Ron Paul Or David Horowitz, Who Is Fascist-ier?

On the Glenn Beck program, David Horowitz had some choice words for Ron Paul and his supporters. As someone who considers themselves a Libertarian, I found it particularly ridiculous and factually incorrect. I decided to do a side-by-side comparison to find out which is truly more fascist, Ron Paul, David Horowitz, or a can of peas.



Now for the comparison.



As you can clearly see from this unbiased comparison, Ron Paul is significantly less of a fascist that David Horowitz, and slightly less fascist than a can of peas. So have no fear, you don't have to worry about Ron Paul sleeping with Islamo-Fascists in the White House.

Michelle Malkin Is A Fascist

Oh, like you didn't already know.

It seems to me that the people who often speak so loudly for the First Amendment every time someone comes after them for criticizing gays/religion/Democrats are also the ones who work so hard to censor criticism of themselves. I was reading Michelle Malkin's website today, because I hadn't been thoroughly pissed off yet today, and I found in the comments that the vast majority of her registered readers seemed to agree with her. I knew that even the small subset of people who actually take the time to register on michellemalkin.com couldn't be that stupid, so I thought I'd do some digging.

I searched through the site to find out how I could register, and upon reading the terms of use, found out that she was no longer allowing any more new people to post comments. I also found her policy on "letting comments stand" (Oh please Michelle, let my comment stand! Have mercy on my humble opinion, even though it is not worthy of the pixels it uses to be near your heavenly ideas.).

It turns out, although Michelle Malkin may let your comment stay if she "disagrees with you" (how generous of her) she reserves the right to delete posts that are "off-topic, libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane (take a breath), pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws (isn't it a stretch to call what Michelle Malkin writes intellectual?). Michelle Malkin is a fascist who may or may not be a man, and often mutilates chickens for sexual pleasure. How is that for false and misleading?

To really crystallize the picture of the type of people Michelle Malkin does allow on her site, I will repost here a few snippets from comments left on her last post: The CIA destroyed interrogation videos, what the Dems knew and when.

The first one was posted after someone justified harsh interrogation methods by saying "Sitting around a campfire in our pajamas singing songs and holding hands won’t get it done." The response:

The campfire would work if the guest of honor was tied to a stake in the middle of it.

Suggesting that we burn captives at the stake? Interesting tactic, albeit perhaps a little abusive and threatening.

I note that the CIA destroyed the tapes exactly because they knew that if a liberal saw the tapes and they showed anything other than the CIA officer bowing down in supplication before the muslim, then it would be considered torture and the CIA interrogator would have his life destroyed by as many false charges and prosecutions as it took.

It seems to me that it would be easier to make false charges WITHOUT a tape. If we had one, perhaps we could actually see what happened, but then again I may just be a visual learner. This comment would actually be ok if it said "I note the CIA destroyed the tapes to cover their ass." So he at least had the first seven words correct, then he veered a bit too far to the right.

And finally, not a particularly vicious comment, but one that I think demonstrates the foolishness of the people who rabidly defend torture.

That said, I am agnostic on destroying evidence.

Is the Central Intelligence Agency's destruction of evidence of a possible crime a bad thing? *scratches head* Gee, I guess I don't know.

Feel free to comment on this post, and rest easily knowing I won't delete your opinion, unless of course it is false, slightly different than mine, defamatory, unsightly, too long, liberal, abusive, and let's not forget pornographic.

The Real Answer To Social Security

Alan Greenspan said in 2005 that in order to keep Social Security afloat in the future, the U.S. would either have to significantly raise taxes or cut benefits. However, since none of these options seem to appeal to the American people, I would like to consider what I think to be the obvious solution: fewer old people.

It is no doubt that there are more elderly people now than ever, and unfortunately, it is there oldness that is ruining Social Security. By selfishly remaining alive, these people are dragging the country towards economic trouble. But, you might ask, "what exactly can I do to help solve this problem?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

Most of us live near at least one or two old people that we consider friendly, forgetful, or easy to steal from. These people are generally unassuming, and have a chair that allows them to only face one direction for 90% of their waking life, so here's what you need to do. When the elderly target, er, citizen is not paying attention, simply apply a thin coat of butter to the top step of their highest staircase (in order to do this, you may have to remove the non-slip liner they purchased with that slow-cooker from the home shopping channel). Once you are finished, you merely need to wait...doesn't it feel great to serve your nation? Oh, and don't worry about the butter being left over as evidence, the 19 cats your old person undoubtedly has should make quick work of it.

However, while the previous method is highly effective, some of you may prefer a slightly less direct method. For you, I recommend creating a trail of things that will catch the attention of an elderly person, while not alerting the rest of the population. For this I recommend a variety of mailing materials from Publisher's Clearing House. Once the target of your operation has been led far enough away from their home, simply end the path, and, contrary to popular belief, over 90% are unable to find their way home.

I hope you find these simple techniques for lowering the Social Security obligations of the U.S. government helpful. Should you decided to implement these tactics, you are surely a true patriot. After all, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. If you have any more questions, feel free to e-mail me at thehonorableflamingo@leavenworthprison.gov.

Anatomy Of A Ron Paul Smear

Of course, the bloggers out there tend to denigrate their least favorite candidates in very clear terms, and that is great, but surely this doesn't happen in the main-stream media, does it? Think again. Although they certainly can not be honest about it, the media has been slowly but surely marginalizing the support for Ron Paul, and I'd like to show you how to do it yourselves, if you so choose.

1.) Brand supporters with a nick-name.
Paulians or Paulites are two of the most popular. These names just scream that we are dealing with a tiny group of people. Surely, if his support were wide-spread, the media wouldn't have to give everyone who favors him a pet name? My personal favorite of these, however, is neither of the two above, but rather Paulistinians. That's great...associate Ron Paul supporters with a group most Americans have negative views of, how fair and balanced.

2.) Associate them with people identified as evil or crazy.
Whether it be racist "white power" people, or 9/11 truthers, the tactic is just the same. Throw in some vague terms, followed by the name of some racist and/or crazy person who no one has ever heard of and explain how Ron Paul accepted money from him/her. Be sure to make it sound as though Paul took the money directly from him whilst giving him a Swedish massage. This is a good tactic, because we all know that if he doesn't spend his time and money refuting these endorsements, then he must agree with them.

3.) Relegate their campaign to "internet people".
For some reason, and I'm not sure why, internet support seems to be used only in a derogatory manner. "Well, they are only internet supporters". What the hell does the mean? Are likely Republican primary voters unaware of the internet? The internet permeates the lives of nearly everyone everyday...how can support coming from it be bad? How can any support be bad?

In an effort to demonstrate these techniques, I have penned a small sample paragraph that I think will illustrate the phenomenon quite clearly.

Ron Paul supporters, or Rontards, flocked to a rally he held in Iowa last week. Among them was a random guy, who is the spokesperson for the group "Americans for the Destruction and Mutilation of Cute, Cuddly Kittens", or ADMCCK. He said, "ADMCCK really feels as though we can get on board with Ron Paul. With a national membership of more than 57, it is important that we elect a candidate who we think possibly would allow us to continue our feline extermination programs in peace." Random guy also mentioned that he had donated almost $12 to the Ron Paul campaign over the course of the past month. Money Ron Paul has not yet returned.

CNN Debate - Gays In The Military

I watched the Youtube Republican debate Wednesday, and there was one answer in particular that I found rather objectionable. So I've decided to make a video of it, with commentary interspersed. The quality probably isn't that good, but it's mostly because I don't care and I didn't want to spend hours making something decent. Enjoy.

Sexism In The Main-Stream Media

A while back, there was a large uproar over the possibility that Rosie O'Donnell might be offered her own show on MSNBC. Mostly it was conservative commentators who objected to her extreme political views, and because they firmly believe that the only idiocy fit for the airwaves is theirs.

For a while, the majority seemed to believe that she would get her program, but I knew from the beginning that this would not be the case. It isn't that there is not room for polarizing viewpoints in network news, but that there is no room for ugly women with polarizing viewpoints in network news.

To demonstrate my point, I have conducted a poorly researched and most likely completely biased investigation into the hiring of only attractive women as anchors or commentators. First, take a look at this selection of photos of anchors and reporters from the three major news networks.
Ok, so Michelle Malkin may actually be a man, but the rest are definitely legitimate. Now let's take a moment to compare those women to this picture of Rosie O'Donnell.

I think it is easy to see why she wouldn't quite "fit" in the group above (pun intended of course).

We might expect that this phenomenon of hiring only the photogenic to do the news is not a gender biased system, so I decided to do a little digging. Needless to say, I was horrified at what I found.
Sexism is truly alive and well in our cable networks.

Jesus For Giuliani!

That's right, Pat Robertson, the well known Christian leader has come out in full support of Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Fitting too, as the announcement came only a few days after Satan, known to some as the "Prince of Darkness" or "Bill Clinton" announced he would fully support the Democratic nominee. Last weekend Osama bin Laden also made a similar statement, although he did so through a press release.

Robertson's endorsement is one that is coveted among Republicans, and this dealt a blow to Mitt Romney, who had been trying to court conservative Christians during his campaign. After all, who wouldn't want the be backed by a guy who has the power to pray a hurricane away from his business headquarters. Never mind the eight people that hurricane killed when it hit the coast above Virginia Beach, they were probably all homosexuals. That's the kind of uniting force Republicans need, and there is no more morally upstanding person to get it from than a guy who has said that homosexuality could cause massive natural disasters and "possibly a meteor."

Although Robertson and Giuliani don't always see eye-to-eye on social issues, many saw this as an important endorsement for national security reasons. In fact, Robertson himself said that the issue differences "pale in comparison" to the importance of the global war on terror. That's a good point, because as we all know, there is no more staunch advocate of perpetual war than Jesus Christ. It's a good thing Robertson finally told people of faith who they could vote for, they were getting anxious.

Now, if you don't mind, I had better wrap this up before Mr. Robertson prays an earthquake into my home.

Three Reasons Hilary Clinton Will Be President

Just to let everyone know, I don't plan on voting for Hilary Clinton next year, but based on careful analysis of key issues, I've concluded that she has the best chance of being President. Here I will run down the three most important issues, and then outline why she is in the best position to come out on top.

Hair
There is no doubt about it, Presidential hair is one of the key factors in earning election in the United States, and Hilary has it. Her 'doo' has just the right amount of bounce and liveliness, without at the same time looking pompous. Historically, hair has been a huge factor in the election of U.S. Presidents. For instance, take a look at this photo of Martin van Buren. Many political analysts claim that Van Buren only lasted one term because of the recession and resulting poor economy, but I think we know differently. We need only look at the top of his head. But, it is important to note that John Edwards and Mitt Romney also have Presidential hair, so we must continue.

Look
There has been much debate over whether or not the United States is ready for a woman President. Some people have been divided over this issue, but I think there is one thing we can all agree on: America isn't ready for an attractive woman President. Here Hilary fits the bill perfectly. We need a President who will be effective in reforming the health care system, while at the same time not raising red flags from your wife or girlfriend over your sudden interest in the State of the Union address. I think it's safe to say that Hilary Clinton will do neither. However, on this list we could also include Rudy Giuliani or Chris Dodd, and they have four wives between the two of them to prove it.

She's No Pushover
There has been speculation recently about whether or not Hilary Clinton is too weak to be President. Specifically, after she fumbled the immigration question in the debate and called it unfair, many have asked "if she can't handle Tim Russert, how can she handle Ahmadinejad." I don't think these people are looking at all the facts. Hilary Clinton refused oral sex to the most powerful man in the country. This certainly proves she is no pushover, because we know Bill was asking. So, how will she handle Ahmadinejad? Personally, I don't know, but I'm sure it won't be with fellatio.

So there, if you aren't now convinced that Hilary Clinton will be the next President, than I'm not sure what else I can do. I think I've provided an airtight case and laid out pretty much all her most impressive credentials. Now, I have to go send this to the Fox News Channel. Maybe they'll offer me a job. Hell, I can't be any less qualified than Brit Hume.

Bill O'Reilly Answers My Mail...And Takes It Out Of Context

Bill O'Reilly answered my letter on his November 7th show. I thought I should put it up here, unfortunately, I only have audio. By the way, he got my name wrong too.



I wrote my letter in response to a segment he did on the previous night's show about the torturing of captives. In that context, I thought it was pretty clear that by "enemies" I meant those that we had captured, but I guess I was wrong. The bombings of Japan and Nazi Germany during WWII were just acts of war, however, the torturing of helpless captives is never justified.

I should also clarify that nowhere in my letter did I mention "dead Americans". The "Americans" portion of that was a complete fabrication. What I wrote was "Your 'families dead in the streets' argument is merely fear-mongering." This was in response to an argument Bill had with Liz Wiehl. He said something to the effect of "So your family is lying dead in the streets and you won't allow us to use harsh interrogation methods." The primary objection of my letter was this message of "allow torture or your family will be slaughtered." That is fear-mongering.

Since I have really no authority to speak on this subject, and it is just my word against Bill's when I say torture is immoral and it doesn't work, I've decided to bring in an expert. Retired Army Colonel Stuart Herrington worked as an interrogator in Vietnam, Panama, and during the Gulf War with Iraq. He was also asked to help train Iraq-bound interrogators in the art of non-coercive interrogation. I will use his words to support my argument now.

"In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners "guests" and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality."

Can you imagine a 19 or 20 year old Al-Qaeda fighter, captured on the battlefield, sitting in the interrogation room? A person that has been indoctrinated with the idea that Americans are pure evil, and will brutalize him mercilessly. If we merely strap him to a board and pretend to drown him, it does nothing but reinforce these beliefs. He can say to himself, "they are exactly as I thought they were." However, treating a captive with respect, probably more than he ever received from terrorist leaders, will go farther to show him Americans are not bad than electricity applied to the genitals ever could.

"But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career."

Funny, a 30 year career that has never encountered this situation, and yet every question about torture given to Presidential candidates seems to focus on it.

Finally, he ends with a story from the Gulf War, about an Iraqi general who was interrogated not with hostility, but with respect and skill.

"An Iraqi general, captured and humiliated during Operation Desert Storm, is initially frightened and defiant but eventually cooperates, knowing that Saddam Hussein's penalty for treason was certain death. Before repatriation, the general hands his captor his prayer beads and a scrap of paper bearing an address, saying with emotion, 'Our Islamic custom requires that we show gratitude to those who bestow kindness and mercy. These beads comforted me through your Air Force's fierce bombings for 39 days, but they are all I have. When Saddam is gone, please come to my home. You will be an honored guest and we will slaughter a lamb to welcome you.'"

You can read the full article from the Colonel here.

I guess not everyone agrees with you Mr. O'Reilly.

When we use the fear of terrorism to justify torture, we become a little bit like the terrorists that we are trying to defeat. We do their job for them, and in fact do far more damage to ourselves than they ever could.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose out freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Dog's Bark Worse Than His Bite?

The A&E Show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" has been put on hold in the aftermath of a racist tirade by the show's star, Duane "Dog" Chapman. The incident began with a recorder telephone conversation in which Chapman referred to his son's girlfriend as a f------ n-----. He said that he refused to risk his entire career on her hearing him use the word n------ and turning it over to "The Enquirer." The Enquirer released the tape earlier this week. This sort of irony is really only fitting for a guy who's "hit" show is on a network that is only watched by old men who can't get out of their chair to change the channel.

But, is it real any surprise that the guy with the leather vest with no shirt underneath and the largest mullet in history harbors some racial bias? He even has to employ armbands just to cover the swastika tattoos on his arms (ok, so I don't know they are swastikas, but until I prove otherwise, I'm going to say they are). His entire persona oozes paranoid white guy with superiority complex, and we are supposed to be surprised when he is actually like that?

However, if the show is ever put back on the air, this may actually help Dog's ratings. After all, who more than white supremacists would like to see a muscular half naked-man running around and capturing muscular, half-naked men of occasional mixed race. If that isn't a KKK TV night/orgy, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, the real fall-out in this case could be between father and son. The prevailing idea is that Dog's son is the one who released the tape in the first place, and probably cost his father a career, along with several of his friends of color (just kidding, I'm pretty sure Dog doesn't have any friends of color). If his son did hand out the tape, however, it sort of ruins that old adage, "the family who tracks down criminals and then takes part in highly suggestive heart-to-heart talks with them together, stays together."

"Reformed" Gays For Obama!

Senator Barack Obama has come under fire recently for allowing the "reformed" gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to perform in one of his campaign's sponsored concerts. Many groups have accused him of pandering to the anti-gay southern church-goers, and quite frankly, they won't get off his ass about it.

McClurkin says that he was delivered from homosexuality by the grace of God, and that he realized his life-style was "not God's intention." He has also stated that he became gay due to being sexually assaulted by male family members in his youth. This also seems to explain why women can't seem to keep their hands off serial rapists.

There is no doubt McClurkin exemplifies the "change" aspect of Obama's campaign, and maybe just in time. The homophobic vote is one that is often ignored by candidates, and it is estimated that these so-called "homophobes" make up a significant part of the population. In fact, many seem to be concentrated in Christian churches, which is the area Obama is targeting. It is also important to note that these people hold very strongly to their beliefs, saying that "homophobia is not a choice" and that instead, it is something placed in them, almost as if by a higher power.

But perhaps McClurkin's message can help bring Obama's campaign to the forefront. If history tells us anything about politics then there is nothing like preying on irrational fear and ignorance to help raise a few dollars. Obama is promoting an idea that might be most appealing to many groups: a society in which there is no need for civil unions.

Things I Just Don't Understand

There are probably a lot of things I don't understand, many more than I could write about here, but I'm just going to focus on two of them.

First of all, Bill O'Reilly. Now I enjoy his show, and I watch it as much as I can. I don't agree with everything he believes or says, and I think I speak for most of his viewers when I say that half the fun of watching The O'Reilly Factor is calling Bill an idiot and hurling insults and rebuttals at the screen from the safety of a couch.

O'Reilly tends to do stories that amount to little more than journalistic pornography. In fact, one of his main stories today, a piece on Girls Gone Wild, featured actual pornography! Naturally, this discussion contained provocative video of young girls, and followed a story in which O'Reilly deplored the way our culture exploits provocative young girls.

Finally, and probably more importantly, I still can not nail down Rudy Giuliani. I would like to stop short of calling him disingenuous, because I think he may actually believe his own nonsense. My biggest qualm is that he speaks about 9/11 as though it is his big accomplishment! This seems akin to lauding yourself for the plague just because you happened to be King. In my opinion, September 11th is an important issue, but it should be a talking point for no candidate.

Unfortunately, it seems he has dragged his wife into it now. She seems like a nice enough person, although it was difficult to tell because in their interview with Sean Hannity I think she was told not to answer questions with any detail whatsoever. Her favorite line was probably "You know Sean, I'm really not a very political person." I thought this was pretty honest, but then counted at least four (it may have been five) references to 9/11 during the relatively short time she actually answered questions.

I just can't get behind this guy...it seems to me that he would say whatever he thought would boost his name further up the polls.

I was going to post pictures of these two, but for some reason blogger won't let me. Hopefully they fix it soon, because just having to read my writing can get pretty boring.

CNBC Republican Debate

Well, another Republican debate is over, and the public is in a tizzy over the results. This debate was held in Dearborn, Michigan and featured Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, those six other guys like them, and Ron Paul, who is kind of like the guy who always gets picked last on the playground. Although I don't have specific statistics, I'm pretty sure the ratings put the debate somewhere between midget thumb wrestling and the convertible bed infomercial. Anyway, let's get right to the analysis.

First, I would like to expose my bias on the subject. I, as well as many who have seen the debates and heard him speak, favor Ron Paul for the Presidency. Thus I will most likely unfairly mock or berate the other candidates in this and future writings. Actually, I take that back, I will still mock or berate them, but I plan to do it fairly.

This particular debate was focused on the economy, and since I have a feeling that most Americans can't tell you much about the Alternative Minimum Tax, or how the federal reserve regulates the market and sometimes causes inflation, I will leave those subjects alone. For me, there was really one question that hurt the two major candidates, Giuliani and Romney, and that is the question I would like to address.

MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...

MATTHEWS: Did he need it?

ROMNEY: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.

Yes, you read that correctly, before going to war, President Romney wouldn't consult with the Congress, but rather with his lawyers! Now that may not sound like a very good plan, but then again, you haven't seen Mitt Romney's lawyer.After that brief exchange, you may have thought Romney had the dumbest remark of the night sewn up. But no! In a stunning upset, Giuliani pulled in with a worse gaffe during that same question.

As a set up, this is how Congressman Ron Paul answered the same question:

MATTHEWS: The same question down the line, gentlemen. It's so important.

Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

I know what you are thinking..."Gee, the Constitution, that is something I haven't heard a Presidential candidate mention in a while." But now, the moment you've all been waiting for, the number one flub/downright stupid statement of the night, and here it is:

PAUL: Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years.

The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way.

Only minutes later...

GIULIANI: It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable, it's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress.

If you're really dealing with an exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.

And the point of -- I think it was Congressman Paul made before -- that we've never had an eminent attack, I don't know where he was on September 11th.

PAUL: That was no country.

That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country.

GIULIANI: And since September -- well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe -- maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it.

Yes, of course, a preemptive strike on Afghanistan or Pakistan, that would have stopped it for sure! Never mind that the terrorists who hijacked the planes had been in the U.S. for months beforehand preparing for the attack and even living here. I'm sure an attack on a country where the group they belonged to was hiding would have stopped everything in its tracks. Not to mention this statement begs the question: where should we attack? Does Al-Qaeda have a big headquarters with gold trim and a giant sign? This is a decentralized, non-governmental terrorist organization. What do we gain from attacking a sovereign nation? Furthermore, we have had an almost constant military presence in the Middle-East for decades, which did nothing to prevent the attacks.

Unfortunately, Giuliani seems concerned only scaring the American people into a flawed foreign policy, unfortunately now he seems to even be willing to use dishonest arguments to do it.

In, conclusion, I think that Giuliani is blinded by his own propaganda. He seems to think of everything in terms of 9/11, and apparently seems to have historic amnesia that began at the beginning of the 21st century. The reason I say this is because I think that there may very well have been a legitimate objection to Dr. Paul's comment that we have never had an imminent attack posed against us, but it was not 9/11. The one that immediately comes to mind is Pearl Harbor, which drew us into the last legitimately declared war we fought, World War II.

I apologize for this being so long and not all that amusing, but this was a subject I hadn't seen covered in the news that much (with the exception of the Romney answer, which is why I was able to make a joke rather than actual commentary), and one that struck me as being important.

Idaho Lowers Standards!

Have you ever thought to yourself "Gee, I should really move to Idaho."? Me either. But if you were going to, now would certainly be the time. Never has being an Idahoan, or Idahoese, or whatever people there are called been so easy. Standards for good citizens are at their lowest levels in decades, and not to mention every new citizen gets a copy of the new book One Great Thing About Idaho.

All this comes on the heels of the news that Senator Larry Craig will still be inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame after being embroiled in one of the more bizarre scandals in recent history. The Hall of Fame committee stands by their decision to place Craig in the Hall, stating that he "has made a great contribution to Idaho over the period of 20-some years." Unfortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with what he is famous for.

But Craig has really earned this nomination. He has always been a strong advocate of ethics in politics, even serving on the House Ethics Committee. In fact, he is so opposed to unethical activity, that when Representative Barney Frank, who happens to be gay, was reprimanded for his activity with a gay prostitute, Craig pushed for a harsher punishment.

And, if you are still not convinced that Craig is a man of principle, just look at this. He voted against Habeus Corpus for detainees, and for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which declared marriage to be between a man and a woman, and relieved states from respecting the full faith and credit clause when it comes to gay marriages. Hey, and who said hypocrisy wasn't popular?

But, if you can't select for the Hall of Fame a man embroiled in a gay sex scandal who has a history of voting to restrict gay rights, who can you pick?

Faux Pin?

For some reason that I am not aware of, the big story of the day has been Barack Obama stating that he will no longer wear the U.S. flag pin on his lapel. Obama has been questioned about the decision, and remarked that instead of wearing the pin he is going to try to "tell the American people what I believe will make this country great."

To me this is a just a huge travesty. That someone in our nation thinks they can be elected to a public office without wearing a pin of the flag that office represents is absolutely ludicrous. Sure, perhaps Obama can talk his way into seeming patriotic some of the time, but how are people going to realize his love for his country at times when he is silent? These are the times when a machine-painted, mass-produced piece of metal with a pointy thing and tiny inscription that reads "Made in China" can really come in handy.

Obama's comments also included the opinion that the pin may have become a "substitute for real patriotism" in the years after 9/11. I, on the other hand don't think it has been a substitute at all, rather a supplement. For instance, Presidential hopeful Sam Brownback used to have rather low levels of patriotism, but look at him now. Note: Photo has in no way been altered to be a comic exaggeration.

By now, you probably agree with my argument that low priced fashion accessories are the most important thing to look for in choosing a candidate, so I've decided to go one step further. I will be designing clothing that I hope to market to these Presidential candidates in the future. I've released an exclusive photo of what you may be seeing on the campaign trail.This is going to be great. Patriotism is awesome, and there is not better way to show you have it then by constantly shoving material representations of it into your constituent's faces. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm putting together a little pile of World Trade Center rubble for Rudy Giuliani to stand on every time he speaks.

I'm Back!

I know I haven't posted anything in a while, but I hope to get back in the swing of things, and perhaps one day, even have a successful blog. I'm going to try to start posting at least a few times a week, so that I can write more stuff that one person reads.

Preparing For The End

Thanks to a report by Glenn Beck last week, I am now aware of the imminent return of Jesus. I'm not sure of the exact sequence of events, but if you have any questions, please refer to the books his guests have written: The Left Behind series. They will explain everything perfectly, and I find there is no better way to interpret a book of Holy Scripture than with a 26$ book of fiction. Anyway, without further ado, I must make my final declarations.

To Whom It May Concern,

In the case of a rapture event, or any other occurrence resulting in my disappearance and believed to be attributable to the supernatural, I hereby declare that these words reflect my final wishes.

I wish that my stereo be given to John. He was always sort of a jerk to me, so I figure he will probably be left behind anyway.

To my neighbor, who always kept me awake with his late night parties and inconsiderate choice of outdoor lighting, I leave my car, which should be no more than a smoldering pile of brimstone by the time he gets it.

All my other possessions I give to Ari. He does a lot of charity work with children, and will need the money, plus everyone knows the Jews are a doomed people.

These are my final requests, and I hope that they will be honored, even by you godless unrapturables.

Enjoy the Anti-Christ, ye workers of iniquity,
The Honorable Flamingo

P.S. Although the end is near and I think everyone must prepare, I hope you will still all buy the book I am planning to write: Why I'm in Heaven and You're Not.

Asking The Tough Questions

Anyone who knows me understands that I am happy to make Fox News my sole source for political commentary, everyday happenings, and morning worship. They report to me the whole story, meaning there is really no other reason to watch any other channel. For instance, take these two interviews that they put together. They force candidates to answer the difficult questions, and never pull any punches.

Barack Obama

FoxNews: Mr. Obama, thank you for sitting down with us.
Barack Obama: It is my pleasure.
FN: Let's start with immigration. You support allowing immigrants who are in the country illegally an opportunity to earn citizenship. Are there any other laws of America that you don't respect?
BO: I respect all the laws of this country. It is impossible to simply round up the 12 mil...
FN: Alright, we have to move on. You have been against the Iraq War from the start, why is that?
BO: As I have said in the past, I feel that the decision to go to war in Iraq was made in a foolish and rash manner. I have been consistent in my criticism of the Administration's handling of the war, and feel that despite the best efforts of our troops, there can be no military solution to a political conflict.
FN: But isn't it a little unpatriotic to criticize the President in a time of war?
BO: There is nothing unpatriotic about asking for an end to a war that has been waged so absurdly. This Administration has given us no concrete plan and no definition of victory. The American people have expressed their disapproval of this war, and it is about time some of their representatives speak up on their behalf.
FN: Finally, I have to ask about your name, what is that Iranian?
BO: I'm from Hawaii.
FN: Well, it's an interesting debate. That's all the time we have, thanks for agreeing to this interview.
BO: My pleasure...

Mitt Romney

FoxNews: Mayor Romney, thanks for taking the time away from being patriotic to talk to us.
Mitt Romney: You're welcome.
FN: Let's talk about immigration. How do you propose to reform the current system.
MR: I think we need to encourage legal immigration and discourage illegal immigration.
FN: Exactly...I mean, OK. Now about terrorism, what is your position.
MR: Well I feel that we must defeat the radical jihadists wherever they may be, and if we don't they will attack us in our own country. I feel that the position of the Democratic Party will only lead to making America unsafe.
FN: A quick follow-up. Why do you think Democrats are opposed to a safe country?
MR: Probably cowardice, but I can't say for sure.
FN: Before we go Mr. Romney, one final question: who should I make the check out to?

GOP Debate

The second Republican candidates debate occurred last week, and I think it is safe to say that it left the public in a frenzy. It is always exciting to see people speak so enthusiastically about plans that they aren't going to implement. In fact, it sort of reminds me of Congress. But really, with this being such an important Presidential election, I think it is a good idea to get people fed up with politics a year and a half before the election.

With enough participants to start a basketball team, and not enough original ideas to write a children's book, the debate left both viewers a little disappointed. However, the night was not without its tense moments. For instance, possibly the most vicious battle of the day came between Mitt Romney and John McCain.



Look at McCain, going right for the larynx. These are the moments that really get me fired up.

As expected, with ten participants total, there were many differences. However, with all their squabbles, there is one things all the candidates seem to agree on: they all hate Ron Paul. For instance, take a look at Rudy Giuliani going after the Congressman after he suggests a change in U.S. foreign policy.



Probably the most telling part of the debate was the fact that Fox News had to go all the way to South Carolina to find a receptive Republican audience. This may seem a little extreme, but it really isn't all that surprising. After all, holding an intelligent debate in South Carolina is like holding a science convention at Liberty University.

Editorial Cartoon Time!

I saw this first cartoon in a "Pentecostal Evangel" magazine. I'm sure you can see why. It is rare to find editorial cartoonists who are published in fundamentalist religious publications. I suspect this is at least partly because most religious fundamentalists aren't very funny.

The comics here are by Wayne Stayskal. As you can probably see, he is pro-gun, anti-abortion, doesn't buy global warming, and according to the first cartoon, apparently believes the end is near. Take it how you will, I just thought I'd put them up here.

Oh, and here is a little bit about Stayskal from his page on gocomics.com:

Wayne Stayskal, nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist for the Tampa Tribune, keeps readers chuckling and sometimes raises an eyebrow with his sharp wit and intriguing style. His cartoon commentary breaks the boundaries of politics to include topical subjects such as HMOs, education, global warming and the cigarette wars.

The New Face Of Bible Literalism

After years of searching for the boat that legend (and by legend I mean the unerring word of God) says held the ancient Noah, his three sons, three daughters, bunches of domesticated animals, and two of everything else, Johan Huibers has gotten fed up. In fact, he's so fed up he's building his own.

He worked hard to make everything just as it would have been in Noah's day, even going so far as to build much of the ark by hand, albeit using modern tools. Johan's Ark is only about one-fifth the Biblical recommendations for world flood safety, but I chalk that up to Johan's having a hard time finding an actual 500 year old man to help him build it.

The Ark will act as a sort of museum for creationist children, where they will be able to go to learn about the real science of the world, including a brief theater show in which children watch a scientific recreation of the Ark story. If you would like to watch this without going to Holland, than you can just rent the Disney cartoon Fantasia, because that's what Johan will be showing.

Johan has said that he hopes in building the museum to renew the interest in Christianity in the Netherlands. He also plans to bring the ark to several cities in Belgium and Germany, with the goal of eventually annoying people all across Europe with his giant boat.

But this story got me thinking. If we can bring credibility to the Ark story just by building one, perhaps we can do the same for other Bible stories. Imagine the excitement for God we will cause once we start building our Tower to Heaven. We will joyously remind people of the truth about how God saw humanity united as one in the greatest public works project ever, then destroyed their building, and to add insult to injury, even made some of them British.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get to work on my Knowledge of Good and Evil seed.

1-800-GO-PAGAN

Feeling like your religion could use a tune up? Tired of being made fun of on Youtube by atheists who never leave their house except to buy more webcam accessories? If this sounds like you then you're a perfect candidate for a conversion to paganism.

But in a time when the world is so uncertain, and religious tensions ever present, not just any old heretical religion will do. No, now is the time for us to go Jain.

Yes, you heard me correctly, Jainism. If you've never heard of it you probably aren't alone, and that's OK, because they are probably going to hell anyways. But perhaps if we could get more people behind this thing, since it is one of the oldest religions, maybe God would change his mind and make it the true religion after all. Alright, so Jains don't believe in God...but karma will certainly look well on us once we are the majority. What are some other beliefs of Jainism? I thought you'd never ask.

1.) Equality of all life and non-violence.
That's right, Jains don't kill anything. This one might take a little getting used to, but think of how great it would be when there are no wars, no domestic violence, and no Charlton Heston. Did I say that out loud? Anyway, doesn't sound like such a bad world to me.

2.) Truth
Jains place much importance on telling the truth, so for this one we may have to make a few changes. First of all I suppose we could cancel Fox News...and maybe MSNBC, but I'm not sure anyone watches them anyway. Cut out the tabloids, half of the internet, and we are well on our way to a Dharmic lifestyle.

3.) Chastity
This one might be a little tricky. Sort of like Catholics, only Monks in the Jain religion are actually completely chaste, everyone else simply keeps sex within marriage, and remains faithful to their partner...I'm not sure which would be harder. The really tough part, however, is that the Jains believe that any impure thoughts are also a violation of chastity. This will be hard to do for some people, but to start I would recommend canceling the Tyra Show and replacing it with reruns of the View.

The Jains also, among other things, seek to eradicate hate, anger, and malice from the world. This means that we might actually have to love our neighbors, but if you think about it, after a while, it would probably become second nature. Not to mention, I think the value of world peace outweighs the little bit of annoyance it might be to not hate people. All in all I hope that the entire world will follow my lead, because Jain is the religion of the future!

Wait a second, I'd have to be a vegetarian! Screw that, the Jains are all going to hell anyway.

Let The Gun Control Battle Begin

Of course it is really no surprise that less than a week after the tragedy at Virginia Tech, advocates from both sides of the gun control issue have stepped forward to exploit it. CNN.com published editorials from two typical sides of the debate, and this post will examine these pieces.

First, perhaps a little background is necessary. Tom Plate takes the pro-gun control side, and judging from the looks of his glasses, thats probably a good thing. On the other side, Ted Nugent will argue for more guns. Oh, and by the way, he is wearing camouflage in this picture, just in case you were having trouble seeing him. Alright, thats plenty of background, lets get to the writing.

Plate-"So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun."

I can't say I've heard much "hoopla" about race, and I agree that that is beside the point. However, to say that these students and professors were killed by handguns is ridiculous. If handguns are fully responsible here, then we can blame planes for September 11th, and marshmallows for those damned circus peanuts. What say you Mr. Nugent?

Nugent-"Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness."

I wish I had thought of calling everyone who disagrees with me a "mindless puppet", because it is so much better than actually trying to formulate a coherent point. Who are gun-control advocates puppets of, you ask? That's a good question, surely not the President, and I can guess not the vice president either. Is Mr. Nugent really advocating arming every college student with a firearm so that they aren't forced into "unarmed helplessness", you have to be kidding.

In reality, most Americans probably fall somewhere between these two extremes in the gun control debate. Not all of us go to sleep in camouflage pajamas dreaming of knocking off burglars with out sub-machine gun/guitar. On the other hand, most of us realize that it is not only impossible but unnecessary to pass laws to the point at which guns will be available only in museums.

So where are we now. A mentally ill young man walked into a building and gunned down innocent people with two semi-automatic handguns. I think that most people, like myself, support reasonable measures to control who can get their hands on weapons. The type of extreme reactions that occur after these incidents only serves to cheapen the actual debate.

My heart goes out to the victims at Virginia Tech, and I sincerely hope that they will be remembered for who they were: students and teachers, friends and families, sons and daughters, and not as some launchpad for a political firefight.

Fifth-Graders Arrested For Sex In Classroom

In an time when young people seem to be "coming-of-age" sooner than ever, it appears that some middle-school students in Louisiana have just raised the bar another couple notches. Authorities say that when the class was inadvertently left unattended for about 15 minutes, four students began engaging in sexual acts while another stood lookout. The Vice Principal later expressed his disapproval of the situation, and lamented that the students had accomplished more in 15 minutes than he had been able to in 37 years.

But the seriousness of this case can simply not be understated. It is unacceptable to have pedophiles roaming the halls of our countries middle schools. This being the case, it only makes sense to begin seeking out child-predators at earlier ages. I've placed my call to Dateline, and I suggest you do the same. It's about time we heard "Tonight, on Dateline, To Catch a Predator: Middle School edition." Chris Hanson and the crew could set up mock tea parties, record the proceedings, and then lurk in the shadows, ready to pounce on unsuspecting youngsters, who would then be tasered and led to jail. Justice is sweet, especially when it makes me some fat royalty checks.

It is unknown as to what caused the impromptu sexual romp, and we can only speculate as to its origins and possible effects. Some claim that the bisexual orgy was a protest against current gay marriage laws, while Rosie O'Donnell contended on The View that the whole situation was orchestrated by the Bush Administration as a way to raise the distrust of children. No one knows for sure, but the police have launched a full scale investigation, and it's a good thing too, because trying desperately to keep the city safe was becoming a real bore. Maybe the library shouldn't have let those students sign out the Kama Sutra in the first place.

I'm Posting Again?!?!

I'm going to try to get back to making posts regularly, but have been fairly busy lately. I've had a lot of writing to do that is actually graded (and probably read by more people now that I think about it).

But really, there is no excuse for my blog sitting idle for almost 2 months now, and hopefully that situation will be remedied by this evening. For now, here is a picture of a pile of cheese.

How Your Uninformed Girlfriend (or Boyfriend) Predicts Election Winners

In an era where polls and up-to-the-minute reporting are frequently taking the excitement out of the old office election pools, many people have begun to come up with new ways to choose political parties: mascots.

Much like with sports teams, a good political mascot emphasizes the qualities of the group it represents. Tigers are fierce and strong. Colts are sleek and fast. Pirates rape, pillage, and terrorize the high seas. Seeing the positive qualities that such icons bring out in a team, it was only a matter of time before political parties jumped on board.

For instance, the Independence Party of Minnesota chose the Buffalo as their mascot, because much like Independence, the Buffalo nearly became extinct, and unfortunately, we are still awaiting the outcome of that battle. The Libertarian Party's mascot is the penguin, because a bird that is confined to one general area is always a good analogy for freedom.

The political mascots of more prominent parties bear an even more striking resemblance to the people they represent. For example, in the United States today, one party's mascot is an overweight, light-skinned animal with huge ears, and the other is a literal ass.

I'm not sure I could come up with any better representatives for the parties we have today. One tramples through the underbrush eating everything in its path, while the other is often foolish, and if I remember correctly, rarely comes out of his hut and is also quite droopy and depressed.

I could leave it at that, but in the interest of reform, and to end this on a positive note, I will suggest my own mascots.

The new Democratic mascot will be a cat. Cats can't be herded, which means they can never make up their damn minds to do anything together. They are also very skittish, and rarely come around, but if you bring in anything new, they'll definitely crap all over it.

The Republican mascot will be a branding iron. The exact opposite of the cat, the branding iron makes up its mind and sticks to it, because its made out of really hot metal. It doesn't really matter what it's opinions are, because if you even come close to challenging them, it will label you so fast you won't know what hit you, until you feel the third degree burns.

Atheist T-Shirts

Are you godless? If you are, then I have some clothing for you. These atheist t-shirts will have all your friends asking you where you got it, and how they can get their hands on one. Just wait, you will turn heads, and souls, with your new wardrobe.When will these stylish tees be available you ask? Probably never. It's not my fault, it's just that there isn't really a demographic for these things, unless of course you want to get the hell beat out of you...literally.

President Celebrates 74% Approval Rating In Heaven

While President George W. Bush has been subject to criticism recently, his administration points to the recent 2006 census in the Kingdom of God to prove that his policies are on the right track.

The newest statistics to come out of Paradise have left some of the most highly regarded political scientists confounded. They show that more than 74% of Heaven's eternal population approve of the job the President Bush is doing, and a whopping 89% support the war in Iraq.

These numbers come right on the heels of an overwhelming victory for Proposition 1,845,345,384, a Kindgom-wide referendum officially banning homosexual marriage. Next week, the legislature is expected to officially pass an amendment defining marriage as "between one man and one woman".

Press Secretary Tony Snow lauded the results, saying that they confirm the legitimacy of the Presidents actions. He also mentioned that Heaven is currently on the path towards democracy, and described it as a "shining beacon on a hill", and an example for Iraq. He later remarked that the President has always considered Paradise an important part of the Coalition of the Willing.

The Blessed Census also revealed that Heaven is entirely Christian, about 76% Republican, and the vast majority support the use of the death penalty. In the past 10 years, the population of heaven has grown .04% to 26 total people.