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.