I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death my right to ridicule it.

Leany home   |   Articles   |   Chronicles   |   Prostitution Arrests   |   Who is Frank Leany?   |   Libotomies   |  

Past Blogs

Refresh to get latest blog entry

I guess there's a new James Bond movie coming out or something. We were talking about it the other day and my son said he didn't like the last one, what, Quantum of Solace? He said it just lacked the James Bond texture.

"What, like the studio was saving money and just threw it together?" I asked.
No, not really. There was too much CGI, but it was more that it had too much mindless action and not enough story.
"Yeah, I know what you mean. It's like the studio didn't want to really put in any more effort than they had to."
Not that so much, just that James Bond never really talked. He was always zipping around . . .
"Oh, so like the studio didn't try hard enough, like you were going to buy tickets anyway, no matter what."
No, I mean, it was an okay action movie, but not a James Bond with Q and Moneypenny and . . .
"I get it, like they didn't have to really perform, because they were James Bond, after all, and you were going to pay to see it anyway."
Yeah, Dad, I guess that was it.

The Obama administration is just like how my son described Quantum of Solace: They don't expend any effort or get any results, 'cause they don't have to. The crazy people are going to love them no matter what.

Speaking of crazy people: Ashley Judd.

I've told you how Obama supporters are insane. They are not just people who think differently than me. They are certifiably insane. You remember the reporters that were screaming "He looked at me! Did you see that? He looked right at me!" The list would take up more server space than I have (and I have a lot of server space). You've seen it; you know the deal.

One of the latest people to public acknowledge her insanity is Ashley Judd. "I think that he is a powerful leader, I think that he is a brilliant man I think that he has an incredible devotion to our Constitution,"

I'm going to give you a minute to clean up whatever you just spewed all over your monitor. Seriously? The man who openly and unabashedly despises our Constitution? I warned you the chick was insane.

We good? Let's continue.

" . . . and that he is now able to flower more as the president I knew he could be," Judd said about Obama. Part of what reignited her passion, she said, was the president's support for gay marriage. "That moved me to tears," she said, referring to the president's announcement.

So even though he was a disaster his first term, she's sure he's going to flower, if only we give him another four years.

Just insane—these people are as crazy as they come.

You remember when I was reading excerpts from "Barack Obama, the Greatest President in the History of Everything." This is why someone had to ask me if that was a parody. You can't write fiction more ridiculous than the real-life messiah-worship about this loser.

Evan Thomas: "Reagan was all about America . . . Obama is: 'We are above that now. We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something.' I mean in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God."

Chris Matthews: "I've been following politics since I was about 5, I've never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."

Jonathan Alter:

Rabbi David Saperstein, reading from Psalms in English and Hebrew, noticed from the altar that the good men and women of the congregation that day, including the Bidens and other dignitaries, had not yet stood. Finally Bishop Vashti McKenzie of the African Methodist Church asked that everyone rise.

At that moment Saperstein saw something from his angle of vision: "If I had seen it in a movie I would have groaned and said, 'Give me a break. That's so trite.'" A beam of morning light shown [sic] through the stained-glass windows and illuminated the president-elect's face. Several of the clergy and choir on the altar who also saw it marveled afterward about the presence of the Divine.

Spike Lee: "You'll have to measure time by `Before Obama' and `After Obama . . . Everything's going to be affected by this seismic change in the universe."

Chris Matthews, Spike Lee, Evan Thomas, sure, whatever. But could I just ask a favor?

You liberals have so many ugly people—Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar, Rosie O'Donnell, Janeane Garofalo—you are teeming with hideous examples of humanity. Can you please let them put out your message so I don't have to be disgusted by babes like Ashley Judd?

Meanwhile, over in an Alternate Universe

I'm surprised more democrats haven't implemented the MSNBC chart idea, you know, where you leave out the parts that make you look bad. "Well, other than that federal spending has flattened out under Barack Obama!"

John Edwards: I have never fathered a child out of wedlock—not ever! Oh, come on, seriously? You're going to count that one?

Osama bin Laden: I have never launched a terrorist attack on the United States . . . and of course, the only data that makes sense is after October 2001.

Bernie Madoff: Come on, Judge, I mean other than that what do you have on me?

Warren Buffet: I make less than the average American wage earner . . . as long as you don't count anything I make beyond the average wage earner income.

Rod Blagojevich: Really now? You count it as corruption even though it's US currency? I never heard of that kind of funky accounting.

Mel Gibson: I have never in my life said anything bad about the Jews. Never! Not once! Anything I said when I was mad or drunk or talking doesn't count.

Teddy Kennedy: I have never killed a woman in a car. I don't know anybody who'd consider an Oldsmobile a "car," really.

On This Day in History

Continued below
(Best viewed with a mind not clouded by the Kool-Aid)

The John Galt Society

It can be discouraging to look around at who's running the show these days and wonder "Where have all the grown-ups gone?"

Take heart. There are still some people who are not drinking the Kool-aid. Here's where to find them. I would suggest going gown this list every day and printing off the most recent articles you haven't read to read over lunch.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is a feisty conservative bastion. You loved her book "Unhinged" and you can read her columns here.
Ann Coulter
Ann posts her new column every Thursday, or you can browse her past columns.
George Will
What can you say? It's George Will. Read it.
Charles Krauthammer posts every Friday. Just a good, smart conservative columnist.
If you want someone who gets it just as right, but is easier to read, try Thomas Sowell, who just posts at random times.
Jonah Goldberg seldom disappoints.
David Limbaugh carries on the family tradition.

Jewish World Review has all these guys plus lots more good stuff.

Or you can go to radio show sites like
 Laura Ingraham's or Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's..

If you'd like you can study The Constitution while you wait.

Then there's always TownHall.com, NewsMax.com, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic.com, World Net Daily, (which Medved calls World Nut Daily), News Busters, National Review Online, or The American Thinker.

For the Lighter Appetite

If you have to read the news, I recommend The Nose on Your Face, news so fake you'd swear it came from the Mainstream Media. HT to Sid for the link.
Or there's always The Onion. (For the benefit of you Obama Supporters, it's a spoof.)

Dilbert.
Dave Barry's Column
Daryl Cagle's Index of Political Cartoons
About half of these cartoonists are liberal (Latin for wrong) but the art is usually good. (Fantastic, if you're used to the quality of art on this site.)
Townhall Political Cartoons
In case you want cartoons that are well-drawn and don't make your jugular burst.

Or just follow the links above and to the right of this section (you can't have read all my archived articles already). If you have read all my articles (you need to get out more) go to my I'm Not Falling For It section.

Above all, try to stay calm. Eventually I may post something again.

What the hell kind of country is this where I can only hate a man if he's white?
        Hank Hill

I hate it when I'm right.
5/24/12

During the 2008 election I told one of Obama's disciples that his worst nightmare was about to come true. He said "What do you mean? My guy is going to win!" I said that was exactly what I was talking about. He was about to find out that his hero had clay feet.

I hate it when I'm right . . .

Obama supporters are now seeing that the man they worshiped is an empty suit. He's a whiner and a poser. He is in so far over his head that no honest person can deny it.

Of course, it would take a smart and semi-honest Obama supporter to acknowledge that . . . so . . . I guess that's kinda' like saying only the virgins in the porn industry recognize something . . .

He is, as Ed Klein illustrates in his new book, an amateur. We are much worse off than when he was coronated, and he's running out of things to blame his failures on.

But, even though it's clear what an astonishing failure this waste of skin has been as President (and that's coming from a man who witnessed the Clinton and Carter administrations!), the Obama campaign is not giving up finding things to blame their failure on.

Again, we go to Joe Biden. Biden asks us to imagine the Utopian paradise—just think what would have happened!—if only if only those nasty, evil, vile, reprehensible tea-partiers hadn't taken over! Oh, the horrors of democracy!

I called this clear back before the 2010 elections. It didn't take a prophet to make that call. Every single time a situation comes up, Obama does the same thing. Hmmmm, I wonder what he's going to do next time that same situation arises? Any of his failures aren't because of his bad policies—it's because the Republicans are preventing his amazing policies from being fully implemented.

2009:Obama makes it clear what socialism looks like
2010:America votes against socialism
2012: Obama uses the Republican victory in Congress as a campaign strategy.

Either way, he wins. If things turn around because the Republicans took over Congress, he says "Look how things have turned around while I've been President." If they don't, it's "Things would have turned around if it weren't for those Republicans—they are the ones running Congress."

And again, notice the hypotheticals--"jobs saved or created." Just go ahead and prove us wrong. No one should be shocked that this White House is juvenile enough to play "Who would win in a fight between Batman and Spider-Man?" Obama doesn't even have the class to be embarrassed by idiocy like "I just happen to magically know for a fact that if Romney had been President, he wouldn't have killed Osama bin Laden" (even though Bush had a standing order to kill him, as would have had any president in history with the possible exception of Jimmy Estrogen Carter).

As my dad used to say about hypotheticals: "You should have inflated it twice as much—I'd have felt twice as bad and it wouldn't have cost you a penny more!"

Chris Matthews, who is 1) insane, and 2) wrong on pretty much everything, once made the observation that it might be good to find out why the terrorists want to kill us and see if we can attack the roots of that problem.

That's why he's wrong on pretty much everything . . . instead of everything. He was right on that.

Now, that sounds like "America had it coming," but it's not. It's not at all.

When someone commits an act of terrorism against you, then you find him and you kill him as quickly as you can. But if you're at all interested in efficiency, you would do well to see if we can find out why evil people are teaching their children that they should hate us and see if there's anything we can do to curtail the problem before it starts.

Again, that's not trying to suck up to other countries and bend to their will to get them to like us. But it shouldn't be hard to convince them that we are good, because we are.

This is kinda' what I was talking about with the camouflage/counterfeit deal. The reason the counterfeit works at all is because there is a counterpart that's real. The reason idiots even try to say things like . . .

Wow . . . you never see it coming. Just typing along and it hits me. "Nobody is interested in your cataloguing of concepts and how they relate."

Okay. Done then.

This morning found me screaming at the radio again. Obama has settled on his strategy, and he's pursuing it fanatically. He's sent Joe Biden out to execute it.

"Running a Venture Capital firm does not quality a person to be President any more than being a plumber."

Yeah? Well, one job that qualifies you even less than being a plumber is . . .

. . . BEING A "COMMUNITY ORGANIZER!!!!"

If Romney can't throw a huge rock through that glass house, he's not qualified to be President.

Let me tell you about my friend Greg. Greg's neighbor Dallas used to come over all the time, "Can I borrow your power saw?" Sure. Dallas always had some project going on, but he didn't own a power saw. Greg was happy to loan him his.

One day Greg and Dallas were in the local Home Depot. Greg said "Look, there's a good power saw on sale for $29. You should buy that one, so you'll have one."

Dallas gave him a confused look. "Why would I buy one? I can always borrow yours."

Greg said "Not anymore you can't."

This is a true story. It's not like those completely fabricated, fictitious, made up, fictional stories that I write about people in the workplace. It really happened. Dallas was genuinely confused about why in the world he needed a power saw when Greg already had one.

Greg was thinking "Dallas doesn't have a saw—he can use mine." Dallas was thinking "Greg and I have a communal power saw."

See, Dallas is a good little communist. Communism works pretty well for the guys riding, but not so much for the ones who are pedaling.

I'm happy to help you. I really am. In fact, I'm glad that you trusted me enough to ask for help. People like to help. It makes us feel fulfilled, or some darn thing.

But when you start dictating my obligations . . . no, sir. No, no, no sir. When you start deciding what I need to do with my time or passions or property, I'm going to get a lot less charitable. Yeah, I do have a truck/chainsaw/guitar/credit card. No, I'm not using it right now. That doesn't make it yours.

Yesterday the little missus asked me to run down to the store room to grab some grain. Sure, I'll be right back. I returned horrified.

Mice had infested the store room. Every surface in that room was covered with mouse droppings and shredded paper. Everything I had planned to do on Saturday got cancelled. I cleaned out the store room. And while I did, I thought.

Mice are liberals. "But, you have all this food." Yep, I do. And the fact that I have it does not make it yours. It really struck me how liberals and mice are the same damn creature in different bodies. The whole time I'm cleaning it up . . . "I work for the money, I buy the food, I build a store room, I pack it all away, just to feed the mice."

The other way mice are like liberals is that it's not enough for them to eat their fill from what I bought. They have to ruin all the rest of it so that no one can use it. It wouldn't bother me so much to keep you alive through the winter with the occasional box of crackers. But when you crap all over everything and make it so no one can use it, we're going to put a stop to that.

So, how do you keep mice out of food?

Let's start on the right hand side of the solutions. You kill them. You put traps and poison and kill every mouse that you can find. They can't eat your food if they're dead.

Next, you seal things up to keep them out. Store things in glass or heavy plastic (mice will eat through Mylar—ask me how I know). You seal the walls and door and every tiny place they could possibly get through, and you prevent them from getting access to your stuff.

Finally, and we're moving to the left-hand side, you don't have anything that they will eat. This actually is just a variation of the second one, because you do have stuff they eat, you just have it in cans or something they can't smell through. But you don't store boxes of cereal or bags of beans or easily chewed through containers of cookies.

Let me explain how that moves from conservative to liberal. Just change the food to stuff in general and the mice to bad guys. If you're conservative, you'd like to identify who the bad guys are, and just fry the worthless suckers. They're not going to rape and murder if they're dead. Other solutions include locking them up or locking up your stuff or otherwise preventing the bad guys from getting access.

If you're a liberal you just want to avoid having anything the bad guy wants. Remember Rocky Anderson saying that it was our fault that we had illegal aliens because we had a good economy? You'll remember "Joe" telling me that a good way to keep bears away was just to give them what they want, and they'll go away. "Joe" doesn't lock his doors, because he's afraid that if someone wants something of his they'll break his window.

That's a liberal.

My back pasture borders four other properties on its south side. The kids on the west end climb over my fence, walk the length of my pasture, then crawl over the fence again to get to their friends' house. I guess that saves them crossing all the fences between or something. It's like a foot freeway on that end of my pasture.

It bugs me, I'll be honest with you, but I could handle it, except—the little craps practically tore down the fence on one end. They don't care, it's not theirs and it makes them easier to get through (do you see mice?)

So, I was telling a (liberal) friend about the problem. I explained how I was going to reinforce the fence and make it higher and put much more barbed wire on it to prevent them from climbing over. He said "Why don't you build a stile (ladder to cross a fence) so they can get over without tearing down your fence?"

I thought "Isn't that interesting . . . "

Okay, so a liberal would keep mice out by not storing food that a mouse would want to eat. A conservative would store what he damn well pleases, and go to great lengths to kill every mouse that ventured near.

Not giving the mice something they want is a perfectly valid method, and part of a balanced approach to pest control regardless of your political leanings. That's the reason that liberals can use it at all. In order for liberals to deceive you with the counterfeit, there has to be a valid counterpart that's real.

I wasn't at all clear on the deal about the Clinton "Well, I told you, you must have misunderstood" deal. But that's how it works. If the concept were completely insane, they wouldn't even try it on you.

(Funny, it was all so perfectly clear in my head. Makes no sense when I tried to get a word lasso around the concept.)

It just means that you can't make a counterfeit of something that isn't real. The reason the deceit works is because it looks like something that really is valid.

Clinton specifically words something so that you hear it one way "You'll never catch me cheating on my wife!" But when it turns out to be a lie he can tell you that he never said what you thought he said. This works because liberals are great at misunderstanding stuff. "You voted to starve school children!" No, I didn't. I voted against federal funding to provide three meals every weekday in public schools.

This ties into the Ahmad-de-nutjob deal. He's not as dangerous as Obama, because he's not the counterfeit of anything. He's just what he seems—a whack job. Obama appears to be a reasonable human being, but he's every bit as radical as Ahmad-de-nutjob.

What if a high school teacher sent you an e-mail warning that they were studying Shakespeare and as part of that they were going to watch Romeo and Juliet and the ending is really traumatic and if you're not comfortable with your 15 year old child watching that they will figure out a way to get him out of the classroom without embarrassing him?

That would be dumb. That would mean that we have sissified this generation.

Okay, but let's say a 15 year old in that class gets suspended for picking fights with kids. The dad might say "We're sissifying kids these days. I used to beat up kids all the time when I was in school. We're creating a generation of pansies."

See, that's what I'm talking about. No matter what generation you're in, it's barbaric to beat up kids. I'm not talking about two boys who want to fight each other (although that's not necessarily civilized). If society frowns on one kid getting his jollies from hurting another kid, that is not anything like sissifying society. But because sissifying and mamby-pambying (real word—look it up) is real, some (really schmuck-headed waste of skin scumbag loser) father might think he could spout nonsense like that.

I will never run out of blog material. I only have about three ideas in my head, but every time I try to explain them I mess it up so bad I have to post again to clarify, and then again to clarify that, then again . . .

I hope you took to heart what I said about the Great Depression being a snapshot of liberalism. America had already had two depressions that were deeper than the Great Depression. FDR's policies are what kept that depression lasting a whole decade. But people said "Thank God for Roosevelt! Think how bad off we'd be without him!"

This is what liberal politicians do. Over and over and over again. It's all they do.

Liberal policies cause a problem. Then the politician will point to that problem to prove that you need him.

Obama is the perfect example.

People say that Obama got elected to fix the economy. You know why he got elected. They can't kick me off ESPN, so I'll say it—people were desperate to vote for a black guy. That's why the media assiduously avoided approaching anything that had the remotest possibility of making him look bad. They didn't want to mess up this chance.

They needn't have bothered. No one was going to let them or anyone else stand in the way of them being able to say "Look at me! I voted for the black guy! How cool and open-minded am I?"

Just wanted to make sure we are clear on that.

But people say he got elected to fix the economy. McCain was stronger on defense, but because the economy was in such bad shape it gave Obama a chance and he got elected.

Now, by every measure, the economy is worse than the day he took office. That's his campaign cry. Look at the economy! You need me!

Free markets work. I understand the need for regulation, this is not what I'm talking about, but free markets work. Always. When liberals impose ridiculous regulations, it messes up the mechanism of free markets and you get the kinds of crap that we've seen since 2008. So they point to that as proof that they have to impose more regulations.

Headache? Here, let me hit you in the head some more and see if that fixes it. Think how bad it would be if I didn't keep driving the pain away with this hammer!

This is what they've done since Aaron Burr. Their war on poverty has perpetuated poverty, so they point to that and say "See how much you need me?" They have increased racial tensions, and are constantly telling us they are the only thing that stand in way of Republicans lynching anyone who doesn't have blonde hair and blue eyes.

The list is endless. Watch everything they touch—they screw it up beyond all recognition, then use the fact that it's screwed up to convince us that we need them to save us.

Do not be fooled. Open your eyes. Contrary to what the Afghan government says, marrying your rapist doesn't fix the problem.

This story is messed up. But it really is a great metaphor for how the democrats treat you. "We raped you, so now you have to marry us."

This gal was raped. For the crime of being raped she's facing 12 years in prison. But the benevolent government offered her a solution: Marry the guy who raped you, and we'll call it good.

I really think people like Rosie O'Donnell and Joy Behar should put their money where their mouth is and move out of this horrible country and move to that utopian society in Afghanistan.

Ever wonder what it would be like to do an entire blog post of just cartoons?

 

 

I've met Satan. No, I really have. I met him at family get together one Fourth of July. As God is love, Satan is . . . well, a lot of things. He is control and manipulation. He is anger. Satan is selfishness and complete disregard for the feelings of others.

And Satan is deceit. He doesn't always look like all those other things that he is. He is the kind of person that would get invited to a Fourth of July picnic. I have met Satan.

Contrast that to Ahmad-de-nutjob. You would never invite him to your Fourth of July picnic. That's 'cause he's too whacked out. He's too transparently and obviously and blatantly satanic. If you saw him on the street, his dress and demeanor would make you think he's just another mentally ill homeless guy.

Obama, on the other hand, is handsome, well-dressed, well-spoken . . . and as evil as they come.

Okay, right here I need to make an embarrassing admission. I've always kinda' figured that Denzel Washington would play Obama in the movie, but while watching Journey 2, I kept thinking how good Dwayne Johnson would be in that role. My deepest apologies to Dwayne Johnson. I really like him—he seems like a genuine guy, and Heaven knows he's as handsome as they come. I like Dwayne Johnson, I despise Obama, but I can't deny that something in Dwayne Johnson's voice is reminiscent of Obama.

Rush Limbaugh used to do this deal where he would speed up the audio of Obama's speeches to make him sound like the Chipmunks. Someone called in and said that seemed like a childish thing for a grown-up radio host to do. So Limbaugh explained it. It was genius.

He explained that Obama has his good looks and his lyrical voice. But that's it. When you take that away and have to listen to what he says—the words, not the music—it becomes transparent what he is. When you listen to the lies, it's obvious. After that, the soothing voice just makes you more furious because of the way it masks the evil.

That hit me again this morning. I was listening to clips of a graduation speech he gave. When you hear the man speak, you could be drawn in. But you shake off the Svengali effect and you get furious. The man is a liar. He is a manipulator. He is a filthy, stinking liar. He is as evil as they come.

A good blogger would insert specific examples here, and point out each lie and explain how Obama causes the problem, then blames others, then offers his solution that gives him more and more control over every aspect of your life.

But the way I figure, if you understand this you've already had your jugular overpressurize listening to the man's lies. If you don't understand it . . . well, I'm sorry, I can't cure stupid.

That's something that should figure into my Enpsychopedia of tricks. Camouflage. Counterfeit. The idea of subterfuge and the frog in the hot water.

Decades ago I first heard a talk by Sterling W. Sill where he asked a renowned preacher if he believed in The Devil. The preacher said that he believed in lots of devils. He believed in the Devil of War, and the Devil of Hate, and the Devil of Lies. Sterling W. Sill said that while those were some of the fruits of Satan, they weren't that being who rebelled against The Father in the pre-existence.

I understand that the person I was referring to wasn't the very being that presented his plan in the pre-mortal existence and now battles God. It's just that "I've met a physical embodiment of all the characteristics of Satan" just doesn't sound as lyrical somehow. And you know how this blog is all about lyrical.

You remember when I told you about the workplace rules that are put in place just to see who is willing to break them. It would seem like the boss's pets get to break the rules because they are his pets, but the truth is that they are his pets because they break the rules. Those who meekly submit to mandates from on high, who come to work on time and don't stab co-workers in the back, are uncreative dullards. The very purpose of the rules is to smoke out those who are too genius to submit to the system.

Here's where I'm going to get hard to follow—known in literary circles as becoming "Frankesque."

I told you I wanted to put together an Encyclopedia of Tricks, which I've dubbed my Enpsychopedia, (see note below), that doesn't just list tricks, but categorizes them. The main impediment to doing that is I still can't describe what I want to do. It's something like drawing relationships between . . . and here's where it gets nebulous . . . tricks or tactics or techniques or possibly concepts that don't even start with a T. Some things are children of others, maybe other are cousins . . .

So . . . an example.

The Rules Litmus is a test in disguise. It is a cousin of this story.

A group of college students showing up for a final in a religion class found a sign on the door of the classroom directing them to a new location across campus where the final exam was to be held. As they hurried across campus they encountered various people who needed their help, but, being in a hurry to get to the test, they ignored them. When they got to the new location the professor informed them that they had flunked the test. The test had been whether they would live their religion they way they had been taught in the class.

Anyway . . . see how those two completely different concepts are related?

Note: I don't have a good name for my encyclopedia, and I won't until I can nail down what it even is I'm trying to do. I call it my Enpsychopedia because I came up with that term for web page I created by that name that lists various liberals and their mental illnesses, but I never finished it and never posted it and the name seemed too good to waste. (I really need to find that and post it . . . )

I guess the proper approach would be just to throw all these Cheerios in a bowl of milk and see what patterns emerge. I can't categorize 'em if I don't list 'em.

So, here's another one.

The Wild Weasel is the name of the role of an aircraft. The actual aircraft is an F4 Phantom (Phantom II, if you're a purist (or a Puritan, as Todd Dalton calls it)) that flies over enemy territory with the express purpose of getting shot at. Yeah, I know, which pilots are volunteering for that role? The good guys don't know where the enemy is until they can draw their fire, in this case when the SAM site lights them up with radar. Once the SAM site lights up, they know where the enemy is.

This is what happened when GW gave that speech at the Knesset and talked about what losers appeasers were. Barack Hussein Obama immediately fired up his radar, revealing himself as the enemy.

Briefly . . . related to the plausibly deniable insult, . . .When Clinton shut down the government he used this trick—the one where you scratch your nose with your middle finger. The guy you're flipping off sounds like he's seeing things if he says you flipped him off. What? A guy can't scratch his nose?

The brilliant trick here, obviously, is the way that Clinton shut down the government so he could blame it on the Republicans (see a connection to the other techniques I'm discussing? They are all misdirection tactics—the 'thing' is not the thing you're looking at). But that requires a more extensive treatment than I have time for here.

I want to mention Newt Gingrich and the trip back from the funeral of Yitzak Rabin. This was right in the middle of the budget battle when Clinton had already determined to shut down the government. Obviously the Republicans didn't know about the plan and were still sincerely trying to work out a budget. Gingrich hoped that he could use the time on the flight on Air Force One to discuss with President Clinton what he wanted to see in the budget.

Instead, Clinton had Gingrich ride in the back of the plane and exit through the rear door. He refused to talk to him.

So Gingrich got snubbed—he got the covert flip off from the President, which by itself was one goal of Clinton's; he wanted Newt to know he'd been flipped off. But then Gingrich fell for the bonus round and brought it up. Clinton then was able to execute the slap with the other hand, calling Gingrich a crybaby for thinking he was too good to be relegated to the back of the plane.

Clinton knew the whole time that Gingrich wanted to work on the budget, so that made it a pretty sure deal that he was going to mention that he wasn't able to. Then it was a simple matter for Clinton to twist (his specialty—and one that all democrats seem to share) Gingrich's frustration at not being able to work on the budget, into being a crybaby about riding in the back of the plane.

This also served as a warning shot for other Republicans trying to work out the budget. Nobody wanted the humiliation that Clinton showed he was capable of dishing out to anyone who tried to work with him on it.

Whenever I give a talk or a lesson, I always know exactly the right thing to say . . . about an hour after I finish.

In flagrant violation of Leany.com policy, I just wanted to make sure you understood what I was saying with the Journey 2 post.

I was comparing its simplicity and unrealistic texture to Obama's Life of Julia, and drawing the parallel that it didn't matter--no matter how phony and forced it is, people seem to be buying it.

In politics the currency is credibility. That's why I rail on the nutcases on my side of the aisle so much.

When you hear really good information on the dubious history of Barack Obama, it's kinda rendered meaningless if you've already heard a lot of false stuff from the same sources.

This is the "rape hoax" deal I've been flapping my gums about recently. It's fairly easy to take things that are very significant and render them meaningless by misapplying them. I once had a buddy who called everyone a "veritbable genius." The first time he called me that, I felt pretty honored. After hearing him apply the label to a half dozen other people of various intelligence, the term had a lot less meaning.

The reason this is on my mind is because of the deal Glenn Beck just did on the history of Barack Obama. There was a lot of good stuff there--and a some that was a little iffy. Maybe I'll talk more about that later. But as soon as you hear someone say they're going to reveal the secret history of Barack Obama, you just roll your eyes and quit listening.

So if you were a democrat, and wanted people to not know the secret history of Barack Obama, putting out a lot of verifiably false stuff would be a great strategy.

Egg plasma membranes have a mechanism to prevent multiple fertilization of the cell (polyspermy). Once a sperm cell has penetrated the membrane, Na ions are released, changing the polarity of the membrane, which prevents other sperm cells from penetrating.

Human brains are the same way.

Once an idea has penetrated your head, a change takes place that makes it difficult for that to be modified. We tend to accept the first version we hear of something, even when more facts come to light. You'll notice this with news stories. Even after subsequent versions come out, you'll tend to give more credence to the set of facts that you heard with the first story.

That's why we like the Elvis version of Blue Suede Shoes more than the Carl Perkins rendition, even though Perkins did his first. We heard the Elvis one first, and that became the "real" version to us.

I like the Cortical Reaction illustration, but one that's less elegant but perhaps as valid is just the occupied cell explanation. When your brain gets information, it creates a cell, or storage location, to keep it in. If something else comes along with that same heading, it finds the cell already occupied, bounces around your brain for awhile, then just comes out next time you blow your nose.

Politicians understand this. That's why they release certain things with a lot of fanfare before the information is all there: "Unemployment rates plummet to 8.1%!" Then when the numbers get revised and clarified that cell in your brain is already occupied with the original information.

I was in Argentina when the conflict started in the Malvinas (which you furreigners probably know as the Falkland Islands). The government immediately released reports of how Argentina was cleaning Great Britain's clock (while simultaneously putting an across the board block on all English language media coming into the country). I have magazines tracking all the British ships and helicopters that the Argentines were destroying, which somehow miraculously re-appeared after the war.

Right after the Atlanta Olympics bombing the report was "All we know for sure is that dozens have been killed and hundreds injured. It's bedlam there." A few hours later the death toll was revised to two. Then the two was revised to one--not because one of the dead people got better, but because he died of a heart attack running toward the bombing to get pictures.

Based on those types of experiences, I've tried to modulate the polarization change mechanism in my brain, but it's inherent in us. It's difficult.

Employees who understand this 'first come, first believed' concept can benefit politically from the idea as well. If I were to write (completely fictitious) stories about the workplace I think I'd have my (fictional) Ron Cravitz character understand this on a visceral level, even the concept has never formalized in his brain as actual policy.

Whenever Ron had a viewpoint, he'd be sure to rush over to the boss's office and get his version in the head man's head before anyone else could. Whoever came into the boss's office with better and more recent facts would already be at a disadvantage.

I don't know, I think that could be entertaining.

Setting: Daily Department Meeting.

Ned: The latest lab tests show that the D formula out-performs the A formula by 20%.

Ron: Great, I knew we had a winner there. We should switch over to that right away.

Ned: But Jared is in the field with those parts right now and those D part breaking twice as fast as the A parts.

Ron: Well, the lab tests clearly show that the D is better.

Ned: I'm just saying, we should be careful before we implement any wholesale changes to the formula.

After the meeting, Ron dashes over to Darren's office to show him the charts and graphs that prove that his D formula is better.

I'm guessing, you know, just based on general knowledge of human behavior, that a "Ron" of this sort would also be the master of a technique I call 'recruiting.' So the next day in the meeting he might say "You know, I was talking to Darren yesterday and he thinks we should go with the D formula . . . and you know, I have to agree with him."

You could go lots of place with this. Maybe someone--I don't know, possibly the hero of the story, who can do no wrong and is the completely impartial observer of the insanity of the rest of the workers--could even get out-maneuvered by this. Let's just call him . . . I don't know, I'll just call him "Frank," just to avoid calling him "our hero" or "the amazing and perceptive employee" or some other apt superlative that is sure to embarrass someone with such incredible humility as our hero has.

The boss might send around an e-mail "Does anyone know what this new bit is that the competitor has?"

Young master "Frank" immediately hits 'Reply All' and sends everyone a copy of a brochure describing the bit in question, fairly proud of himself for providing the boss with the information he needed in such a timely fashion.

Now Frank should know, but apparently doesn't, that opening a .pdf file is more trouble than the boss is going to go to. So when Frank shows up to the meeting the next morning, Ron is already in the office and the boss is holding a printed version of the brochure that Frank sent to everyone. "Look at this brochure that Ron here brought me, that has all the information on that bit I was asking about . . . "

%^&&*#@&!~

Spoiler Alert! If you've never seen Flightplan, with Jodie Foster, go watch it then come right back.

I'll wait . . .

 

 

Did you see it? Good. Notice how everyone is telling the Jodie Foster character that she got on the plane alone. The flight attendant says her crew has looked everywhere and can't find her daughter. The airline confirms that she boarded the plane alone. All of these different sources say that she's mental and is imagining the whole thing. If it were just one, you'd wonder. But all of these sources saying the same thing?

As it turns out, the airline didn't confirm that information; the flight attendant said they did--the same flight attendant who says she searched the one place that none of the other flight attendants did.

You'll see this in the workplace as well as in the media and in politics. The simplest implementation is the single man multiple source. For example, Ron will tell the boss that Kyle isn't very thorough when he does maintenance on the machines. Then he'll say "And Glenn and Bob say the same thing." Wow. Ron and Glenn and Bob. Must be true.

Nope. Just Ron.

Here's another way you might get multiple stories all confirming something, which lends it credence. You'll be walking past the maintenance shop. Norm says "Pssst, hey, did you hear?" What? "Yeah, there are going to be layoffs.

Wow. That's . . . no, Norm's got to be mistaken. But Willie in the Chem lab says he's heard the same thing and two guys in sales and one of the field service reps all say they heard there were going to be layoffs.

There's gotta' be something to the story.

Only, as it turns out, all the guys that told you either heard it from Norm or from someone Norm told.

Print these out on 3x5 cards and start your own collection of Leany.com Enpsychopedia of tricks.

I've flapped my gums about this before. The paradox is that your "Ron" character takes comfort in his fantasy that Obama killed Andrew Breitbart. The alternative is to accept that even at age 43, a man can randomly and suddenly die. That's scary.

It's more comforting to believe that someone is in control, even if that someone is evil.

The truth is (to quote Dr. Lewicki from Days of Thunder), Control is an illusion.

Control is an illusion, you infantile egomaniac. Nobody knows what's going to happen next: not on a freeway, not in an airplane, not inside our own bodies and certainly not on a racetrack with 40 other infantile egomaniacs.

I have a close personal friend who writes completely fictitious, fictional, made up, completely fabricated, fictional stories about odd things people might do at work if the place they worked hired crazy people. It's not, of course, based on any people that he works with or knows or on any experiences that he may or may not have had at anyplace he might have worked.

The star of these (fictitious) stories is an unpleasant character named "Todd Dalton," who is lazy, unethical, and nasty to every person he works with except his boss, to whose posterior his lips are surgically attached.

The great thing about creating (completely fictitious) characters that are as evil as Todd, is that no real life person is ever going to say "Hey! You based that atrocious excuse for a human being on me!"

That would be like suing someone for libel for writing about a pedophile.

As stupid as it is to acknowledge your scumosity by taking offense at general remarks, it does happen in real life.

Let's say Javier watches a movie with a really evil bad guy in it. While it's fresh on his mind, he gets on Facebook and posts: "I hate evil scumbags who think only of themselves and use other people."

Wanda sees it and immediately assumes Javier is talking about her husband Gibson, who she knows to be a scum-sucking waste of skin who thinks only of himself and uses other people. So she runs to Gibson and says Javier is trash talking him on Facebook.

Eleanor Roosevelt said "We would worry a lot less about what people think of us if we knew how seldom they do."

You remember when this happened to Obama. In 2008 George Bush gave a speech where he said "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Notice that he doesn't mention Obama in there anywhere. He doesn't mention anyone. But Obama, hearing someone talk about appeasers, pricked up his ears and said "Hey! Quit trash talking me!"

Just in case we didn't get the message when he admitted it there, Obama has proven countless times since that calling him an appeaser is a charitable way to phrase it. Most recently in his campaign speech in Afghanistan he casually slipped in that he was in talks with the Taliban.

I really hate evil scumbags who think only of themselves and use other people.

Bush really was talking about Obama. Obama was obviously an appeaser and in the best position to trash the country (and Israel) with his misguided ideologies. So Bush, that guy who was so dumb he beat the smartest democrats had to offer in two democratic elections, executed a sure-win maneuver. He said what needed to be said, and as a bonus he got in a dig on Obama.

This is the Plausibly Deniable Insult. You scratch your face with your middle finger and if the guy you're covertly flipping off says "Hey! He's flipping me off!" he looks like he's a raving paranoid who's seeing things.

If the person is stupid enough to call you on it, as Obama was, he looks crazy, but in this case Bush got a double bonus, as he also tricked Obama into admitting he was exactly the limp-wristed kind of person he was protesting not to be.

These are a type of duality maneuvers that can be implemented from either direction.

For example: "I'm responsible for what I say, not for what you think you heard." That's a true principle. Because it is a true principle, it can be used from the other direction, meaning, you can say something intending for it to be misunderstood. Bill Clinton is not the Alexander Graham Bell who invented this telephone, but he's the Thomas Edison who developed it to the point of being useful.

You're familiar with the dozens of these he used. I'll give you his clumsiest example. "There is no relationship." Everyone saw through that one immediately, but the intent was for us to hear there was no relationship, then later when we find out there was, he could say "I never told you that there wasn't."

Last time I posted about Fantasy vs. Reality, movies that stretch believability because of their simplicity.

I recently saw Bone Collector, with Denzel Washington. I had never heard of it before. So I sit down to watch it and he's going into a tunnel to investigate a dead body. He gets to the body . . .

Remember, I'd never heard of the movie, never saw a trailer, don't know what to expect . . .

He turns over the body, and it's him!

Okay, so now I'm oriented on the movie. It's going to be like that Déjà vu movie he did. Something like that's him from a parallel universe and he's gotta' figure out how to go back in time and solve his own murder so it doesn't happen.

So as the story unfolds I've got this idea in my head about the universe we're in and the rules that apply. Only it turns out that the guy wasn't him, it was just some guy, and the purpose of the scene was to set up the accident he was in. The universe he's in is present day reality with all the same rules that apply in our real universe.

Note to people who make movies: Don't make dead bodies look like the actors who find them.

The dead guy should've been blonde, fat, distinctly different from Denzel Washington since it didn't matter. Don't go screwing up your audience when they need to be getting their bearings.

So that's what bugged me about Journey 2. It was trying to work in two different universes at the same time.

I'm great with fantasy—just let me know that's the universe we're working in. So you've got dead baseball players that come to your field in Iowa. Great, that works. Patrick Swayze can talk to Whoopi Goldberg but not Demi Moore? Sure, that's fine. I'll even buy that Nicole Kidman is a beautiful neurosurgeon who is completely unattached and ready to fall for a guy who drives race cars. But I don't want Tom Cruise's race car to become a hovercraft and fly over the crash to save him for his love.

Let me know the rules and then play by them. Is that so much to ask?

I told you my close personal friend writes completely fictitious stories about crazy things that happens in the workplace. I think he should write about the boss being confused about the genius-eccentric connection.

The boss thinks that all geniuses are eccentric. Let's give him that. But even if we stipulate that all geniuses are eccentric, it doesn't follow that all eccentrics are geniuses. All Mustangs are Fords , but not all Fords are Mustangs.

But in the boss's mind the way you gauge genius is by eccentricity. Someone who comes to work on time, and follows the rules, and is able to work and play with the other children, is clearly not a genius.

Maybe the boss even says "You can't manage Todd like other engineers. I've tried. He marches to the beat of his own drummer. I've scheduled meetings at 9:00 to try to get him to come to work before 11:00, but you just can't shackle genius."

So let's have the boss set some workplace rules, like you can't use background pictures on your computer and you can't have pictures of your family on your desk.

But maybe Rob and Todd have pictures of their family on their desk, in blatant violation of the written workplace rules the boss has set. The boss doesn't say anything. That makes sense. Rob Cravitz and Todd Dalton are his favorites, of course he's not going to hold them to the same rules that apply to everyone else.

But as it turns out, that's just backwards. He doesn't let them break the rules because they're his favorite. They are his favorite because they are willing to break the rules.

What if (in this fictitious fantasy make-believe universe) the whole purpose of the rules is to see who the geniuses are and to separate them from the bland, uncreative dullards who come to work on time and follow the rules and don't stab other workers in the back?

So Obama says "Oh, yeah? Well, if Romney had've been President he wouldn't have taken out Osama Bin Laden.

Uh . . . doesn’t this sound like the little kid arguing about who would win in a fight between Spiderman and Batman?

I was telling some people I work with about a book I have on my Kindle: Barack Obama, the Greatest President in the History of Everything. I read them some excerpts:

It's hard to remember the dark days before 2008. It was a time of hatred, racism, violence, obese children, war, untaxed rich people, and incandescent light bulbs -- perhaps the worst days we had ever seen . . .

And then a man emerged who firmly answered, "Yes we can!"

Oh, but Barack Obama was no mere man. He was a paragon of intelligence and civilized society. A savior to the world's depressed. A lightbringer. A genius thinking thoughts the common man could never hope to comprehend. And his words -- his beautiful words read from crystal panes -- reached down to our souls and told us all would be well. With the simple act of casting a ballot for Barack Obama, we could make the world an immeasurably better place -- a world of peace, of love, of understanding, of unicorns, of rainbows, of expanded entitlements.

Under ordinary circumstances, it would be pretty clear that this is poking fun at Barack Obama and the morons that worship him. But you've heard lots of idiots like Joy Blowhard and whatisname—that vaguely gay sportscaster with the heavy-rimmed glasses that used to be on MSNBC—say more ridiculous things.

So one guy did ask, just to be sure. I confirmed that it was satire, that it was written by the good guys, then he said "Cause it sounds a lot like that Life of Julia, have you heard of it?"

Just that morning I had for the first time seen a cartoon with the word Julia in it, that seemed like it made reference to something I didn't know about.

(Also read the comments.)

So I had him explain it to me. The Life of Julia is a website explaining how a theoretical American girl benefits from socialism from the time she's born until she dies. It really seems like something the Republicans would put out to make fun of how ridiculous the left is. I really like it—the democrats are doing the work that Americans don't want to do, pointing out how ridiculous they are. As one columnist put it: "She's far too easy to mock."

The Life of Julia is a perfect example of how Obama plays to the mentality of . . . well, the idiots who elected him. They like things simple, if not believable.

Over the weekend we saw Journey2: The Mysterious Island. Okay, I know it's a fantasy movie; I fully expected the same type of infantile treatment that you got from the first movie, where you can dash to the center of the earth without regard to the pressures and temperatures in there. But two things drove me crazy: 1) How simplistic it was, and 2) the fact that it bothered me that it was so simplistic.

But it wasn't even the fact that you can hook onto an electric eel with a harpoon and jump start a 140 year old submarine from a Jules Verne novel. It was things like Luis Guzman flying a helicopter and the wealthy owner of a construction company built like Dwayne Johnson getting his feelings hurt over being called "Henry" instead of Hank. Don't get me wrong, I'll spend 90 minutes sitting through that if I can look at Vanessa Hudgens. But it was just like the studio thought "Why should we spend any editing time on this movie when we can expend half the effort and you'll still pay full price for it?" It just left my intelligence feeling a little taken advantage of.

That's a sensation that Obama supporters are completely dead to. The man cannot say or do anything so ridiculous that he loses them. I get it, I do. They are so vested in him, they can't bail without admitting what idiots they were in the first place. When you scream "You're a racist if you don't support Barack Obama!" enough times, you limit the options you have once you realize that, in spite of being black, the man is a complete idiot.

The Great Depression is a perfect snapshot of liberalism.

Twice in our history we had worse depressions than The Great Depression, but none lasted that long. Why? Because FDR's socialist policies kept the economy from recovering.

But that whole time the liberals were saying "Thank [well, whoever liberals thank instead of God] for FDR. If it weren't for him even more of us would be starving to death.

Perfect example of liberalism. The democrats' war on poverty has kept people downtrodden. They want you to vote for them to prove you're not racist, but do nothing for the cause they claim to support.

Bill Clinton is the perfect example of how democrats feel about women. Even so, you have stupid witches who are offering him . . . uh . . . services . . . to thank him for supporting abortion. Name your cause, democrats make it worse and gain support from idiots with the same Obamaesque hypotheticals about "Think how bad it would be if we didn't confiscate all your money for the stimulus!"

Oh, thank you thank you thank you FDR. If it weren't for you I don't know how we would have survived the 12 years of this depression that should've lasted 2 years!

I thought of a another analogy even more brilliant than that. I can tell you the exact place in the exact aisle of the grocery store where I thought of it. But I didn't write it down, so I can't tell you the analogy.

If you cared, you already figured it out. If you don't, I can't help you.

The theme today is believing ridiculous stuff. All these posts tied together a lot better in my head than they are doing on my screen. Stupid combinatory play.

I should make up a totally fictitious character to illustrate my points. Someone not in any way based on anyone I work with or whose kids used to play with my kids. Some completely made up fictitious person not anything like any real person I deal with who believes the most ridiculous things yet makes critical decisions at anyplace I work. If I had to make up a whacko who never saw a conspiracy theory he didn't like, I think I'd name him . . . I don't know, I guess, just to use any old name, I might call him . . . Ron.

"Ron" would be the one who would come in your office and say "You can't refute this one—here it is! I have absolute proof that George Bush was behind 9/11." You don't say anything, so he continues "George Bush's brother was in charge of security for the World Trade Center on 9/11!"

Actually, George Bush's brother was on a board of directors for a company that supplied some of the surveillance camera for the WTC, but that was only until 1998.

So, in the same "I've got it all figured out and there can be no other side to the story" manner, "Ron" is telling everyone about Andrew Breitbart, who "supposably" (sic) died of a heart attack, but on the very day that the coroner was supposed to release the autopsy report, the coroner died of a heart attack! No, it's true, as evidenced by the fact that you'll never see any information about it. What kind of conspiracy would it be if they just let the information out about it?

Ron's point is that Obama is evil. This is true, but the story is a lie . . . so . . . If Ron were your only source of information, you would dismiss anyone who opposed Obama.

The extremists of either side work for the other side

So we've got the Rons of the world on our side, maybe the democrats just have MSNBC and The Life of Julia to keep it fair.

Who doesn't hate a bully? Fundamental to the attitudes of any decent human being is repulsion at the idea of a person intentionally causing distress to a helpless being.

Some of the most viral videos on YouTube are of bullies getting their due. It's a sure-fire winner literary theme. Bullying is bad. Bullying should be stopped.

So far, so good.

So Obama, always one to take on the controversial issues like being opposed to bullying, is a big supporter of Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" project. This project is ostensibly directed at putting an end to bullying.

Okay, here's where the 'so far so good' isn't.

Whenever a democrat passionately goes after a cause, you can bet your house cat, your 401(k), and your posterior adipose tissue that what he's after has nothing to do with the cause he's pretending to advocate. Every. Single. Time.

Dan Savage doesn't give a crap about bullying. It would be easy to interpret what he does as advocating gay rights, but that would be too charitable. What he's really advocating is opposition to people who don't agree with his opinion on homosexuality.

Dan Savage is a bully.

I don't know if you caught this video of his speech at . . . I don't know, I guess it's some college. I don't care enough to check.

The telling thing is that after the people walked out who didn't have time to listen to his bashing of their beliefs, he starts berating them and calling them "pansy asses."

The multi-level irony here is just delicious. Democrats, who all evidence to the contrary maintain their intellectual superiority, are completely clueless to the irony of bullying people in the name of putting an end to bullying (including using terms that are used to describe gays).

Then there's this: When confronted with his hypocrisy he dismissed it because . . . no seriously . . . he was right because lots of people cheered and congratulated him on his comments. Think about that—bullying is an issue subject to majority rule. It's okay to bully people in the minority.

Seriously? Do you really want to play by those rules, Dickhead? What percentage of men are gay and what percentage are Christian?

Okay, now the point . . . and not a paragraph too soon. Bullying is bad. People who undermine the seriousness of bullying are supporters of bullying.

Now that the democrats have chosen bullying as their cause du jour as a vehicle to garner power, they have relegated it to the same junk pile of wrecked sacred ideals where "racism" now rusts away.

This is the rape hoax. Every time a fake rape victim is exposed, all future rape victims are damaged. The perpetrator of the rape hoax is in the same class as the rapist—a person who harms rape victims. Whenever you hear about a little girl who someone tried to kidnap on her way home from school, you wait until the next news cycle when it's revealed that she made it all up because she played late at her friend's house and didn't want to get in trouble. You don't take it seriously—and it's a very serious thing.

No one wants to harm the environment. But because democrats have used the issue as a means of funneling money to themselves for things having nothing to do with the environment, the issue has become a joke. Whenever you hear about "the environment" you tune out at best, or at worst oppose anything that purports to support what is now a transparent sham.

Democrats do that. In their pursuit of power nothing is sacred to them. They will trash women's rights, poverty issues, racism, any ideal that is so sacred to us that they can exploit our emotions for their power.

You used to get incensed over bullying. You used to determine that you'd oppose it in every way you could. Now that it's being used as a camouflage for democrats' evil intentions, it gets more of a yawn than a yelp.

Nobody is more expert in my religion than someone who wants to use it against me. The panhandler can quote scripture about why I should give him money for his drugs. My Christian ideals are very convenient for someone trying to take advantage of me.

I've love that scene from "They Call me Trinity." The Hollywood-style Mormons are at their camp and the bad guys ride in and go down the line hitting them just for fun. The pilgrims can't defend themselves because of their religious views and love of their fellow man.

This happens from 1:57 to 2:12 in the clip.

Then they get to Trinity's brother, and he has no such constraints. Bam! Knocks the bully out. The "Mormons" apologize to the bad guys, telling them he's not of their faith.

I've always kinda' envied the Catholic Church. The United States has its Secret Service. The Catholic church has its protection detail, too, just incidentally, in the mafia. Just coincidentally, members of the syndicate tend to be staunch Catholics. You don't commit crimes against the Catholic church or you disappear.

I kinda' wished Mormons had something like that. We don't stand in line to get hit, but in a way we're kinda' like the pilgrims in the movie. Our religious beliefs keep the bad guys from being afraid to do bad things to us.

That's the Church as an organization. On a personal level, I may be Christian, but I'm not stupid. You say unless I [fill in the blank], I'm not a good Mormon.

I say, Great, sounds like you've got it all figured out. Now you'd better go put some ice on that, Nimrod.

I'm a Christian, but that doesn't mean you get to set fire to my churches.

Obama is the classic dictator. He's jetting around the globe scouting out places for Michelle to go vacationing. He said that, not me. He's doing that while decrying the lifestyles of the rich and telling college students how well he relates to their plight.

So when someone calls him on it he says, look, he works hard, he deserves it. He said that.

That is so telling. You might think "So, which is it? Do people deserve perks their labors, or don't they?"

You'd be looking at it all wrong. You have to look at it through the eyes of a Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro/Saddam Hussein/Barack Obama. In the tin-pot dictator mind, the king spending the money of the realm is in a separate class from the evil Mitt Romney, who owes his earned wealth to the king.

When I was just a little kid, old enough to know the Santa Claus secret, but young enough to pretend I didn't, I wrote a letter to Santa Claus. I was so smooth. I ran it past my parents for editing before I sent it. I wrote something like "I know I don't deserve anything . . . " (This was two decades before A Christmas Story came out).

I stood in the kitchen and read it out loud to both my parents. I was sure they didn't suspect a thing. In their minds I was just looking for advice on style, content and punctuation. I wasn't expressly letting them know what to get me for Christmas. So slick.

Actually, I had the feeling even then that it was pretty transparent. That was the last year I ever did that. It just felt . . . it felt like I was making a fool of myself.

I was probably five years old.

Barack Obama, 51 year old President of the United States, has never crossed that barrier of discovery. He still shows up in Afghanistan "What? Today was the anniversary of the Bin Laden killing? I had no idea!" Completely transparent, but in his small mind he thinks he's fooling somebody.

People don't like to be treated like they're stupid . . . well, Americans don't. Democrats don't seem to have any problem with it.

Seriously, nobody who can count his ears and get the same number twice in a row thinks "Obama is just interested in the [college youth/military/Hispanics—enter your pandered to special interest group here]. It's not a campaign trip."

Complete freaking idiot. Complete freaking clueless idiot—as is anyone who votes for the man.

Speaking of Christmas, I've called this the Christmas blog. You don’t come here to get specific things; it's always a surprise and it's sometimes something you like, but it's always free.

Maybe another suitable analogy would be that I am the Thrift Store of blogs. If you want bag gloves you go to a sporting goods store. You get a blender at the kitchen store. For socks you go to a clothing store. You don't expect to see headers for a small block Chevy at the cell phone provider.

But you go to a thrift store to see what they might have. You could find a cell phone, a pair of socks, and a set of headers for a Chevy 350 in the same store, right next to a saxophone and three books about the Civil War.

That's me. You go somewhere else to get your news, political commentary, humor, pictures of scantily clad women, and graphics of the sun's projection on the Earth at any given time. Here you just kinda' pick through the second hand stuff in hopes of finding something you can use.

I'm crossing Wyoming with very limited radio choices and NPR is "reporting" what happened during the 2008 election using--I am not making this up--excerpts from the fiction fantasy Game Change.

I can't wait for their piece on what the government is doing to prepare for the next Decepticon attack . . .

This, children, is why we don't listen to NPR.

Gilligan's Island--Those Poor People!

Tune in tonight when we interview this year's Hunger Games tributes.

Next week we examine The Soylent Green Controversy.

I posted that NPR deal in my April blog, but it was only up three minutes before I did the May blog. Since it was the only thing worth reading from that month, I figured I'd post it again, in case any of my four readers missed it.

Ask anyone why Dukakis lost his bid for the presidency. "The tank picture."

Guaranteed, that's the answer you'll get. Dukakis actually lost 'cause he's the poster child for liberal weenieism, that picture was just a snapshot of his character. But the standard explanation is the tank picture. Really, that's about how much it takes to cause someone to fall from grace.

George Allen: The macaca comment.
George Bush: "Read my lips . . . "
Rudy Giuliani: Invading Hillary's space in the debate.
Don Imus: "Nappy-headed Hos"
Rush Limbaugh: The media wants to see a black quarterback succeed.
Jimmy the Greek: Black slaves were bred for strength
Dick Morris: Bringing up Hillary's lesbianism
Dr. Lawrence Summers: Bringing up the report on gender differences
. . .

You can add your own to that list.

The question is: Why is Obama immune? For every stupid misstep in that list above, he has made dozens, and yet he is completely invulnerable to the least little fallout from any of them.

Maybe if he made jokes about eating dog, that might get him, but now we're just getting ridiculous.

It's just bizarre how clunky and amateur and stupid Obama is, and completely without consequence.

It's brilliant, it really is. As much as I despise the enemy, I have to give him credit. Liberals are so ashamed of their closet racism, they will do anything to prove they are not. They’ve let a rattlesnake loose in their house, but as they are dying from the bite they will proclaim that they have nothing against reptiles.

When your buddy Austin trashes your mutual friend Blake to you, does that make you feel closer to Austin? If it does, you're an idiot. Austin is not to be trusted. When Obama uses his office to take down private citizens, liberals cheer, 'cause Obama is destroying conservatives. As soon as those liberals are not useful to him, they get destroyed, too. Remember Clinton?

Clinton is very germane to this discussion because that's where this plant matured. The seed was in the ground, and it had sent up shoots, but during the Clinton years the plant became recognizable.

Unity is a hallmark of our American society. It's on our coins, it's even in the name of our nation. The People united are a formidable force and not easily conquered. Anyone trying to get power over the People have to break down that Unity.

Clinton did horrible things—and please don't think I'm just talking about Lewinsky. That was the least of his crimes, but the easiest representation of his character for people to understand. During the Clinton years two things came into play:

1. Anyone who decried what Clinton did was himself bad, because how do you call something evil without name-calling? Clinton's crimes became self-immunizing, because to merely describe them sounded so hateful. That led to a game of "How much can we bring up without seeming like we're piling on?" A game that Republicans lost.

2. Clinton recruited his gang to attack those who were attacking him. What he'd done was indefensible, so the attacks weren't based on logic or reasoning, but misplaced loyalty. Those who were attacked by Clinton's dogs were so outraged at being attacked for defending the right, that the rift deepened.

This is a conflict that continues to this day. But now it has a twist. Clinton experienced immunity paradoxically because he was so evil, but he wishes he had a fraction of the immunity that Obama enjoys.

Part of the protection Obama has he owes to Clinton. America is hesitant to go through the meaningless impeachment process again, and for what? After that fiasco, I can't even conceive of what crimes a President would have to commit for Americans to say "We should throw us another impeachment." The antics Obama is pulling with impunity would have rendered Clinton a "one-term proposition," to quote a leading figure on the evil side of today's conflict.

Democrats continue to defend evil and attack as "haters" those who battle evil. This creates a nation that's divided, but the solution the democrats offer is for the Republicans to quit defending right and get onboard with evil.

What the democrats don't realize is that they will suffer just as much as anyone if the general they are going to battle for wins. The blessing of having Trashcanistans directly to our south should be to serve as lessons of the kind of society we don't want to have.

If you didn't already have this figured out, you never will. I'm done here.