Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Hot Time in Antarctica?

Oh goody, the big news is in for the global warming crowd.

Antarctica sets a temperature record.  It's a whopping 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit down there!

People can now flock to Antarctica in their thongs now, and do some surfing, sun bathing, kayaking, saving some whales, whatever pleases the liberal crowd these days.  Maybe they can grow a crop of weed while they're at it as well, and spray the stuff with penguinicide; those fat, weable birds just love getting into that stuff.

Yesserie, it's big news.  The liberal rag TIME covered it immediately, "all thanks to global warming" they said.  It beat a record set yesterday at the same spot (63.3 deg. F), and both beat a record set more than 50 years before...in 1961.

But what's important about this story is what's missing, and what's kinda buried at the bottom of it.

Buried at the bottom is the location.  These libby rags want to imply that it's the whole continent that's warming up, rather than that little-bitty place they took the temp reading from: Esperanza Base, which is at the tip of Graham Land, Antarctic peninsula.  Esperanza is a permanent civilian settlement; that's "people live there" for those of you in Otisburg.  The coordinates for Esperanza are 63°24'S 56°59'W, which places it north of the Antarctic Circle, and roughly 600 miles from Punta Arenas, Chile (that's in South America, for those of you in Otisburg) and that part of this explanation is also important.

This image is from Wikipedia for the article on Base Esperanza.  It's listing temperatures on average for given months; the top line indicates record high temps for a particular month, and with the exception of March (as in today's new record), the remaining temps have no dates given.  The second line is the average high temps, and for the months of October through March, these temps average in the 30's.  That's in Fahrenheit, for those of you in Otisburg.  Like it or not, it is going to have those average high temps, and maybe a little more, due to its location north of the Antarctic Circle. 

What is missing from this story is something that the liberal writers hope you are overlooking.  December 21 through March 22 is winter time up here.  In the United States.  In Canada.  In Britain.

It is SUMMER down in Antarctica.  The ice retreats during that time; the ice melts during that time.  And these liberal nutjobs want you to ignore that one small fact while they head down there and spout to the whole world that the ice is disappearing.

The ice will come back in a month or two.  You can count on it.  And you can count on the same liberal nutjobs packing up and heading north to whine about the retreating ice at the North Pole...during the Arctic summer!

Hope they bring enough sunscreen to share with some polar bears!







Monday, March 30, 2015

Islam, and Rachel Maddow

This is dated February 18, 2015, from that bastion of liberal "thinking", The Rachel Maddow Show:


Getting to the point, this individual claims we have bills on the books in 22 states preventing sharia law; these bills deny to them the right to practice their faith.  At the same time this drivel is flowing from her mouth, she whines that they - the Muslims - come to America to enjoy such things as free speech.  She said:

“We come to the US, 22 states with anti-sharia bills trying to ban us from practicing our faith, mosque oppositions, we’re fighting, you know, zoning boards across the country, our kids are hearing this rhetoric, we have people, mosques being vandalized, kids being executed…”

Of course there's going to be some opposition to this; Islam happens to be the most violent religion on the face of the earth, where its practitioners execute those who:

Decide to leave Islam.
Insult, however minor, the prophet Muhammad.
Insult or desecrate, however minor, the Koran.
Aren't "islamic" enough.
Are Christian or Jewish.
Or are homosexual.

They also lie to advance their cause; their own Koran dictates they do, hence the above ludicrous claims.  Show the world these kids being executed here in the U.S., Ms. Sarsour.  Show the world their names and their graves.  And tell us why you would flee a Muslim-dominated country to enjoy any kind of freedom that we have here, while at the same time demand the inclusion of the very system (Sharia) that you fled from.

And then there's Rachel Maddow, the ultimate liberal on the ultimate liberal network.

You see her in the above video with Ms. Sarsour, pretty-much agreeing with everything she says.  It looks like Maddow wants it to happen, which is the implementation of Sharia in the U.S.  Fine then.  Let's implement it all over the land.  Let's have Sharia so liberals like Maddow can be happy at accomplishing something else pertaining to the destruction of this country.

I did say above, in accordance with Sharia law, homosexuals are executed.

Hey, Rachel Maddow, and everyone else like her: homosexuals are EXECUTED.

Do you understand that?  Sharia demands homosexuals be executed.  Iran hangs them from cranes.  ISIS throws them off buildings.  Rachel Maddow, in agreeing with Sarsour, wants the same thing here.

Rachel Maddow is homosexual.  She wants to bring the rope to her own hanging.

Talk about stupidity.

Liberal Hypocrisy on Race


Ever hear of Idris Elba?
Idris Elba

Apparently, he's a talented actor from across the pond in Great Britain; been in a number of stage and television productions, and films, among them a minor role familiar to American audiences as the gatekeeper in both Thor and Thor: The Dark World.  But he must be very talented to get the good speculation from producers to be considered to play one of the most famous characters in film history: the suave and sophisticated British spy James Bond.

Would he be able to pull it off?  Probably.  But to those purists out there - and by "purist" I mean those people who want James Bond to be as close as possible to the character created by Ian Flemming - Elba couldn't do it because he's black.

Ian Flemming's Bond is a Scottish white male.

Unfortunately, the purists have been labeled as racists by our not-so-good friends on the left side of the fence, and their silly little lefty mouths just wont shut up about it.  A black man has been put in the running to be the next James Bond, and any talk to the contrary has to be deemed as racist.  "You're opposed to him playing the part because he's black, er African-Ameri...I mean, African-British...yeah, that's it...African-British, you racist!"

Fine then.  The scenario can be flipped, can it?  How about Gilbert Gottfried playing Frederick Douglass?  Are you opposed to Paris Hilton playing George Washington Carver?  What about Michael Moore playing the Zulu king Shaka?  Not feasible, you say?  Why?
Shaka Zulu?  Played by Michael Moore?  NOT!

"Well, you're talking about historical characters; James Bond was fictional, therefore he can be played by anyone, you racist!"

Wrong.  First, this particular point is about a film role, and whether historical or not, it's all about a character in a film.  So if a black man can be selected for a role meant for someone white, then the reverse can happen.  Got a problem with it, libs?  Personally, I would love to see Moore try to play Shaka.  I would love to see Moore give up cheeseburgers or his silly liberalism, but fat chance on any of that happening anytime soon. 

Second, liberals distort history, and film is no exception.  In the court case State of New Jersey v. John List, the prosecutor was a white female (Eleanor Clark); in the film Judgement Day: The John List Story, she was played by a black female (Lorena Gale).  That's just one example, but I only need one.  Isn't James Bond just one character?  You libs can count, or did Common Core harm some brain cells?

Third, James Bond is more historical than fictional.  He was based on Flemming's exploits as a military intelligence officer in the Royal Navy during World War II; his boss, an admiral, formed the basis of the character known as "M".  Together and with others, they helped devise the plan known as "Mincemeat", which had succeeded in removing a large number of German troops from Sicily, allowing the Allied invasion of that island in 1943, and all based on the finding of bogus documents found on a corpse planted in the waters off Spain.  I wouldn't care if Flemming's James Bond is played by Elba or anyone else, except Michael Moore; Elba could probably do an outstanding job, while Moore is gaining...

And Fourth.  There's Hollywood itself.  The whole film industry is controlled by liberals, just like the looney tunes nut-jobs who whine about any opposition to Idris Elba being James Bond as racist.  But, just what is it that we hear coming from their own mouths?

"Hollywood is soooooooooo racist!  I can't get a decent acting job on the tee-vee because Hollywood is soooooooo racist!"

From the liberal Huff Post.
From the Atlanta Black Star.
From the very-liberal Chris Rock.

Or just "Google-it".  Lots of entries here.

Hollywood is so racist because it's the racist liberals who run it.  Fat chance of that changing anytime soon.


Thursday, March 26, 2015

Robin Hood in LaLa Land

Robin Hood, as played by Errol Flynn from the 1938 film

In liberal la-la land - or Wackyland, whichever fits better - everything is the opposite.  Up is down, in is out, red is blue, light is dark, right is wrong.  Which is kinda great when you confront a liberal with facts; it's outrageous fun watching their heads explode!

As it was with this guy, online in a chat room somewhere in IRC central, and this guy...I'll call him Otis...decides he wants to pontificate about the need for expanded liberalism, specifically in the raising of taxes so that money can be collected and given to those who like to sit around in their underwear somewhere in Otisburg.  What was it he said?

"We're gonna rob from the rich, and give to the poor."

Wow.  A time honored liberal battle cry.  "And where did that battle cry originate?" I asked.

"Robin Hood."

That's where it came from?  I asked point blank about it's origins, and he said yes, robbing those rich folks and giving the loot to the poor comes from Robin Hood.  He must be correct.  He is a liberal after all.  Don't facts have a liberal bias?

Fine then.  I wanted some names.

"Just who did Robin Hood steal from?"

"Uhhhh..."

"They have to have some names, Otis."

"Uhhhh...the Sheriff of Nottingham.  Prince John.  Guy of Gis..."

"And they were...what?"

"Uhhhh, government officials."

And the tax money; I had to ask about the tax money.  "And what exactly did Robin steal from them, and what did he do with it?"

"Uhhhh, it was tax money stolen from the people to make them rich, and Robin merely took it back."

And Otis sat there for a moment or two, letting what he just said sink in, memories of The Adventures of Robin Hood starring Errol Flynn and a cast of a dozen...or did he see the cheaper remake with the Costner guy?  Anyway, when he realized just what he said had the opposite position of what he believed in...well...

"YOU DUMB #4i^%# SUCKWAD$$(*^et^ DIPJERK*&%$& KISS MY $^&&e^ BOOBTWAT@$(&$MEGAoi&^%^$DWEEB*%#^&*......"  the screen just couldn't take the foul language that poured out of Otis' feeble mind - it was just cartoonish, kinda like this individual, imported all the way from Toontown:



So, what's the point?

Robin Hood went up against an abusive, over-taxing central government - the kind of government that steals to line their own pockets, and he returned the tax money back to the people.

Who taxes people up the wazoo?  Liberals.
Who whines and complains about taxes being cut?  Liberals.
Who are some of the richest people in politics as a result?  Liberals.

Who demands tax cuts and the money returned to the people?  Conservatives.

And if you get a swearing, cussing, scatterbrained, latte-drinking, food-stamp abusing whiner who thinks up is down, big is small, left is right, and about to pretend to board the boat for the next save the whales campaign, chances are that he just had a field day snorting up the dust lining the streets of Wackyland.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Wackyland and Bowe Bergdahl

Imagine having a conversation with a liberal.  A died-in-the-wool liberal.  Or is that "dyed"?  Who knows with these clowns; everything is topsy-turvy with them.  What's up is down; bad is good; right is wrong; in is out...you get the picture.   Just what sort of people have these distorted viewpoints of the world?  Where do they get their training and education, if they indeed received any?  Just what on earth could drive someone to think that a convicted cop killer should get a free pass out of the slammer, while demanding that innocent babies be given the death penalty?

How about Wackyland?

Yesserie, Bob, it's Wackyland, the hap'nen place where liberals are born and raised (by one parent), and where they return annually during the spawning season to collect their welfare checks, or whenever they feel like a need for weed.

Wackyland, where Common Core is taught; where laws are written at the stroke of a pen before you even know it, let alone see it; where you have to pay for your "free" health care.

Wackyland is where the nuts run the asylum; where the cops are in jail and the criminals run the courts; where the "feel-good" crowd insists on spending money someone else earned.  Where you can get sued because the "feel-good" crowd doesn't like your Christianity.

Wackyland, where a deserter from the battlefield is a hero.

You read that right: a deserter from the United States Army is a hero to the denizens of Wackyland.  This comes from the same mentality of the nut-jobs who spit on the soldiers returning home from Vietnam.  Go back in time about a year ago.  Corporal Bowe Bergdahl has been held captive for five years by the Taliban, then got swapped in a trade for five Gitmo detainees (terrorists, for those of you in Otisburg) in May, 2014.  National Security Advisor Susan Rice had this to say:

"He served the United States with honor and distinction..."

The Obama Adminstration states that the swap for the terrorists was "worth it".

And the soldiers who served...excuse me...Soldiers, with a capital "S"...served with the soldier Bergdahl, the individual who doesn't deserve that capital "S"?  They declared him a deserter from day one, when he decided on his own to leave his platoon (proven); abandon his weapons (proven); leave his gear in a nice pile (proven); send emails to family stating how he dislikes America (proven), and for their efforts they were branded LIARS from the looney left, aka the Adminstration.  Didn't another member of the Wackyland hall of shame - Jane Fonda - do the same thing to American servicemen returning from Vietnamese prison camps, when they complained of being tortured?

But wait, there's more.  Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa and Mohammed Nabi Omari were the terrorists traded for the deserter.  Remember, these guys are the ones that were "worth it".  Battlefield commanders traded for a lowly corporal; terrorists committed to attacking and killing Americans traded for someone who deserted Americans.

But wait, there's a little bit more.   Guess what exploded in the Middle East last year?  Could it be ISIS?  And didn't ISIS include a few Americans in some head-chopping lessons?  And the special guest star - just one of the terrorists who was "worth it" - is Mullah Mohammed Fazi, who is right now in a leadership position within ISIS and happily engaged in mass slaughter, courtesy of the Obama Adminstration.

Really worth it?

Unfortunately for the denizens of Wackyland, smarter heads prevailed.  The Army has brought formal charges of desertion against Bergdahl, which makes Rice's "...served with honor and distinction" comment look incredibly stupid.  But that's the educational level of the liberal left: lots of fluff, no substance, heavy on the stupid sauce, and common sense thrown out the window.

But remember, this is Wackyland, that hap'nen place run by the looney left.  Facts just don't matter.



Sunday, March 22, 2015

The Liberal GooseStep

Liberals lie.
The real face of liberalism

That's an established fact.  There's no way around it either, except by exposure.  For example, in this video clip we see MSNBC host Rachel Maddow agrees with a guest on her show that kids are being executed in the United States by the bushel on a daily basis.  And then there's one liberal troll who played the part of a leech (aka parasite) kinda well decided to enter Conservapedia today, and he posted this:

"You are allowed to criticize Conservative only after you compose a million word essay on, in the case of Sam, how liberal Christianity is actually Satanism and, in the case of Augusto, why Conservative is not invoking Godwin's Law every time he associates you with Nazism because, after all, all German's are Nazis right? Also ask yourself this, of the 3 gentlemen mentioned above which is most likely to support the internment of a group, atheists, into camps to protect society?
What really riles Conservative is that an atheist wiki is totally ignoring him, worse, all his messages to Andy get the Schlafly ignore. It must be really depressing when one of the USA's biggest wingnuts thinks you're too extreme to warrant an answer."

Now, first, he signed it "I come from the Danish part."  Could have been addicted to pastries to the point of getting a new belt every week, but that's not the case.  Danish part of what?  Great Britain?  That's what is IP said, so it's not Denmark.

Now, it's hard to fathom how a guy could spout this nonsensical gibberish unless he's from a certain atheist wiki that also spouts a lot of nonsensical gibberish; I believe the place he refers to is Otisburg, which is a place inhabited by dimwits, halfwits, nitwits, nincompoops, and those who think they are intelligent but have their heads buried so deep where the sun don't shine that you need a government permit to shine a light on their brains.  What little they have, anyway.

So, here comes the latest one, calling himself "Seral", ostensibly after spilling his corn flakes on the cat this morning, and with some self-righteous authority spouts the above nonsense.  So, let's see what he missed...

First is the "liberal Christianity" part.

You're either a Christian, or you're not.  There's no middle ground.  So where does that leave liberals?  Liberals support those things that the Lord is against: abortion, evolution, atheism, hate, envy, adultery; just look at the news every day - that's the liberal news - for confirmation as to what liberals love, and absolutely none of it is biblical in nature. If they think otherwise, here's the Lord telling John in the Book of Revelation just what he thinks when a church mixes in with what would be called liberalism today:

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. (Rev. 2:18-25)

And then there's the Nazis.  It's clear that Seral of the spilled corn flakes bowl is accusing one user of referring to another as a Nazi.  This is the Nazi Party platform of 1925.  Read it carefully.  Then compare it to the Fascist Manifesto of 1919, by Benito Mussolini.  Then compare both to the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.

Kind of familiar?  The clowns of the so-called "Occupy Movement" a couple years back wanted the same thing, when they weren't defecating in cop cars or raping females or planning bridge destruction.  I guess those little liberals - and they are liberals, every one of them - goosestepped to the same tune as Marx and Il Duce and Der F├╝hrer.

And there's Seral's allegation about the camps.  And not the Boy Scout jamboree kind, either.  "Also ask yourself this, of the 3 gentlemen mentioned above which is most likely to support the internment of a group, atheists, into camps to protect society?"  He thinks that it is going to be conservative, Christian-types who will place into an internment camp a bunch of atheists, I guess to protect society.  Unfortunately for him, he's an inhabitant of Otisburg, that fun-filled place where the average "citizen" has the I.Q. of a carrot.  Which means they fail utterly in history.

Internment camps are also called concentration camps.  The Fascists of Italy had a version.  The Nazis also used a version known as death camps.  The Soviets had gulags.  The Chinese and North Koreans have theirs today; people get sent there for the "crime" of reading a Bible.

The people running these camps are atheistic; they couldn't care less about God at all.  And the sad part about it is that the liberal clowns from Otisburg come into Conservapedia spouting how bad us "wingnuts" are, but are just too dense to realize they have the Commie, Fascist, and Nazi manifestos sticking out of their own pockets, with a lot of underlining and happy-face stickers.

Perhaps they like the sound their jackboots make when they play gestapo.