From The Zero’s own official campaign site: scary pics. Here’s a sample:
This stuff is better than the “video exit poll” of people who voted for The Zero in 2008. Remember: Democracy is in trouble. The idiots are in the majority.
Hoping for Enough Change…
…left in my pocket to be able to survive the “Leftard Reign of Error”.
(Graphic stolen from FB)
Zero BS
Stolen from FB:
Dan Savage Source Material?
Just in case you’ve
a.) been living under a rock or
b.) get your “news” from the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind
Here’s the poop:
Dan Savage, self-promoted anti-bullying campaigner and homosexual sex advice columnist (“Savage Love”), lit into a vulgarity (and by some reports profanity) laced diatribe against Christians in what was supposed to be a talk on combating bullying given at a national journalism conference for high school students. when a goodly portion of students elected to leave, the anti-bullying campaigner naturally did the right thing. *gag* He called them “pansy asses” as they walked out, just like any accomplished bully would do.
Well, Jazz Shaw, of Hot Air, has found what appears to be Savage’s source material for lectures about bullying:
It’s about time folks began doing the right thing and called out the anti-gay bullies–you know, those unhappy, neurotic, angry homosexuals like Dan Savage who are NOT “gay” but simply unhappy, neurotic, angry homosexuals–who go around bullying people who simply don’t believe that the something like 3-4% of the population* who claim to be homosexuals should be allowed to bully everyone else.
Pure Genius. Not.
I forget where I came across this, but it does speak volumes. Add this to the mom jeans, “57 States,”* “corpse man,” “the Austrian language,” the “girly pitch” and other “coolness” from The Zero: pure stupidity.
It’s sad, really. One always wants to give appropriate credit where it’s due, but with “affirmative discrimination against qualified applicants in favor of favored ‘minorities’ who may OR MAY NOT be qualified” it’s kind of hard, especially when others in his position–*cough* Bush *cough*– have freely shared their academic exploits and foibles but the Imperial Dumbo refuses to. So, just being fair here: it’s pics like this that demonstrate that the actual intellectual prowess of The Zero is consonant with his demonstrated ignorance (“corpse man,” the Austrian language, Maldives for Malvinas, 57 states–number visited at that time, leaving three unvisited, according to the rest of his statement–etc.) that is ignored by a complicit Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind, really needs to be discussed. Can we really afford an ignorant, dull Marxist Indonesian who’s nevertheless well-schooled in the Cloward-Pivens, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky tactics of subversion as anyone to hold the influence and power this klutz does?
*Just to be clear: in context, the “I’ve visited 57 States so far” indicates he thought there to be MORE States in the US. So his “57 States” comment, combined with so very many other comments indicating historical, geographical and cultural illiteracy do make me wonder: just how dumb is Barry Hussein Odumbo-Soetoro (the first Indonesian president of the US, as far as I can tell from whatever documentation’s available)?
Campaign Poster for The Zero
Zero Liberty:
Lesbian DNC Advisor Denigrates Stay-at-Home Moms
[See Update]
That’s the reasonable takeaway/pushback to DNC/Obama advisor Hilary Rosen’s slur on Ann Romney:
And yeh, I’m also pointing out that Rosen quite obviously has a skewed view of motherhood from the gitgo. Hey, Hilary! Next time, buy a different vowel! As it is, you don’t have a clue what real women are about. Heck, even I know more from simply having lived with and around real women (my mom, grandmothers and wife) all my life, instead of living with a deviant* “partner”.
Update: Flashback! In 2008, Rosen dismissed criticisms of Sarah Palin for working outside her home with,
“Judgments about people’s personal lives are better left unsaid and unrealized.”
But, of course, condemning a SAHM (stay-at-home-mom) experience as rendering opinions on the world at large invalid is OK with Rosen, because she apparently has no ethical standards worth mentioning. Of course. You did see “DNC/Obama advisor” in the opening line of this post, right? So, “no ethical standards worth mentioning” is a “dog bites man” thingy, eh? 😉
*deviant, n, Differing from a norm. Since self-identified homosexuals make up less than 4% of the adult population of the U.S. (that would include male, female and “other” homosexuals *heh*), and female homosexuals may comprise no more than half that number, I’d say 2% makes Rosen and her “partner” deviant, by definition.
Anyone see the faux apology Rosen finally issued yesterday? Following her deliberate slam of SAHMs as “not having worked a day in [their] li[ves]” is was an insult to anyone who viewed it, especially following on the heels of her expanded insults at “Puffington Host” while penning a walkback on her slur on SAHMs designed to gull the terminally stupid and satisfy her fellow travelers. Check this:
Mitt Romney actually said, referring to asking Ann Romney what she’s been hearing on the campaign trail,
“…she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.”
OK, Rosen quoted that and then LIED about what Romney said! LIED:
“…saying he supports women’s economic issue because they are the only issues that matter to [women]”
Note two things: Romney mentions his wife campaigning with him and on her own and reports what she tells him the women she interacts with on the campaign have told her are the most important issues they care about in the campaign, NOT “the only” as Rosen says in her lie. Firstly, he didn’t ask his wife what her “SAHM opinion” was. He asked her what she was encountering on the campaign. So, Rosen’s comment about Ann Romney (that she’d not worked a day in her life) was not only mean and dismissive of the real work that SAHMs do, it was completely, totally and absolutely irrelevant.
Secondly, Rosen then has to further her attack by actually telling a baldfaced lie about what The Romney Android actually said, on her way to (again!) mischaracterizing the whole incident.
Then, yesterday, she says she simply made some poor word choices and apologizes that her poorly chosen words–not the attitude and content of her dismissive comment, just her word choice–offended some people.
That’s no apology. It’s not even an admission of her behavior. Heck, if she were making a plea of guilt as a part of a plea bargain in court and submitted a similar comment, any honest court would refuse her plea.
Such persons as Hilary Rosen are worse than merely disgusting; they are nothing more than toxic waste trying to pass as human beings.
The Zero Has No Shame
P-resident “Obama” (Why the scare quotes? Because there is strong evidence that “Obama” is a former name, assumed for whatever purposes by the adopted son of Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro–make of the readily available facts whatever you will) has no shame. In a bratty tantrum against the SCOTUS, The Zero, self-proclaimed constitutional scholar that he is, uttered the following nonsense,
I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.
“…strong majority”? What fairlyland is The Zero living in? “…unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed… by… Congress”? Unprecedented, Extraordinary? This comment certainly puts the definitive nail in the coffin of The Zero’s constitutional “scholarship” since even casual students are aware of Marbury v. Madison, 1803 and likely aware that the 209 years between now and then are certainly not empty of the SCOTUS voiding laws passed by Congress. Indeed, in one recent eight year period (1994-2002) the SCOTUS struck down 32 federal laws, voiding them wholly or in part. No, only the “constitutional scholar” who goes by the name of Barack Hussein Obama seems to view the SCOTUS striking down a law passed by Congress as “unprecedented” and “extraordinary”.
Dumbass.
Hamilton explained the thinking of the Founders on the matter in Federalist 78:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. [emphasis added]
The Zero is a sham and a shame, and anyone thinking he has anything useful or helpful to say about anything has fewer working brain cells than a 10-year-old cracked crock of spoiled kimche.
Sidebar: I truly love it that my spell checker flags “Obama” every time I type it.
BTW, no, I did not link to Federalist 78. You should have your own copy in hardcopy and be able to get to it with no problem via any of the links on the first page of a search for “Federalist Papers,” so why link? My hardcopy is an arm’s length away from me as I type this, along with copies of the other American State Papers, and, IMO, if you are a citizen of the US, so ought yours to be. Just sayin’
“Balance” from the Hivemind
So, the usual Hivemind and barking mad leftards are in an uproar for the blowhard Limbaugh’s characterization of a confessed libertine as a “slut”.
“slut: noun an immoral or dissolute woman”
Seems fair. In my opinion, it closely resembles (closely resembles” as in “seems to be a perfect fit for”) Sandra Fluke’s own confession of her “need” to have a Roman Catholic educational institution finance the means for her to have “protected” sex when, where and however she pleases with whatever (and however many) partners she can get to have sex with her.
Seems like she confessed to at the very least “needing” to engage in sluttish behavior to me.
So what’s the problem? It’s “discourteous” or “ungentlemanly” or some such thing according to standards rejected by the Hivemind and associated barking mad leftards? Not as applied to their own speech standards which approve of publicly voicing rape fantasies and worse about such people as Sarah Palin and Laura Ingraham, while calling them by much, much more vulgar, even obscene, terms.
Of course that’s the problem. Their “standards” are simply this: “We can say and do anything we damned well please, and anyone who disagrees with us can say only what we allow them to.” If that were not the case, then Hivemind members like Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Mike Malloy and a rogue’s gallery of others would have been tarred, feathered and run out of the business long ago. Sample a little typical “rational” and “civil” discourse from the Hivemind’s Malloy, as but one small example of thousands:
Get that. Malloly celebrates the deaths of tornado victims and mocks religious beliefs he deems to be held by people in the so-called “Bible Belt”–which happens, in his tirade, to coincide with the locations of most of those killed by recent tornadoes.
Typical of the nasty, hate-filled, hate-spewing leftard Hivemind. In fact, it’s so normative that people are largely inured to it, it seems, and simply accept their hate-filled spew as normal speech. Have someone push back with an accurate description of an anointed, manufactured hero/ine of the Hivemind, though, and there will be hell to pay, as the blowhard Limbaugh discovered.
BTW, Rush Limbaugh a “blowhard”? Yep. Anyone who will apologize for simply speaking what would seem to the truth to any rational observer is a blowhard.
One or the Other? Or Both?
Has the “feddle gummint” become a kleptocratic kakistocracy or a kakistocratic kleptocracy (either one run according to anarcho-tyrannist “principles”)?
Or both?