Sunday, March 14, 2010

Breaking News: Frontal Obamamy

Elephant Enquirer has just received this exclusive report.

Democrats, having decided that they don't need to actually pass their health reform legislation before they start treating it as law, have begun forcible application of a new procedure authorized by the legislation: frontal obamamies. The procedure literally cuts into a person's brain to remove the "Repubmigdala," the part of the brain that scientists believe is most directly liked to patriotism.

For those interested, the authorization for frontal obamamies is located in the three pages following the provision creating death panels.

The only way to reverse the procedure is through a dangerous operation known only as the "nuclear option."

[ed note: this post is significantly upon this one. It is meant as parody and not intended to asset intellectual property ownership.]

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Republicans Do More On Earmarks

The good, patriotic, common sense American, Senator Jim DeMint had a very touching piece on RedState the other day about earmarks. Apparently, the Democrats talked up the fact that they were going to ban earmarks. It was a big deal...and then they did practically nothing. They banned only 10% of these horrendous things which have been the focus of the good Senator John McCain's life since the Presidential election. Imagine his disappointment! This all just goes to show that we shouldn't believe what they say they're going to do before they do it. We shouldn't trust the liberals to actually follow through on their promises. When their leadership floats an idea or promises to try to do something, we shouldn't put any stock in it or be hopeful at all until they actually set it down in stone.

Senator DeMint closes with some good news, though: "the GOP Leadership in the House of Representatives will lead by real action. Reports indicate that the House Republicans may vote this morning to enact their own ban on earmarks." We can all rest easy knowing that the GOP is about to fix the problem.

DemoRat Nuclear Option

Brian Darling at RedState reports on a sneaky plan by the DemoRats to push-sneak health care reform through They're going to try to package the health care bill in with a different bill (a "reconciliation" bill. Though, if you remember, that's now a "nuclear option" bill). This different bill would make the changes that the DemoRats want to see in the Senate bill. The House is going to then vote on that combined bill. As Darling days, it's really like the House isn't voting on it at all, if they're voting on both at once. It's a clear Constitutional requirement that everything has to be voted on separately. How the DemoRats think they're going to get away with this is beyond me. Voting on two bills at once would be a violation of everything that the Constitution stands for.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

New Conservative Dictionary

My fellow conservative activists have spent the past few weeks doing some very effective redefinition. "Nuclear option," the term liberals used to defeat a Bush-era plan to get rid of the filibuster, is now being applied to "reconciliation." Obviously, "reconciliation" is too nice a term for the parliamentary disaster that would occur. "Nuclear option" is a much better term. I'd like to add my own two cents and suggest the following redefinitions as a much better way to communicate clearly with ordinary, patriotic, commonsense Americans.

War: This term has gained far too much negative publicity in the past few years. As a replacement, I would suggest international altercations.

Insurance: The liberal assault on insurance companies has caused a dearth of trust in these vital American institutions. I would recommend that insurance companies recast themselves as disaster relief companies.

Unemployment: Referring to those who lack employment as the unemployed makes people forget that the blame must ultimately lie with the person who is out of the job. (After all, the market always acts in the best of all possible ways.) Thus, unemployment should now be referred to as willful vagrancy.

Economic downturn: This term suggests that the recession could (somehow) be the fault of "economic" forces or of the "economy." Instead, it should be called the American reaction to socialist policies.

Corporations: The American reaction to socialist policies has, for some reason, caused a distaste for corporations. This was evidenced by the American public's irrational anger at the Supreme Court for Citizens United. (After all, corporations are more likely to speak in favor of the little guy than government.) Corporations should begin calling themselves the only way a poor schmuck like you is ever going to earn a living. It's a bit long, yes, but early studies show that it will quickly catch on.

Dick Cheney: Richard Cheney. Or even Rich Cheney. I mean, this one is just obvious.

Iraq: Few Americans know how to pronounce this, and it just leads to confusion, anger, and ridicule. Instead, we should start referring to it as Narnia. It will be much easier for our constituents to remember, and it'll even help educate them about the history of our international altercation in that country. Narnia is now a land at peace ever since Aslan W. Bush banished the Evil White Witch, Saddam Hussein.

Social Security: This program obviously does the opposite of "social security" by leading America ever more quickly down the path towards the Communist rule of Adolf Hitler. It could be known more aptly as Program Designed By Liberals To Bankrupt Our Children (PDBLTBOC).

Finally, Guantanamo Detainees: This term reinforces the idea that we will someday be releasing these terrorists, since "detainee" means "temporary" to many Americans. This expectation will soon build into a bothersome movement. However, we don't want people to think that they're being treated badly or not enjoying their stay on our island resort. I propose that they henceforth be known as Permanent Guests at Guantanamo by the Bay.

This messaging will take everyone's assistance. Spread the word, and comment if you think of any other terms which the liberals have used to mislead the American public about conservative values.

Obamafishing

Dave Poff at RedState tells us about one of the gravest threats facing America today: the Obama administration's attempted takeover of our fishing.
The White House plan would establish 9 regional planning bodies (bureaucracies) whose job would be to bring “Federal, State, and Tribal Partners together” to look for ways to “decrease user conflicts; improve planning and regulatory efficiencies and decrease their associated costs and delays; and preserve critical ecosystem function and services.”
Obama apologists will no doubt excuse this abominable behavior. They'll claim that the point of these new bureaucracies is to just "decrease user conflicts; improve planning and regulatory efficiencies and decrease their associate costs and delays; and preserve critical ecosystem function and services." They would have us just look at the proposal and assume that that's what the administration is proposing.

However, "decreasing user conflicts" is obviously just a euphemism for a complete government takeover of fishing. Next we know there will be death panels deciding whether or not we get to eat the fish we catch. The government has no place interfering with the relationship between a man and his fishing boat: that's a role for the free market. We wouldn't want our fishing industry to start looking like it does in socialist Europe or communist Canada, would we?

Stand up for your right to fish the seas however you choose. Ordinary, patriotic, commonsense Americans need to stand up for the conservative fishing values that this great nation was founded on.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The Al Qaeda Seven

I would like to thank Liz Cheney, the daughter of our intelligent, patriotic, common sense former Vice President, for funding this thoughtful and insightful advertisement that raises some legitimate questions in a responsible way about President Obama's Department of Justice.



Transcript:

ERIC HOLDER: The pendulum is starting to swing. An America run by progressives is really...it's about to happen. We're going to be looking for people who..uh..share our values.


VOICE: So who did President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder hire? Nine lawyers who represented or advocated for terrorist detainees. Who are these government officials? Eric Holder will only name two. Why the secrecy behind the other seven? Whose values do they share? Tell Eric Holder: Americans have a right to know the identity of the Al Qaeda Seven.


TEXT:

Investor's Business Daily: DOJ: Department of Jihad?

9 Lawyers Who Represented

For Terrorist Detainees

Who Are These Government Officials?

He Will Only Name 2

Why The Secrecy Behind The Other 7?

Whose Values Do They Share?

Call: 202-514-2000

The Al-Qaeda 7

Join KeepAmericaSafe.com Today


Who, indeed, are the Al Qaeda Seven, and is the Department of Justice really the Department of Jihad?

Some far-left wing nuts, like former DoJ officials and leaders of the American Bar Association are criticizing Cheney for having the courage to ask these important questions. But how can we know, otherwise? She's not questioning their loyalties, as she made abundantly clear. She's just asking questions.

Of course, why would we need to question their loyalties? It's already clear where their loyalties lie. A lawyer who represents terrorists is obviously sympathetic to terrorists, just as a lawyer who represents shoplifters clearly thinks shoplifting is alright, a lawyer who represents trout fishermen is obviously an avid trout fisherman himself, a lawyer who represents a model airplane manufacturing company obviously enjoys the creation of model airplanes, and so on. Sure, the Constitution guarantees people lawyers, but that doesn't mean lawyers have to represent terrorists.

The lawyers at the Department of Justice should be more in the vein of Anthony Griffin in terms of their clients.

American Flag Oppressed on College Campus

Oh say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
What could be more American than the rockets' red glare and bombs bursting in air? Unfortunately, it seems some green-lovin', tree-huggin', hippie communists at Goshen College disagree. Matthew Hurtt at RedState reports the disturbing news:
The Star-Spangled Banner was banned at Goshen College, a private, Mennonite school, because of, according to President Jim Brenneman, the college’s value of “compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem’s militaristic language” – referring to the “rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air” lyrics.
So what did the few good patriotic students at Goshen College do? They protested. And thank God they did:
On Sunday March 14, Goshen College will honor America with the national anthem for the first time – and it is thanks in part to Ryan Troyer and his freedom-loving friends.
Freedom loving indeed. Never mind the fact that they could play the song on their own if they wanted. Everyone knows what's really important in college. No, not beer. Football. If the national anthem was banned from football games, how could the anthem spend its Sundays? What did the poor national anthem ever do to deserve such hate from the administration at Goshen College? What next, will colleges ban guns from football games just because they can be used for violent purposes? Remember: people kill people, the national anthem doesn't kill people.

You know...I don't think Ryan and his friends went far enough. The national anthem is great and all, but it loses its meaning if there aren't literal rockets and bombs exploding while its played. Every football game at Goshen college should be like the Fourth of July.

We should also take a moment to acknowledge the brave fight Ryan and ordinary, patriotic, commonsense Americans like him are engaged in.
The battle for conservative values on college campuses is not an easy fight, but as Ryan and his friends have shown, it can be won. If your school practices a policy that infringes upon your conservative values, or if you would like to start a conservative group on campus for fellow freedom-loving students, the Campus Services Coordinator in your region can help you plan your first steps toward action.
Indeed, I couldn't agree more. How dare a small, pacifist college like Goshen infringe on Ryan's conservative values? Every eighteen-year-old American has the God given right to go to any college he chooses and expect them to develop their policies around his preferences. That's the American way.

UPDATE: In case anyone still doubts that Goshen is an anti-American institution, they don't even have a football team. Seriously.