Halftime Show Wardrobe Malfunction?

Despite my anguish over the New England Patriots losing the Super Bowl last night, I did notice that there was some interesting imagery during the halftime show. Call it a "wardrobe malfunction."


Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers put on a good show, but I think Fox may be a little more careful about allowing bands to use outlines of their "instruments" during future performances.

Huckabee Wants To Up-End, Er, Amend The Constitution

Mike Huckabee has been the darling of many conservatives, particularly those who consider themselves evangelicals. With his eloquence and ability to seemingly escape any tough question looking even better than before, it seemed Huckabee could do no wrong. However, even he may have crossed the line with the comment he made a couple of days ago.



That's right, he wants to amend the Constitution to fit "God's Law". Let's put aside for a moment that people in the United States happen to have a few different views of what God's Law is, or the fact that the Constitution was never meant to conform to "God's Law". Where does that leave us? It leaves a candidate whose blatant desire to inject his views on religion into the life of every American would make James Madison cringe.

But maybe Mike Huckabee is right. I've always thought the Bible was right on in its condemnation of animal sodomy. On the other hand, this is an area where the Constitution has always been a bit soft. Or how about that whole freedom of religion thing? That was for a bunch of pansies back in the 1790's who didn't know what was truly God's Law. Luckily, we can elect Mike Huckabee, who knows exactly what it entails. There is no reason to allow people to attend Mosques, or Synagogues, or worship how they choose, for goodness sakes, it's right in the Bible! How did we miss it for so long?

The only real question to ask is: why is this candidate still in the race? Even if he were to somehow gain the Republican nomination, this will be played as an attack ad so often that even God will be against him by the end of the race. Although I had never gone this far before, I will say it now: Mike Huckabee will never be President. Not after that comment. Nor, I dare say, should he.

In one fell swoop, Mike Huckabee took the Constitution; the Supreme Law of the Land; the one document that guarantees every American the right to life, liberty, and property, and turned it into "some contemporary view of how we treat each other". In that thirty second sound bite, Mike Huckabee mocked and spit on everything that our nation stands for. Not only would Mike Huckabee change the Rule of Law, but he would change it in such a way that would force everyone to conform to his view of God's Law. Viva Le Fascismo!

Finally, We Can Ignore Iowa For Another Four Years

Well, the Iowa caucuses are finally over, and that can only mean one thing...we can all stop caring about Iowa. In fact, our fascination with Iowa has more to do with their refusal to join the majority of the nation in voting like normal people than anything else. Instead, they choose to gather in a small middle school cafeteria, as our forefathers did. The throngs then gather themselves together based on candidate preference, if they are Democrats, or choose their candidate on paper, if they are Republican. Basically, the Iowa caucuses are a bunch of white people gathered together in a strange smelling room where the chairs are bolted to the tables, or as it is known elsewhere, bingo night.

It is unreasonable to expect much more from Iowa, however, considering they gave us Herbert Hoover, who destroyed American's faith in humanity by bringing us the Depression, and Ashton Kutcher, who ruined American's faith in humanity by bringing us Punk'd. Luckily, now that the candidates are moving east, Iowa's enormous failings as a state will be again be swept under the rug. On another note, the state will finally be able to remove that stop sign they put in to control all the traffic.

Perhaps the best thing for the U.S. to do is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iowa. In fact, I think it could be the new President's first action. To help him out, I have drawn up a little map for him. That ought to bring those pesky Iowans back in line. Just think about all the good we could do in that area. The United States could help to rebuild their infrastructure, and bring their economy into the 21st century. We could even teach them to vote, like Americans, and bring democracy to that part of the world. We would be greeted as liberators.

We'd probably also have to give Iowa a professional athletic team to represent them, if we really wanted to grant the area full statehood. Perhaps they could field an NFL expansion team. The nickname, of course, would have to be one that Iowans can relate to, based on something they are familiar with. Perhaps a popular corn growing state game...ah, I've got it.

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.