Zombie Canadians = Secret GOP agents

According to the always non-partisan PBS Bill Moyers, the GOP is going to mobilize hordes of zombie Canadians to attack Obama's health care proposal:

the opposition is having a chance to mobilize. To march out these Canadians who say they had brain tumors and had to die.

If all zombie Canadians eventually invade the South to vote for the GOP, I'll have to redouble my efforts to invade our Northern neighbor with GE Woolly Mammoths.

IMAO has a link to Crowder's video where he rounds up proto-zombies as recruits for the GOP:



On a separate note, I'd be more sympathetic to Bill's call for greater civility on the airwaves if he also demanded that Democrats treat Republicans with respect versus solely demanding vice versa. Most ironic quote in transcript:

JEFFREY FELDMAN: Our system is a deliberative democracy. And that deliberative democracy depends on a certain kind of talk, a certain conversation in order to function well. What right-wing rhetoric does, when it reaches that violent pitch, is it undermines that particular conversation, such that the focus of political debate, becomes increasingly hamstrung by fear, and the ability of citizens to engage in the basic act of civics becomes gummed up. That conversation breaks down.

Apparently, threatening Americans with a zombie Canadian invasion is considered sober deliberative talk by leftwing standards. That being said, I agree with Moyers that it is inappropriate for people to hunt down & kill liberals.

Do I think any conservative commentator wished for what happened in Knoxville last year, or to Doctor George Tiller in Wichita two months ago? Not for a minute. The killer who pulled the trigger is the guilty party. But do I wish the vendors of venom, and their sponsors, would think harder about how angry words become accomplices of foul deeds? Yes, I do.

I'm waiting for Moyers to psycho-analyze Pvt. William Long's murderer & divvy out blame to leftwing anti-US military propagandists.

Walter Cronkite & Captain Kangaroo: Separated at birth

In all the effusive eulogies for Kronkite, no one has mentioned the obvious fact that Kronkite was Captain Kangaroo's evil, liberal, twin brother, separated at birth. FYI, the outburst from the three angry men mentioned on Captain K's cover.

NBC is Racist & People from Chicago lie, cheat, & steal

NBC's game show: "The Great American Road Trip" has token representatives from every ethnic group EXCEPT Asians/Pacific Islanders/Native Americans because NBC is perpetuating racist stereotypes. PROTEST!

In the first episode, the family from Chicago demonstrate that people from the windy city just naturally lie, cheat, & steal, regardless of what they do. The Chicago gangster family were narced out by the token NYC Italian mafia family who caveatted their snitchiness @ 23:30 by asserting that people from New York City also cheat & thus are experts at identifying fellow cheaters. Mayor Bloomberg can't buy such publicity. The game show host had to patiently remind everyone who has forgotten the 2008 election that rules don't apply to people from Chicago, who are free to do whatever is necessary to win.

blogburst post: "Everyone involved with the Flight 93 Memorial knows that the Crescent of Embrace points to Mecca"

The following is the blogburst text. My geometrical 2 ¢ worth: any 2 random points can form a line. Making 3 points fall on a line requires conscious design.

Everyone involved with the Flight 93 Memorial knows that the Crescent of Embrace points to Mecca



In 2007, Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird told Alec Rawls (the author of these blogburst posts) that everyone at the meetings he attended is fully aware that the giant crescent, originally named the Crescent of Embrace, really does point almost exactly to Mecca. Professor Baird says they all just assume (himself included) that the Mecca orientation must be an innocent coincidence.

Pretty crazy, when they have also been told the meaning of a crescent that Muslims face to Mecca. Every mosque is built around a Mecca-direction indicator called a mihrab, and the classic mihrab is crescent shaped. Geometrically, the Crescent of Embrace is the world’s largest mihrab.

However honestly Project Partners believe that the Mecca orientation of the crescent must be a coincidence, this is not what they tell the public. When reporters asked Memorial Project Superintendent Joanne Hanley about the Mecca orientation, she denied it:

"The only thing that orients the memorial is the crash site," she said.

Thinking that the Mecca orientation of the crescent must be a coincidence in no way justifies lying to the public about this explosive information. If Baird’s account is accurate—that the dozens of Memorial Project Partners all know that the giant crescent actually does point to Mecca—then the Memorial Project has a lot of explaining to do. Now an overlooked article from 2007 corroborates Professor Baird’s information.


Dr. Glenn Kashurba

It turns out that a Pennsylvania psychiatrist who has been intimately involved with the memorialization of Flight 93 (writing two books on the subject) argued to a reporter before the July 2007 Memorial Project meeting that the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent (which he took as a given) should be seen as coincidental:

“When you calculate angles to Mecca - I'm going to be in Washington, D.C., this week, and I'm sure if I calculate angles of the monuments, at least one points to Mecca,” Kashurba said. “I don't know if it will be the White House or the Lincoln Memorial, but at least one will. People looking for a way to support their way of looking at things will look at this in this way for ever and ever.”

If Dr. Kashurba was getting his information from the Memorial Project’s public statements, he would have denied that the crescent points to Mecca. Here is what Memorial Project Partner Patrick White told the press 9 days before the Kashurba story:

Rawls, of Palo Alto, Calif., contends that the centerpiece of the design points toward Mecca.

Rawls’ claims are untrue and “preposterous,” according to Patrick White, Families of Flight 93 vice president. “We went through in detail all his original claims and came away with nothing.”

Kashurba knew better, as did Patrick White himself. The week after his public denial, a local woman asked White how he could be okay with the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. This time White did not deny the Mecca orientation, but argued that it cannot be seen as honoring Islam because the inexactness of the Mecca orientation would be "disrespectful" to Islam.


Mecca orientation takes literally 2 minutes to verify, starting from source documents

It is not surprising that these Memorial Project insiders would know that the giant crescent does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (1.8° north of Mecca to be precise, ± 0.1°). After all, they had by the summer of 2007 been examining Rawls’ report, and answering questions from the press about it, for over a year, and the near Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is trivially easy to verify.

Just use any of the online Islamic prayer-direction calculators to print out the direction to Mecca from Somerset PA. Place this graphic over the Crescent site-plan on your computer screen, and you will see that the Mecca-direction line (which Muslims call “qibla”) almost exactly bisects the crescent:


The green circle in this image is from the qibla calculator at Islam.com (down at the moment, but you can use the one at Qibla.com, or QiblaLocator.com). A person standing between the tips of the giant crescent and facing into the center of the crescent will be facing almost exactly at Mecca.

Patrick White knows this and deceives the press and the public about it. Dr. Kashurba knows it and stands by as White and others deceive the press and the public about it. These deceptions have been blatant.


Everything points to Mecca?

The Project even went to far as to dig up an academic fraud from Texas, willing to deny that there is any such thing as the direction to Mecca:

Daniel Griffith, a geospatial information sciences professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, said anything can point toward Mecca, because the earth is round.

Was the reporter embarrassed to ask Muslims if they can really face any direction to face Mecca? Hard to blame her. Just to ask such a stupid question is to answer it, but the obviousness of the fraud is no excuse for letting it stand.

According to Professor Baird, every Memorial Project member who saw these denials knew that they were fraudulent, yet not one of them has tried to tell the public about the Project’s dishonest cover-up. When the truth does get out to the broader public, Project members are going to have a lot to answer for, which is presumably why they are keeping their mouths shut now. They have done a very bad thing and they don’t want it exposed.


What proves Islamic intent is the architect’s elaborate repetition of the Mecca orientation

No one ever claimed that the almost exact Mecca orientation of the Crescent of Embrace proves Islamic intent. Architect Paul Murdoch proves intent in a different way: by elaborate repetition of his Mecca orientations. His first confirmation of intent is to include an exact Mecca orientation.

In Murdoch’s explanation, the flight path breaks the circle, turning it into the giant crescent. To find this thematically defined crescent, remove those parts of the full Crescent of Embrace that extend out past the point where the flight path breaks the circle. The resulting true or thematic crescent points EXACTLY at Mecca:


At the upper tip of the crescent, the flight path comes down from the NNE and symbolically breaks the circle. What symbolically remains standing is the true or thematic Crescent of Embrace, pointing exactly at Mecca.

Murdoch’s next confirmation of intent is to exactly repeat this entire multi-Mecca oriented geometry in the vast array of crescents of trees that surround the Tower of Voices part of the memorial. Setting aside the chance that an architect could in the first place design a memorial to Flight 93 out of nothing but crescents just by innocent coincidence (which must be close to zero), the odds that these crescents would by random chance manifest Murdoch’s repeated Mecca orientations are 1 in 131 billion:




The only change was to include an explicitly broken off part of the circle

The original Crescent of Embrace design included the symbolically broken off parts at the upper crescent tip. When the bare naked Islamic-crescent shape caused a public uproar, the Memorial Project added another broken off part of the circle, floating out in front of the mouth of the original crescent.

They call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, the symbolic result of 9/11, is still a giant Islamic shaped crescent, still pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. That makes it a mihrab, the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial is actually a terrorist memorial mosque.


To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

David Letterman has a history of telling child rape jokes

A PUMA blog has reposted from a Team Sarah blog the history of child rape "jokes" Letterman has told over the years.

Reposting the background of the dispute from a Fire David Letterman Facebook group discussion (where you need to be registered in order to read):

Dave's "joke" was about a 14 year old

While Letterman CLAIMS he was talking about her Sarah Palin's OTHER daughter, the 18 year old and not the 14 year old, only an extremely naive person would take Dave at his word.

Dave's monologue is not ad libbed, it is scripted by a staff of paid, union writers. They had the time & ability to research & fact check their story before recording the show. All the stories that listed Palin's entourage included the name & age of the daughter accompanying her to New York

A story published 7 June:

"Accompanying Palin on the trip is her husband, Todd, and the couple's 14-year-old daughter, Willow"

A story published 6 June:

"She's traveling with her husband, Todd, and her 14-year old daughter, Willow"

Dave & his staff of writers knew that he was attacking Willow, the implication being that Palin is a bad mother & that all of her daughters are promiscuous. Dave somewhat miscalculated in thinking that no one would call him on it & that his leftists friends in the media would have his back. He certainly appears to have guessed correctly on the latter assumption.

Countering the defenders of Letterman

Letterman defenders seem to make two general points:

1) GOP talk show hosts, specifically Limbaugh, have said mean things about Democratic politicians' children, aka implying Chelsea Clinton is a dog. Ergo, complaining about Dave is hypocritical.

Counterpoints

Whilst being rude, Limbaugh never advocated raping Chelsea Clinton. Limbaugh clearly apologized in a timely manner, aka immediately afterwards versus waiting an entire week. Limbaugh clearly apologized on his accord versus waiting for sponsors & lawyers to compel him to pretend to be contrite. One can quibble over Limbaugh's & Letterman's level of sincerity but one can't refute the ultimate outcome: LIMBAUGH NO LONGER HAS A TV SHOW & ONLY WORKS ON AM RADIO. I wouldn't have a problem if the same fate befell Letterman.

2) Democratic talk show hosts have a history of telling child rape "jokes". Ergo, everybody does it, so it's OK.

Counterpoint

Has anyone tried using that rationalization to weasel out of a speeding ticket? "Golly, officer, everybody else is speeding, so you are forbidden from giving me a ticket." It's not an all or nothing proposition. The traffic cop isn't obligated to hand out tickets to everyone who is speeding. Similarly, critics are focusing on Letterman now. We reserve the right to go after other perverts who tell child rape "jokes" in the future. I thank the Letterman defenders for doing the grunt work & turning up ammunition to potentially use against O'Brien & Leno for any future boycott against them once we're done punishing Letterman. However, perhaps Letterman's treatment will serve as a cautionary tale to others & they'll eschew from ever telling child rape jokes again.

Hillbuzz has great advice for writing boycott letters, plus points of contact & address information for people who want to write hard copy letters. Hillbuzz is using the strategy of targeting Dave's biggest sponsors with a family friendly brand image. They are now focusing on Mars, Kelloggs, Johnson & Johnson.

& PUMA PAC have great boilerplate letters that you can tweak before sending.

A sample business letter to use as a format guide.

blogburst post: "False AP report: Obama did NOT say that Iran must respect voters' choice"

Obama's comments were mushy, yes, but at least he said the most important thing, according to AP:

He said it's up to Iran to determine its own leaders but that the country must respect voters' choice.

Why then have reputable people continued to pass harsh judgment? And why would AP paraphrase what would have been Obama’s key statement?

Turns out Obama said no such thing. What he actually said is that the VOICES of the Iranian people should be heard and respected, not their votes:

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

This is consistent with the rest of Obama's remarks. He never said a word about respecting votes. Obama did mention "the democratic process," but far from saying anything about this process having to meet any standards of integrity, he instead implied strongly that he will accept whatever result the "process" followed by the Mullahs produces:

I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football...

Democracy means that Iranian sovereignty lies with the Iranian people and that a regime that rigs an election is NOT sovereign. Yet Obama is explicit that he will continue to treat the mullahs as the Iranian sovereign no matter how they judge the election. He even goes so far as to suggest that the only reason he is bothering to comment on the competing claim to sovereignty at all is because it would be unseemly for him not to:

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days.

The only operative concerns that he mentions are for: "free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent." When he talks about the "democratic process" going forward, all he urges is that the process be peaceful and that dissent be allowed. He says nothing about the process being honest:

...there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

It is no accident that Obama ended with the statement that AP paraphrased so egregiously (equating his call for bloodless suppression with a demand for legitimate elections). This was his theme throughout. He views the honesty of Iran's democratic process as something to be judged by the mullahs, who he clearly accepts to be the sovereign power, regardless of the merits of competing claims.


AP covers its tracks, just like they did with the Flight 93 memorial



AP's fraudulent report about Obama demanding respect for voters' choice was the primary print report on Obama's comments. Now that it has already misled millions of people, AP has covered its tracks by filing an update that overwrites the errant statement. This is what AP does when it gets caught putting out misinformation. To avoid issuing a correction, they flush the misleading story down the memory hole by using the same url for a completely different story. (Google only finds AP's original article still posted at Fox News.)

AP did the same thing last year after it was taken to task for failing to check the most basic facts in a story about the controversy over possible Islamic symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial. Ramesh Santanam reported a number of conflicting factual assertions, like the 44 blocks:

Opponents also claim there is a plan to have 44 glass blocks, for the 40 victims and four hijackers, in the design.

"That's an absolute, unequivocal fabrication that is being portrayed as fact," said Edward Felt's brother, Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight 93. "It's misleading and helps drive the conspiracy theory."

When it was pointed out that Santanam could have found the four extra blocks just by opening up the design drawings and counting, AP quickly filed a completely different story (about fundraising for the memorial), under the same url.

It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with AP using subject feeds that automatically update with their latest offering. It is that AP is systematically using this system to dodge corrections. This is actually their official policy:

For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.

Except AP virtually never issue corrective stories, for the simple reason that AP has no established correction procedure. They just do the overwrite thing and say "too bad."

Well this time the overwrite thing is not good enough.


Demand a corrective story about AP's false paraphrase of Obama's words

Associated Press obviously understands the importance of Obama saying that Iran must respect voters' choice or they wouldn't have bothered to pretend that he said it when he didn't. They don't just fail to mention Obama's glaring omission on this crucial point, but actually tell the public via false paraphrase that he did say what he glaringly omitted. This cannot stand. Faced with our new president's key statement on a historic crisis, AP reports a photo negative of what Obama actually said.

There may be no established procedure for AP corrections, but anyone can still send a pre-written email to AP CEO Tom Curley, Editor Kathleen Carroll, the reporters who worked on the story (the egregious Jennifer Loven, along with Anne Gearan and Robert Burns), plus a smattering of other AP editors and bureaucrats. Who knows. There may even be a limit to how disingenuous some of these people are willing to be.


To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

UPDATE

It's really a moot question to ask whose side either Obama or the AP is on.

Letterman is still a pervert who thinks that statutory rape is funny but just not economically profitable to talk about on television

I still find David Letterman to be an annoying pervert; however, his obot rapist apologists not only annoy me, they give me nightmares. A blog entitled Truth Conquers Nothing: Spin is Everything , but translated into carp Latin to make the schmo who writes it sound pseudo-intellectual, through the employment of sophistical logorrhea, attempts to justify the legitimacy of statutory rape. I, personally, disagree that statutory rape is totally cool & awesome & voiced my belief on their comment section. This resulted in the following well reasoned syllogism:

A) All left thinking progs think statutory rape is totally cool & awesome
B) Adagio does not think that statutory rape is totally cool & awesome
C) Ergo, Adagio must be a home schooled creationist who wants to ride around on a dinosaur all day long & must be liquidated like the uppity kulak she is.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, I, like all right thinking people, do support the outfitting of dinosaurs with laser guns and jet packs as part of the US missile defense shield against NORK attacks. However, I don't want to ride around on carnivorous dinos, since they'd want to eat me, nor do I want to ride around on herbivorous dinos, since they'd want to squash me. As a compromise, I'd settle for riding around on a genetically engineered Woolly Mammoth in order to invade Canada & squash all evil prog rapist apologists.

If you don't want to just accept this trend of "defining deviancy down" and want to do something more productive than just fantasizing about crushing evil Canadian prog rapist apologists under the furry feet of G.E. Woolly Mammoths, a good place to start is to peruse the posts at Hillbuzz where there are numerous tutorials on the subject of boycotts and protests.

UPDATE

It was perceptively pointed out that my drawing style is an homage to the great Frank the Artist of IMAO. Frank's most pertinent creation that informs this post is his commentary on the Saul Alinksy Wing of the Democratic Party's response to rape victims being stoned to death:

5 Ways to Help the Iranian People

Since Dr. Utopia doesn't want to help foreign people ensure that their votes are counted properly (why would he? He doesn't care if the vote is counted properly domestically):



other organizations are trying to step in & give advice on how individuals can show their solidarity with & help Iranian protesters .

What would happen if Iran nuked Israel?

A commenter on Debbie Schlussel's post about the word count of Obama's Cairo speech suggested creating a wordle, so here is one of said speech, fwiw:
I didn't infer the same conclusion that George Stephanopoulos did with Hillary Clinton's interview:Iranian Attack on Israel is Attack on U.S. Hillary said that if Iran nuked Israel, that "there would be retaliation". George tried to nail this jello-ish statement to the wall by prompting, "by the United States," to which Hillary would not explicitly concur. Hence, I inferred that the Obama administration was neither committing to a US conventional, let alone nuclear, response to Iran in such a scenario. I inferred that, at most, Obama might send a strongly worded memo to the UN to tut-tut such an occurrence & then probably write another speech equating the historic suffering of the Jews to the displacement of the Palestinians.



All of the commenters on ABC's board seemed solely concerned about a potential Israeli attack on Iran versus vice versa. From Jeff Olsen:

so we can also say an attack on Iran by Israel is an attack of US on Iran!?

Goerge kept asking if Iran attacks Israel then what, but is seem no one is allowed to ask if Israel attacks Iran then what.

George, for tha last so many years that you remember when did Iran attack any neigboring country?

please be fair.

Golly, Jeff, if you completely ignore all the "freedom fighter" or "manmade disasters" deployed in proxy wars trained & funded by Iran, then I guess you are technically correct, but that seems rather disingenuous. The US is attacked for having the CIA cooperate with Britain's MI6's 1953 overthrow of Iran's Soviet backed government. If the US is held accountable for the CIA's doings, I don't see why Iran should receive a pass for the nefarious goings on of their Persian analog.

UPDATE

NRO's take on Obama's Cairo speech:

President Obama’s Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds[...]

Murtha (D, Valley of Humiliation) under the Obama bus

Playing the game that NewsBusters made famous of "Guess the Political Party" , notice how the Obamaganda media never actually mentions the fact that Murtha, the corrupt politician currently being investigated by the FBI for his extraordinary levels of corruptness, is a DEMOCRAT throughout the entire 2:31 video?



The NRO finds it amazing that CBS actually covered the fact that Murtha is a corrupt politician, linking to another video in which the journalists never actually SAY that Murtha is a DEMOCRAT, but prints the fact that Murtha is a DEMOCRAT on the screen @2:50 for a few seconds in a 3:15 video. If Murtha had been GOP, that would have been constantly reiterated throughout the story & his behavior would have been stereotyped to represent all GOP.

The DEMOCRAT Murtha's corruptness is nothing new & the exact same Dem media went to the mat to get Murtha, the DEMOCRAT, reelected in the 2008 general election. My hypothesis is that the same Dem media are willing to throw Murtha, the DEMOCRAT, under the bus in the hopes that a slightly less corrupt Dem will take his place & run in the next Dem primary,

This would be along the same lines as the Dem media willingly throwing Democratic former Ohio Attorney General Marc "pizza orgies" Dann & Democratic former NY Governor Eliot "hooker-gate" Spitzer quickly under the donkey bus, because they knew their replacements would be Democrats. If the GOP would have in any way directly benefited from either Spitzer or Dann stepping down, the organs of Democratic propaganda would have spun into overdrive to accuse the GOP of being puritanical, sex-o-phobic, & in the case of Dann, carb-o-phobic & anti-Italian.

If the Dems have enough time to recover before a general election, they want to throw their rotten cohorts under the bus, steam roll them flat, spread tar & asphalt over them till voters lose all recollection of their memory. If voters do vaguely remember the former disgraced pol, the Dems hope that they're falsely remembered as GOP versus the corrupt Dems that they truly are, such as Jay Leno falsely blaming the GOP for Democrat Spitzer.

Poverty, chastity, and obedience

It seems that the only minor detail The One would need to amend to the vows @ 9:55 would be to change "poverty, chastity, and obedience" to "poverty, abortions (mandatory for all RethugliKKKan reactionaries), and obedience", since it's a SIN to want to Stop Inflation Now.



Government Motors' progressive new car line:

non-Obots = crazy people

Following the tradition of historic totalitarian dictatorships, people who don't buy into the cult of personality surrounding the Dear Leader, say, for example, Susan Boyle allegedly snubbing Obama, are classified as crazy people:

CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton explained on The Early Show Monday that, "The terms ‘exhaustion’ or ‘nervous breakdown’ are not medical terms. They don't exist in the medical community. Typically, when we hear those terms, doctors think of something called acute psychosis, or a psychotic break, which usually means someone has an underlying predisposition, and that all of these environmental situations ... fatigue, or pressure, really just are too much for them and push them over the edge. But ... without an underlying psychiatric or psychological condition in general, usually people would not wind up hospitalized because of this."

Since Boyle was not a total Obot, she must be denounced as an enemy of the people. My hypothesis is that if Boyle was more enthusiastically pro-Obama, that the US MSM would have more sympathetically covered her hospitalization.

US debt default = no big deal?

What if not only GM goes bankrupt, but the United States decides to default on its debt? According to taxpayer supported PBS, defaulting on the national debt would be no big deal, don't worry, be happy:

"Increasingly some are worried about the potential for a downgrade of the U.S. government's triple A credit rating. Why does it matter? Because a downgrade would increase our borrowing costs and reflect an increased risk for sovereign default [...]But let's consider a little history. Sovereign defaults have been occurring for centuries [...] A U.S. debt default isn't the problem; its the solution."

The US has never defaulted on its national debt, unless you wish to quibble and characterize leaving the gold standard as a technical debt default. This ignores the fact that the US was a creditor nation after WWI & that the countries that owed us money, Britain & France, both left the gold standard. It would have made no sense for the US to pay out gold bullion for our transactions whilst we were being paid in other countries' monopoly paper bills. Even when the US was a war torn former colony, it managed to pay back its Revolutionary War debt, plus interest, in gold bullion.

Green = New Red

Since the CCCP lost the Cold War, openly being a Marxist has lost some of its cachet. It's still cooler to don Soviet inspired apparel (for example, the ever popular Che t-shirt):

than it is to wear Nazi inspired apparel (for example, the never popular Himmler t-shirt), even though Stalin ended up killing more people than Hitler. The avant-garde, who want to look hip and edgy, floundered for a few years to find a hue to replace the now déclassé red. The former reds finally stumbled upon the color green.

PBS NOW confirms what conservatives have suspected all along: that a number of "green" militants don't truly care either about the environment, or about helping the human race. Rather, they just want to attack Western Civilization, in general, and classical liberal democracy & free market capitalism, in particular. In the years before the Kool Aid Drinking, such people were called watermelons, since they are green on the outside, but red on the inside. Edward John Craig at the National Review even suggested a test to distinguish between what I suppose could be termed limes, people who are thoroughly green, and watermelon rinds, people with just the veneer of green. The term even spread overseas:

5 of them are in the category of orbiting Pluto, ranging from Fantasy Trotskyite, new-com, watermelon Marxist, a fake-peasant anarchist, and a hunter to a geriatric fascist

However, in today's day & age, it's politically incorrect to employ such a term, even though Democrats feel that it's still totally cool to racially stereotype black Republicans:

Condoleezza holds a watermelon just over the edge of the roof of the 300-foot Federal Building, and tosses it up with a velocity of 20 feet per second ...

It hits bush and cheney and they are covered with watermelon goop.

I'm okay with a little racial insensitivity as long as it results in bush getting hit with a watermelon. Well, not really, but they are making such a huge deal out of this over in GD that I felt the need to poke fun at them.

& are only offended when people attacking the GOP receive a slap on the wrist:

Oh for Pete's sake... it's not like she was *eating* the watermelon -- she was SMASHING that horrible symbol of racial oppression! Are we just not allowed to talk about blacks and watermelons in the same sentence anymore?

The answer to the rhetorical question posed above has two parts:

(1) Democrats are allowed to use any & all racist, sexist, ageist, etc ad infinitum attacks against their political opponents.

Conversely

(2) Political opponents of Democrats may never criticize said Democrats for fear of being smeared a racist, sexist, ageist, etc ad infinitum in the media

Hence, the only politically correct way to currently use the term watermelon might be to point out that some people who employ feigned interest in the environment have micro-managing fascist tendencies.

For a possible PC micromanaging Marxist example, take the current Speaker of the House:

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

“We have so much room for improvement,” she said. “Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility.”

However, because of the left's hypocritical double standards, critics who characterize Obama's new special advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Van Jones, as a watermelon will most likely be denounced as evil racists & placed on the DHS terrorist watch list.

After racking my brain, & a cursory google search, I couldn't come up with any politically correct fruit that is green on the outside & red on the inside. I then thought outside the box & came up with the term lizards, an animal that usually fits such a cross-sectional criteria. Replacing watermelons with lizards as the symbol for crypto-Marxists will serendipitously dovetail nicely into ABC's upcoming remake of "V".

Van Jones is not a scientist, or an engineer, but simply a former charismatic community organizer. His appointment is not surprising, since speed dating algorithms predict that narcissists will attract each other:

"When someone else is like you and has the same attitudes," Gonzaga explains, "that validates the attitudes that you have...They’re making you feel better about yourself."

@ 10:00-10:40 on this NOW video Van Jones openly admits that he simply used the green mantra as a gimmicky trick to help redistribute the wealth around to the community he was organizing.

Thus, Obama plans to destroy the US coal industry as well as bankrupt the entire US economy solely to pay back his political constituencies.

CODA

Upon further googling, people looking for a vegan alternative to the crypto-Marxist lizard symbol might try horse chestnuts, since they are red nuts surrounded by a green covering.


UPDATE

Van Jones made a guest appearance in ABC's sci-fi thriller Earth 2100, where he advocates the establishment of a Eco-Comintern equivalent in order to better determine how much the ACORN apparatchiks should extract from each according to his ability to redistribute to each according to his need.

Nancy Pelosi = which fictional villain?

The concern trolls created a kerfuffle over an RNC anti-Pelosi ad that's allegedly sexist.

To allay the Huff & Puff/Kos Kids concern trolls, the RNC pulled the ad. In so doing, I believe that the GOP made a tactical error (what else is new?). Now, people can't watch it and independently arrive at their own conclusions. However, critics of the video have not and will not delete their negative remarks which will remain in the ether for election cycles to come. Hence, having no other reference points, people will be led to imagine that the GOP portrayed Pelosi as a giant tap dancing vagina, or some such. If the GOP had just left the video up, its content couldn't possibly be worse than what Obots twisted imaginations will dream up.

Conversely, Harry Reid called George W. Bush's mother a bitch , which resulted in an obligatory cascade of "Ya Momma" jokes directed @ Harry Reid's fat, ugly , stupid, slutty mother. However, rather than linking arms in solidarity to denounce this overt expression of sexism, the aforementioned leftist concern trolls magically morphed into chirping crickets. It's almost as if there is a double standard applied to the GOP versus Dems. Imagine...



This all begs the question: "Which fictional villain best embodies Nancy Pelosi's vile nature?" The, choices, off the top of my head:

* Wizard of Oz's Wicked Witch of the West
* James Bond's Pussy Galore
* Snow White's Evil Queen
* Narnia's Evil Queen
* Shakespeare's Lady MacBeth
* Tale of Two Cities' Madame Defarge
* Mary Poppins' repressed ID: "Scary Mary"



I posted the poll at the top of the right hand column. Follow ACORN's example: vote early and vote often & feel free to post any write-in options in the comment section.

UPDATE I

I always thought that US News & World Report was a right of center publication, but I suppose they've drunken the Kool Aid, as well, & have become card carrying members of the Obamaganda cult.



UPDATE II

The New Agenda people who complained about the Pelosi ads also complained about how Letterman treated Palin, so I suppose they are making an attempt to be bi-partisan in their defense of unfair attacks against women, so I took down my poll early. The Wizard of Oz's Wicked Witch of the West was leading in the votes fwiw.