Saturday, December 14, 2013

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder


An Otisburg troll, after his debate offer was rejected.
On December 10, an Otisburg clown who called himself "TerrencePt" decided to leave his own brand of bovine scatology:

"Dear Mr Schlafly. I am going to give you the chance to clear up the misunderstanding that you are a supporter of Apartheid. I am sure The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons would wish to disassociate with any person who holds such views and The New Jersey Department of Education would take a very dim view of an Apartheid supporter educating their children not to mention the parents or guardians of said children. So answer yes or no: Are you a supporter of Apartheid? A failure to answer yes or no will be taken that you are a supporter." (TerrencePt 09:39, 10 December 2013)

A day later, having received no answer, Terrence the Clown left a link, under the subheading "I warned you, no more Mr. Nice Guy."  The link was to this page, where Terrence the Clown thought he could leave a petition with the state of New Jersey, intimating that the state should prevent Andrew Schlafly from teaching homeschool kids.


Golly gee, these guys just don't give up, do they? 

What is happening in Conservapedia regarding leftist, liberal trolls attacking the site is a microcosm of what is happening to the country as a whole.  In our case they will stop at nothing to shut down the website; their latest attack is a false accusation of racism against an individual; the same Otisburg clowns concocted a false assassination threat; a false suicide; false links to pornography and pedophilia; used DDoS and spam; threat, bullying, intimidation, extortion, and so on, ad infinitum, and all because they acted like the babies they are when they got thrown out of Conservapedia back in 2007.  As one leftist Otisburg troll put it a few years ago, I repeat it here now, for this is exactly their mindset:

"I will lie, revise history, cheat, steal and censor to further our goals. What are you going to do about it? I will stop at no end, but you have to operate within the fictional bounds of your morality."

Two articles in Conservapedia which have drawn the repeated attention and ire of these clowns are about the subjects of atheism and evolution.  They wanted to edit them their way, like they owned them; they didn't care a whit that the evidence was against their opinions, and our refusal to broadcast their opinions as though they were facts were the original reasons for the attacks on Conservapedia since day one.

Which leads to the recent shooting in Colorado.

Now, I'm going to point out a very obvious fact: the Otisburg clowns - idiotic as they are - had nothing to do with what happened at Arapahoe High School a few days ago.  They'd just sooner slip on a banana peal or run face-first into a rail fence to cure a toothache; they are that stupid.  But they have some things in common, with current liberal philosophy, with the Denver Post, and with the alleged beliefs of the shooter himself.

First up is the shooter, Karl Pierson.  There's nothing alleged here; the kid did the shooting, and he did it on the day before the first anniversary of what happened in Sandy Hook.  According to an article in the Denver Post, Pierson was described as "...a dedicated, bright student from a religious family that attends Bible study meetings."  It makes him look like a nice, wholesome guy, typical of the conservative side. 

But further down in the article is this line, taken from his Facebook page:

“The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”

Now, where did this rant, paraphrased as it is, originally come from?  From this idiot, a looney-toons liberal from Florida named Alan Grayson:


And since the quote did have its origins with Grayson, and the Post didn't specify, what else did they do?  It turns out they wrote a story, posted it it online, removed it, scrubbed it, and re-posted it.  What did they scrub out?  Evidence that Pierson was a socialist.  Meaning he was a leftist, a liberal.  Definitely not a conservative.  Remember that quote above?  It applies here:

"I will lie, revise history, cheat, steal and censor to further our goals."

Looks like the Post did some lying, revising, and a pinch of censoring, exactly like our Otisburg troll said they would.  Liberalism is a mental disorder, to coin a phrase by radio talk show host Michael Savage.  It's where common sense has been replaced by blithering stupidity, and the need to emphasize that stupidity by lying, revising, cheating, stealing, and censoring, in a half-witted effort to appear "smarter."  That's the second thing in common.


The third thing in common is something we experienced continually, and that is a demand by the Otisburg trolls to engage in some sort of debate, as though it's a cure-all for all of their little woes.  Over the years they were desperate to debate, a desperation bordering on paranoia.  Why?  If the color is red, you don't whine that it's blue and expect to have a debate on the subject, but that's what they want, vis-a-vis atheism and evolution.  So these people got kicked out of Conservapedia way back in 2007; they broke back in again and again and again, whining about having a debate; desperate for a debate; making threats if they don't get a debate, ad nauseum.  And all the while the foam just flowed down their chinney-chin-chins.  Meanwhile, having lost the debate and just about every other argument, they attack the site today via DDoS and spam.  Go figure.

That third thing in common was also in the Denver Post.  Karl Peirson, for some as-of-yet unknown reason, was removed from his school's debate team, and he came to that school with a shotgun, allegedly looking for revenge. 

Update

If the reader discovers one of the above links to be gone, well, it is.  iPetition, the website who got Terrence the Clown's silly little request at teacher-removal, saw it for what it was: trash.  Trash it was, and it was properly disposed of it in an appropriate waste basket and sent to a landfill somewhere near Otisburg, where the occupants of one dwelling are using it to light up some marshmallows.

So much for their "petition"; so much for their credibility!

Friday, November 29, 2013

Liberalism: The Religion of Hate

The following video took place back in 1976, and it begins with the television announcer saying "...and, wait a minute, there's an animal loose..."

The animals in question were a couple of liberals who wanted some attention; they jumped into the field at Dodger Stadium, planted their sorry behinds in center field, and made an attempt to set fire to an American flag, which they probably stole from someone else, but who knows.  It was their "religious rite" so to speak.  Too bad for them the hero of the day was Rick Monday of the Chicago Cubs, who made what was arguably the greatest play in baseball.

We remember Rick Monday's name with relative ease.  We don't remember the names of the animals in center field.  Why even bother? 

Cut the scene to several weeks ago in Conservapedia.  An animal - this one hailed from Australia, but he's not as cuddly as a koala - has to leave a harassment note of sorts for one of our staff.  It read:


Hi Ken.

I would have left a message for you on your talk page but, as usual, it was locked.

It makes me sad that you are so afraid to engage with anyone.  What makes you so scared?  Is your faith in God and the Bible so weak that you can't even discuss them with others?

I recommend that you open up a bit to those with different views.  Maybe you'll learn something!

Anyway, must run.

Much love

Horace

I'm drawing a comparison here.  The actions of the animal calling himself Horace are directly related to the actions of the two animals on that ball field back in '76.  What happened that day was a pair of liberals engaged in the destruction of an American symbol (the flag of the United States); they attempted to do this destruction within the confines of another American symbol (a baseball park) during a traditional American pastime (a baseball game), and they were determined to do it in the faces of those who objected to it, which were ordinary Americans who believe in traditional American values.  Needless to say, these liberal animals didn't get it through their heads that they were being booed, neither did they get it through their heads that the audience stood up and cheered the moment Rick Monday saved the flag from their behavior.

So we return to the above letter.  What we have here is another liberal animal who for years tried to force his opinions on our site, and was repeatedly booted out for the troll that he is.  He claims that we should be more open to those with different views, which means his views, and those whose views who are similar to his.  We have seen his views, unfortunately.  They are views thoroughly anti-American and anti-Christian; they are in-line with Marx, Engels, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saul Alinsky; these views support the killing of unborn children in abortion clinics, and demand the censoring of prayer in schools and the removal of God from the public sphere.

This is what liberalism is about, folks.  It is not "liberty" for everyone, as it may have been in the past.  It is the religion of hate.  Whether it's done in a ball park, or by the occupiers of Wall Street, or by some clown who demands we pay for her "Obamaphone", or when some nut gets in your face about what you drive, what church you go to, who you voted for, well, that's today's liberalism for you.

As for Horace, well, he hails from down-under, Australia to be exact, and he still tries to force his way onto Conservapedia.  We discovered his kind of force also includes DDoS attacks and spam.

So much for liberal tolerance and love!

Sunday, November 10, 2013

If the Jackboot Fits, Wear It!

One of the things that liberals don't like is to be hit with facts.  They like to lie a lot; their lies serve to push an agenda which is alien to everything this country stands for, and for them to be confronted with the facts which contradicts their agenda causes them to behave in a hostile manner.
Kathleen Sibelious' brooch

And one of their agendas now is to push the Nazi "pin" accusation against us.

Here's the background:

An individual alerted the author of this blog that Kathleen Sibelious was wearing a certain pin - the word is "brooch" - on her clothing when testifying before the Senate recently, and during an AP interview in 2009.  This particular brooch is an eagle clutching a pearl.  Obviously, the eagle is an American symbol, and the brooch itself is merely a decorative piece of jewelry.  No problem, right?

The individual in question alerted the blog author to the similarity of the Sibelious brooch to the Nazi eagle; both the brooch and the Nazi emblem are, at their very basic forms, an eagle clutching a circular object, which on the brooch is a pearl, and on the Nazi emblem it's a swastika encircled by a wreath.  The implication here is that Sibelious is a Nazi.
The Nazi emblem

Now, it would take a long stretch of the imagination to accuse Sibelious of slipping into a pair of jackboots so she could do the goosestep down Pennsylvania Avenue, raising the ol'right arm in a "seig heil" salute, would it?  But that's what these liberals would have the public believe, in that we at Conservapedia are accusing Kathleen Sibelious, the Heath and Human Services Secretary, of being a closet Nazi, and they are basing this accusation on nothing more than the similarity of a piece of jewelry to the Nazi emblem.

But when they harp on the brooch, they hope the reader will miss the important point that was raised.  Sibelious' actions speak louder than any piece of jewelry.

Our point is the following:

Ever since Barrack Obama came into office, this country was forced into a radical change to the left, and he first warned us about it when he answered a question given by Joe the Plumber: he was going to take people's hard-earned money and spread it to anyone he wanted.  That's called socialism.  He's on record as wanting a civilian agency more powerful than the Army.  That's called intimidation of the citizenry.  He has purged from the Armed Forces more than 200 general and flag officers for spurious reasons.  That weakens the country's war-fighting capabilities.

And he created Obamacare.  Obamacare was passed without anyone in Congress - much less the general public - being allowed to read it, and when it was read we all discovered just what it would cost to the average citizen, liberal as well as conservative.  Private insurance plans would end, and thousands upon thousands have just discovered it the hard way.  Costs for new insurance policies tripled or quadrupled vs. the old policies.  The uninsured - of who Obamacare was meant for in the first place - have discovered they are now forced to pay, either a minimum of $500 dollars per month for the basic policy or a heavy fine in the thousands of dollars if they don't.  No one can opt out of it.  It seems Obama will get his money one way or the other.

And to make sure Obama get's his money, Obamacare calls for the hiring of some 16,000 new agents for the IRS.  You know those people; they'll shake down a kid in a lemonade stand for a dime in taxes with the same ferocity that they'll use against a citizen who owes $200, and Obama wants 16,000 more of these people...because he's given over the money-collecting apparatus for Obamacare to the IRS.  You would think that since Obamacare is about healthcare the bill would hire 16,000 doctors and nurses, but again, Obama wants his money.

And then there is that little part of the bill that liberals really want to ridicule, which is the death panel part.  It's a determination by the government as to who gets care and who doesn't; you're doctor just isn't included in the dialogue.  Set your time machine to earlier this year, May to be exact.  A little 10-year-old girl named Sarah Murnaghan from Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, suffered from cystic fibrosis, and she needed lung transplants desperately.  Who acted like the bureaucrat, and not the doctor?  Who tried dismissing this case with the curt "someone lives, and someone dies"?  Who confirmed immediately that there was a death panel in Obamacare?  HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sibelious:


Now, does that mean Sibelious is a Nazi?  No.  But try comparing what she did in Murnaghan case, try comparing the overall government control that is contained in Obamacare with the videos below:


At their basic forms, Obamacare and Nazi eugenics both are entwined in a government bureaucracy as to who lives and who dies.  Sibelious was exactly the kind of uncaring bureaucrat that would be comfortable in Germany in the 1930's as she is today.  That is part and parcel to what socialism is all about, and that includes national socialism, which are your infamous Nazis.  But, of course, we're going to have our liberals whine about a pin on someone's blouse rather than the idiotic and despicable ideas they themselves create, which have affected all of us at the stroke of a pen.  These liberals are going to deny any connection they have to Hitler and his goose-stepping minions at all costs, even if the evidence against them is starring them in the face.

But if the jackboot fits...

Thursday, September 19, 2013

The Left's little war problem

The formerly-anti-war now pro-war John Kerry

Apparently, the silly little amateurs from Otisburg are in a lather.  They didn't like my Conservapedia posting of this little video.  You see, the residents of Otisburg hate - and I do mean HATE - any mention of God, or the Bible, or those things related to both.  Since this video is in reference to the recent news related to Syria, the little minds residing within Otisburg have gone on record as stating that it is I who want this war with Syria, up to and including the destruction of the city of Damascus, and this destruction has to happen because of my Christian beliefs, i.e. the sooner Damascus is reduced to powder, the sooner that Christ comes back.  They state that I am encouraging it.  They state that I want it.

Kind of sick, isn't it, to think that way?  But that's the mentality of the left. 

The following is recent news.  Just a few weeks ago on August 21, 2013, hundreds of people were killed near Damascus in an attack involving chemical weapons.  This attack is just one episode in the sorry series of events which is the Syrian Civil War.  All fired-up and in-a-big-hurry to punish Syria is His Royal Awesomeness, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!), who believes that the guilty party in the gas attack is Syrian leader Bashir Assad.  Assad, according to His Awesomeness, ordered the chemical attack that killed hundreds in order to stamp out the rebels who are fighting him for control of his country.

And Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) is courting the rebels, sending them money, giving them positive reviews, and maybe sending them a lot of guns.  So they can execute surrendered soldiers.  So they can murder Christians.  And, apparently, they used chemical weapons as well.

And why not?  If you're going to do battle against the Syrian boss, why not pull out the sarin gas and frame Assad at the same time!

And Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) is courting the rebels.  Mixed in with the rebels - and maybe leading them - is Al Qaida.  For those of you in Otisburg, Al Qaida is responsible for for the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania that left 3,000 Americans dead.  The rebels additional guest stars are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which at one time - with Obama's blessing - took over Egypt and started killing Christians there; and the Al-Nusra Front, an Al Qaida-associated, foaming-at-the-mouth-rabid terrorist organization.  Of course, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) ignored it all; his golf swig was a tad more important.  It also means that Obama is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

So, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) is courting our enemies, sending all sorts of love and the guns that go with it.  He is also trying to convince the world and the American public that we should bomb Syria, you know, to teach them a lesson.  At the same time he's telling the world, the American people, and most especially, Bashir Assad, just how he's going to do it, where he'll do it, and with what he'll do it with.

HELLO!!!

This is what happens when you have a leftist dolt masquerading as President of the United States.  He courts and favors our enemies while planning the bombing of Damascus, while at the same time ignoring the fact that what he'll do is to start a chain reaction which WILL DRAW IN every neighboring Muslim country surrounding Syria, in addition to Iran and Russia.

Hey, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!), did you know that while you were gutting our military to its weakest level in the last fifty years, the Russians were expanding theirs?  And they have vowed to come to Syria's aid if we launch a missile attack.  They still have ICBMs; they still have nukes.  And Iran has modernized its military, up to and including having nukes of their own.  They also made a vow to attack us.

And then there's Israel.  The Arab countries have all made it clear that they will attack Israel should the U.S. send the missile strike on Syria, and the situation is that the Jewish State will be hit hard.  Do you think for a minute that Israel is going to take this lying down?

Scenario number 1 is this: His Royal Ridiculousness, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) is going to order a strike on Syria involving selected targets, of which due to his complete incompetence at being a leader he has already informed the world where and when the missiles will hit, giving the Syrians time to regroup and call in their Arab and Russian allies; the Arabs will fight each other, with the result that Al Qaida will take over Syria, while the Russians (and Iran, via sleeper cells already inside the U.S.) will easily neutralize us.

Scenario number 2 is this: His Royal Incompetence, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) is going to go along with the Russian plan on having Syria dismantle its chemical weapons arsenal, while at the same time he's arming the Syrian rebels and their special guest stars Al Qaida, Al Nusra, and every Islamo-fascist who happened to thumb his way into that country.  Assad's government gets weakened, the rebels take over.  You ever wonder what Benghazi was all about?  Secret arms transfers to Syria?  How about all of them bullets that His Royal Majesticness said were going to The IRS and the DHS?  Were they really going to Syria?  Either one or the other scenario is going to happen; the rebels will be left standing, and just what do you think they're going to do afterwards?

And goose-stepping with Der Fuhrer, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm!) are the mindless dolts of the liberal left.  You remember those clowns...the idiots who were furiously and rabidly opposed to war of any kind when a Republican was in the White House; where are these potheads now when we have a blithering idiot of a Democrat in the White House who just may touch off WORLD WAR III?  All I hear is the sliding of a food stamp card.

The dolts inhabiting Otisburg, the dimwits who occupied Wall Street, the screwballs who chuck trash out of Hollywood - in fact, every single liberal in the country - voted for Obama, and by proxy, they voted for Obama's war ambitions.  They voted to bring in World War III.

And some of these dimwits say I'm the one wanting the war?

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Otisburg has a suburb

We must accept evolution based on this?

I got a friend of mind, patrols the city streets here as a cop.  Before that he did a number of years in the Air Force.  He occasionally has to go before a judge because of some idiot he arrested, and the judge has to ask "Why is he here?  Why did you arrest him?"  And in a rather point-blank manner, my cop friend tells the judge "Your Honor, you just can't fix stupid."

In a previous posting I stated that there was no evidence that our early forebears - that's "cavemen" for those of you in Otisburg - ever embarked on a breeding program to get dogs out of wolves.

While these postings have been picked up by the parasites in Otisburg, you would think they would want to get their act together and come up with something concrete to prove, and I do mean prove, their theory that wolves were deliberately bred into dogs, but, umm...this is Otisburg.  No intelligence required to be an inhabitant of that website. 

Looking at the stats for this blog has revealed a suburb of Otisburg, a place called "Something Awful".  Like Otisburg, it was hidden once, just so we or the general public couldn't read it.  But lo and behold, it is now open to the public, where we can read it in all of its, er, glory.

And it's pretty much the same thing as Otisburg.  Run by idiots who claim to be intelligent.  No surprise there.

The part that stands out immediately is the dog-wolf part.  In fact, it was the first thread that popped out.  And instead of providing proof that a dog was created by cavemen from a wolf, here's what was said:

"Didn't some soviet scientist selectively breed wolves for "tameness", and within only a few short generations produced wolves with not only dog-like behaviour but also dog-like physical traits?"

Yep, make sure that when it comes to an "experiment" of this nature that all your "facts" come from a restricted, leftist country in which documentation is hard to get a hold of, in this case, the Soviet Union.  The USSR for short.  Land of the pinko-commies, killed tens of millions of their own people; finally fell in 1991.  Perfect place to claim a "dog-from-wolf" experiment.  Reminds me of the case of the two-headed pregnant lady from Nigeria, with one head suing the other for some silly reason.  Do the boys at "Something Awful" get their "facts" from the Weekly World News?


And one of them stated that there was a breeding program involving Carpathian gray wolves; he even provided a nice picture of a pair of the new breed, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the background.  Again, he proved my original point: at no time did anyone - caveman or scientist or dog breeder - ever produce a domestic dog by starting out with wolves.  The picture this "Something Awful" user provided was advertising a breed called a Czechoslovakian wolfdog, which was a mix of wolf and German shepherd. 

A mix-breed.  Looks like the scientists cheated on that one.

As to the rest of the forum entries, again we are treated to a "he said/she said" routine.  No where is there anything even remotely pertaining to proving their evolutionary theories; we are treated to dogmatic statements and innuendo, based once again on someone's say-so.  And what does one poster say about this?

"I think he's well aware of that actually. He just gets to be smug when they have to say theyre conservative which must TEAR THEM UP INSIDE.  It's very psychological."

Obviously, this poster is a trained psychologist.  No diploma on his wall, no license from a state, no couch upon which a patient would talk about his mother, but a trained psychologist nonetheless.  Maybe I'll be torn up about it next Tuesday.

In summary, here's what we have from this "Something Awful" crowd, and you can lump them in as a suburb of Otisburg.  They provide no evidence that evolution happened, yet they say it's a fact.  They resort to using labels against whomever they disagree with, with the obligatory foul language included.  They resort to assumption as fact, and in order to persuade the masses, they have to resort to stunts like the images above, which they had actually posted.  There's no meat and potatoes here...just a lot of fluff.  And that's how they avoid the debate.

You just can't fix stupid.

I guess they don't call their forum "Something Awful" for nothing.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Health Care a "right"?


Here we go down the Constitution Trail, and this was inspired by a liberal clown who left the silly reply on the right, courtesy of Politico.

What he said was: 

"That's ridiculous and outrageous. Healthcare is a service. So, when you're having your heart attack...see how much service comparing you can do...how many 'choices' you have. Freaking moron. Why live in a society and HATE society??? You realize just how stupid you are now? I have a right to bear a gun but not to medical care? Freaking moron. Dangerous moron."

So, let's cut to the chase here.  This liberal clown, and every like-minded liberal clown in this Politico page, and every like-minded liberal clown infesting the USA, seems to think that health care is a God-given right, established and enshrined in the Constitution, to be handed out free to them on demand.  One of them on the same page went so far as to say that this health care "right" is part and parcel to the Declaration of Independence:

"The right to healthcare is packed into the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is an implied right / contract between us and the gov."

Now remember, the implication from the first liberal clown is that we conservatives are morons.  Dangerous morons.  Freaking morons.  Not necessarily in that order.

So, we're going to dissect a line from the first liberal clown above, namely the "I have a right to bear a gun but not to medical care?" line.

Let's assume this liberal clown breaks his leg doing the swan dive in his apartment complex pool.  He's rushed to Otisburg General Hospital where he tells Dr. Pal that he broke his leg doing the swan dive at his home pool, but leaves out the fact that the pool was empty of water due to cleaning.  Clearly, he doesn't want to look stupid before the good Dr. Pal.  He's a liberal; he's smarter then us CON-servatives, which is why he can dive into empty swimming pools and get away with it.

But Dr. Pal is done for the day.  It's Tuesday, and his doctor buddies are waiting for him at the country club.

"But muh leg is broken, Doc," wails the liberal clown.  This liberal clown has to have a name; "Gurnicus" is just too confusing; kinda like a "gurney", i.e. the free hospital patient ride that he's hinting at.  We'll just call him Howie.

"Sorry, Howie, but my time is over; time to clock out, call it a day, and practice my nine-iron swing."

"But I got a right to health care!"

Dr. Pal from Otisburg General Hospital just looks at him and asks "Did you or did you not say that you compared health care rights with the right to own a gun?"

"Well, yeah, but..."

"Did you or did you not say 'I have a right to bear a gun but not to medical care?'"

"Well, yeah, but..."

"And if you walked into a gun store right now and demanded a free gun based on your statement that you had a right to bear a gun, what do you think the store owner will do?"

"He'd demand I pay for it or he'd throw me out, but that's besides the poi..."

"And if you come to my hospital, to my treatment room, to demand that I provide free medical care to you while treating me as your slave to perform this 'right' for you, what do you think I should do?"

"Uhhh, throw me out?"

"Yesserie, Howie, I should throw you out."

So, the good Dr. Pal gives Howie two Tylenols, tells him to come back in the morning, where he sets his leg and presents the bill for $2,356 dollars and 63 cents.

"But, but, but the healthcare should be free...c'mom Doc, be a pal!" Howie wails again.

"Not at my expense," says the good doctor.

That's the problem with liberal clowns.  They imagined a "right" in health care within the Constitution where it doesn't exist; they imagined the same "right" to be within the Declaration, where it also doesn't exist.  Howie the clown above equated this right to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I have a right to a gun, but I don't have the right to make the people pay for my gun.
I have a right to free speech, but I don't have the right to make the government pay for a megaphone.
I have a right to religion, but I don't have the right to force the people to pay for the church.
I have a right to a free press, but I don't have the right to make the people buy me a newspaper.

And liberal clowns have a "right" to health care, and to make the general public pay for it?

And does the public have no say-so when a liberal clown demands the "right" to be a...clown?

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Obama Zombies: Stuck on Stupid

Here they come, shuffling down the street; tattered clothes, hair unkempt, blank expression on their faces.  Some can't keep their mouths closed, and end up leaving a trail of drool. 

Somewhere in the background Michael Jackson's Thriller is playing, but these wretched masses don't have the soul for getting down.  Matter o'fact, they'd much prefer to listen to the ring tone of...

There it is!

The shop window of the local Radio Shack.  Several zombies spot the product...it has the ring tone...

"O-Baaaa-Maaaa ffffff-onnnne!" they moan as one.  "O-Baaaa-Maaaa ffffff-onnnne!"

Apparently, the ring tone in question is the sound from an old-fashioned cash register.  They like that.

"O-Baaaa-Maaaa ffffff-onnnne!"  they moan again as they bang on the windows in a futile attempt to get at the prizes inside: a genuine Geeterbug cell phone with huge numbers and a special key that allows the zombie to rack up free bucks with an insta-dial to the local welfare office.

Think that's fiction?  A collection of brain-dead zombies walking down a street, looking for freebies courtesy of Obama?  Try looking at this video.  This is reality:

Or this video:
Or this video:
Or this video:
Or this video:
You heard of the phrase "beware of stupid people in large groups"?  How about the collection of numbskulls who added their names to the fake petitions in the above videos?  These people are Obama zombies.  Unlike the zombies from the movies, the Obama versions have no use for brains whatsoever.

No brains is why they were more than willing to sign a petition that allows the killing of infants after birth.

No brains is why they were more than willing sign a petition to repeal the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.

No brains is why they were more than willing to sign a petition allowing a Nazi takeover.

No brains is why they were more than willing to sign a petition supporting mandatory euthanasia on those deemed unfit for society.



Yesserie.  Beware of Obama zombies.  The least-informed, the least-intelligent members of society, the ones who think reality comes from the next exciting episode of American Idol.  In short, they're stuck on stupid.

You really want to have your life run by a collection of idiots that are stuck on stupid?


Wednesday, August 14, 2013

The hypocrisy of liberal clowns!

Don't ya love clowns?

Usually accompany a circus, them clowns do, all clad in their makeup and goofy outfits and over-sized shoes, entering the big top in a dinky-little car with forty or fifty of them packed into it.  They'll prance about inside that tent, some of them hoping they won't screw up the act, others hoping they don't step in what the elephants leave behind.

Clowns always step in what the elephants leave behind.

And sometimes clowns who are fed up with the circus go on to do bigger and better things.  One got hisself attached to hamburgers.  One got his own teevee series.  A couple even managed to become president.  One of them was a former peanut farmer, I declare.

And some got into the ro-DEE-o circuit.

There was this dummy way back in 1994 who thought it'd be a cool thing indeed to be a ro-DEE-o clown.  He was a real dummy; you could knock on his head all day with a brick and he'd still smile at you.  One day his clown buddies decided that he could be of use in the ro-DEE-o, so they put him out center stage in the middle of the action, propped up with a broom handle, and then waited for Jalapeno - that was the bull's given name - to make his moves.  The Philadelphia Inquirer reported thus:

"T.J. Hawkins rolled out the big inner tube, and the bull lowered his head, shot forward and launched into the tube, sending it bounding down the center of the arena. The crowd cheered. Then the bull saw the George Bush dummy.  He tore into it, sending the rubber mask flying halfway across the sand as he turned toward the fence, sending cowboys scrambling up the fence rails, hooking one with his horn and tossing him off the fence."

And that was the end of the dummy, the one in the...now just a cotton-pickin minute.

Here we have a story done in 1994, about a dummy, a prop in the middle of a rodeo, wearing a mask bearing the likeness of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States, and this one lone article in the Philadelphia Inquirer is the only thing that makes barely a peep on the subject?  Like it's no big deal?  Obviously, the dummy was liberal.  He was supposed to get away with it.

Get back into the DeLorean and head to Jefferson City, Missouri, for the state fair some-19 years later on August 10.  Same concept, same broom handle propping him up, and maybe the same bull going after him, only this time the dummy has on the face of Barack Obama.  Why, the liberal establishment goes haywire; the National Association for the Advancement of (Liberal) Colored People wants a major investigation; the clown itself is permanently banned; the head of the Missouri Rodeo Group is stuck resigning; and, well, everyone in LiberalLand is just besides themselves!

"How dare they disrespect the president," they scream and rant and rave.  "Those dirty, low-down Republicans and scummy-conservatives are the scum of the earth, and need to realize that only we - the best of the planet and always with good intentions - liberals and leftists are the only ones qualified to disrespect presidents...provided they are conservative presidents!"

Kind-of like the images below:


 Need I say more?

Monday, August 12, 2013

Cherry-picking adultery



We all know what liberals continually say about Jesus, other then their belief that He's got to stay out of school.


He's all full of love and tolerance!

Love?  That's a big-fat yes.  Jesus loved us enough to hang on a cross for our sins.  Wait, no, we can't talk about that...can't talk about the sins.  That's a no-no.  Have to tolerate them sins; doing otherwise would mean that we'is judging others, and only God can do the judging.

So why don't we all just look the other way, while the sinners can sin without any repercussions, and the Christians can just shut-da-$&%#-up!  That's what liberals seem to be doing these days, forcing Christians to shut up.  It's as if they - the libs - are the ones defining what is supposed to be Christian, rather than the Christians themselves.

Love and tolerance, right?

And the love and the tolerance we are supposed to be practicing, among other things these days, has to be in support of gay marriage.  "I now pronounce you husband and...er...uhh...husband"  says the confused priest, who then gets a letter in the mail from the newlyweds stating they are going to sue him for mangling their nuptials in front of their guests in the church where they forced the priest to hold the ceremony under the threat of another lawsuit...wedding cake, anyone?  Yes, the baker was sued, too; she opposed gay marriage, wouldn't bake the cake, got sued and was forced by a judge to start baking the cake anyway, and this was recorded by the photographer who himself was sued for refusing to put the happy young gay couple in his studio because he opposed gay marriage, after the invitations were handed out and printed by someone else who was sued, ad infinitum.

Isn't liberal love and tolerance wonderful?

And getting back to Jesus.  Just where do the liberals justify their love and tolerance comes from, assuming they do pick up the Bible?  Don't tell me they cherry-pick the answers?

One of the cherries they pick comes from the Gospel of John.  Lessie, where can we find an example of Jesus just gushing with love and tolerance that liberals love to cherry-pick from...how about the first eleven verses of chapter 8?  Here they are:

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Now, the "love and tolerance" part is this, according to lib-speak: we're supposed to love the sinner (check); we're supposed to tolerate the sin (say what?); we're supposed to let the sinner go do whatever makes her happy...and somewhere in the meadow a bunny hops.

But what is the point that the actual bona-fide, non-liberal Christian is making here?

First, we love and pray for the sinner, unconditionally.  Period.

Second, we don't tolerate the sin.  We tell the sinner what it's all about, and what the results would be if continued.  After all, just who was it that spoke more about - and against - sin in the Bible?  It was Jesus.  And that is exactly what Jesus said to the adulterous woman in verse 11: "Go, and sin no more."  Sorry to disappoint all of you liberals, but that's what's in the Bible.  Better quit the cherry-picking.

And what does that have to do with adultery and gay marriage?

For starters, didn't God call adultery a violation of His commandments?

Didn't God call homosexuality an abomination?

Is not the word "sodomy" a reference to the city of Sodom?  

And just what does this have to do with John, Chapter 8, and Jesus insisting that someone without sin cast the first stone?  Again, verse 4:

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

She was caught in the act.  Fine.  Where's the partner at?  Was the partner male?  Was the partner female?  Or did she not have a partner at all?  Jesus did say that someone commits adultery even by thinking about it.  So, if the woman was alone, was she thinking about a male partner, or a female partner?

And if the partner was female in this instance, was the crowd correct in calling it adultery?  Yes, they were.  Jesus didn't fault them for identifying what the sin was; He faulted them for a pre-judgmental, "we're-going-to-test-Christ-and-hang-this-girl" intolerant attitude.

If you're a homosexual thinking of calling this blog entry an example of hatred, what are you going to say to the Lord when you stand in front of Him?  Are you going to cherry-pick your answers?

The non-liberal, Christian version of Christ - the actual version - calls on those to abandon their sinning, just like Jesus said to that woman above, and accept Him as Savior.  It's a free gift, too.  Costs nothing but a few minutes and a private moment.  That's what the cross was all about.

Or you can face Him as your Judge.  Not a good prospect.



Thursday, August 8, 2013

The Devil's Little Details

In 1978 radio legend Paul Harvey spoke at a farming convention in which he expanded on the Creation story of Genesis, and adding something of his own in praise of farmers.  The speech was later used as an advertisement for Dodge Trucks during Superbowl XLVII, a commercial which received a lot of positive reviews.



But there is another, sobering, essay by Harvey that I would like you all to listen to.  It was originally written way back in 1964 and updated through the years to this version, an audio recorded sometime in 1999:


As I said, this was begun in 1964, when the war in Vietnam was starting to escalate, when Timothy Leary was pushing drugs on his students, when the hippie counter-culture was beginning to open up.

Let's see how much of Paul Harvey's original essay has come true (italics are mine)...

----------

If I Were the Devil
If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.
I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.
How much of the world and it's population right now is under totalitarianism?  Communism?  Corrupt democracies?  How much of it is suffering famine or war?

So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States.
Who is in control of the United States right now?

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.
With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve, “Do as you please.”
Isn't that the mantra of liberalism?  To do whatever you want regardless of the consequences?

To the young I would whisper “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that “man created God,” instead of the other way around. I would confide that “what is bad is good and what is good is square.”
God was thrown out of schools, the courts, and city hall; to even mention God nearly everywhere is to invite a lawsuit.

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be “extreme” in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.
Welfare is the new norm; eating, drinking, and making merry the chosen lifestyle, while those who choose to be Christian and patriotic towards America are frowned upon, or worse.

And the old I would teach to pray — to say after me — “Our father which art in Washington.”
The new solution to everything is to let government fix it.  Government is worshiped, to the point where it has to grow at every opportunity.

Then I’d get organized.
I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.
Porn is now part of everyday literature.

I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.
Sex and violence are a part of daily television broadcasting, including insertion into video gaming.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.
Unions now demand that lazy members get full pay for nothing instead of being fired.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could, I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
Gangs bring narcotics into the states at will; the prescription drug culture is increasing; more and more Americans are turning to farming pot or making meth.

If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.
Test scores are down, violence is up.  And who is running the schools?

I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get preachers to say, “She’s right.”
Atheists are in the forefront, pushing a hatred of God on the populace as if He's a fairy tale, and getting many of the clergy to side with them.

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.
Remember the People vs. Larry Flynt?  Remember Madelyn Murray O'Hair?  There are daily news stories about one atheist group or another threatening legal action against anyone on God's side.

Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.
See above.

Then in his own churches I’d substitute psychology for religion and deify science.
Evolution and atheism are the new religious beliefs.

If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg
Because Christ's resurrection was rejected in favor of the pagan Ishtar story.

And the symbol of Christmas a bottle.
Because they want Christ's birth to be sidelined.  They want Christians to be sidelined.

If I were the Devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.
It's called socialism, which the current president confirmed to a plumber named Joe in 2008.

Then my police state would force everybody back to work.
The current president wants a civilian force as large and as powerful as the Army.  For what purpose?  Gestapo?  KGB?  Is there a drone flying over your house now?

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.
Those who are opposed to Obama's policies are demonized, attacked, discredited, in accordance with Saul Alinsky's methods.  The camps are yet to come.

If I were Satan I’d just keep doing what I’m doing and the whole world [would] go to hell as sure as the Devil.

----------

The Devil has been attempting to do that for a long time, but he lost the moment the stone rolled away and Jesus walked out of that tomb nearly two thousand years ago.  The Bible says that Jesus is returning, during which the end times described in Mathew 24 pretty-much agree with what Paul Harvey described in his essay above.

So, what choice do YOU intend to make?  Side with the Devil and become one of his useful idiots all the way to an ignominious fate?

Or side with Christ, and be given eternal life?  The choice is yours.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

The Internal Server Error: Evidence of Liberal Failure

Picture this...

You want to get on your favorite conservative or Christian website to take a look at the latest things going on around the world, and you get this:
After a few clicks you're back in business, but it comes back again every so often.

Why?

Well, it's pretty obvious there's a bunch of liberals out there who believe in failure.

In Conservapedia's case is a bunch of silly little amateurs from Otisburg.  Been doing it for a few years.  They cannot stand what we have to say, so they have to get their licks in.  However, it's as though they bought the Tootsie Roll Pop to see how many licks they can make to get to the center, but they were too dimwitted to take the wrapper off.

What they attempted to do in Conservapedia was...

They tried sticking in their nonsense in the various articles.  Failed.
They tried inserting falsehoods and parody.  Failed.
They tried using extortion and threat to take over the site.  Failed.
They tried creating a page stating how vulnerable some Democrats were around the country, then went to news organizations with the same page to claim we wanted assassinations of these Democrats.  Failed.
They tried mocking us with their own Otisburg-brand website.  Failed.
Some of them try to use force and whining to try to debate us on certain subjects.  Failed.

Ahhh...the silly little amateurs of Otisburg are still silly.

So, reader, if you are on Conservapedia or any other website that is dedicated to conservatism or Christianity, and you get one of those silly little displays like the image above, just pretend it's the image of failure on the liberal's part.  What is going on somewhere in Otisburg is a failure in his underwear, slurping on a fudgesickle, employing a bot, and what this bot is doing is automatically hitting the "refresh" function of the browser window while that failure in his underwear has his browser opened to whatever page he is looking at.  The bot hits the "refresh" function so many times it disables the site from viewing by others.

But in Conservapedia, their actions failed.

Yesserie, Bob, these silly little amateurs believe strongly in failure, don't they?  And we all thought liberals love free speech.  We all thought liberals are tolerant.  We all thought liberals are full of love.

The Internal Server Error in the image above is evidence of liberal hatred.

It failed.

Have a nice day!


Monday, August 5, 2013

And God created cactus


In a previous blog I talked about an orangutan from a television show who showed remarkable intelligence when it came to copying some of the daily tasks done by humans, then talked about a butterfly with the face of an owl on its wings.  It apparently "copied" the owl; the point was to scare away the predators, but of course the silly little amateurs from Otisburg cried foul and had their collective version of a heart attack.  Evolution doesn't do that, in their "opinion-which-ought-to-be-a-dadd-blanged-fact" opinion; one of them insisted it was just a sheen on the wings.

No intelligence there, he implied.

No intelligence with the silly little amateurs from Otisburg, either.

So it goes.

And while I'm riding to work I thought of the butterfly and the silly little amateurs, and then I thought of a cactus, of all things.  You know what a cactus is.  Small-to-large plants, live in deserts, has lots of spines to protect itself from plant eaters which are thirsty at the same time.

Think it over for a second.

It's a plant that lives in a desert.  Where there is little to no water.

And it has lots of spines to protect itself from plant eaters which are thirsty at the same time.

Now, the silly little amateurs from Otisburg would like to force down my gullet that evolution happens; it's about mutation.  They should know; they observed it in bacteria in a petri dish somewhere in the Ozarks one day, so if they can see it happen in a petri dish, then we must accept the fact that it can happen in a major way with all of the species everywhare...and that's an order!

Does that order come with fries?

So I'm cutting my grass with my several years-old lawn mower, and it's the same grass coming up again.  No change.  I have not seen a single change in my grass at all.  It's the same.  In fact, there hasn't been a single change to anyone's grass since the first lawn mower rolled off an assembly line all those years ago.  In fact, there hasn't been a single change in grass since the well-to-do used sheep and goats on the first front lawns all of those many millenia ago.  For those of you in Otisburg that was the time way, way, before TV sets.  The silly little amateurs of Otisburg have to have their TV sets.

During all that time between the animals on the first front lawns all the way to the next-generation thingies with a Briggs and Stratton engine, mowers with hair or not have been mowing lawns right down to the nub, and still the grass has been growing the same way.  You would think that after all of that cutting, the grass would evolve some sort of natural defense against a grass eater, whether it be Bessie the Cow or John Deere.  But they didn't.

Why?

Because that requires intelligence.  It requires an ability by the grass to think that it needs to have protection for itself against a grass eater.  Instead, we just have the grass growing over and over again.  Meanwhile, the grass has to suffer the further indignity of the sheep and the goats and Bessie the Cow and maybe the silly little amateurs in Otisburg relieving themselves on it.

And what does this have to do with the cactus?

This is from that bastion of liberalism (and the 'pedia of choice for Otisburg), Wikipedia:

"As well as defending against herbivores, spines help prevent water loss by reducing air flow close to the cactus and providing some shade."

And Wikipedia also states that some cactus spines are barbed:

"In addition to normal-length spines, members of the subfamily Opuntioideae have relatively short spines, called glochids that are barbed along their length and easily shed. These enter the skin and are difficult to remove, causing long-lasting irritation."

It seems that a long time ago - if the silly little amateurs are right - some cactus ancestor got tired of the sheep and the goats eating them down to a nub.  It decided it was going to defend itself and protect its water supply with spines.  It further made sure that these spines would do some additional damage, hence the barbs.

Sound's like nonsense, huh?  Well, even Wikipedia is stating the spines are there for defense.  But of course, we have the silly little amateurs from Otisburg looking at bacteria in a petri dish and then telling us that it was just a beneficial mutation of the original cactus.

Yeah, right.

A plant that evolves a means to defend its internal water supply from an external plant eater is just the end result of a simple mutation that came along by chance because some silly little amateur clown from Otisburg looked at a petri dish and said so.

I'll believe that God created it.  It's just a better explanation.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Life in Otisburg

Imagine if you will an exciting scene from the 1978 film Superman...

A very exciting scene...

Underground resident Lex Luthor is discussing the "New West Coast" with Superman, and he has his hapless henchman Otis lay down a placard on a map of North America, replacing old west coast with "New".

"Costa Del Lex, Luthorville, Marina Del Lex, Otisburg..."
"Otisburg?" asks Lex Luthor incredulously, looking down at the poorly-spelled word written in grimey-black crayon.
"Miss Teschmacher, she's got her own place," Otis says.
"Otisburg?"
"It's a little bitty place!"
"OTISBURG?"
And Otis is stuck removing the word, and his brief little dream, with a dirty dish towel.

Isn't that an exciting scene?  Or is it dull...D - U - L - L...dull?

Now, just what would Otisburg be like if it exists?  Would it be populated by the elite of the country, run by the best minds our educational system could provide?  Or would it be populated by those whose brains "...can barely generate enough power to keep those legs moving"?  And would it be run by those who think they are smarter than a fifth grader, yet filled with a lot of hot air? 

So, in looking for such a place, one has to look on the internet.  Remember, these guys are too lame to put hammer to nail; they need something requiring no more than a few hours a day sitting around in their underwear in their stale little messy bedrooms while Dad is downstairs shouting obscenities at the television again.  The antenna on the roof needs adjusting, and Dad doesn't have a ladder. 

So, let's call our man in the underwear Otis.  All of the citizens populating Otisburg are named Otis; they gotta match Ned Beatty's character from the a fore-mentioned movie.  Meaning that they have to be nincompoops.  Idiots are welcomed with pomp and ceremony involving a lot of four-letter words; nitwits, dimwits, halfwits, malcontents, the brain-damaged, the brain-dead, and those persons who tend to see a lot of revolving colors due to casual use of pharmaceuticals legal or otherwise are also welcomed in like-manner.  Those that hate God are worshipped.  Go figure that one out, because it sound's like a place a liberal would live in.  Pass the weed!

And Otisburg has to be dull.  D - U - L - L.  The collection of nincompoops calling themselves Otis has to have a site so dull that flies drop from sheer boredom.  There's a lot of dead flies on the smelly carpet in Otis' bedroom; it's been, what, twelve years since he graduated from high school?  But, Otis is there, in his underwear, plugging away on his keyboard, making Otisburg attractive in his mind only.  Lots of four-letter words in every paragraph.  Four-letter words are standard in Otisburg, in keeping with the intelligence requirements of the site.

And what does the site offer?  Over-kill usage of the word "rational."  Apparently, rational people these days sit around in their underwear banging on keyboards in smelly bedrooms with a lot of dead flies on the floor.  So, Otis is there, writing in his lofty, majestic style which reminds one of another, lofty, majestic work under the collective title Dick and Jane...

"The Book of Ruth is short. Really, really short."

Otis can provide the location of a great many things...

"Dr. Dennett's beard, seen here attached to the person named Daniel Dennett."

Otis can describe Kentucky...

"Kentucky is the world's leading producer of jelly because its horses are fingerlickin' good."

Otis tries his hand at giving advice while making an article look "authoritative"...

"On occasion, you can think better of someone by assuming that, rather than malicious, they are merely stupid."

Otis can describe objects...

"Radio is like television without the amusing graphics. Or an internet that does not require the ability to read and with significantly fewer cat pictures."

Otis can predict the future...

"All the whites are gonna die really soon!"

Otis is an expert in language...

"Dude doesn't know his Latin."

Otis claims to be an expert in history...

"Note also that during the Cold War, ramming or getting rammed by a Commie submarine could have far-reaching political consequences, so both parties tended to whistle innocently and pretend that nothing had happened."

Otis has seen Bigfoot...

"In the Appalachian region, we simply call them "Grandpa gone bad." In spite of their primitive appearance, they are usually fine hands with a homemade still."

And Otis is good at hiding the guilty...

"The Mary Celeste was a merchant ship that disappeared in November 1872 only to turn up intact on December 4th 1872, but with the crew forced to abandon ship after being boarded by Daleks missing."

Yesserie, quite a rational man, Otis is.  You would expect that such a wonderful site as Otisburg would be extremely stellar in the ratings, but, well, this is Otisburg.  No reading ability required.

Yes, the site is real, but it's not worth linking to.  Kinda like the men's room at the local convenience store; the stench and filth on the inside just keeps one from entering it.  And Otisburg is what you get when you have a bunch of nincompoops pretending to have something more in their heads than a half-dozen marbles.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Let's starve a giraffe for science


Let's see...the silly little amateurs who think they know something about science are going to accuse me of not understanding science, of being afraid of science, of not being able to chew my bubblegum properly while walking down the street humming a Ricky Martin song, ad nauseum.  It's always that way with the liberal crowd.  Are they still upset they have to pay a buck more than a conservative for a smoothie?

And now they're going to say that I want to starve a giraffe.  That means denying our favorite long-necked critter his daily sustenance.  They're going to call PETA - the animal "rights" clowns who once condemned dolphins dying in tuna nets while not saying a word about the tuna - and they're going to whine and complain and yip-yap (little whiny complaining yorkies also yip-yap a lot) about how I want to starve our favorite long-necked critters, and they can't have that.  But it's a science project, and it should be OK.  Libs love science.  They worship science.  After all, the last of the great auks were killed off in the name of science, so maybe putting a long-necked critter under glass in a museum must be OK.

So here's the thing.  You'll probably have to get your hands on a school or college textbook, in my case it's titled Essentials of Physical Anthropology, by Jurmain, Kilgore, and Trevathan.  It's supposed to cover the history of early man, from modern times all the way back to those thrilling days of yesteryear when men were a tad too-hairy, only said one single word ("Ooongawa!") and had a penchant for bananas.  We was such a swinging bunch back then.  The scientists said so.  It's true.  Why, they did more than just dig up some old, dry bones; they invented the flux capacitor, which makes time travel possible after installation in a used 1984 DeLorean sport coupe, and they took that trip down memory lane in style to video-tape all of those hairy proto-men swingers way back in the Miocene, some 20 or so million years ago.

So, if you believe time travel is not possible within a DeLorean, then all the scientists have are fossils...and their own interpretations to go with them.  Because they cannot test their theories that an ape-like critter evolved into man over the course of millions of years, they have to say it happened.  Saying is one thing; proving is quite another.  Hearsay is just not admissible as evidence.

So, page 33 of Essentials of Physical Anthropology.  The authors just have to bring up the history of evolution, using Jean Baptist Lamarck, Charlie Darwin, and others, and part of that history happens to be how species originated, and they use the many-times repeated example of...you guessed it...our favorite long-necked critter, the giraffe.  On page 33 we are shown two theories.  The first is Lamarck's theory, which states that the leaves on the tree was out of reach, so the giraffe just kept stretching that neck over generations, until it was the right length to reach the tree leaves.  Charlie Darwin theorized that there was a variety of giraffes, in that there was a mixture of animals with different-sized necks, with the ones having the longest necks being able to reach the leaves.  This in turn would be passed down to future generations via natural selection.  The long-necked ones survived, the short-necked ones did not.  Charlie's theory was better than Jean's, so guess who won?

Remember, we are told - yes, told - that Charlie's theory is true; it is a fact; evolutionists said so; no one should be allowed to refute it under penalty of massive amounts of hate mail.  But this can be experimented on right now, as per step three of the Scientific Method, which is something no evolutionist had ever bothered to do with a giraffe, let alone any other animal in a similar situation.  So, let's go through the Scientific Method right now...

Step one: observation.  Look at the neck, come up with questions as to how it got so dadd-blanged long!

Step two: hypothesis.  Your guess...er, hypothesis...must be in keeping with both Lamarck's and Chuckie Darwin's theories.  Either they did some stretching, or they altered their DNA.

Step three: experiment.  And here's what you do...

Grab hold of a giraffe, place it in an enclosure with nothing but a tree in it.  Make sure the lowest branches of the tree are a foot out of reach of the giraffe's mouth.  Monitor on a daily basis the giraffe's height and weight; take blood samples and check for any changes to the DNA.

Now, keep in mind that Lamarck, Darwin, and every other evolutionist on the planet have all said that changes in species, such as the increased length of a giraffe's neck, take a lot of time...generations, to be exact.  So, what do you think will happen with the giraffe in our experiment?

Will that neck grow a little more?  Will there be a change in DNA, to be passed along to future generations?

There is just one little catch with this scenario.  There has to be a visible change with 30-45 days.  Period.  This is the actual, observed-IAW-step-one-of-the-scientific-method status with the giraffe, and any other animal out there, including man.  A giraffe is not going to wait generations to grow a neck to reach the food it needs to survive; it is going to need the food right now.  Not a week from Tuesday; not next year; and certainly not in a few generations.  Right now.

Because if it cannot reach the leaves in the tree, if it cannot find another food source, if those circumstances ensure it has nothing to eat within 30-45 days, that giraffe is going to starve to death.

So much for the evolutionary hypothesis...er, guess!

Update

The silly little amateurs from Otisburg have responded, in the way befitting their own educational level.  First and foremost is this one:

"Holy (foul language removed), that guy is one stupid (foul language removed) moron. "Evolution is false, and I can prove it by showing that an alternative, creation-based theory is false." As someone mentioned earlier; if there was sudddenly a disease that killed people under 6' tall, our species height would increase, because only tall people would be left to breed. And this is not because we were all able to stretch and get taller. You idiot."

Or this one:

"The really sad thing is that even Kj is really smart enough to figure the real "theory" out himself: that short necked and long necked giraffes coexisted just fine so long as there was plenty of food. But when the environment changed and food was scarce, only the long-neckers could compete. Evolution is about existing modifications suddenly being important due to external change. He can look around him and see people from 4' to 7' tall and realize how it might have gone down. It's not rocket science to reason that out for oneself, but they all have this Sarah Palin ignorant mocking of stupidities, which they assert are scientific theory and absolutely refuse to let the brain consider the topic. Pretty weird way to operate a cerebrum."

One even went ballistic.  He calls himself Jeeves, which is usually a name for a robotic butler, but I'll still call him Otis, like the other educationally-challenged on their site.

"Let's see...the silly little amateurs who think they know something about science are going to accuse me of not understanding science..." Yes, yes we are. And not because of smoothies or whatever other (foul language removed) you're ranting incoherently about, because YOU DON'T (FOUL LANGUAGE REMOVED) UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION."

Apparently, the silly little amateurs collectively-named Otis are under the impression that I, and everyone else on the planet, must accept their version of science, specifically in the creation of life.  There are some problems within these quotations, as well as in the minds of those who originally wrote them, so here are my answers...

First, this blog was about the short-comings of evolution, specifically macroevolution.  One version of Otis wrote down "...exposed bacteria to citrate rich but otherwise energy poor growth substrate for thousands of generations until they evolved the ability to utilise citrate", as if that was part and parcel to the giraffe's neck, but what he was talking about was microevolution - which is observed - rather than macroevolution, which has never been observed.  The giraffe's neck involves macroevolution.  Big difference.

Second, and you can see it above, another Otis wrote "short necked and long necked giraffes coexisted just fine."  Then where are these short-necked giraffes at?  Where are their remains?  And if their remains have been found, where is the empirical proof that these animals were the ancestors of modern giraffes?  Are we to look at them in a line and assume a change took place because Otis said so?  I know exactly what they will say:

"Uhh, you have to look at the remains...see the change in neck length...you must accept it...these aren't the droids we're looking for...move along!"

Third, they gotta do the "look-at-the-other-species-argument" to bolster their case.  It's the "look-at-the-tall-humans" argument to bolster their case of the giraffe's neck.  Let's see...I had a previous clown try to tell me that since scientists tried to do a domestic dog program by breeding foxes (a failure, by the way), I must accept that by looking at the foxes the same thing happened with cavemen doing the same thing with wolves.  Different animal, but it must be true...Dr. Slagrock's notes about it were found in Fred Flintstone's cave some years ago...or don't they have any real evidence at all? 

And one other Otis has to chime in, pretty-much in agreement with what I just said...

"He's incredibly (foul language removed) stupid AND incredibly (foul language removed) smug--a deadly combination. His smugness prevents him from ever accepting evolution, as that means he would have to accept that he was wrong about something. His stupidity will make him believe any (foul language removed) creation idea. It doesn't matter how many times you explain the most basic ideas of evolution to him, he simply will always refuse to accept and comprehend them. One of the most proud, ignorant (foul language removed) (foul language removed) I've ever seen."

And they call me close-minded?  They call me so smug about my own beliefs that I will never accept evolution?  They sound like I violated some major law or something.  Perhaps they want me punished with death or life imprisonment or worse - like, spend a week in an Occupy Wall Street tent.

The sad part is the fact that they are the one who are smug; they are the ones who are ignorant as to what evolution actually is.  Unfortunately, these people never bothered to educate themselves to the fullest extent; they made "assumption" into dogma; they made "conjecture" into fact.  They said the giraffe's neck grew as a result of environmental change, and they say it's a fact, despite no evidence in the fossil record of giraffe ancestors with necks increasing in length over time; they say this event happened,  that it's a fact.  And if they had fossils, they would point to them and demand we must assume a change took place.  Assume.   Get the picture?

And as to proving a lack of education on Otis' part...well, you did see all of the foul language I had to remove!