Tag Archives: Ann Cunter

Four more years (of [largely] the same old shit)!

Ann Romney grabs Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney from behind as he greets members of the crowd after the conclusion of the final U.S. presidential debate in Boca Raton

Ann Romney holds onto her husband, Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as he reaches down to shake hands with members of the audience at the conclusion of the final presidential debate in Boca Raton

Reuters photos

I expect little actual progress from the pseudo-progressive President Hopey-Changey over the next four years, but at least during that time I’ll be spared of having to see the Ann-Cunter-like, bleach-blonde harpy Ann Romney trying to fuck us all repeatedly with her strap-on. (Yes, that’s an actual news photo, and so is that one, too.)

Oh, yeah, there was an election on Tuesday.

As I have noted, I voted by mail for Green Party candidate Jill Stein for president — yes, practically speaking, as a protest vote — but I knew that President Barack Obama would win my state of California by an overwhelming margin, and he did: thus far in California’s vote counting, Obama has 59.3 percent to Mittens Romney’s paltry 38.4 percent. (Stein, in case you were wondering, is at No. 4, with a whopping 0.6 percent of the state’s vote.)

What I didn’t expect, however, was that as a result of Tuesday’s election — elections, as they say, have consequences — the California Legislature would be on the verge of having a two-thirds “super-majority” in both houses, the state Senate and the state Assembly.

Wow.

This “super-majority” — if utilized — makes the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in the Legislature even more irrelevant than they already were before Tuesday.

Not that the Democrats will use their power, of course. Although “super-majority” power, if used to its full extent, would make even the centristy Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown fairly irrelevant, since the Legislature could override his vetoes, there are plenty of center-right “Democratic” California legislators who could threaten any two-thirds threshold.

And, of course, already Jerry Brown has assured spooked California Repugnicanswhose registrants don’t comprise even a full 30 percent of registered Californian voters (the Dems, on the other hand, have almost 44 percent of the state’s registered voters) and whose party doesn’t hold a single statewide office — that his party won’t do too much to upset them, even though, of course, were the state’s parties’ positions of political power reversed, the Repugnicans would ram their right-wing agenda through ruthlessly.

When George W. Bush was “re”-elected in 2004 with a measly 50.7 percent of the popular vote, he called the election results a “mandate.” A “mandate.”

That’s how the Repugnican Tea Party traitors roll: They don’t care even if they don’t even win the popular vote (recall the 2000 presidential election) — they just want to be in power no matter fucking what. They want to shove their Randian, theofascist, neo-Nazi agenda down our throats whether we, the people, give them our permission, via our votes, to do so or not. (So of course if you’re perfectly willing to steal power even when you lost the election, 50.7 percent would be, I suppose, relatively speaking, a “mandate.”)

Votes remain to be counted, but right now Obama is sitting at 50.6 percent of the national popular vote to Mittens’ 47.9 percent. Obama on Tuesday sewed up 332 electoral votes to Mittens’ 206. Including the all-important Ohio and Florida, Obama on Tuesday won all of the states that he won in 2008 (when he garnered 52.9 percent of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes), except for two of them, Indiana and North Carolina, which aren’t exactly solid-blue states anyway.

(Indeed, in eight of the last 10 presidential elections, including Tuesday’s, North Carolina went for the Repugnican, and in nine of the last 10 presidential elections, including Tuesday’s, Indiana went for the Repugnican, so Obama’s win in those two states in 2008 was the exception, not the rule, and his loss in those two backasswards states on Tuesday was the rule, not the exception, even though the pathetically straw-grasping Repugnican Tea Party traitors have tried to make some hay out of the fact that Obama didn’t win those two states again on Tuesday. [Indeed, the bar, when it is set by whites, is always set higher for blacks than it is for whites.])

Cheer up, though, white-supremacist wingtards! Mittens did better than John McCainosaurus and Sarah Palin did in 2008. They garnered only 45.7 of the popular vote and 173 electoral votes against the guy with the Kenyan ancestry.

Of course, while George W. Bush in 2004 declared 50.7 percent of the popular vote to be a “mandate” and the fascist traitors who comprise his party talked of a “permanent [Repugnican] majority,” only two years later, in 2006, the Repugnicans lost the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic California U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to become speaker of the House in U.S. history, and then two years after that, in 2008, Barack Obama, the nation’s first non-white president, won a higher percentage of the popular vote than either George W. Bush or even Bill Clinton ever had.

So some caution needs to be exercised before declaring a “permanent [insert party name here] majority,” or even a “mandate” based on not even a full 51 percent of the popular vote, but at the same time, to the victor goes the spoils, and the so-called “leaders” of the Democratic Party need to stop acting like losers even after they’ve fucking won.

(Yes, on the heels of his second electoral victory, Obama still is talking about cooperation with the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in Congress, even though the past four years have demonstrated amply that you cannot negotiate with such terrorists, because the assumption that they are rational creatures capable of compromise is patently incorrect.) 

The Repugnican Tea Party traitor-fascists act like winners even after they’ve lost, and if the damage that they’ve wreaked upon the nation is to be reversed (if that’s even possible at this point [it very most likely isn’t, perhaps especially in regards to global warming]), the Democrats really need to stop snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I’m not holding my breath, however.

I expect the next four years to look and feel much like the past four, although I expect things here in California to improve more quickly than they improve — if they ever improve — nationally, since here in California we have demonstrated how to edge the Repugnican Tea Party traitors more and more closely to the endangered species status that they oppose so much.

As California goes, so goes the nation, it has been said.

I hope that that is correct.

P.S. Of course I’m happy that on Tuesday the voters of three states — Maine, Maryland and Washington — voted for same-sex marriage, being the first states to adopt same-sex marriage upon a popular vote, and pushing the number of states that have same-sex marriage from six (before Tuesday) to now nine. (The other six states are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. The District of Columbia also has same-sex marriage, as do two U.S. Native American tribes, apparently.)

The 2008 election results were a bittersweet pill here in California, because although Barack Obama had become the nation’s first black president based upon his ubiquitous campaign promises of hope and change (and to a large degree they were just that — promises — we know now), Proposition Hate had shot down same-sex marriage, which the California Supreme Court had ruled earlier in the year was every Californian’s constitutional right.

If same-sex marriage were put up to a vote again in California today, of course it would pass this time — even though, let me be clear, no one’s constitutional guarantee of equality ever should have to be put up to a fucking vote — and it’s gratifying to see that the Mittens Romney-Pretty Boy Paul Ryan ticket, representing the Mormon cult and the Catholick church respectively, were rejected by the majority of the nation’s voters, since the Mormon cult and the Catholick church were the biggest sponsors of Proposition Hate, in their attempt to shove their brand of theocracy and theofascism down our throats, Taliban-style.

Karma is a bitch.

(Just like Ann Romney is. I am sooooo happy not to have to see her fucking face as first lady for the next four years, by the way. Ann Romney reminds me of an Ann Cunter who actually ate something. Why are so many Repugican Tea Party women bleach-blonde harpies who act like sorority chicks who are getting revenge upon all of us for the ponies that they never got as spoiled little girls?)

P.P.S. For all of their post-election sore-loserism crying and whining, the white-supremacist Repugnican Tea Party traitors are fucking lucky that we are seeing a for-the-very-most-part bloodless, demographic revolution in the United States, and not (thus far, anyway…) the actual bloody revolution that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors deserve to have launched against them, a la the French Revolution.

After all, the “47 percent” that Mittens “Let Them Eat Cake” Romney talked about in May when he didn’t know that he was being video-recorded actually is a bit more than 50 percent, we see from Tuesday’s presidential election results.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Four more years (of hopelessness and stasis)!

US President Barack Obama waves as he arrives for a G20 summit in Cannes, France on Friday, Nov. 4, 2011. Leaders from within troubled Europe and far beyond are working Friday on ways the International Monetary Fund could do more to calm Europe's debt crisis. (AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere)

Associated Press photo

Barack Obama probably has his re-election the bag — not because he’s a good president (no, that’s not a halo encircling his noggin), but because his Repugnican Tea Party challengers are such abject fucktards.

For now, anyway, it appears that all that President Barack Obama has to do is sit back and let the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidates self- and other-destruct — and that we’re going to be stuck with another four more years of President Hopey-Changey, which is only (maybe) a notch above what we’d get with a President Romney or President Perry or President Cain.

No one likes Mitt Romney, probably not even his mother (is she still alive?); Herman Cain has been accused of sexual harassment by at least three women (strike one, strike two, strike three…); and while Rick Perry denies that he was drunk or drugged up when he alternately acted like a drunken frat boy and a drunken, giddy, giggly school girl during a speech that he gave in New Hampshire last weekend, no one believes him. (And actually, it would have behooved Perry to say that yes, he’d had a bit too much to drink and/or had had a prescription painkiller on board rather than to assert, as he did, that that was just his normal, chemical-substance-free speech-giving behavior.)

A Quinnipiac University poll taken October 25 through October 31 of more than 2,200 registered voters nationwide with a margin of error of only plus or minus 2.1 percentage points shows Obama beating Romney, Cain and Perry by a margin of 5 percent to 16 percent (with Romney trailing Obama by 5 percent, Cain by 10 percent and Perry by 16 percent).

A Reuters/Ipsos nationwide poll taken October 31 through November 3 shows Obama beating Cain by 5 percent and Perry by 6 percent. That poll has Obama and Romney statistically tied, with Romney at 44 percent and Obama at 43 percent. (With fewer than 1,000 respondents, the poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percent.)

Mitt Romney consistently has done better against Obama in the polling matchups than the other Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabes have, but if Romney’s own party isn’t excited about him, it’s difficult to see how the November 2012 general electorate is going to be.

It probably was over for Rick Perry even before his apparently drunken speech of last weekend, however. For at least the past month, national polls at best have put Perry at No. 3, behind Romney and Cain. Both a recent Quinnipiac University poll and a recent Faux “News” poll even put Romney at No. 4 — behind Newt Gingrich. A CBS News/New York Times poll conducted October 19 through October 24 even put Perry at No. 5 — behind not only Gingrich, but also Ron Paul.

But probably the No. 1 thing going against Rick Perry is the No. 1 thing that went against John McCainosaurus in 2008: George W. Bush.

It didn’t really matter who the Repugnican presidential candidate was in 2008; after the eight, long, nightmarish years of rule by the unelected Bush regime, pretty much no Repugnican was going to be elected to follow Bush.

George W. Bush is the Repugnican Tea Party’s Valdemort — you won’t hear his name uttered at a Repugnican presidential debate; if you listen to the Repugnicans, you will think that the last Repugnican president that we had was Ronald Reagan. Not even in 2008, when Gee Dubya still sat in the Oval Office, did the Repugnican contenders utter his name in a presidential  or vice presidential debate. It was as though the past eight years had never even happened.

So here is Rick Perry reminding us of the last governor of Texas who went on to the White House. Even if Perry did everything right — even if there were no Niggerhead and even if he hadn’t given a very apparently drunken speech last weekend — he couldn’t overcome the Gee Dubya handicap, and it handicaps him even more than it did McCainosaurus in 2008, since McCainosaurus isn’t from Texas and doesn’t sound like a Texas hick when he speaks.

This leaves Romney and Cain on the Repugnican Tea Party island. Cain’s “tea party” supporters have thrown their weight behind him, so they’re still in deep denial where the sexual harassment allegations against him are concerned. They’re trying to make him into some sort of martyr (and so is he), but the only fools who are going to buy that bullshit are the fools who already support Cain.

Every black person who is accused of some wrongdoing cannot knee-jerkedly claim that he or she is only being “lynched” as a sort of perpetual get-out-of-jail-free (race) card.  I expect Cain to implode within the coming week to next few weeks.

While the patriarchal, misogynist Repugnican Tea Party sees nothing wrong with the sexual harassment of women — hey, after a hard-workin’, capitalism-lovin’ man has fought his way to the top he should be able to engage in some grab-ass, or at the very least, some verbal grab-ass, no? — the average general-election voter does. Even if Cain could make it out of the Repugnican Tea Party primary season alive (he won’t), there’s no way that he could beat Obama.

November 2012 voters won’t buy Ann “Acid for Blood” Cunter’s stunningly racist recent assertion that “our [the Repugnican Tea Party’s] blacks are so much better than their [Democrats’] blacks.”

(“Our blacks” — that’s interesting. “Our” is a possessive pronoun. So apparently Ann Cunter believes that blacks still can be and/or should be owned.)

As far as Cunter’s assertion that “liberals detest, detest, detest conservative blacks” goes, I detest, detest, detest conservatives — wingnuts. I don’t care whether they are male or female, straight or gay, old or young, white, black, brown, green or purple. If you’re a wingnut, I detest you, regardless of your other demographics.

Cunter’s attempt to slander liberals and progressives as racist because they (we) won’t embrace a candidate who is black but whose world view and “values” system diametrically opposes their (our) own is as pathetic as it is intellectually dishonest.

And the fact of the matter is that the Repugnican Tea Party historically never would have put forth as its presidential candidate a man who had never held even one single elected political office. That the party would even consider doing so now — primarily or even only because the candidate is black, in cynical response to the fact that the current, Democratic president is black — demonstrates that the Repugnican Tea Party remains racist.

And again, black general-election voters won’t be taken in by Herman Cain any more than female general-election voters were taken in by Sarah Palin.

Cunter, in her pathetic attempt to spin the success of Cain within the Repugnican Tea Party, recently asserted that black members of the Repugnican Tea Party are superior to Democratic blacks because while it’s easy to be a black Democrat, black Repugnican Tea Partiers take a lot of flak from their black (presumably Democratic) counterparts.

Yes, Ann with Acid for Blood, when you support the historical oppressors, your cohorts won’t like you (gee, go figure!) — because you are a self-interested fucking turncoat, not because you’re such a courageous fucking soul. Nice try, though, you fucking liar.

Not that the Democratic Party has been great for blacks, not for at least the past three decades anyway — and some have posited, probably correctly, that Barack Obama, not wanting to appear to favor blacks over other races, paradoxically as president has done less for blacks than a white Democratic president would have done — but the Democratic Party clearly has been the lesser of the two evils for blacks for some time now.

Our real struggle is to not have to choose between any evils, but to have the government that represents the best interests of the majority of us.

Sadly, in November 2012 we will have no such choice of a viable presidential candidate who will represent the best interests of the majority of us. Our choice will be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, most likely.

P.S. Rachel Maddow apparently seriously has posited an interesting theory that the Herman Cain campaign is one big practical joke, or, as she put it, is performance art, that Cain’s candidacy is not a serious candidacy, but is meant to punk us.

While I suppose that that is not absolutely impossible, it seems to me that there is another explanation for Maddow’s supporting evidence, such as the fact that in his first Repugnican Tea Party presidential debate, Herman Cain very apparently actually quoted the lines from a song in a “Pokemon” movie as being the lines of a great poet. (Not too dissimilarly, his “9-9-9” tax plan apparently came from “Sim City,” the simulated city-administration video game.)

And that alternate (and, it seems to me, simpler and more likely) explanation is that Herman Cain has lazy, cynical plagiarists working for him.

For now, anyway, I take Cain’s displays of ineptitude, ignorance and lunacy — and his apparent lust for great power despite his woeful lack of qualifications for wielding such power — at face value. If Maddow is right and it all turns out to have been a joke, then ha ha ha, but in the meantime, it is critical that a joke like Herman Cain never gets into the Oval Office (whether the joke is intentional or not).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

WHO is demonic and mob-like?

Updated below

This is an undated image obtained from the Twitter page of Anders Behring Breivik, 32, who was arrested Friday July 22, 2011 in connection to the twin attacks on a youth camp and a government building in Oslo, Norway. Breivik is a suspect in both the shootings and the Oslo explosion Friday. (AP Photo/Twitter, Anders Behring Breivik)

Associated Press photo

The new face of terrorism? The latest political-ideologically motivated murderous rampage was committed not by some “demonic” liberal, but by yet another paranoid, bigoted, stupid white man who, among many other wingnutty things, opposes the immigration of people who aren’t just like he is, including those who aren’t “Christian.”

When is the last time that some liberal went on a political-ideologically motivated murderous rampage here in the United States of America?

According to the American right wing, acts of violence committed by left-wingers are commonplace. In her introduction* to her subtly titled book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, wingnutty whackjob Ann Cunter proclaims that “The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic”; “A mob is an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group”; and “The Democratic Party is the party of the mob…. Democrats … are the mob.”

She goes on:

The Democrats’ playbook doesn’t involve heads on pikes — as yet — but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, the relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas — these are the earmarks of a mob leader.

Gee, I don’t know. It seems to me that the Repugnican Tea Party traitors are much more like the mob than are the Democrats, and that Cunter’s definition of mob-like behavior describes the behavior of her and her fellow Repugnican Tea Party traitors to a “T” (that’s “T” for treason).

The Democrats just let George W. Bush treasonously steal the White House in late 2000 — meanwhile, there were actual mobs of Repugnican operatives in Florida who did their best to disrupt the ballot counting at ballot-counting sites, which to me sure the fuck amounts to treason — and then the Democrats just let Bush treasonously launch his illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War in March 2003. (Thousands of our troops have died for the unelected Bush regime’s repeated lies about its reasons for having launched the Vietraq War. If that isn’t treason — to launch a war that is good for the profiteering of a relative handful of corporate war profiteers but that is disastrous for the nation as a whole — then I don’t know what the fuck is.)

There were some protests against the blatant theft of the White House and the launching of the bogus Vietraq War — I attended them — but they were nonviolent and thus they were non-threatening to the powers that be. (I’d have written “the powers that were,” but these powers essentially still are, so I’ll leave it at “the powers that be.”) Thus, the protests were ineffective. (Nonviolence, as the right-wingers know, often if not usually is ineffective, which is why they often embrace the use of violence for achieving their political aims.) 

And indeed, the unelected Bush regime was able to get its bogus Vietraq War for the war profiteering of Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and the other oily subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp in large part because of the mob-like, toxic national political atmosphere that the Repugnicans had created in the wake of 9/11, in which to disagree with the unelected Bush regime on just about anything supposedly amounted to treason and supposedly aided and abetted the “terrorists.”**

Democrats dangerous? Democrats ready to put wingnuts’ heads on pikes?

Fuck, I only wish! (Just as I only wish that corporate-ass-licking capitulator in chief Barack “Hope and Change” Obama actually were a socialist.)

Speaking of mobs, it was the “tea party” traitors who disrupted the congressional town halls to discuss the Obama administration’s (pseudo) health-care reform. It was a nationwide coordinated attempt by the right wing to disrupt the town halls that was reminiscent of the coordinated attempt by the right wing to disrupt the ballot counting in Florida in late 2000. The right-wingers hate democracy except when democracy goes their way. (And even when democracy doesn’t go their way, they’ll treasonously steal an election if they can get away with it.)

Now that’s mob activity. I only wish that the waaay-too-easily-cowed Democrats would engage in actual mob activity when it comes to things like stolen presidential elections, the launching of bogus wars for corporate war profiteering, and the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ current plan to eliminate Social Security and Medicare and to eliminate, as much as is possible, taxes for the rich and the super-fucking-rich — because surely the remedy for our nation’s economic woes is to make the poor even poorer and the filthy rich even richer.

Another quote from Ann Cunter before I move on: In her intro to her latest collection of venom, bile and blatant lies, she also notes, “It is official Democratic policy to appeal to the least-informed, weakest-minded members of the public.” Um, isn’t that Faux “News'” mission statement? And isn’t that Cunter’s bread and fucking butter, appealing to the least-informed, weakest-minded members of the public? If millions of so-called Americans weren’t paranoid, abjectly ignorant, bigoted, self-righteous and hypocritical mouth-breathing fucktards, Cunter couldn’t keep selling her demonic books. 

It’s hard to tell whether Cunter is someone who hypocritically projects her own evil onto others like she’s on crack or if she’s an outright liar for pay (very good pay, apparently). What she at least appears to desire, however, is an Ayn-Randian “utopia” in which everyone whom she disagrees with has been eliminated. And because she apparently fears that the left wing might one day purge the nation of the right wing, that the left wing might beat the right wing to it — even though the modern American left wing has shown itself to be pathetically unable to accomplish anything big and routinely lays down and plays doormat to the Repugnican Tea Party traitors (Sure, Gee Dubya, we’ll just give you the White House; sure, Gee Dubya, we’ll just give you your Vietraq War; sure, John “Cry Me a River” Boehner, we’ll just give you your cuts to Social Security and Medicare and your tax breaks for the rich and the super-rich) — she has written a book telling her fellow wingnuts that the liberals are gearing up to put their heads on pikes. (Or, again, she’s lying and she knows it. Hard to say which…)

While I can’t think of a single instance of an actual liberal actually having gone on a murderous rampage over his or her political ideology, Norway this past week was rocked by a white-male wingnut who went on a murderous rampage over his right-wing political ideology.

Reports Reuters today:

Sundvollen, Norway — Norway mourned [today] 93 people killed in a shooting spree and car bombing by a Norwegian who saw his attacks as “atrocious, but necessary” to defeat liberal immigration policies and the spread of Islam.

In his first comment via a lawyer since his arrest, Anders Behring Breivik, 32, said he wanted to explain himself at a court hearing [tomorrow] about extending his custody.

“He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary,” [lawyer] Geir Lippestad said.

The lawyer said Breivik had admitted to Friday’s shootings at a Labour party youth camp and the bombing that killed seven people in Oslo’s government district a few hours earlier.

However, “he feels that what he has done does not deserve punishment,” Lippestad told NRK public television.

“What he has said is that he wants a change in society, and in his understanding, in his head, there must be a revolution.” …

More information about terrorist Anders Behring Breivik will come out, I’m sure, but it’s interesting that Ann Cunter very apparently shares his core right-wing beliefs on such issues as “liberal immigration policies” and “the spread of Islam.” I wouldn’t be shocked at all if Breivik is familiar with Cunter’s work.

The picture of Breivik above shows him to be a young white guy. Murderous thugs or terrorists aren’t supposed to be squeaky-clean-looking conservative blond white guys. Nope. They’re supposed to be black or Arab or Muslim (or some combination thereof).

I have to wonder if Breivik’s brand of terrorism — and, because he’s a right-wing white guy, are the wingnuts here at home even going to acknowledge that Breivik is indeed a terrorist?is the new (white male) face of (domestic) terrorism. (I specify “domestic terrorism” because the white male face long has been the face of global military terrorism, although, of course, here in the United States it’s never considered to be terrorism if the U.S. military [or one of its wingnutty allies, such as Israel] commits state-sanctioned terrorism.)

Reuters notes that Friday’s “violence, Norway’s worst since World War II, has profoundly shocked the usually peaceful nation of 4.8 million.”

If a white male wingnut can slaughter 93 innocent people in the name of his political ideology in a nation that (until now, anyway…) has enjoyed the reputation of being one of the most peaceful nations on the planet, what might we expect here at home?

While Ann Cunter blathers on about Democrats seeking to put the heads of American wingnuts on pikes, it was a white-male wingnut who apparently agrees with her on the core issues who in cold blood slaughtered dozens of mostly teen-aged members of his nation’s Labour party, which is roughly equivalent to the United States’ Democratic Party. (I can only say “roughly equivalent” because the establishmentarian Democratic Party, since Bill Clinton, has been drifting further and further to the right to the point that it really can no longer be called “liberal.” Even calling it “centrist” is a stretch, since it’s more center-right than it is center-left.)

While Cunter blathers on about Democrats being violent, it was an apparently right-leaning young white man, Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head (and shot six others dead) in Tucson in January.*** Oh, and this was after Repugnican Tea Party (then-)queen Sarah Palin had posted this image on the Internet, in which Giffords had been indicated on a map with a gun-sight crosshairs:

Yes, it’s the Democrats who are mob-like, certainly not the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, whose presidential aspirants actually think it’s perfectly OK to post mob-like hit lists of political opponents on the Internet. 

I’m not advocating that we actual liberals seek out the white male wingnuts and pre-emptively put their heads on pikes because they are ticking time bombs ready to start shooting into gatherings of people whose ideology they oppose (I could list several examples of their potential targets, but I don’t want to give them any ideas) and to start bombing government buildings a la Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who was yet another right-leaning white male terrorist (and who might have inspired Breivik; I suppose that we’ll find out).

Should the white male wingnuts start mimicking Anders Behring Breivik (and Timothy McVeigh and Jared Lee Loughner and…) here at home, however, I wouldn’t rule that out.

My general feeling is that if the treasonous wingnuts want another civil war, then we should give them one — and annihilate them this time, instead of actually help them with reconstruction, only so that they could continue to drag the nation down to this day.

In the meantime, however, it’s quite easy to lay waste to the claim that it’s the liberals who actually are “demonic” or “mob-like” when it’s the wingnuts who always actually have committed the lion’s share of the killing of innocents and other mob-like behavior.

*No, I have not and I will not read Cunter’s entire book. I’d never contribute a single fucking penny toward her poisonous and treasonous right-wing propaganda. The intro to her book, if you want to read it, is available at amazon.com.

**I use quotation marks because it’s only others who kill for political gain who are “terrorists,” even though the United States slaughters far more innocent civilians in its pursuit of its own political (well, corporate) objectives than does any other nation, hands down.

***Loughner appears to be insane and his political ideology (what we know of it, anyway) therefore is muddled, but he inarguably meets the profile of the alienated, angry, dangerous young white man whom we have come to know and love. And certainly his target, a female Democratic lawmaker, sure looks like, symbolically, at least, an assualt on the liberal and the feminine by the conservative and the masculine. With a gun, of course, because the alienated, angry, dangerous young white men sure love their guns. And aren’t they exactly the ones who should possess their own home arsenals?

Update (Sunday, July 24, 2011): I’ve done a lot of reading on Anders Behring Breivik. It’s quite interesting. Apparently we know that he was inspired by at least one American white male wingnut — Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber,” portions of whose manifesto Breivik reportedly simply lifted for his own lengthy manifesto.

Breivik reportedly signed his wingnutty manifesto as “Andrew Berwick,” which suggests that he identifies with the Anglo(-American) brand of winguttery, even though he is a Norwegian nationalist who apparently wants to see Norway (and indeed, all of “white” Europe) purged of people who don’t look and believe like he looks and believes, much like the Nazis of Nazi Germany wanted to purge Nazi Germany of its “undesirables” and the anti-immigrant, xenophobic, misogynist, patriarchal, homophobic, capitalist/anti-socialist, Islamophobic “Christo”fascists (and some right-wing Jews) of the United States (who, with rare exceptions, such as Repugnican Tea Party presidential aspirant Herman Cain, also are white supremacists) would love to purge the United States of its “undesirables.”

The world — its demographic make-up and its balances of power – is rapidly changing, and the stupid white men who always have been in charge of the show (at least in Europe and in the United States) — and their supporters – are coming unglued. Suddenly they are the “victims” — even though no one is victimizing them and they continue to victimize others.

Finally, you should read Glenn Greenwald’s piece on the definition of the word “terrorism.”

As Greenwald points out amply, to hypocritical Americans (and, I suppose, to some hypocritical Europeans and Israelis as well), it’s only “terrorism” when a Muslim does it. And I mean literally — to many, the very definition of “terrorism” necessitates that it is an act committed by a Muslim, because, very apparently, “Christians” (and Jews) are, by definition, incapable of committing terrorism. (When you are God’s chosen, you can do no wrong, apparently. Especially if your skin is white.)

This discussion of the definition of “terrorism” reminds me of how George W. Bush used to toss around the word “civilized.” According to Bush, the Muslim “terrorists” (oops — that’s redundant!) are not “civilized,” while the “Christian” (and Jewish) residents of the United States of America (and the United States’ partner in crime, Israel), by definition are “civilized” – even though in my lifetime the “civilized” “Christians” and Jews of the United States and Israel have slaughtered far more innocent Muslims than vice-versa.

(The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis whom the United States of America has slaughtered since March 2003 in the Vietraq War in retaliation for the roughly 3,000 Americans killed on September 11, 2001 — even though Iraq had had nothing whatsofuckingever to do with 9/11 — is in line with the insane disproportionate amount of killing that we see in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the Israelis whine that they are “victims” when, in fact, every time there is an Israeli-Palestinian flare-up, only a handful of Israelis die in comparison to the large number of Palestinians who die as a result of the military aid that the United States gives Israel.

Yeah, the United States and Israel — God’s chosen nations, dontchya know — are “civilized.” Right. Just like Anders Behring Breivik is civilized.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A dingbat ate my anchor baby!

Ann Cunter parodied on “Saturday Night Live” as a “manserpent”

Gee, I had thought that the cause of our nation’s problems were such parties as the corporations that evade billions and billions of dollars in taxes while we working people sure pay ours, the bloated-beyond-belief military-industrial complex that gobbles up billions and billions of our tax dollars in perpetual wars for the war profiteers while things literally crumble here at home, corporations that spill millions of gallons of oil into the ocean and then are defended by likes of Repugnican Tea Party candidate Ron Paul and Repugnican Big Oil bribe collector Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, and corporations that ran our economy into the ground through their hocus-pocus practices and then got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailout money, because it’s socialism only if needy people get any money. (Wait — according ot the wingnuts, corporations are people, right?)

Oh, and corporate-caused global warming.* 

But I was wrong.

The nation’s economic collapse has nothing to do with the greedy corporate criminals (a phrase that is redundant) who are responsible even for the melting polar ice cap.

No.

It’s the anchor babies.

You haven’t heard of an anchor baby?

Well, that’s because this dire threat to the nation was just discovered by the Repugnican Tea Party (only coinky-dinkily because elections are just around the corner, you fucking cynic).

Seriously, though, how does a dire problem just materialize?

OK, true, the British Petroleum oil spill — which the Repugnican Tea Party says is no big deal stop picking on BP whom we owe an apology because picking on BP is un-American — more or less just materialized, but anchor babies have been with us for a very long time.

“Anchor babies” are babies that non-U.S. citizens give birth to in the United States of America in order, the theory goes, for their parents to claim U.S. citizenship. And the babies’ births are paid for by us, the taxpayers.

Ann Cunter cares passionately about this new-found “issue,” which is the topic of her latest venomfest.

Seriously, though, Cunter has become a fucking caricature.

Just when you thought the acid-for-blood harpy couldn’t get any more evil and vile, now she (and her scaly ilk) are after the poor, brown-skinned people’s babies.

I repeat: Babies.

Again: Babies.

Because Jesus Christ clearly taught that we should persecute babies.

Cunter’s biggest problem with the brown-skinned babies probably is that she isn’t allowed to eat any of them. And I am pretty sure that her jaw detaches from her skull and that her fangs fold back, enabling her to swallow a baby whole.

But just remember, voter, in November, that the nation’s ills have nothing to do with the white-skinned white-collar criminals who have been bleeding this nation dry for decades. (In the past 30 years, since 1980, we’ve had a pro-rich, pro-corporate Repugnican in the White House for 20 of those years, and for the remaining years we’ve had a Repugnican-Lite, corporate-ass-kissing “Democratic” president running the show.)  

No, don’t go after the filthy few rich plutocrats who are so far fucking removed from the damage that they cause the masses that you never even see them.

No, with your torches and pitchforks, go after those brown-skinned anchor babies.

Babies.

Because babies, especially those born to poor, brown-skinned parents, can’t fight back, and it takes real fucking bravery — you know, those cojones that “tea party” princess Palin-Quayle recently was talking about — to attack the weak and the relatively defenseless.

Just like Jesus would do.

*Cold-blooded reptiles love the heat. Maybe that’s why the members of the Repugnican Tea Party love global warming so much…

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cunter: ‘tea-partiers’ ‘cheerful,’ liberals ‘violent’

I wasn’t going to blog anymore tonight. Then I read Ann Cunter’s latest lie fest.

Cunter tries to make the case that liberals are violent racists.

It’s funny. In a sick and twisted way. Does she believe her own shit or does she have full awareness that she’s lying through her venom-dripping fangs?

Cunter begins with:

While engaging in astonishing viciousness, vulgarity and violence toward Republicans, liberals accuse cheerful, law-abiding Tea Party activists of being violent racists.

Oh, fuck, I wish that we liberals were violent! (And that the “tea party” fascists truly were “cheerful” instead of hating upon everyone who isn’t a conservative straight white person who identifies as a Christian — you know, the way our tea-bagging founding fathers wanted it to be.)

We liberals should have killed someone when George W. Bush blatantly treasonously stole the White House in late 200o after having lost the popular vote and the state of Florida, of which his brother just coinky-dinkily was governor (and of which the chief elections official just coinky-dinkily also had sat on his election campaign committee). When the unelected Bush regime launched its bogus Vietraq War for Big Oil and for Uncle Dick’s Halliburton, we liberals should have gone on a murderous fucking rampage.

But we didn’t.

Actually, the “tea party” dipshits aren’t widely accused of violence, even though Cunter goes on to beat the “tea-party” spittle story to death. They are, however, accurately widely accused of being racist.

Look at how many non-whites attend “tea party” gatherings. Why, if the “tea party” is a such a big tent, is that tent filled almost exclusively with white people?

And the New York Times reports that less than 1.5 percent of the audience of Faux “News” (which we might as well call the Tea Party Channel) is comprised of black viewers, while around 20 percent of CNN’s and MSNBC’s viewership is black. Why, do you suppose, that is? (Oh, yeah: because blacks are racist. Andrew Breitbart says so.)

Cunter also proclaims:

We also have evidence of liberals’ proclivity for violence in the form of mountains of arrest records. Liberal protesters at the 2008 Republican National Convention were arrested for smashing police cars, slashing tires, breaking store windows, and for possessing Molotov cocktails, napalm bombs and assorted firearms. (If only they could muster up that kind of fighting spirit on foreign battlefields.)

There were no arrests of conservatives at the Democratic National Convention.

Hmmm. My understanding is that the vast majority of those who actually smash police cars, slash tires, break store windows, etc., are anarchists, not liberals, and while I don’t know much about the anarchists, my understanding is that by definition they don’t like liberals, considering liberals to be part of the broken political system that they despise. Actually, I think that they hate any and all political systems, broken or otherwise. (Any anarchists there, feel free to correct me in the comments section if I’m wrong.)

But that aside, again, I only WISH that liberals actually would wreak havoc like Cunter claims they (we) do. Instead, they tend to be notoriously pussy, usually not even fighting back when they are physically attacked. Fucking peaceniks. (And, as Cunter points out, liberals don’t even like to slaughter Muslim babies for the profits of Big Oil in the names of freedom and democracy and God and Jesus and puppies and kittens and fluffy little bunnies and butterflies and marshmallows and cotton candy. Fucking treasonous liberals!)

And if there were no arrests of conservatives at the Democratic National Convention, well, since conservatives tend to be overly comfortable, overprivileged rich fucks, since they tend to sit at the top of the hierarchy, shitting and pissing upon others, what, exactly, do they have to protest? (Oh, yeah: taxes, which the rich fucks’ corporations — which are people just like you and me, don’t you know — don’t even pay anyway. [Oh — and the black guy won the 2008 presidential election over the old white guy by 7 percentage points, when U.S. history clearly has demonstrated that only white men should ever be president.])

But wait. Cunter’s not done.

“It was a good day when George Bush was merely burned in effigy, compared to Hitler or, most innocuously, compared to a monkey,” she whines.

OK, so go to Google images — images.google.com — and look up “Obama monkey” and “Obama Hitler.” You’ll see lovely images like these:

(You can Google “Obama burned in effigy” on your own. And you know, you’re no one until you’re burned in effigy. Just sayin’.)

It seems to me that blacks are much more often compared to monkeys or other non-human primates than are whites, and that whites comparing blacks to monkeys is quite different from mostly whites comparing a white guy to a monkey*, and really, I don’t think that the right or the left has a monopoly on the trite Hitler comparison, although if Barack Hussein Hitler truly wants to round up and exterminate six million “tea-partying” wingnuts, hey, I’m down with that. (But that will never happen, the FEMA concentration-camp conspiracy stories notwithstanding, because, as I said, liberals are pussies.)

Cunter even manages to scrape together some names of Democratic politicians who have made racist or racist-sounding statements in the past, and, of course, she has to mention that the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd in his youth used to be a member of the KKK, which he spent the rest of his life regretting and denouncing. (Well, she doesn’t remind us that he was young and that he regretted it the rest of his life. An oversight, I’m sure.)

Cunter neglects to mention Repugnican racist politicians like Strom “Baby Daddy” Thurmond, Trent Lott (whose political career imploded when he stated that segregationist Thurmond should have been elected president in 1948), George “Macaca” Allen, Jeff(erson) Sessions, John Ashcroft, George Bush I (remember the Willie Horton ad?) and George Bush II (remember the robo-calls that John McCain had fathered a black child, which had Karl Rove’s greasy fingerprints all over them? And how helpful Bush II was to the black victims of Hurricane Katrina?), Katherine Harris (and her purging of black voters from Florida’s voter rolls so that Bush II could “win” Florida), and, of course, David Duke. (Cunter actually writes that we liberals “have zero examples of conservative racism.” Uh, smoking dope isn’t legal yet, Ann.)

And these “incidents”/incidents of liberal-on-conservative violence/“violence” that Cunter recounts are, as violence goes, pretty tame. And quite anecdotal — hardly a fucking national pandemic, unfortunately. The worst of them she recounts is that a guy at a MoveOn.org event bit off a portion of a wingnut’s finger.

Again, cool shit like that doesn’t happen nearly enough.

I wonder what one of Cunter’s fingers tastes like. Careful, though, my fellow violent liberals. I’m guessing that she has acid for blood.

*I used to love the comparisons of George W. Bush to a chimpanzee, although the comparisons were an insult to the intelligence of our closest living cousins.

The comparisons of Bush to chimps was a statement on his lack of intelligence, however. The prime aim of comparisons of blacks to non-human primates, however, is to suggest that they are subhuman — and thus, that it’s justified to treat them as such. 

Big difference. But just another innocent oversight on Cunter’s part, I’m certain.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Cunter: Afghanistan war good under Bush, bad under B. Hussein Obama

I haven’t heard anything about Ann Cunter in ages. In fact, because she apparently has been displaced by Grand Dragon Glenn Beck and Grand Dragoness Sarah Palin-Quayle, she plummeted to No. 11 on my Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate list for 2010.

Apparently, however, she’s baaaaaaaack!

Cunter now is backing Repugnican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in his recent assertion that the Afghanistan war is unwinnable and that the quagmire in Afghanistan is all President Barack Obama’s fault.

I read her recent rant (reading that harpy’s shit is always like making a little visit to the bowels of hell; I do it for you, dear reader), and her basic claim is that the unelected Bush regime (well, the “unelected” part is mine, not hers) did swell when it initially invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, but now, President Barack Obama has fucked it all up.

Everyone knows that you can’t do nation building in Afghanistan, Cunter writes; that’s why the Bush regime spent little time in Afghanistan before its Eye of Sauron switched its gaze from Afghanistan to Iraq: because nation building was possible there, which the BushCheneyCorp (again, my term, not hers…), in its infinite wisdom, knew.

Except that the unelected Bush regime never used nation building as its main pretense for launching its illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War in March 2003. The unelected Bush regime used the treasonous lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened the security of the United States, its allies and its interests to justify its invasion and subsequent occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq against the wishes of the United Nations and against world opinion.

Fact is, the Bush regime invaded Afghanistan in late 2001 only as a show; it was a token display that the Bush regime really cared — really! — about what had happened on 9/11, from which it had failed utterly to protect the nation despite the August 2001 presidential daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

It’s not that the Bush regime had the wisdom to not remain in Afghanistan; it’s that the members of the Bush regime had wanted to invade Iraq even before George W. Bush & Co. stole office in late 2000, and Afghanistan wasn’t part of their original plans.

Now — now that Barack Obama is in office — Ann Cunter comes out against the war in Afghanistan. She had many years to come out publicly against it: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. But BushCheneyCorp remained in power during those years, so she bit her forked tongue.

She even had all of 2009, when Obama inherited it, to make a principled stand against the Afghanistan war.

But she didn’t.

She made a stand only after the dufus chairman of the Repugnican National Committee, who doesn’t know his ass from a ruptured oil well uncontrollably gushing millions of gallons of crude, was caught on video voicing his opinion that the Afghanistan war is unwinnable and that it’s Obama’s mess now.

In Cunter’s Orwellian world, when the head of the party fucks up and diametrically misstates the stance on a major issue that the party has taken for years, you don’t chastise the head of the party — you simply change your official stance to match the new stance that the party’s head has now proclaimed.

It’s what you call saving face — on crack.

Although she’s been out of the national spotlight for some time now, Cunter remains in fine form. Not only can she actually assert that the Repugnican Party should change its stance on a major issue because its chairman misspoke, but she still is repeating the lie that Iraq had posed a threat to the United States, a lie that thoroughly was debunked years ago. She froths:

But Iraq also was a state sponsor of terrorism; was attempting to build nuclear weapons (according to endless bipartisan investigations in this country and in Britain — thanks, liberals!); nurtured and gave refuge to Islamic terrorists — including the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; was led by a mass murderer who had used weapons of mass destruction; paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers; had vast oil reserves; and is situated at the heart of a critical region.

Um, there was no “bipartisan” anyfuckingthing where the Vietraq War was concerned. With its dire warnings of “smoking guns coming in the form of mushroom clouds,” the unelected Bush regime crammed its Vietraq War down the nation’s (and the world’s) throat, did not merely misintepret intelligence but blatantly lied about what the intelligence was (and then blamed the intelligence community’s “faulty” intelligence), and made it clear that anyone — perhaps especially Democrats in Congress — who dared to try to stand in the way of the impending Vietraq War were terrorist-lovin’ traitors.

We can’ t allow the likes of Ann Cunter try to rewrite history, such as by claiming that there was “bipartisan” support for the Vietraq War when, in fact, the spineless Democrats, in the hysterical, paranoid, pseudo-patriotic national environment that the unelected Bush regime and its right-wing supporters whipped up post-9/11, were too intimidated by the Bush regime and its right-wing cheerleaders not to support the Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War. 

The only portion of that excerpt of Cunter’s bile and venom above that has some truth to it is that indeed Iraq has oil reserves (although not as “vast” as Cunter would like us to believe) — oil reserves that Big Oil (of which the Bush and Cheney crime families long have been part) is now exploiting, since the Bush regime invaded and took over the sovereign nation of Iraq primarily for access to its oil reserves (it’s “stealing” and “murdering” when you or I do it, but it’s “national security” or “national interests” when the stupid filthy rich white men steal and commit mass murder for their corporate greed) — and that Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East.

Still, Cunter might just turn out, after all, to be a useful idiot.

In her latest frothing Cunter slams Dick spawn Liz Cheney, whom I also hate with a passion, and so I’m perfectly fine with Cunter and the spawn of Dick ripping out each other’s bleach-blonde hair and clawing each other’s faces with their press-on nails in their wingnutty bitch-slapping quest to become the Bimbo Queen of the Wingnuts, a title that already has been claimed by Sarah Palin-Quayle. (Hell, I’d pay to watch a death match between those two cunts.)

And I’m fine with the right wing turning against the war in Afghanistan — which, while I certainly agree is unwinnable, is “Obama’s war” as much as the trashed economy that he inherited from the unelected, treasonous BushCheneyCorp, which ran the nation into the ground from 2001 through 2008, is “Obama’s economy.”

I have to wonder, though, what the wingnuts would say if Obama, following Ann Cunter’s latest counsel, actually did pull us out of Afghanistan.

Surely they’d say that he’s a terrorist-lovin’ Manchurian president who wants to just hand our good little lily white virtuous Christian virgin girls over to filthy, savage Muslim rapists on a silver platter.

After all, it is Ann Cunter who historically has referred to Barack Obama as “B. Hussein Obama” — emphasizing his Middle-Eastern middle name in order to imply strongly that his loyalty lies not with the United States of America, but with his Muslim brethren in the Middle East.

Now, though, Cunter blathers, President B. Hussein Obama should pull us out of Afghanistan.

Don’t even try to figure it out — or you’ll become as bat-shit crazy as are Ann Cunter and the rest of the wingnuts.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate, 2010 Edition

Glenn Beck is No. 1!

The May 2007 death of Jerry Falwell inspired me at that time to compose a “Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate List.” It seems to be that time of year for top-10 lists, and the great news that Rush Limbaugh is in the hospital for chest pains has inspired me to revisit and revamp my list.

In May 2007 my list of Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate was as follows:

1. Dick Cheney

2. George W. Bush

3. Karl Rove

4. Donald Rumsfeld

5. Rudy Giuliani

6. Ann Cunter

7. Rush Limbaugh

8. Pope Palpatine

9. James Dobson

10. Pat Robertson

My Top 10 Wingnuts Whose Deaths I’d Celebrate for 2010 are (drum roll, please):

1. Glenn Beck

2. Dick Cheney

3. Sarah Palin

4. George W. Bush

5. Rush Limbaugh

6. Karl Rove

7. Pope Palpatine

8. John McCainosaurus

9. Benedict Lieberman

10. Tie: Carrie Prejean and Prick Warren

New to the list are Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, John McCainosaurus, Benedict (a.k.a. Joe) Lieberman, Prick (a.k.a. Rick) Warren and Carrie Prejean.

As I’ve noted before, dry drunk Beck has a face that I’d like to punch. I know that Dick Cheney has done a lot more damage to the nation and the world than Beck has, but I really, really, really hate Glenn Beck. He is pure evil — a mixture of stupidity, bigotry and arrogance that is unmatched in the wingnut world. My hatred of him is visceral.

George W. Bush also has done a lot more damage to the nation and the world than Sarah Palin has, but I fucking hate Sarah Palin and everything that she stands for. (OK, Levi Johnston is a hottie. If he ran for president I might consider him.)

Bush and Cheney are a little lower on the list than they used to be because they’re out of office, but Cheney is above Bush on both lists because we all know that he really pulled the strings.

Karl Rove remains on the list because he and fellow Gee Dubya puppeteer Cheney Cheney are still appearing on television all the time criticizing the Obama administration. If they’d just go the fuck away, like Donald Rumsfeld and Rudy Giuliani did, they might not still be on my list.

John McCainosaurus didn’t appear on my 2007 list because I didn’t expect him to get the 2008 nomination, but he did. And because he also keeps criticizing the Obama administration, as though the BushCheneyCorp had done a great job from early 2001 to early 2009, and even though the American voters picked Obama over him by 7 percentage points, McCainosaurus makes this year’s list.

The pope just refuses to die — I think that sheer spite, his desire to drag the entire world back to the dark ages, keeps him going — and he goes up one notch this year. (I know, you think it’s awful that I include the pope, but he and his backasswards wingnutty views fuck up millions of people around the globe.)

Benedict Lieberman needs no explanation if you have been paying attention at all. I heard that Al Gore stated that he doesn’t regret that he’d picked Benedict as his running mate for his 2000 presidential run. I don’t believe that.

Dropped from the list are James Dobson and Pat Robertson, about whom you don’t hear much anymore, and in their place is Prick Warren and Carrie Prejean, who (along with Sarah Palin) seem to be the new faces of the remnants of what passes for Christianity for way too many Americans. I hate Prick Warren and Carrie Prejean, and since they have so much in common — the whole faux Godliness thing — I put them at tied for 10th place.

You might be surprised that Ann Cunter has dropped from the list. Oh, don’t get me wrong; I still fucking hate Ann Cunter. But Glenn Beck seems to have knocked her out of the limelight entirely.

So I would put her at No. 11, except that this is a top-10 list.

Maybe next year, Ann.

P.S. If you think that I’m missing anyone or you’d make any changes to my list for 2010, feel free to leave a comment below.

P.P.S. I will make a pre-emptive strike and state that I am immune to any criticism that my composing such a top-10 list is “inappropriate.” I mean, oh puhfuckinglease if you think that there aren’t a bunch of people the wingnuts would want dead, such as Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore and, of course, Barack Obama (but not because he’s black, of course!).

P.P.P.S.: Honorable mentions for 2010: Joe Wilson, the fucktarded U.S. representative from South Carolina who yelled out “You lie!” during President Obama’s nationally televised address to Congress on health care, and Meg Whitman, the billionaire bitch who is trying to buy the governorship of California (the gubernatorial election will be in November 2010). I imagine that we Californians will hear a lot more from her in the coming months. What we’ve heard from her thus far (she has declared war upon state government workers and the environment) has been nothing short of pathetic.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized