Tag Archives: President-elect Barack Obama

The Barack Obama butt plug!

A street vendor holds a handmade wooden puppet that pictures ...

Associated Press photo

No, just kidding.

The caption for the Associated Press photo above says that the item is a Barack Obama “wooden puppet” sold in Bulgaria. I’m not sure what a “wooden puppet” is or does, but my God, if they can put Barack Obama’s face on it and sell it, they will, so is an actual Barack Obama butt plug far behind? (I haven’t Googled “Barack Obama butt plug” yet to see if one already is available…)

Anyway, the photo above accompanies a news story about how much money merchandisers are making off of the popularity of President-elect Barack Obama (a.k.a. Obamania).

I don’t get it. We all know that Obama is the next president and we all know what he looks like — we need to be constantly reminded of these things? It reminds me of all of the damned U.S. flag stickers and magnets on motor vehicles (and flag crap elsewhere, including those infuckingfernal lapel pins that our politicians wear, lest they be branded as traitors). We need to be reminded of what nation we’re in?

Obamania has gotten so out of hand that I won’t wear in public any of the two or three Obama T-shirts that I bought a while ago. I used to think that the white-on-black “Got hope?” T-shirt was somewhat cool, but now, not only is all of the Obama merchandise beyond passe, but no, I don’t got no hope no mo’. It very much looks like we’re going to have another Clintonesque “Democratic” administration…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

End of baby-boomer rule at hand?

The mere thought of the baby boomers finally no longer being in control of my nation is enough to make me jizz in my pants, but until they actually are no longer in control, they’re still in control.

My fantasy, I guess, is that they would be selfless for just once and fling themselves off steep cliffs like lemmings (in an environmentally friendly way, of course; I guess that we would have to stagger their cliff-leaping so that the oceans could accommodate the decomposition). Or that we institute a “Logan’s Run”-like policy — now. (I’ll be generous and up the permanent retirement age to 65.) Carousel, anyone?

The boomers fought authority in the 1960s and the 1970s only so that they could party. Sex, drugs ‘n’ rock ‘n’ roll, you know. Once they became the age of their real or perceived oppressors, however, they became the oppressors, and it turns out that the only group whose rights they ever were fighting for was their own.

The boomers are the first generation in American history that didn’t give a flying fuck about making conditions better for the generations that follow them. Instead, the boomers have been, in the words of Paul Begala,  “a plague of locusts, devouring everything in their path and leaving but a wasteland.” (Begala correctly terms the boomer generation “the worst generation“; no other American generation has come as close as the boomers have to destroying the entire fucking nation.)

The funny thing is that the hordes of boomers had thought that they could devour everything and then die, but their voraciousness has been such that things in the United States of America have seriously gone to shit before they have kicked off, and thus they now have to experience themselves that which they had figured only my generation (“Generation X”) and succeeding generations would have to experience.

Oops!  

Anyway, what has inspired my anti-boomer rant is this Associated Press story from today:

NEW YORK – When George W. Bush lifts off in his helicopter on Inauguration Day, leaving Washington to make way for Barack Obama, he may not be the only thing disappearing into the horizon.

To a number of social analysts, historians, bloggers and ordinary Americans, Jan. 20 will symbolize the passing of an entire generation: the baby-boomer years.

Generational change. A passing of the torch. The terms have been thrown around with frequency as the moment nears for Obama to take the oath of office. And yet the reference is not to Obama’s relatively young age — at 47, he’s only tied for fifth place on the youngest presidents list with Grover Cleveland.

Rather, it’s a sense that a cultural era is ending, one dominated by the boomers, many of whom came of age in the ’60s and experienced the bitter divisions caused by the Vietnam War and the protests against it, the civil rights struggle, social change, sexual freedoms and more.

Those experiences, the theory goes, led boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, to become deeply motivated by ideology and mired in decades-old conflicts. And Obama? He’s an example of a new pragmatism: idealistic but realistic, post-partisan, unthreatened by dissent, eager and able to come up with new ways to solve problems.

“Obama is one of those people who was raised post-Vietnam and really came of age in the ’80s,” says Steven Cohen, professor of public administration at Columbia University. “It’s a huge generational change, and a new kind of politics. He’s trying to be a problem-solver by not getting wrapped up in the right-left ideology underlying them.”

Obama, it must be said, is technically a boomer; he was born in 1961. But he long has sought to draw a generational contrast between himself and the politicians who came before him.

“I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage,” he wrote of the 2000 and 2004 elections in his book, The Audacity of Hope.

It’s been a while since historians spoke of generational change in Washington. Fully 16 years have passed since Bill Clinton, the first boomer president, took office. Before that, presidents from John F. Kennedy to George H.W. Bush — seven straight — were part of the World War II generation, or what Tom Brokaw has termed the “Greatest Generation.”

If Obama isn’t a boomer in spirit, then what is he? Not exactly a member of Generation X, though obviously that generation and the next, Generation Y (also known as Millenials) embraced him fully and fueled his historic rise to the presidency.

“Gen Xers are known to be more cynical, less optimistic,” says social commentator Jonathan Pontell. “Xers don’t write books with the word ‘hope’ in the title.”

Some call late boomers like Obama “cuspers” — as in, [on] the cusp of a new generation. One book has called it the 13th generation, as in the 13th generation since colonial times. And Pontell, also a political consultant in Los Angeles, has gained some fame coining a new category: Generation Jones, as in the slang word ‘jonesing,’ or craving, and as in a generation that’s lost in the shuffle.

Jonesers are idealistic, Pontell says, but not ideological like boomers. “Boomers were flower children out changing the world. We Jonesers were wide-eyed, not tie-dyed.” …

“It may be technically correct to call [Obama] a boomer,” says Douglas Warshaw, a New York media executive who, at age 49, is part of whatever cohort Obama is in. “And it’s in the Zeitgeist to call him a Gen Xer. But I think he’s more like a generational bridge.” He adds that Obama got where he was by “brilliantly leveraging the communication behaviors of post-Boomers,” with a campaign waged across the Web, on cell phones and on social networking sites….

Obama’s biracial heritage also plays into the generational shift, [says Montana Miller of Bowling Green State University]. “It’s so emblematic of how the world is changing,” she says. “So many people are now some sort of complicated ethnic mix. Today’s youth are completely comfortable with that.”

Will Obama speak of generational change when he stands on the podium to issue his inaugural address? Given some of his rhetoric on the campaign trail, it’s reasonable to think he will — just as, some six months before he was born, JFK pronounced on Inauguration Day that “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.”

Interestingly, Kennedy is often claimed by boomers to be one of their own, even though he was nothing of the kind; born in 1917, he’d be 91 now. In the same way, many Gen Xers and even Gen Yers like to claim Obama, too.

“As humans we all want to be part of something bigger than ourselves, part of a page in a history book,” Pontell says. And at least for now, he adds, “Obama’s a rock star, and people are dying to call him one of their own.”

I, for one, admittedly got a little tipsy, but never flat-out drunk, on the Obama Kool-Aid, and so while I’m glad that our next president is under age 50 — I supported Obama mainly to ensure that boomer Billary Clinton didn’t get the Democratic presidential nomination — I wouldn’t say that I am “dying to call [Obama] one of [my] own,” and I don’t expect The Rise of the Xers to come under President Obama. He seems too eager to please everyone for there to be any kind of a revolution.

And, as the news article above points out, Obama is generationally cuspy. Technically, given his birth year, he is a boomer, and when someone is cuspy like that I look at his or her characteristics to see which generational side he or she leans toward. My boyfriend, for instance, born in 1962, technically is a boomer, but he’s a cuspy boomer, and if he leaned more on the boomer side than on my side (Gen X), there’s no way in hell that I could have been with him for more than the past year now.

And when I examine Obama’s behavior, he seems to be truly cuspy, that is, right smack dab in the middle between the boomers and the Xers. He kisses Zionist ass*, for instance, just like boomer Billary Clinton does, and his selection of bloated baby boomer Prick Warren, who reminds me of a Jerry Falwell Jr., to give the invocation at his inaugration also smacks of a choice that Billary would make (remember when she cozied up to the rednecks during the Democratic presidential primary season, declaring herself to be one of them and declaring Obama to be an “elitist”?). Yet as the article above eludes to, Obama also was able to exploit the power of the Internet and to energize the youth vote far more effectively than the crusty Clinton could.

Obama has demonstrated that he can go either way: he can be progressive (such as with his opposition to the Vietraq War, for which Billary Clinton voted in October 2002), true to his Generation X side, or he can kiss the establishment’s ass (such as with his blind obedience to Israel and his refusal to disinvite homophobe Prick Warren to his inauguration), true to his boomer side.

My best guess is that Obama’s presidency always will be like this, straddling both sides of the generational divide, and thus I anticipate that the boomers will be a thorn in our national side for years to come.

Only rather than directing our national policy, their bloated corpses will overfill our nursing homes, reminiscent of the bloated denizens of the film “WALL-E,” manatees of human beings in their floating lounges with TV screens perpetually in front of their faces and straws perpetually in their mouths, and we will have to try to find the resources to take care of their demanding, dependent asses even though they have depleted all of our resources.

Or will we?…

Soylent Green,” anyone?  

*In the timely documentary “Jimmy Carter: Man from Plains,” former President Jimmy Carter explains how the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) grills candidates for office, and if those candidates aren’t 100 percent on the same page with Israel and the Zionist cause, AIPAC will fund those candidates’ opponents. Thus, we see Democratic as well as Repugnican candidates in the pocket of AIPAC. Really, we should just move our nation’s capitol from D.C. to Jerusalem, since it is Jerusalem that calls all of the shots for the United States of America.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

About fuckin’ time

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich talks to the media at his home ...

Associated Press photo

Yeah, buh-bye, Blahblahblahblah. Good riddance, baby-boomer asshole.

From The Associated Press today:

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – The Illinois House voted overwhelmingly [today] to impeach Gov. Rod Blagojevich, an unprecedented action that sets up a [state] Senate trial on whether he should be thrown out for abuse of power, including allegations that he tried to sell President-elect Barack Obama‘s vacant [U.S.] Senate seat.

Impeachment required just 60 votes. The final result was 114-1.

Legislators accused the second-term Democratic governor of letting down the people of Illinois by letting ego and ambition drive his decisions.

“It’s our duty to clean up the mess and stop the freak show that’s become Illinois government,” said Rep. Jack D. Franks, a Democrat.

Blagojevich was out jogging in his Chicago neighborhood when the vote came down.

Blagojevich refused to answer any specific questions about the vote, but upon returning from his jog, he likened his situation to long-distance running….

He then promised to say more at an afternoon news conference.

During the House’s 90-minute debate on impeachment, no one spoke up to defend the governor. But Rep. Milton Patterson, a Chicago Democrat, made the sole vote against impeaching Blagojevich.

Patterson said he read the impeachment committee’s report and wasn’t comfortable voting against the governor. “I have no firsthand knowledge of any of the evidence,” he said….

Rep. Elga Jefferies, another Chicago Democrat, voted “present.”

Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges that include allegations he schemed to profit from his power to name Obama’s replacement in the Senate. The criminal complaint included an FBI agent’s sworn affidavit describing wiretaps that caught Blagojevich allegedly talking about what he could get for the seat, how to pressure people into making campaign contributions and more.

That arrest triggered impeachment hearings by a special House committee.

The committee [yesterday] unanimously recommended impeachment based on the criminal charges but other allegations as well — that Blagojevich expanded a health care program without proper authority, that he circumvented hiring laws to give jobs to political allies, that he spent millions of dollars on foreign flu vaccine that he knew wasn’t needed and couldn’t be brought into the country.

“The citizens of this state must have confidence that their governor will faithfully serve the people and put their interests before his own,” the committee’s report said. “It is with profound regret that the committee finds that our current governor has not done so.”

Blagojevich has denied the criminal charges. He criticized the House impeachment process as biased and said a Senate trial would produce a different result.

But he didn’t testify before the House impeachment committee and hasn’t offered an explanation for the federal charges.

“His silence in this great matter is deafening,” said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a Chicago Democrat.

Hopefully today’s development will sink the seating of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris in the U.S. Senate. It’s not about Burris as an individual, although Burris strikes me as craven for even wanting a U.S. Senate seat under such tainted circumstances.

What it is about is that change thing that President-elect Barack Obama promised us until he was blue in the lips (oops…). Allowing an individual who was appointed by a corrupt governor right before the governor was impeached to take a seat in the U.S. Senate indicates that it’s the same old corrupt business as usual.

It kills any hope for change.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Various shit (in no certain order)

Just two days ago I wrote: “[President-elect Barack] Obama’s numbers in the public opinion polls are pretty fucking good. To a solid majority of Americans, Obama is fucking Superman. Or at least Batman….”

Today, this from The Associated Press:

Spider-Man has a new sidekick: The president-elect.

Barack Obama collected Spider-Man comics as a child, so Marvel Comics wanted to give him a “shout-out back” by featuring him in a bonus story, said Joe Quesada, Marvel’s editor in chief.

“How great is that? The commander in chief to be is actually a nerd in chief,” Quesada said. “It was really, really cool to see that we had a geek in the White House. We’re all thrilled with that.”

The comic starts with Spider-Man’s alter-ego Peter Parker taking photographs at the inauguration, before spotting two identical Obamas.

Parker decides “the future president’s gonna need Spider-Man,” and springs into action, using basketball to determine the real Obama and punching out the impostor.

Obama thanks him with a fist-bump.

Marvel comics have featured most presidents, but generally in walk-on roles, Quesada said….

Obama has said that as a child, he collected Spider-Man and Conan the Barbarian comic books. His Senate Web site used to have a photo of him posing in front of a Superman statue.

The Obama story is a bonus in Marvel Comic’s Amazing Spider-Man #583, available in comic book shops nationwide on Jan. 14 for $3.99 and is expected to sell out, with half the covers devoted to Obama.

Here’s the cover:

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is pictured on the cover of ...

Reuters photo

Um, is it official now that Obamania is out of hand?

As much as I will miss writing “Illinois Gov. Rod ‘U.$. $enate $eat for $ale’ Blahblahblahblah,” apparently the impeachment process against him finally has begun.

Incredibly (or  maybe not so incredibly), Blahblahblahblah appointee former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris appears to be on track to replace Barack Obama as a U.S. senator for Illinois.

The Democrats cave in to the Repugnicans, so why shouldn’t they cave in to Democrats waving the race card?

Gee, how are we doing with that “change” thing that we were promised? Let’s see:

The United Nations reports that as many as 250-plus Palestinian children have been slaughtered in Israel’s latest aggression, but Obama still reserves his right to remain silent on the matter.

Israel has the right to nip it in the bud, you see, to slaughter Arab children before they have the chance to grow up to be “terrorists” in Occupied Palestine (a.k.a. Israel)!

A homophobe will deliver the invocation at Obama’s inaugural, and it looks as though Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate will be a man appointed by a crooked Chicago politician (wait — that’s redundant…).

Yeah, things are changing so fucking much that I just can’t keep up with all of this change!

… 

Speaking of dead Palestinian children, this is from The Associated Press today

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Tiny bodies lying side by side wrapped in white burial shrouds. The cherubic face of a dead preschooler sticking up from the rubble of her home. A man cradling a wounded boy in a chaotic emergency room after Israel shelled a U.N. school.

Children, who make up more than half of crowded Gaza’s 1.4 million people, are the most defenseless victims of the war between Israel and Hamas. The Israeli army has unleashed unprecedented force in its campaign against Hamas militants, who have been taking cover among civilians.

A photo of 4-year-old Kaukab Al Dayah, just her bloodied head sticking out from the rubble of her home, covered many front pages in the Arab world Wednesday. “This is Israel,” read the headline in the Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm. The preschooler was killed early Tuesday when an F-16 attacked her family’s four-story home in Gaza City. Four adults also died.

As many as 257 children have been killed and 1,080 wounded — about a third of the total casualties since Dec. 27, according to U.N. figures released [today].

Hardest on the children is the sense that nowhere is safe and adults can’t protect them, said Iyad Sarraj, a psychologist hunkering down in his Gaza City apartment with his four stepchildren, ages 3 to 17. His 10-year-old, Adam, is terrified during bombing raids and has developed asthma attacks, Sarraj said.

Israel says it is targeting Hamas in response to its repeated rocket attacks on southern Israel, and is doing its utmost to avoid civilian deaths. However, foreign aid officials note that civilians can’t escape blockaded Gaza and that bombing crowded areas inevitably leads to civilian casualties. The Israeli military has used tank and artillery shells, as well as large aerial bombs….

Indeed, all of Gaza has become dangerous ground.

Children have been killed in strikes on their houses, while riding in cars with their parents, while playing in the streets, walking to a grocery and even at U.N. shelters.

Sayed, Mohammed and Raida Abu Aisheh — ages 12, 8 and 7 — were at home with their parents when they were all killed in an Israeli airstrike before dawn Monday. The family had remained in the ground floor apartment of their three-story building, while the rest of the extended clan sought refuge in the basement from heavy bombardment of nearby Hamas installations.

Those in the basement survived. The children’s uncle, Saber Abu Aisheh, 49, searched [today] through the rubble, a heap of cement blocks, mattresses, scorched furniture and smashed TVs.

He said Israel gave no warning, unlike two years earlier when he received repeated calls from the Israeli military, including on his cell phone, that a nearby house was going to get hit and that he should evacuate.

“What’s going on is not a war, it’s a mass killing,” said Abu Aisheh, still wearing the blood-splattered olive-colored sweater he wore the night of the airstrike.

The Israeli military did not comment when asked why the Abu Aisheh house was targeted.

In the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City, medics found four young children next to their dead mothers in a house, according to the Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross. “They were too weak to stand up on their own,” the statement said.

The Red Cross did not say what happened to the children, but noted that the Israeli army refused rescuers permission to reach the neighborhood for four days. Israel said the delay was caused by fighting.

Medic Mohammed Azayzeh said he retrieved the bodies of a man and his two young sons from central Gaza [yesterday]. One of the boys, a 1-year-old, was cradled in his father’s arms.

In the Jebaliya refugee camp, five sisters from the Balousha family, ages 4, 8, 11, 14 and 17, were buried together in white shrouds on Dec. 29. An Israeli airstrike on a mosque, presumably a Hamas target, had destroyed their adjacent house. Only their parents and a baby girl survived.

Israel accuses Hamas of cynically exploiting Gaza’s civilians and using them as human shields. The military has released video footage showing militants firing mortars from the rooftops of homes and mosques.

“Israel wants to see no harm to the children of Gaza,” said Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev. “On the contrary, we would like to see their children and our children grow up without the fear of violence. Until now, Hamas has deliberately prevented that from becoming reality.”

Rocket fire from Gaza has disrupted life in Israeli border communities, and with the latest intensified militant attacks, hundreds of thousands of Israelis are in rocket range. Schools are closed and fearful Israeli children rush into bomb shelters at the sound of air raid sirens.

In the ongoing chaos of Gaza, it’s difficult to get exact casualty figures. Since Dec. 27, at least 750 Palestinians have been killed, according to Gaza Health Ministry official Dr. Moawiya Hassanain.

Of those, 257 were children, according to the U.N.’s top humanitarian official, John Holmes, citing Health Ministry figures that he called credible and deeply disturbing.

“We are talking about urban war,” said Abdel-Rahman Ghandour, the Jordan-based spokesman for UNICEF in the Middle East and North Africa. “The density of the population is so high, it’s bound to hurt children… This is a unique conflict, where there is nowhere to go.”

Successive generations of Gaza children have grown up with violence, part of the accelerating conflict with Israel. In the late 1980s, many threw stones at Israeli soldiers in a revolt against occupation. In the second uprising, starting in 2000, some were recruited by Hamas as suicide bombers.

Sarraj, the psychologist, said he fears for this generation: Having experienced trauma and their parents’ helplessness, they may be more vulnerable to recruitment by militants….

If Israel truly wanted to stop slaughtering Palestinian children — then Israel would stop slaughtering Palestinian children.

Israel, by slaughtering scores of innocent Palestinians, seems to want to guarantee itself a constant supply of future Palestinian “terrorists” — so that Israel can maintain its perpetual “victim” status.

It’s  long past time for the rest of the world to hold Israel — and its long-time partner in war crimes and crimes against humanity, the United States — to account. It’s not “terrorism” only when an Arab or a Muslim kills someone.

In this Monday, Jan. 5, 2009 file photo, Palestinians carry ...

Associated Press photo

Palestinians on Monday bury three of their children slaughtered by Israel, the perpectual “victim.”

“For the last eight years, President Bush has led our country with firm determination and a steady hand in the face of numerous challenges and crises. He restored honor and integrity to the White House and protected America from another terrorist attack.”

That’s how Repugnican National Committee chair Mike Duncan began a fundraising e-mail sent out today that stupidly redundantly was titled “Grateful Gratitude to Our President.” (Yes, I’m on the enemy’s e-mail list.)

How will history regard the job that George W. Bush has done over the past eight years?

Bush and the Bushies claim that one day history will vindicate the second Bush administration (yeah, right), but today, Americans are pretty fucking happy to see Bush II go.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that only 31 percent of Americans would rate Bush’s eight-year job performance as “good” or “very good,” while 40 percent would call it “poor” or “very poor” — with an additional 28 percent calling Bush the worst. president. ever. (Yes, that’s a full 68 percent who rate the second Bush administration as somewhere between “poor” and the worst administration ever.)

The number calling George W. Bush the best president ever? Um, fewer than 1 percent…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Keep wanting that revolution

Will the American poor ever go after the American rich’s riches? Uh, no, because the rich own a vast propaganda machine (the flagship of which is Fox “News”) that has convinced the poor that the redistribution of wealth is a bad thing for them.

Lefty editorial cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall concludes his current column:

…What happens next, I think, is that people will do what large numbers of people always do when they need money and food but can’t find a job: They will start to think about the rich, who still have all the wealth they accumulated while money was still circulating. And they will take it from them.

It might be the easy way, through liberal-style income redistribution. Or it might be the hard way. Either way, it goes against the laws of nature to expect starving people to allow a few individuals to sit on vast aggregations of wealth….

With the economic distress we’re likely to see in the coming year or two or three, revolution will become increasingly likely unless money starts coursing through the nation’s economic veins, and soon.

Will it be a soft revolution of government-mandated wealth distribution through radical changes in the tax structure and the construction of a European-style safety net, as master reformer FDR presided over when he saved capitalism from itself?

Or will the coming revolution be something harder and bloodier, like the socioeconomic collapse that destroyed Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union?

To a great extent, what happens next will depend on how Barack Obama proceeds in his first weeks as president.

Damn — do even I write that apocalyptically?

Don’t get me wrong; I do wish for another American revolution. But I don’t have my hopes up that fat-assed Americans will put down their Big Gulps and get out of their lard-hauling scooters long enough to, um, revolt. (Oh, they’re revolting, all right, but in a different sense of the term…)

I mean, a pattern emerges: A man named George Bush takes Oval Office and wrecks the economy; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Then a Democrat takes the helm and the economy recovers; there is (relative) prosperity, under which Americans grow fat and lazy. Then, because Americans are fat and lazy and can’t be bothered with something like preventing the utter destruction of their democracy, another man named George Bush steals office and wrecks the economy, just like his fucking father did. Then another Democrat takes the helm. Presumably the economy will recover and even eventually blossom under President Barack Obama and Americans will become even fatter and lazier.

But after President Obama will Americans be fucking stupid enough to put another Bush into the White House, as Grandpappy George Bush suggests they should, in his son Jeb? (Will Americans perhaps even allow Jeb Bush to steal the White House like his brother did?)

I mean, aren’t we being played? A Repugnican president (usually with the surname of Bush) brings the nation to the brink of utter ruin and then a Democrat fixes things, only to have the whole cycle repeat itself?

Revolution?

I’m not going to buy a pitchfork or a torch just yet.

Obama’s numbers in the public opinion polls are pretty fucking good. To a solid majority of Americans, Obama is fucking Superman. Or at least Batman (and, as Catwoman noted in the second Tim Burton “Batman” movie, Americans are always waiting around for some hero to save them from their own fucking messes).

A Gallup poll taken last month found that 32 percent of Americans listed Barack Obama as their most admired man living today anywhere in the world. George W. Bush came in a distant second place at only 5 percent. (John McCainosaurus? He came in third place, with only 3 percent. I’m surprised that he did as well as he did on Nov. 4…)

Polls taken last month found that at least 75 percent of Americans approve of the job that Obama is doing thus far in his transition to the White House.

Obama’s shit doesn’t stink — at least right now. He’s riding high.

Americans seem to fully expect Obama to save them.

As long as things don’t get much, much worse than they are now, I don’t see the forcible redistribution of wealth that the Repugnican plutocrats so fear.

The tagline of Rall’s current column reads: “There’s Plenty of Money Around. Let’s Take It.” That’s my dream (and apparently Rall’s, t0o) and a plutocrat’s nightmare, but the Repugnicans, with their incessant propaganda campaigns, have convinced enough stupid poor people that the redistribution of wealth somehow is a bad thing for them — “socialism” and “Communism,” you know — that the rich and the super-rich and the super-fucking-rich are pretty safe, I think, atop their mountains of cash that they stole from the rest of us.

And just enough Americans have bought Barack Obama’s promises of “hope” and “change” — last month 63 percent of Americans polled said that they feel “hopeful” for 2009, while only 35 percent said “fearful” — that I don’t see that revolution coming any day soon.

When things are this shitty, things have to improve only a little for people to think that things have turned around again, even though the bar keeps getting lower and lower and lower. 

Yeah — we’re being played…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Still desperately seeking a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties

Israel’s slaughter of Palestinians, whose land the Israelis occupy, continues. The Associated Press reports that in Israel’s eight days of aggression against the Palestinians that most of the civilized world has condemned, more than 480 Palestinians have been slaughtered — to only four Israelis killed, fewer than one Israeli for every 100 Palestinians.

Yet the unelected, mass-murdering Bush regime still blames everything on Hamas and won’t renounce the Israelis’ continuing insanely lop-sided slaughter.

It seems fairly clear what Israel is doing now: knowing that the Bush regime is out the door soon, bloodthirsty Israeli wingnuts decided that they’d slaughter as many Palestinians as they could while they still had the full cover of the United States government.

It’s very doubtful that President-elect Barack Obama once in office will treat the Palestinians with even-handedness and fairness, but my guess is that he’ll be more sensitive to world opinion than has been the outgoing Bush regime, and that with Obama behind the wheel Israel won’t have quite the blank check that the Bush regime has given it.

Sexy brainiac Glenn Greenwald has been writing about how Democratic and Repugnican politicians are virtually indistinguishable in their blindly slavish support for Israel; he writes that “the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy [that] typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.”

Greenwald notes that “Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive — by a 24-point margin,” yet “Democratic Party leaders — including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi — are just as lockstep [as are the Repugnicans] in their blind, uncritical support for the [current] Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions.”

Greenwall asks:

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?

More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party’s voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party’s leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

Probably not, but, as I have noted before, most of the Democratic “leadership” opposes same-sex marriage* — even though, I surmise, the majority of Democratic voters support same-sex marriage.**

Polls taken in the last month indicate that as many as 44 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage and that 63 percent of Americans support some sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples, although not all of them are OK with calling it marriage. Only 30 percent are opposed to any sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples, and the rest are undecided.

A poll taken in the last month also indicates that 52 percent of Americans would oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in all 50 states (43 percent would favor doing so, with the rest undecided) and that 49 percent of Americans would vote against amending their own state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage (45 percent would vote to write hatred into their state’s constitution, with the rest undecided).

The Obama administration has a chance to take some real leadership on the same-sex marriage issue. If the Prick Warren fiasco is any indicator, though, the Obama administration will be about as great on equal human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals as was the Clinton administration.

The Democrats sure love to get our non-heterosexuals’ money, but have a severe problem delivering much, if anything, in return.

*Barack Obama’s public stance is that each state should decide the issue of same-sex marriage for itself — although we don’t leave most civil-rights matters up to each state for very good reason. Obama’s stance is the coward’s way out, and the “states’ rights” argument is soundly rejected by those who fight for rights for racial minorities. 

**I have been unable to find recent polls on same-sex marriage broken down by the respondents’ political party affiliation, but it’s a good guess that most of those who say in polls that they oppose same-sex marriage are Repugnicans and that most who say in polls that they support it are Democrats.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Barack Obama is dead to me

I could just post these two news photos to explain why I’m not exactly moist, to put it mildly, over the inauguration of Barack Obama three weeks from today:

Three Palestinian children from the Balosha family, of five ...

In this Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008 file photo, Pastor Rick Warren ...

Associated Press photos

The second photo of the bloated baby boomer with the shit-eating grin is, of course, of Prick Warren, the homophobic stupid white man who, in the spirit of “inclusion,” Obama invited to give the invocation at the inauguration.

Gay most definitely is the new black if a black Democrat sees no problem inviting a homophobe to open his inauguration.

A gay male co-worker of mine recently stated that he isn’t going to let Prick Warren ruin the inauguration for him.

Oh, I am.

First we California fags and dykes were hit with the narrow passage of Proposition 8 on Nov. 4. I fully expect the California Supreme Court to strike down Prop 8 and reinstate same-sex marriage in California next year, as the same court ruled in May that the state’s Constitution mandates that same-sex marriage be legal, but as of today, same-sex couples may not legally marry in California. We don’t have equality. In only two states do we gay men, lesbians and other non-heterosexuals have equal marriage rights.

While we’re still reeling from Proposition 8 (and other anti-gay ballot measures that passed in the nation on Nov. 4), Obama picks homophobe Prick Warren to set the tone for his inauguration and he won’t back down from his incredibly poor political decision. You know, fuck “political.” This is a matter of Obama’s fucking character. He (presumably) isn’t gay, so he doesn’t give a flying fuck about gay men and lesbians.

I can’t just get over that like my co-worker can. I can’t just pretend that I don’t know what I know.

And with Barack Obama, if you are a progressive, that’s what you have to do in order to be jazzed about his impending inauguration: ignore certain things. Psychologists and pychiatrists have terms for such mental gymnastics.

Barack Obama doesn’t have my back. He no longer has mine. I regret that I gave him hundreds of dollars and I regret that I cast my vote for him. The only thing I’m glad about where he is concerned is that it wasn’t Billary Clinton who won the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, as he is the lesser of the two evils and as I doubt that Billary could have beaten Repugnican John McCainosaurus on Nov. 4. I was glad to help Obama knock Billary out of the race, but it’s been downhill with him ever since.

Yes, I suppose that there are larger issues than same-sex marriage, such as war and peace and right and wrong, and Obama is all wrong on those issues too.

The caption of the first photo above reads: “Three Palestinian children from the Balosha family, of five who were all killed in the same Israeli missile strike, are seen in the morgue before their burial at Kamal Edwan hospital in Beit Lahiya [in the] northern Gaza Strip, [on] Monday, Dec. 29, 2008.”

The Associated Press reports that the Israelis have slaughtered more than 370 Palestinians this past week in a campaign of aggression that world opinion, including the United Nations, has condemned.

Although Team Obama’s fucking mantra is that “there is only one president at a time,” Obama somehow found himself able to publicly state today that Illinois Gov. Rod “$enate $eat for $ale” Blahblahblahblah’s choice for Obama’s replacement in the U.S. Senate should not be seated because the scandalous Gov. Blahblahblahblah has zero credibility — and that Blahblahblahblah should resign. 

While it’s nice to be able to agree with Obama on something for once, Obama’s statement on the gubernatorial hijinks in his home state probably more than anything else is meant to protect his own political ass from too much tarnishment as he assumes the White House next month. Standing up for what’s right when doing so serves oneself — well, that diminishes the good deed a bit, doesn’t it?

While he can speak up on right and wrong when it helps himself, Obama remains deafeningly silent on the carnage that continues in the Gaza Strip. Because it’s not his children whom the Israelis are dropping bombs upon. Obama rather now-famously said back in July: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I [would] do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

OK, fine, but the Palestinian children whose corpses are pictured above: they were dangerous members of Hamas? Obama cares about the safety of the Israelis’ daughters and his own daughters, but what about the safety of the Palestinians’ daughters?

Did Jesus Christ teach that it’s OK to pick and chose which children’s lives are valuable and which are not?

Obama is a “Christian”?

Bullshit. A Christian follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Barack Obama isn’t a Christian. He’s a politician. That’s his religion. He doesn’t answer to a higher power, unless you count the American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC) — the Israel-first lobby — as a higher power.

“Change”?

Yeah, right — keep hoping.

P.S. How are my two questions to Barack Obama doing at change.gov?

Recall that my two questions, verbatim, are:

  • I’m a gay man who gave your campaign hundreds of dollars. You have invited homophobe Rick Warren to appear at your inauguration. How about you invite Rush Limbaugh to perform “Barack the Magic Negro”? C’mon, now! In the spirit of “inclusion” and all!
  • Are you going to treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with SOME degree of even-handedness and fairness or are you going to kiss Israeli ass, thus further enraging the Arab world and further putting the United States at risk for terrorist attacks?

Apparently neither question has been yanked from the site (yet…), and thus far the majority who have voted like Question No. 1 by 123 votes to 91 votes, or 57 percent to 43 percent, and the majority also favor Question No. 2, by 80 votes to 59 votes, or 58 percent to 42 percent. (No, I haven’t voted for myself or asked anyone else to vote on my two questions.)

Gee. So a clear majority of Obama’s strongest supporters — those who take the time and trouble to visit his site and vote on shit — agree with me that these two issues are important and that Obama is misfuckinghandling these two issues (or at least the first one).

What if I had posed the two questions in a “nicer” way? I’d have received even stronger support from Obama’s supporters.

Will Obama listen to his supporters on these two issues?

Um, no, probably not. Prick Warren appeals to the dumbfuck vote that Obama for some reason is courting (as though eight long years of American stupidity weren’t enough), and Obama listens to his pimp$ at AIPAC, not to his supporters or to the American people, where the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Ask Uncle Barack!

President-elect Barack Obama’s at-least-mildly-creepy shadow-presidency website, change.gov, is taking questions!, I was informed via e-mail today.

I just submitted these two questions:

  • I’m a gay man who gave your campaign hundreds of dollars. You have invited homophobe Rick Warren to appear at your inauguration. How about you invite Rush Limbaugh to perform “Barack the Magic Negro“? C’mon, now! In the spirit of “inclusion” and all!
  • Are you going to treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with SOME degree of even-handedness and fairness or are you going to kiss Israeli ass, thus further enraging the Arab world and further putting the United States at risk for terrorist attacks?

There’s a character-length restriction on each question or my questions would have been longer. I’d have asked the president-elect, who calls himself a Christian, how many Arab babies Jesus would be OK with slaughtering, since the president-elect has not, to my knowledge, uttered a single fucking word about the continued carnage in occupied Palestine, but has only parroted the bullshit propaganda about Israel’s right to defend itself, even though Israelis kill far more Palestinians than vice-versa and even though world opinion is against Israel’s latest massacre of Arabs, which is made possible by the support of the United States.

P.S. Actually, even had I worded those questions “nicely,” I doubt that the president-elect’s team would touch either one.

Obama’s not about to disinvite Prick Warren to the inauguration, which has been completely ruined for me, and Obama picked Zionist-ass-licking Billary Clinton as his secretary of state. Billary has been paid big bucks by the Zionist lobby to eat Palestinian babies for lunch.

Fucking face it if you haven’t already: We’re in for another four to eight years of a milquetoast, Clintonesque “Democratic” White House administration…

P.P.S. To be fair, I just read this in a news story:

Even as the attack continued into its third day [today], with a Palestinian death toll topping 300 and Israel threatening a ground invasion, Obama had yet to say a word about the crisis, on the grounds that President George W. Bush (who has also been silent) must take the lead.

Hmmm… I suppose that I can see where Obama wouldn’t want to create confusion by making a public statement, I suppose — as he and his handlers say incessantly, the United States has only one president at a time (presidential puppeteer Dick Cheney notwithstanding…) — but it sure would be nice to know where Obama stands on these current events.

Could he not issue a disclaimer acknowledging that he has yet to take office and then make a statement? Would an audacious man of character who won’t shut up about “change” and “hope” remain silent on a humanitarian crisis like this?

P.P.P.S.: So people visiting change.gov get to vote on the questions that have been submitted.

Thus far, 85 voted that they like my first question involving Prick Warren, while 50 don’t like it. My guess is that these latter losers are Obamabots who just don’t want Obama to look bad — at all — no matter how wrong he might be. That and/or they don’t like my use of the word “Negro,” but I didn’t make up the fucking song title. (I also didn’t make up the word “Obamabot.” I can’t remember where I saw it. But I wish that I had coined it.)

Also thus far, 54 voted that they like my question about kissing Israeli ass while 40 don’t like the question, probably because of my indelicate use of the words “kiss Israeli ass,” because using the term “kiss ass” is much, much worse than, say, the mass murder that the Israelis are committing right now. We have to be “nice,” now!

Anyway, I’m just really fucking surprised that apparently neither of my two questions has been yanked from the Obamabots’ website…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

How about ‘RUSH the Magic GRAND Dragon’?

Maar01_finalexam0708

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wingnut blowhard Rush Limbaugh, who compared the Abu Ghraib House of Horrors to fraternity hazings, thinks that the song “Barack the Magic Negro,” which he played on his show in 2007, is appropriate entertainment. Hey, maybe Barack Obama can have Limbaugh perform the song at his inauguration! You know, in the spirit of inclusiveness ‘n’ shit!

They imported an actual black person all the way from Africa, no less, to the Repugnican National Convention three months ago, so you know that the Repugnicans aren’t racists.

So the song “Barack the Magic Negro” — from those who bring us wingnut assbite Rush Limbaugh’s show (shock!) and sung to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon” — that is on a CD that was distributed by a candidate for the chairmanship of the Repugnican National Committee is just in good fun and is not racist whatsoever.

Here are the partial lyrics; apparently the song is sung by a black politician, presumedly Al Sharpton, who is miffed that Barack Obama and not he rose to the presidency.

Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.
Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper
Said he makes guilty whites feel good
They’ll vote for him, and not for me
‘Cause he’s not from the ‘hood.

See, real black men, like Snoop Dogg,
Or me or Farrakhan
Have talked the talk and walked the walk.
Not come in late and won!

Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.
Oh, Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.
The L.A. Times, they called him that
‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

Some say Barack’s “articulate”
And bright and new and “clean.”
The media sure loves this guy,
A white interloper’s dream!
But, when you vote for president,
Watch out, and don’t be fooled!
Don’t vote the Magic Negro in –
‘Cause —

’Cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice
And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.
It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,
And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.
There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’-around money, no phoning money.
Now, Barack going to come in here and…

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Aren’t those wingnuts creative and hilarious!?!?!?

Now, I have noted that were Barack Obama perceived as an “angry” black man, there’s no way in hell that he would have made it to the White House in the racist United States of America. Had Obama shown the slightest bit of emotion during the presidential debates he would have been pegged as an “angry” — and thus “dangerous” — black man.

Obama is not the descendant of slaves; his mother was a white woman from Kansas and his father was African, from Kenya. Obama went to Harvard Law School. (Vice President-elect Joe “Insert Foot in Mouth” Biden did indeed call Obama “clean” and “articulate.” But repeating one person’s questionable comments doesn’t somehow launder those comments and thus make them publicly acceptable.) 

It’s not a matter of opinion, but it is a matter of fact, that someone like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson — an “angry” black man, a descendant of slaves from Africa — never would have made it to the White House, whereas someone like Barack Obama, who one could argue is not “authentically” black if you define “authentically” black as the descendant of African slaves, could and did.

And I imagine that black politicians like Sharpton and Jackson, although they’d never acknowledge it publicly, aren’t too thrilled that someone like Obama could become a political rock star while they’ve only seen limited political success.

And The Los Angeles Times did run a piece on the “Magic Negro,” but the piece is not, as I interpret it, anti-Obama or anti-black or racist or suggesting that we refer to Obama as a “Magic Negro,” but simply discusses the concept of the “Magic Negro,” a term that the L.A. Times writer did not invent.

But just the use of the term “negro” instead of the term that blacks use to describe themselves — black — is indicative of what the song “Barack the Magic Negro” is about, what angle it has taken, and I won’t even comment on the last portion of the song, a black man’s riff that is rife with such terms as “buffet,” “cash money” and “walkin’-around money.” And the lyrics’ mockery of justice. (When a white person seeks justice, it’s almost always just, but when a black person seeks justice, usually it’s “victimhood” or “grandstanding” or the like, whether it really is or not.) 

Although the Repugnican Party heads are attempting their damage control on “Barack the Magic Negro,” the fact is that the Repugnican Party remains a racist party, the party of stupid white men. Do you think the white supremacists who voted on Nov. 4 voted for John McInsane or for Barack Obama? (OK, so I guess that a lot of them did vote for Ron Paul…)

Repugnicanism = racism. I don’t see that changing any year soon.

P.S. In case my Latino peeps feel left out, the CD that the candidate for the chairmanship of the Repugnican National Committee, Chip Saltsman (you knew that the guy’s name had to be something overprivileged-white-frat-boy-like, such as Chip or Biff or Skip), distributed in his campaign for the RNC chairmanship also includes a track titled “The Star-Spanglish Banner.”

Hey, now, don’t be offended! Saltsman, who was former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s campaign manager for Huckabee’s quest for the 2008 Repugnican presidential nomination, describes the CD as a collection of “light-hearted political parodies” that aired on Limbaugh’s show.

Today’s KKK is a kinder, gentler, more light-hearted KKK, you see.

P.P.S. Saltsman, who is a real piece of fucking work and who is yet another white man who makes me embarrassed to be a white man, huffed: “Liberal Democrats and their allies in the media didn’t utter a word about David Ehrenstein’s irresponsible column in the Los Angeles Times last March. [Actually, the Times’ website gives the date of the column as March 2007, not March 2008.] But now, of course, they’re shocked and appalled by its parody on the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show.'”

OK, so what Saltsman is doing is trying to evade his responsibility for his inclusion of the song “Barack the Magic Negro” on the CD that he distributed to people in his quest for the RNC chairmanship. He blames and/or tries to shift responsibility to “liberal Democrats,” the “[liberal] media,” David Ehrenstein, the L.A. Times and even Limbaugh.

Again, I have read Ehrenstein’s column twice and I see nothing “irresponsible” about it, which is why the L.A. Times apparently had no problem running it and why neither “liberal Democrats” nor the “[liberal] media” were up in arms over the column. Ehrenstein was just talking frankly about race relations in the United States. That Ehrenstein’s words might have rattled those mostly-white fucktards who assert that the United States no longer has a problem with racism doesn’t make his column “irresponsible”; the fucktards who are so fucking clueless on the problem of racism are the ones who are irresponsible.  

The composer of the lyrics of “Barack the Magic Negro” apparently mentioned the L.A. Times in the lyrics only as an excuse for using the term “Magic Negro”; if the L.A. Times used the term, then surely a “light-hearted political parody” on Rush Limbaugh’s show could use the term, right?

You know, I think that Saltsman has demonstrated that he has what it takes to lead the Repugnican Party: he’s a weaselly racist who evades responsibility. He sounds like the stupid white man for the job to me.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Prick Warren speaks with forked tongue

I noticed this yesterday but didn’t comment on it at the time. I should have.

In his little “news and views” (nice euphemism for “propaganda”) video for his congregants, Prick Warren tells his congregants that he absolutely never compared same-sex marriage to incestual marriage or pedophilic marriage. He stated that his comments during his interview with Beliefnet had been taken out of context, distorted.

I had thought that maybe he was telling the truth.

But then I saw the actual video clip of his interview with Beliefnet, and yeah, it’s pretty fucking inarguable that the motherfucking liar indeed compared same-sex marriage to pedophilic and incestual marriage (and to polygamy, too; for some reason he left bestiality out…).

It’s a long video on Prick Warren — almost 15 minutes long — with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, but it’s worth watching in its entirety. Maddow rocks to the extent that Prick Warren sucks ass to the point that he should just donate his organs now so that someone else can make better use of them.

Oh, and you have to see San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, in his interview with Maddow, tap dance around the fact that in San Francisco he has to be pro-gay and lesbian in order to survive politically, but President-elect Barack Obama, like Prick Warren, publicly opposes same-sex marriage and has thrown gay men and lesbians under the bus, yet Newsom has to cozy up to the president-elect, too.

In his interview Newsom doesn’t quite make it work with Maddow, who lets him off way too easily (I guess that she wanted to be able to interview him again…), and if you have a pulse you will see that Newsom has sold his soul to the Democratic Party machine — which is why when he ran for mayor in 2003 I gave his opponent, Matt Gonzalez of the Green Party, a campaign donation even though I live in Sacramento. (Despite the fact that Newsom brought in the Democratic Party machine’s biggest guns, including Billary Clinton and Al Gore, to campaign for him, despite the fact that he outspent Gonzalez by at least 4 to 1, and despite the fact that the number of San Francisco residents registered under the Green Party was less than 5 percent, Gonzalez lost to Democratic Party hack Newsom by only single digits.)

But back to Prick Warren:

That he feels the need to bold-facedly lie to his own congregants about his hateful, ignorant, bigoted comments on same-sex marriage demonstrates that increasingly, open homophobia, just like open racism, is becoming less and less socially acceptable among polite/”polite” company.

Not that someone isn’t a homophobe because he or she doesn’t make overtly homophobic remarks.* But when the haters are in an environment that is not conducive to their hate, it’s harder for their hate to thrive.

And you know what? Lying is a sin, even if you’re a stupid white male baby-boomer pastor who has made millions of dollars from “The Secret”-like bullshit books and spin-offs. (I love how baby boomers — who have nearly destroyed the nation — write self-help and advice books, because clearly they know what they’re doing and thus we should follow them. I mean, the proof is in the pudding, no?)

And if Prick Warren will lie through his fangs to his congregants about what he said on camera, what does that say about his character?

Prick Warren is one of the false prophets that the Bible warns you about.

P.S. OK, another video clip of Rachel Maddow on Prick Warren. If you don’t want to watch the full almost-15-minute video clip that I referenced above, you can watch this shorter one (it’s under three minutes) that captures Warren’s bold-faced lie using the two clips of him side by side.

And also in this clip of Maddow’s show, Warren pretty much asserts that when his opponents voice their opposition to him, it’s “hate speech,” but that everything that he and his supporters can only be construed as wuv. Fucking hypocrite.

And it’s funny (in a deeply unsettling sort of way) when wingnuts like Prick Warren talk about how much they just wuv free speech when you know that if they could silence their detractors, they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

In the video clips of Warren that I’ve watched, it’s pretty apparent that he claims that he “loves” gay men and lesbians only because the Bible instructs that we all must love one another, and that he advocates free speech only because it’s enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Warren very apparently does not feel the spirit of love or the spirit of free speech within his being, and it’s only written codes, apparently, that stop him from expressing what’s truly in his heart, which is hatred and violence (silencing your opponents falls under violence, in my book).

I mean, if the wingnuts could alter the U.S. Constitution to strip their opponents of free-speech rights, do you think that they’d hesitate for a fucking heartbeart to do so? With Proposition 8, the wingnuts tried to strip gay men and lesbians of their equal human and civil rights guaranteed to them by the California Constitution. (The Repugnican-dominated California Supreme Court, which in May ruled that the California Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage, will, I surmise, strike down Proposition 8 as California’s attorney general, among others, has asked the court to do.)

Last but certainly not list, in this second video clip of Maddow’s show, Warren also uses the term “Christophobia” to describe his opponents. Let me set the lying, motherfucking false prophet straight (so to speak…) on that:

If “Christians” of Warren’s ilk actually followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, I’d love them to death. See, I’ve actually read the New Testament, and Jesus Christ says not a single fucking word on the topic of homosexuality. The “Christo”fascists pull all of their homophobic rhetoric from the Old Testament, because the Old Testament is full of ignorance and fear, and thus the “Christo”fascists gravitate to the Old Testament. (About the only thing they like about the New Testament is the Book of Revelations, which, like the Old Testament, is chock full o’ ignorance and fear, and which has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, but which was fabricated long after his death.)

Now, to me, if you are a Christian, that means that you actually follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who taught things like love and acceptance — true love and acceptance, not the kind of “love and acceptance” in which you try to strip gay men and lesbians of their constitutionally guaranteed equal civil and human rights and/or assert that they’re (probably) going to hell — but still claim that you wuv them nonetheless.

Jesus Christ was not like a red-state fucktard (boy, that’s redundant). Jesus Christ was a flaming liberal, a progressive radical:

Che jesus.jpg

from Wikipedia.org

Jesus Christ rocked.

I’m not a “Christophobe.” I’m a pseudoprophetophobe.

I don’t hate Jesus Christ or true Christians, who are exceedingly rare. I hate false prophets like Prick Warren, who claim that when you attack them for their evil you are attacking Jesus Christ — because the Prick Warrens of the world, in their arrogance and in their blasphemy, compare themselves to God and to Jesus Christ, when, in fact, they paradoxically are about as anti-Christian as you can get.

*My maternal grandmother, who waited far too long to die, was a huge fucking racist who knew that it was politically incorrect to make overtly racist comments in “polite”/polite company. But her racist views were glaringly apparent nonetheless from her “nice” racist statements. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized