart to throw rocks at the devil's emissaries.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

A BIRTH CERTIFICATE POLL FOR BLACK AMERICANS: PLEASE VOTE ONLY ONCE

2011-06-16T13:22:00.000-07:00

.
Ten out of ten psychiatrists recommend brain cell flossing to their patients who still support Barack Obama.

Well, not really, but you’ll see where I got the “ten out of ten” idea from the article quoted below:

According to the World Net Daily (WND) article found HERE . . .

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, the chief of Stand Up America, a national security expert and Fox News contributor, says the "Certificate of Live Birth" released in April by the White House as "proof positive" of President Obama's Hawaiian birth is a forgery, but the FBI is covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a "black backlash" if the failings of the nation's first black president are revealed.
…
"We've had three CIA agents, retired, and some of their analytical associates look at it, and all came to the same conclusion, that even the long-form was a forged document," Vallely said.

FORGED?! You don’t say? However could you tell?!

The article continues:

"No members of Congress will take this on. The word I get out of Washington is that they don't want to challenge this because it would be in fact a felony offense and in some cases may be even treasonous and [they are] afraid of a black backlash from some of the urban areas," Vallely said.
…
When Obama released the purported long-form certificate, officials in the Hawaii Department of Health and governor's office refused to simply confirm to WND that the image being presented by Obama was an accurate representation of the records maintained by the state.
…
Vallely also made similar statements in an online radio program in which he supported Lakin, the Army doctor who refused orders because neither the military nor the White House would document Obama's eligibility. He spent five months in Fort Leavenworth and only recently was released. His comments start at about 3:30 of the YouTube video.

There, Vallely said, "Obama's birth certificate – I've had retired CIA agents and other investigators go over the birth certificate that was produced and by far, 10 out of 10 have said it's a forgery. So we still have that corruptness going on in the White House. There's a great number of organizations and people still trying to find out who Barack Obama is, where he was born, what his legitimacy is as president of the United States. We know for sure that the Constitution has been violated in Article 2, particularly when you look at the natural-born status."

Unbelievable! This Barack “USAP” Obama birth certificate story is AT LEAST one thousand times BIGGER than was the Watergate scandal but hardly anyone wants to touch it!

I just read the developing news at WND and their second in a series of three articles indicates that this thing may be about to bust wide open. But oddly enough, the Republican party STILL wants nothing to do with it.

Well, that’s not so odd, really, when a person truly understands The Hegelian Dialectic concept of the contemporary American political scene. [See the “X-Y-Z” link at the end.]

While there may be some concern on the part of some of those mangy, flea-infested dogs in the Senate and in the House that Black people would riot in the streets if Obama were ousted from the White House for lying, forgery, and perjury. (Perjury: remember that day he placed his hand on a Holy Bible and swore to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic? Well, he himself is one of the Constitution’s “foreign” enemies. And I don't see him protecting the Constitution from himself, do you?)

But I believe the bigger issue – well beyond anyone’s fear that Black people will riot if Obama is found guilty of a felony or felonies, impeached and removed from office – is that ‘The Democrats Vs. The Republicans’ is really just a big show maintained by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) for public consumption only. It’s all just a 'Punch And Judy' marionette show, with both political parties having their strings pulled behind the scenes by the CFR.

[Democrat on the Left; Republican on the Right.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMvoATmmhdM

The fighting is made to look real to convince the Americonned people that there’s a political war a-goin’ on. But the secret battle plans are drawn up behind the scenes, beyond the view of the public, and those plans call for the Democrats, who openly represent Socialism of the Marxist variety, to gradually gain more and more ground. Meanwhile the Republicans, who secretly represent Corporate Socialism of the Keynesian variety but who openly pretend to stand for fiscal and social conservatism, gradually give ground, all the while shouting loudly and swinging wildly at the wind to give the impression that they oppose the Democrats. In truth, the Republicans and the Democrats are coming together and meeting in the middle after each skirmish, with the Republicans - by desigin - losing more than they win, while the painted battleground backdrop or "war theater” (pun intended) is gradually shifted ever Leftward.

In a nutshell, the Republican party does NOT want Obama removed from office because the Marxist in Chief plays a very good villain in this show, this phony fight - and because the CFR (which includes plenty of Republican members) has written the screenplay and is directing this show, and they have the Democrats winning as many of the fake fights as possible.

Obama ain’t goin’ nowhere, no matter how badly that long-form birth certificate was forged; he’s too good an actor in this production to impeach him now.

However, I believe the idea that many Black people would riot in the streets if Obama’s long-form birth certificate was shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be a forgery and he were removed from office is being overstated. Therefore, I have included a poll here for Black people to vote in.

I want everyone to read the “X-Y-Z” article linked at the very bottom, but I want ONLY Black folks to vote in the following poll:

If it were shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the birth certificate Barack Obama has presented to the American people and displayed on the White House website was fraudulently manufactured and he was impeached and removed from office as a result, would you consider rioting in your city?

Please vote ONLY once in the poll at the upper left-hand column, and vote ONLY if you’re a Black American. I thank you.

Link:
"X-Y-Z: THE MECHANIX OF AMERYCAN POLITICZ" [Abridged Version]

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.