« September 2009 | Main | November 2009 »

October 31, 2009

Happy Halloween, Samhain, And All Saint's Eve.....

Gleefully swiped from Pirate's Cove....

Oh and the pastor poser from hell can kiss my a**

Posted by ChristmasGhost at 04:19 PM | Comments (45) | TrackBack

October 30, 2009

An Iris.......

Posted by ChristmasGhost at 10:08 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 29, 2009

Conservatives or Liberals: Who's REALLY Got The Hitler Mustache?

I recently encountered a thoroughly unpleasant person on a thoroughly unpleasant person's blog, who referred to me as a "Reich-winger." Obviously this is a pseudo-clever attempt to brand me a Nazi because I am a Conservative. So I corrected this bone-head, pointing out that the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party in Germany, to which said bone-head claimed that this was a myth, that the Nazis were Conservatives.

It's the Halloween season, so one should expect an overflow of bats, I suppose.

I'm sure I'm not the first to make this analysis, and I seriously doubt the obsessive-compulsive nutburgers on the left will pack up their signs and straitjackets as a result of this article, but one does what one can.

What is Conservatism? Well, in a nutshell, it's a belief in smaller government, free market economy, lower taxes, and freedom to make our own decisions. A government with more control over the lives of its constituents seldom bodes well for those constituents; tyrannies and dictatorships are a prime example of such things. The more power a government has, the fewer freedoms are allowed to the people. Higher taxes and greater regulation means less prosperity, both to the individual and to the country's economy. There are other aspects, such as religion, national security, and foreign policy, but I'm trying to keep this brief.

Liberalism, in contrast, favors larger government, a government-controlled economy, higher taxes, and more intrusion into the average person's life. Liberals believe that the government is the answer to all of life's ills. A business is failing? Government should step in. Can't find a job? Government should force someone to hire you. Tired of living in an apartment? Government should give you a house. Whether you've earned it or deserve it has nothing to do with it; Mama Government will nurture you and provide for you. And to do so, it will take the money from those who have earned and do deserve. You don't need all those pesky freedoms; if you are free, then you make decisions. If you make decisions, you might make a bad decision. Isn't better to have Mama Government take all that worry away? Why would anyone want all that responsibility?

The problem with the liberal mindset is that if government makes your decisions for you, what do you do if it makes a bad one? And folks, the government RARELY gets it right. Government took over the public schools, and now we're amongst the worst in the industrialized world. Government took over the Post Office, and made it a nightmare. Government gave us Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security; all of which are bankrupt and brimming with abuse and corruption. Government got involved in mortgage loans, via the Community Reinvestment Act, and it led to our current economic crisis. Government over-regulated the auto industry, and now only one of the Big Three is still actually in business. More than a trillion dollars in TARP and Stimulus packages, and what have we to show for it? Crippling debt and double-digit unemployment. If government was a business, it would be out of business.

Now, before I go too much further afield, let's look at Nazism. Let's all take a trip to Wiki, that bastion of Right-wing philosophy, and see what they have to say on the subject.

Nazism, known officially in German as National Socialism[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.[5][6][7][8] Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[11][12][13]

WHOA! It says right there that it incorporated some RIGHT wing politics! And it was opposed to economic and political liberalism! How can that possibly be compared to today's liberalism?

Well, it's a matter of definition. Who were the "Right" that the Nazis were aligning with? Again, Wiki:

In politics, right-wing, political right, rightist and the Right are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for preserving traditional or cultural values and customs or for maintaining some form of social hierarchy or private control of the means of production.[1][2][3][4] Nevertheless the terms have been used for different things in different countries. The phrase right-wing was coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church.[5][6][7][8] The concept of a distinct political Right developed after the second restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists. Today the term the Right is primarily used to refer to political groups that have a historical connection with the traditional Right, including conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, aristocrats, fascists[2], religious fundamentalists, and some nationalists. But in modern times, the Right has also encompassed views supporting capitalism and free markets.

Hmm. American Conservatism DOES like tradition, capitalism, and free markets, but that's as far as the accuracy of this definition goes. We certainly don't care much for monarchies or fascists; American Conservatism is very much into the Constitution, which defies those two concepts. We fought the Revolution to get AWAY from a monarchy. We've fought several wars AGAINST fascism.

The simple fact is, political ideologies are hard to define, and tend to differ from period to period, and from country to country. American Conservatism is vastly different from British Conservatism, which is different from Japanese Conservatism. Likewise, German Conservatism was not the same was what we have here in the States today:

Conservatories in Germany encompasses a large number of strains of the past three hundred years. While many of the Conservatory theorists are labelled "political romantics" (most notably by Carl Schmitt, himself Conservatory), at least four strains can be distinguished before 1945: Status-quo-ante-Conservatory and Romantic Conservatory, wanting to go back before the French Revolution and to restore the medieval order. Notable theorists are Novalis, Friedrich Schelling, Karl Ludwig von Haller and Adam Müller. Conservatory Journalism to defend the status quo of Metternichs System (the Restoration) and nationalistic Conservatism. Notable theorists include Friedrich von Gentz, Friedrich Schlegel and Ernst Moritz Arndt. Conservatory writing in defense of the (constitutional) Monarchy in Germany. Included are the late Hegel, Stein and Friedrich Julius Stahl. The Conservatory Revolution and pre-Nazi radicals, such as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Oswald Spengler (adding pessimism and cultural Conservatory) and Carl Schmitt. Also included are the anti-Enlightenment romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, the conservative realpolitik and statecraft of Otto von Bismarck and the anti-republican monarchism of the DNVP during the Weimar Republic. During the period of Nazi rule; all other political parties, including conservative, were outlawed. The "national revolution" of the national socialists had priority and the racist and social changes in German society were not allowed to be stopped by the conservative forces of "reaction" (Reaktion, see Horst-Wessel-Lied), like for instance the democratic Zentrum and the Prussian monarchists. Notable conservatives were - after a period of pacification in the Nazi Reich - involved in the German Resistance, most notably in the 20 July plot. In modern Germany, the post-World War II Christian Democratic conservatism claims to represent all forms of Conservatism, while there remain some marginal parties on the right of the Christian Democratic Union (dubbed National Conservatists to distinguish them from the far-right-parties), e.g. Die Republikaner. There also exist marginal movements to restore the German Monarchy, most notably Tradition und Leben. A notable modern conservative theorist is Arnold Gehlen.

So, German Conservatism was nationalistic and supported a return to pre-French Revolution monarchy. Again, not so much what we go for here in the US. Monarchy is much closer to socialism than Conservatism; government controls pretty much everything, the people have only what freedoms are granted by the government, and the people have little (if any) say on who is governing them. American Conservatism is in direct contrast to this: less government control, freedoms are inalienable and not granted by government, and the people vote for representatives in government, even up to our highest office. So I think it's safe to say that the Conservatism we have today in America is a totally different critter than what they had in Germany 80 years ago.

So how about that economic liberalism? Well, that also bears little resemblance to today's American liberalism:

Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is the political and economic philosophy that supports and promotes the economic system of capitalism, in the laissez-faire sense. Opposing government intervention in the economy, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism and socialism.[2]

Yeah, this is not remotely what passes for Liberalism in America today. The Obama Administration has been on the attack against the free market, capitalism, competition, and reduced government intervention since before the election. So let's see what Wiki has to say about Socialism:

Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[8] Social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets.

Good heavens, doesn't that sound familiar? Centrally planned economies, state-owned means of production, tax-funded welfare programs, regulation of markets...spreading the wealth, government take-over of businesses, government deciding how much a person can be paid, government-run health care....

The Liberalism we have in America today looks an awful lot like Socialism, doesn't it? So is there an argument that today's Liberalism has nothing to do with Socialism? Not really; consider the source. These socialist policies are not coming from Conservatives; this agenda is being pushed by the Left.

Which brings us back to Nazism.

I won't bore you with the details of anti-parliamentarianism, and Pan-Germanism is pretty self-explanatory, so let's look at the other hallmarks of these jokers.

Racism and eugenics-if you weren't Hitler's idea of perfection, you had no right to live. Except, perhaps as slave labor. The Aryan ideal of the blue-eyed and blond-haired being the pinnacle of human perfection, or the Ubermensch, is among the most notable aspects of Nazism. It was this ideal that sent several million Jews to their deaths. So, which side of the aisle here in America holds closer to such ideas?

Conservatism believes that what a person does now is more important than his ancestry. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once prayed for, we prefer to judge a man by the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin. Eugenicist, Progressive, and founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger took a slightly different approach; she advocated the forced sterilization and abortion of any "weed" people; anyone who was not smart enough, rich enough, or white enough for her liking did not deserve to the privilege of reproduction. Today, Planned Parenthood and its offshoot, NARAL, is at the center of the Democrat party. Our current President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and Senate Leader all have 100 percent compliance ratings from NARAL, meaning that their policies most reflect that group's agenda. And just to put a finer point on the subject, Hitler took a large portion of his philosophy from the American Progressive movement that later evolved into today's Liberalism.

Anti-Semitism, Anti-Communism, Totalitarianism-The Jew-hating is pretty obvious, so no need to rehash that, except to point out that an uncomfortably large number of Obama's supporters, czars, cabinet, and other appointees are on record as being extremely anti-Semitic. I have no problem with anti-Communism; Communism is just a more modern version of feudalism, which is the antithesis of the core principles that founded our country. But as demonstrated by our look at socialism, Communism has far more in common with the goals of Liberalism than Conservatism; how many self-avowed Communists are in the Administration right now? ONE is far too many. Likewise totalitarianism; a system of government that has the government in charge of virtually every aspect of existence? This is hardly something freedom-loving Conservatives would tolerate, let alone promote.

So let's look at a few of Hitler's other policies. He was an advocate for gun control; one of the first things he did when he came into power was confiscate privately owned firearms, for the public safety. Sound familiar? Which political group fights to nullify our 2nd Amendment? That would be the members of the Left, as I recall.

Hitler also took over several industries, including the automotive industry. This is why we have Volkswagen (the People's Car). And Reagan, as we all know, took control of two of the three major auto companies. Wait. No, I'm sorry, that was Obama, wasn't it?

Hitler outlawed all political opposition. No other parties were allowed. Of course, this is similar to what W. did to the Democrats here in the US...oops! Sorry! It's the Obama Administration and the Democrats that are refusing to even admit that Republicans have any alternative to ObamaCare (over THIRTY alternatives, at last count), and trying to remove Fox News from the Press Pool, and silence talk radio, and accusing Tea Party protesters of racism, and setting up snitch hotlines, and refusing to allow any debate of the so-called science of AGW. Just to name a few of the attempts at removing all political opposition. Sure, Conservatives would be a lot happier if Liberals would just shut the hell up, get out of the way, and let the grown-ups get this country back on track to prosperity, but we aren't trying to change laws to silence them.

Hitler created a civilian army. He trained children to snitch on their parents. I wonder how many men and women went to prison (or worse) because they didn't feel that their Little Klaus was quite ready for a puppy. Quiz Time! Which US Presidential candidate said the following: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." "People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.... I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year...." Hint: He got elected President in 2008.

So to that little pinhead that babbled about how Nazism was Conservative: sorry, Charlie. Your argument is dust, and I even used a left-of-center information website to defeat it. The idiotic "Reich-wing" insult is based only in your own wishful thinking. It has no place in a factual argument.

Disagree? Feel free. But I have a few demands. First off, as I used a left-wing site to prove my case, you have to use a RIGHT wing site to refute it. And it has to be an ACTUAL American Conservative source; Aryan Nation is not Conservative. The KKK are not Conservative. Sites that advocate hatred, violence, and illegal actions are not Conservative.

None of this "everybody knows" crap, either. You make a claim, you back it up with actual data, not your opinion or your perception of the opinion of others in your echo chamber.

Despite the Left's insistence that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a Nazi, history and REALITY says different. The fact of the matter is, Nazism has far, far more in common with today's American Liberalism than today's American Conservatism. Obama is pushing forth a Socialist agenda that easily rivals (and in many ways has already surpassed) FDR.

Crossposted at JBYP

Posted by TFMo at 02:19 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 28, 2009

In Which I Actually Draw A Cartoon And Make Two Little Girls Cry

As I have repeatedly stated, I have no actual stake in the flame war between Chuckie Johnson and the Right-o-sphere. To my knowledge, not a single byte of data has transfered between the two of us (unless he was playing sock puppet on one of the blogs I occasionally comment on), nor have we met in the Real World. I have clicked a link a couple of times that led me to his little vacuum chamber of a website, but I never attempted a post there; why bother? Given his propensity to ban anyone who disagrees with him, and even if he managed to marshal up enough 'nads to actually allow someone to call him out, he's got the Sock Lizard Army to turn any meaningful discussion into a mosh pit of lies, insult, and distraction.

So when I was asked by Christmas Ghost to do a spoof on Chuckie, I was less than enthusiastic. I didn't buy his brand of politics, nor his refusal to allow honest debate, nor his utter condemnation of any and all religion, nor how such actions were driving readers and one-time colleagues away in numbers that makes the Exodus look like trip to the corner market, but again, it had little-if-anything to do with me. Plus, I couldn't really think of anything worth drawing on the subject.

But after a couple of weeks of discussion, I became inspired, thus was born Football-head in my Captain Atheist Just Had To Go Hunt His Whale. And, much to my surprise, it was a huge hit. I was actually rather disappointed that it had gotten so much notice, given that just a few day's prior, I'd posted my Blood From A Stone cartoon; a piece that I actually spent some time and effort on, as opposed to the half-an-hour-plus-breaks spent on Captain Atheist.

But I can't complain too much; it got me a little recognition, and opened the door to developing friendships with some really good folks. It was my official debut into the Right-o-sphere, and I was well-received. Much more famous, talented, and interesting people than myself were seeing my work, liking it, linking it, commenting on it, and encouraging others to do likewise. Not a bad pay-off for so little real effort.

Then Bill Teach of Pirate's Cove requested another one, from an article he'd written about more of Chuckie's escapades. Not a problem; Bill's a good guy, and it's another opportunity to get more people looking at my work. So I did Baby Blogs, featuring some of the folks involved in this kerfuffle. This one took off like a lightning bolt, again surprising me how much attention it received in comparison to the amount of effort.

Before progressing further into the story, allow me to interpret it. It was a commentary of the fight between these people. As the story goes, Chuckie is acting like a big baby with a stinky diaper because so few people are listening to his rants. Sharmuta and Trout are his Yes-Men. Pam Geller is a brassy in-your-face kinda gal has not problem with speaking her mind (I know this from personal experience), RS McCain is being accused of being a white supremecist, Dan Riehl thinks Chuckie's just a blowhard, Rusty from Jawa Report agrees, Teach wonders if he's ever going to shut up, and Ace...okay, I admit, I couldn't come up with a decent line for Ace so I wussed on him and just made a goof on the colorful language he's prone to employ.

That's pretty much it.

I depicted the Righties in a better light because, from what I have observed on both sides of the fight, I tend to agree with them. And the actions taken on the Left of this fracas hasn't improved my opinion of them.

About a week after I posted this cartoon, I got an e-mail from Barrett Brown, which enclosed a vandalized version of my cartoon and a statement that he had "improved" it for me. Now, he's perfectly entitled to his own opinion, and entitled to voice it. But he decided to steal my art as a means to do so. That's where I have a problem. I informed him, as you can read from the e-mails I posted, that one simply does not steal someone else's work and scribble all over it.

Had Barrett left it at that, then this would have ended. But he decided to snark about it in an article, wherein he rattled off a series of lies that would make Obama blush. I called him on his BS on his own True/Slant site, and as a retort, he posted the stolen and vandalized work. I repeated my stance, that he did not have permission to alter my work, let alone post it as his own. He responded by posting the same picture three more times on the same site.

Now Barrett is a regular poster on LGF, it seems, and they've all had a gay old time, calling me a kook and crazy, and stereotyping me as the typical right-wing Christian/Nazi, who doesn't believe in dinosaurs and like to murder abortion doctors, and other such niceties.

Just to set the record straight, the only accurate accusation is that I'm a Conservative. I'm agnostic, my son aspires to be a paleontologist, and I have no love for people who commit murder, be it an abortion doctor or some nutjob who has decided that the best way to get his point across is to end another person's life. And just to give you an idea of the type of people who post on Barrett's site and LGF, one poster actually tried to argue that Naziism, which was born of the National Socialist Party in Germany was a CONSERVATIVE movement.

To that inbreeder, I offer this snippet, taken from that notoriously right-wing Wikipedia:

Nazism, known officially in German as National Socialism[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.[5][6][7][8]

I'll make the comparisons between Left, Right, and Nazi in another article. (SPOILER ALERT! The Left don't come out looking so good.)

Barrett's and Chuckie's behavior is textbook left-wing policy. They don't do their own work; they have to take from those more talented, mark it with their stench, claim it as their own, then vilify the original creator. Barrett admitted to me that he responded to my cartoon because so many people were seeing it. So that tells me that had I not tried to be all "uppity" he would have left me alone. Remember, kids; Lefties only encourage your success if it adds to theirs. Start taking from their much-deserved attention and, well, you just have to go.

According to a few of Barrett's chorus, I should be grateful that Barrett took the time out of his busy-busy day to school me in my perfidy. This is another hallmark of liberalism; I call this the Thank You Sir May I Have Another rule. Why, there's NO WAY I would have gotten all this attention by myself! It is thanks to Barrett for deigning to notice my insignificance that anyone anywhere ever saw my work! Except that argument doesn't work; if so few had seen my cartoon, then what of his claim that he was motivated to action as a result of so many people seeing it? And do please note, CGhost's site got tens of THOUSANDS of non-bot unique hits from that cartoon. Plus Bill Teach posted it on his site. Jawa Report posted it. Dan linked it at least once. RS McCain posted it several times. And all of this was BEFORE I got that snide little e-mail from Barrett. Which just goes to show, liberals can not fathom ANYONE being successful without their assistance, and anyone can be a success without their assistance.

Then there is the deflection, another typical lefty trick. Barrett wants this argument to be about McCain's alleged racism. That's not my argument; McCain's a big boy, he can defend himself and has done so. My part in the argument is that Barrett stole my artwork, vandalized it, then posted it repeatedly against my wishes.

Me: Dude, you stole my artwork.

Barrett: McCain's a racist!

Me: I don't care if you feel he's a racist. You stole my artwork.

Barrett: McCain's a racist!

Liberals have the damnedest time sticking to the subject, don't they? It's not by accident; they know they haven't a leg to stand on, so they have to deflect and distract. Barrett knows damn well he had NO RIGHT to steal and deface my artwork, and even less to post it without my permission.

I could almost admire Barrett for sticking up for a friend. Almost. But this was less about sticking up for a friend or righting a wrong than it was just being an utter dick. Granted, I acted as little more than a mercenary, but at least I didn't lie about it. I posted no lies in my cartoon; it was not about the fact or fiction of McCain's alleged racism. It was about the argument itself. Personally, I don't think McCain is a racist. But that's not what the cartoon was about. It was about an argument I had no stake in, and the actions of the various parties who were actually involved.

Apparently Barrett felt the need to "teach me a lesson." How dare I, this unknown peasant, comment on such lofty topics? How dare I garner such notice that is so rightfully his? How dare I object to his theft of my property, the defacing of said property, and the posting of said? Ego and jealousy, the same things I lampooned Chuckie for. Which is my great sin; I should never never never NEVAR make fun of or disagree with anyone on the Left, for any reason, ever, at all.

Heh.

I didn't have a stake in this argument. Didn't particularly want one, either, but I was asked to do my thing; draw and poke fun. I don't mind someone having a go at me. You don't get involved in any aspect of politics and expect not to be made fun of. And you certainly don't poke fun at people and not expect to be poked in return. You don't draw a picture and show it to people and expect no criticism.

And had it stopped there, I wouldn't have even bothered shrugging.

But Barrett crossed a line. An artist has an expectation that his art remains HIS art. Criticize the art, disagree with the message, but RESPECT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ART. I didn't take Barrett's article and rewrite it, then claim it as my own. If he wanted to redraw it, that would have been fine. If he wanted to write a scathing attack on it, that would have been fine. If he wanted to call me a fag and a Nazi and a racist and any other insult the left likes to hurl at those who will not comply, bring it on.

I didn't have a stake in this argument. I do now. I had no particular plans to do any more Baby Blogs or anything regarding the big to-do, unless a piece was requested of me. But now I do have a stake. Chuckie is a coward; if he objected to my piece, he was quite free to post his opinion on my site, e-mail me, whatever. I'm not hard to find. But no, he decided to cry like a little girl to his sycophants and let them do it.

Coward. Chicken-shit crybaby, needing a diaper change, killed his own credibility and pissed on what good he managed to accomplish, now has to go after everyone else who sees a sliver of success.

And Barrett? You're clown shoes. Your arguments aren't even arguments. They're dodges, like most liberal arguments. You're a hack. You're a pseudo-intellectual, who seems to think that high-flown speech and ten dollar words can replace actual integrity and honesty. And like the rest of your sock-puppet cronies, you can't cut the mustard. I admit, I was reasonably impressed to find that a writer for Vanity Fair and HuffPo and a few other outlets had noticed my work. But then, consider the source. Vanity Fair is aptly named, it's nothing more than liberal toilet paper, yet another left-wing echo chamber more interested in manufacturing its own relevance than actually REPORTING anything. Perfect for you me-monkeys. And HuffPo? Has this virtual bird-cage liner EVER had any credibility outside its own imagination? Just another in a long line of liberal suck-ups, spewing the well-rehearsed party line with no concern or even recognition of logic or fact.

I've always ascribed to the philosophy of Bugs Bunny. Not as glamorous as, say, Saul Alinsky or Mao Tse Tung, but it serves me well. Basically, you have Bugs, a smart-ass, sure, but one who generally delivers a good natured ribbing to people who are taking themselves a little too seriously. But cross a line, try to pave over his rabbit hole or poach his carrots, and suddenly you've got yourself an enemy that WILL NOT QUIT until you are a smoking crater.

I've got a dog in this fight now, Tweedledum and Tweedledouche. Those two previous cartoons? That's just slap-together off the cuff tom-foolery. Now I have an incentive.

Crossposted at JBYP

Posted by TFMo at 10:50 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 27, 2009

Little Green [with envy] Footballs.....

I don't know about you, but when I send unsolicited emails to someone I tend to sign them with something along the lines of "thank you for your time" or "regards" and that's it.
After all I contacted them.
Never once have I ever considered signing them with "now I'm going to go kill myself"....as I was taught it was rude to burden others with your own pathetic childishness.
But Mad King Charles has a new toadie named Barrett Brown and he seems to have missed that whole manners class. Not terribly surprising actually considering Barrett's newest calling in life seems to be as Chuckie's water boy.
Sadly, Barret Brown, who at times has written for publications such as Vanity Fair, decided to sign his email to me with a pathetic cry for attention. I looked for the punch line...and there wasn't one.

So, there you go. Just click one of those links, take a look at one of these
articles that you've already implicitly characterized as not containing
links to evidence of McCain's racism, and then take a look at the links to
evidence of McCain's racism*. Meanwhile, I'm going to go kill myself.

Regards,

Barrett Brown

* This comment of Barrett's is beyond irresponsible...it's a pathetic attempt to smear an actual journalist ...Robert Stacy McCain of the blog The Other McCain. Mr.McCain is certainly no racist in any way shape or form.*
I also don't then refer to the recipient of the email as a stalker simply because they are kind enough to take the time to answer me....but Charles and his toadies are fixated on stalkers. It's as if he thinks if he talks about it enough someone, anyone, will start stalking him, and that would make him feel important. A classic Charles' quote from his Little Theater LGF:
"Those tiny popping sounds you hear in the distance are stalkers’ heads exploding".
Personally, I thought the tiny popping sounds were Charles' testicles finally dropping...but I guess I was wrong.
And another pearl:
"Excellent work, Barrett! Maybe some of these people will develop freakish obsessions with you now, and quit bugging me".
Um...hate to break it to you buttercup, but no one is paying any attention to you at all. And it's just killing you isn't it? Pam Geller gets a fabulous book deal and you, the "great" Charles Johnson get....why, what you deserve of course; more mocking.

How unfortunate it is that Mad King Charles, also known as Charles Johnson .....of the once widely read blog LGF, cannot just flame out by himself. But isn't that the way it is with all narcissists? They always have to drag others down with them.
In this case, obviously, Barrett was already on a similar trajectory with Charles....in other words the gutter of well deserved unemployment.
Charles Johnson is attacking this blog and it's "kook" "nobody" bloggers because he is afraid of us. It's that simple. Narcissists cannot handle any amount of criticism much less humorous needling and so after the first and second cartoons mocking Charles' giant undeserved ego came out, and were well received, Charles sat in front of his spittle flecked computer screen shrieking and scheming. He would show us! Tiny foot stamp here.
He and his newest toady, Barrett Brown, decided to go looking for trouble...or as they call it "kook baiting".
Frankly, I was surprised.
They show all the media savvy of the Obama administration. If someone is a kook and a nobody why on earth would you bother to write post after post about them? Note to readers...expect Charles to send quite a few things down the memory hole after he reads this....
But I guess that's the way it always is when people like Charles start believing their own PR.
Charles' grasp of reality and the English language seem to be slipping faster than his hero Obama's polling numbers.
Perhaps this is why he gets confused so easily and confuses fealty with loyalty, back stabbing with decency, one person with another. Hey all us breeders look alike to Charles I guess.
And his disease seems to be catching, although I cannot say absolutely that Barret Brown wasn't always a bit theatrical, as I, along with 99.99% of the rest of the world's population had never heard of Barrett before all the charming emails.
And then ,for all Barrett's whinnying about checking out the facts he cannot even click on the about button before he sends someone [me] an unsolicited email to discover who he is actually talking to? Now that's ironic, don't ya think?
From my reply email to Barrett.....I think Barrett just "forgot" to put this in his article:

Charles has made his bed all by himself, no one forced him to start stabbing people in the back with whom he formerly enjoyed mutual ties of respect.
If his issues with people were actually based on reality and not political expediency then everyone could and would take him seriously.But as it is they are not...he is merely being a parasite. The old dog died , time to jump on the new one.
And it isn't working in case you haven't noticed.
The old saying that "you sleep with dogs you get fleas" comes to mind, only in this case I would advise you to step away from the carcass formerly known as LGF before you find yourself wearing a pleather "biker"
vest with a lizard logo on the back.......

Don't say I didn't warn him......
And for the record Barrett and Charles....it's called mocking not stalking. Get yourself a dictionary and read it.......

moar funny pictures

Actually the sound you hear is Chuckie's head exploding after he read that Pam Geller from Atlas Shrugs has a book deal. Little Green [with envy] Footballs indeed.....
It seems everyone is more successful than Mad King Charles but then that's a bit like gloating when you drive by a bum isn't it?
They all used to be somebody too............

Posted by ChristmasGhost at 11:43 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 25, 2009

Sunday's Humor....

H/T to T and D...

John was in the fertilized egg business.

He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten
roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and
was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to
his roosters.

Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which
rooster was performing.

Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just
listening to the bells.

John's favourite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this one
morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to
investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets,
bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for
cover.

To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't
ring.

He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job, and then walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair
and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize
but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician
could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our
planet merely by being the best at sneaking up on the general populace and
screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully next year, the bells are not always audible.

Posted by ChristmasGhost at 06:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bleurgh. from TFMo!

I am sick. Not just in the head, that's well-established.

As an insomniac I tend to go for long periods of time without any significant amount of sleep (my record is 150 hours up, 10 hours asleep, total.)

As you can well imagine, this plays hell with all kinds of biological functions; chief amongst these is my immune system. My ability to fend off illnesses disappears faster than Obama's campaign promises (OOH! Topical humor! Even when I'm sick, I STILL GOT IT!)

So for fun, we throw in a little flu bug that's been going around. No, not H1N1, nor would that have mattered; the Swindle Flu is nothing more than a slightly more resistant strain of the same flu people usually get. The only thing remarkable about this is the timing. It's a little early. And as for the deaths, most of these happened in other countries. Curiously, most of these countries have some form of socialized, universal, single-payer, government-run health care. Hmm.

So I'm sick. No Sunday Funny today. I do have a Lil' Obama strip I had put in reserve, but it's even less funny than the usual ones, and I do have SOME standards.

Somewhere. I think. They may have fallen in the crack between my desk and the wall. I'll have to find a flashlight later.

So now I'm gonna go nestle in the loving embrace of Nyquil, watch a zombie movie, and hopefully spend the next 24 hours hallucinating my ass off.

GOOD TIMES!

Posted by TFMo at 03:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 23, 2009

OOOoo...CONSPIRACIES!

DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional researcher or journalist. I do cartoons and commentary...poorly. What I have presented in the following is backed up by fact as best as I am able to find. If I am in error on any of these points, please let me know, and provide which item is incorrect and something credible to substantiate your claim.

Today we'll be discussing two issues on the right; one that is of significance, and one that is ultimately costing us credibility.

The easy one first: the Birthers. For those of you living in a cave for the past couple of years, there is an issue regarding President Obama's birth. Specifically, whether or not his place of birth was somewhere that would still allow him to run for our highest office. There are four tidbits under consideration:

1: The Birth Announcement. When a child is born, generally someone calls a newspaper and tells their Birth Announcement section that hey! this kid was born! Anti-birthers use this as evidence that of course Obama was born in Hawaii. See the Birth Announcement? But whether this is credible or not is not the issue; it's a matter of relevance. From my home, far, far from Hawaii, I can get on a phone and call any Hawaiian newspaper, or any newspaper in any other state, and tell them that my wife has given birth to a bouncing baby boy. Without calling any newspaper into question, I sincerely doubt that they are going to blow a lot of time, money, and resources tracking this down and verifying it. So Obama has a blurb in the paper say that he was born. Big deal. Chances are it was never confirmed. So using this as proof, even with the argument against a broad-scope conspiracy to groom the Annointed One at birth to become president fifty years later, is invalid. It isn't proof. It's circumstantial AT BEST.

2: Grandma's statement. The Birthers claim they have heard from Obama's African grandmother that she was present, in Africa, at Obama's birth. This would mean that Obama is disqualified from being president, IF IT CAN BE VERIFIED. But who would prosecute this? Eric Holder? Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Even if it's one hundred percent true, even if Obama makes a public announcement saying that he was, in fact, born in Kenya, what can be done about it? Anyone that would preside over this case is in Obama's camp, he's made sure to stack that deck already. Even the Supreme Court can't be counted on, given the split as it stands. After completely ignoring our Constitution, after employing fraudsters like ACORN, after appointing a rogue's gallery of czars, does anyone honestly think he's going to cave to this? At best, it could cause him grief in his re-election bid in 2012...if he hasn't had the law changed by then.

3: Adopted in Indonesia. There is an argument that he was adopted by his step-father, Sotero, when his mother remarried. This would have made him a citizen of Indonesia. Unless something was done to negate this, it means he holds dual citizenship, which also disqualifies him from the office. But with crappy Indonesian record keeping, and having the vast US Government at his beck and call, even if this were true, you can bet that documents would suddenly appear that render this a non-issue. Even if he doesn't produce this eleventh hour Christmas Miracle, we run into the same pit as with the question of his actual birthplace.

4: Which certificate? Apparently there are two different forms of birth certificate in Hawaii. One is iron-clad and indisputable. The other...not so much. The latter form has been presented, the Birthers want to see the former. Frankly, I see no problem with this. It's easily resolved; just present the form and end the debate. Obama's refusal to reveal the former form leads one to two conclusions: Either the president has something to hide, or the president doesn't think this is worth answering.

I submit a third conclusion, and I think this one is far more likely; Obama WANTS this controversy. This thing is bringing all kinds of tinfoil hats out of the attic, and they're all being considered as core right-wingers. This only plays to Obama's favor. It's easy to discredit lunatics, and further discredit anyone group associated with them. This costs the ACTUAL right-winger a lot of credibility, as the media jumps all over our fringe whackos. "Look at this guy, claiming the President was born in Kenya. What a nut! HE'S A CONSERVATIVE!"

Birthers, you are doing us no favors with this. Whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or Narnia, it changes nothing because there is NOTHING we can do about it. You're calling out the fox in the hen house, but you're expecting other foxes to do something about it. What's worse, YOU are the hen, drawing attention to yourself, thus the foxes can use you to hunt down the rest of the chickens.

Is there a question of Obama's birthplace? Sure. Is there a question of his adoptive and dual-citizen status? Sure. Are these legitimate questions? Sure. Has the White House dodged these questions? Sure.

Is anything going to be accomplished? Sorry, but no.

The next issue, and far more relevant, is the question of Obama's religion. You know it's more relevant because the media is willing to ignore Birthers to go after those who even hint that they suspect that Obama might possibly be Muslim. And if any of them bother reading this (yeah, right) then you can almost hear the conversation. "Heh, this Mo guy, what an idiot. Going on about the Birther thi...whoa. He's questioning Obama's religion? HOLY CRAP, STOP THE PRESSES AND CALL SEIU!!"

I blame the west's perennial refusal to understand ANYTHING about an enemy. Thanks to public schooling (thanks DoE!) few people have the skills or patience to actually research something, unless it involves boobs (GUILTY!) But here is what I've found, and these things should be discussed, should be questioned, and should be entirely relevant to any question regarding our President and Islam.

First is the status of one's birth. In Islam, if your father was Muslim, than you are considered by that faith, a Muslim, until the day you die, or the day you renounce Islam (and in Islam, those days tend to fall on the SAME day). Obama Senior's father was Muslim. Thus Obama Senior was, regardless of the intensity of his devotion, a Muslim. Since Senior was a Muslim, Junior was born Muslim as well. That sets this ball rolling.

While in Indonesia, Obama Junior attending schools that taught Islam, which is common in schools in Muslim-leaning countries, and Indonesia had a large Muslim population, of which Obama's adopted step-father was a member.

But then, later in life, Obama says he converted, joining Jeremiah Wright's church...not exactly a Christian church, judging from the sermons we've all been made aware of, but still, Obama claims that he left Islam.

Here's where the tricky parts come in. If you leave Islam, you are an apostate. Islam has a very simple rule about dealing with apostates; get your ass back to the mosque or get bludgeoned to death with a rock. Under Islamic faith and law, it is the sworn duty, in Allah's name, to convert, enslave via Dhimmitude, or kill anyone who is not Islam. This includes apostates.

So there are two possibilities here. Either Obama is an apostate, and thus must be killed for leaving Islam, which means there will be no negotiating with any Islamic country, or he is still a Muslim, which means he is bound to answer the call to Jihad or forfeit his place in Heaven.

Before you pooh-pooh this conclusion, there is a third tidbit you need to be aware of: the Taqiyya. This little nugget in Islam means that you are allowed to lie, if it helps protect Islam. You can even claim to denounce Islam, call Muhammed a goat-loving pervert, and spit on a Quran; all perfectly fine if you are doing so to deceive infidels and further the cause of Islam.

So let's break this down logically: How does one protect himself? Well, the easiest means, and one which seems to have a great deal of appeal in Islam, is to remove your enemies. How? The Quran is pretty clear on this, too: Convert them to Islam, force them to accept Dhimmitude (slavery), or death. So who is Islam's enemies? According to their "Prophet," anyone who is NOT Islam or enslaved under Dhimmitude. In that the United States is considered an enemy of Islam, it can be concluded without venturing anywhere outside the realm of legitimate probability, that a person could be born Muslim, schooled in Islam, then later claim to denounce Islam, never again bow to Mecca, never answer to the Call to Prayer, not make your wife wear a burkha, let your wife, your children, and yourself, behave in a completely western non-Islamic way, if in doing so you are furthering the cause of Islam, and Allah will assure that person a place by his side in Heaven.

Is Obama a Muslim? Possibly. But it can not be confirmed one way or another without the aid of Professor Xavier and the Uncanny X-Men. All we can go by is what we can observe.

He was born a Muslim.
He was schooled in Islam.
He joined a "Christian" church that has far more in common with Islam than Christ.
A large number of people around him are anti-Semite.
He's perfectly fine with selling out Israel.
In his dealings with terrorist-friendly nations, he's about as harsh as a Care Bear. whereas to our non-Islamic allies, he's been rude, disrespectful, and insulting...and that's just the countries he HASN'T completely stabbed in the back.

Taking this small list into account, not only is it possible that Obama is still Muslim, it's a disturbingly distinct probability. If this were being tried in a courtroom, even if you consider all this circumstantial evidence, the preponderance of it would be enough to convict. But even if he isn't Muslim, as he claims, it does nothing to change the facts of what he has done. And the apostate alternative does nothing to reassure, either.

Sorry to be so mean to any Muslims out there reading this, but I have a hard time trusting any person who claims devotion to a religion that considers lying a good thing, and death as the highest form of prayer, not to mention the other heinous acts that are allowed and encouraged under Islam; rendering their female population to the status of cattle, hideous genital mutilation of women, child molestation, rape, wife-beating, child abuse, using women, children, and the infirm as suicide bombers, slavery, murder, theft...

I'm sorry, maybe I missed something...but who, exactly, is the Great Satan supposed to be?

Crossposted at JBYP

Posted by TFMo at 03:36 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Attack Of The ObamaBirds.......

This was swiped from Moonbattery because, well, it's just so damn funny....
And couldn't we all use a good laugh about now?

Sadly, it's also true. Obama is out to destroy all remnants of good old fashioned American society. I can hardly wait for Christmas....how many times do you think he will scream racist if you like the song "White Christmas"?

Posted by ChristmasGhost at 12:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

I'M MAKING FRIENDS!!!

Gee, I seem to be ruffling some feathers out there! CGhost got this e-mail, from a person claiming to be none other than Barrett Brown. Barrett is a writer for HuffPo, Vanity Fair, and a few other media-type things. Whether this person is the actual Barrett Brown or just someone using his name, I dunno. After a few minutes of Googling, I did find that the return e-mail and the e-mail listed for Barrett on one of the informative sites is identical, but then I've also received lots of good news about Acai berries and penis enlargement from my own e-mail address, so the jury is still out on this.

But herein is the faithfully reproduced e-mail correspondence between myself and Mr. Brown:

Howdy!
I liked your recent comic strip, but thought the text could use a
little-reworking. I've attached my version here.

Regards,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY

((This was forwarded to me from CGhost. Attached was a copy of my Baby Blogs cartoon, with most of my original text removed and replaced with a more Charles-friendly script, including further slander against RS McCain. I'm not including the pic in this article because frankly, the rewrite wasn't particularly funny.))

My response:

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:21 AM, tfmo@christmasghost.com wrote:

Thanks. But I prefer it as is, as do people whom I hold in much higher esteem. Perhaps your time might be better utilized by coming up with your own cartoon, instead of applying unsolicited, unnecessary, and unwanted edits to mine.

Or perhaps you could use your influence as a writer for such media as Vanity Fair and Huffington Post to actually spread a little truth about the blatant deception being committed by the White House and members of the various media, instead of dickering around with a largely unknown amateur political cartoonist/commentator's work?

I'm not sure what artistic circles you associate with, but where I come from, vandalizing another artist's work without their prior explicit permission is a grave insult. Please bear this in mind the next time you decide to "improve" someone else's creation.

Sincerely,
TFMo

Barrett's reply:

"Vandalizing?" Wow.

My response:

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:24 AM, tfmo@christmasghost.com wrote:

Well, how else do you describe it when someone takes part of your property and scribbles all over it against your wishes? If I were to take one of your articles, remove your writing and replace it with my own opinion, would that not be much the same thing? Or if I went to your house and did that on your kitchen wall?

If you have an objection to my cartoon, there's a couple of handy little doo-dads called "e-mail" and "comment box." Feel free to voice your opinion in either or both, but do not assume that because more people know your name than mine that you have any authority to alter my work. You are not my editor. You are not my boss. You are not my coworker. You are not my partner. If you want me to draw a cartoon, then we can discuss content and fees. Otherwise, kindly keep your hands to yourself.

Sincerely,
TFMo

Barrett replies (and completely misses the point):

This is what's known as "parody." I didn't damage any of your "property" - rather, I altered a downloaded copy of your work as a means by which to make fun of you, then I sent you that new version as a joke. You'll be happy to learn that your original cartoon is safe and sound in your own possession.

Welcome to America.

My response:

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:53 AM, tfmo@christmasghost.com wrote:

Really. Then why don't you try this little experiment: Take any article your boss at Vanity Fair or HuffPo has written, rewrite it to "make fun of" him, then send it back to him and call it an "improvement."

Let's see if your "parody" argument helps you keep your job.

Welcome to reality. And the unemployment line.

One can hope Barrett got the point, but it's never safe to assume such things when dealing with a leftist idealogue. His reply:

Okay, I think we're done here.

My reply:

I think you were done quite some time ago, Barrett. I don't mind hearing a differing opinion, but I take exception to someone out of the blue butchering a copy of my work, then toss it back at me and saying they've "improved" it. As I said before, if you disagree with my opinion, feel free to e-mail me or leave a comment. But don't alter another artist's work and expect them to be amused.

But when have you ever known a lib to NOT have the last word?

I didn't expect you to be amused. I was insulting you. Trust me, it won't
happen again.

Well, at least he can admit that he was insulting me. Which is pretty damn amusing; a big shot famous writer for a handful of lefty publications, who has written a couple of books, and has probably even been on TV...going after a largely unknown commoner like myself, for a cartoon that, as best as I can tell, has nothing to do with him and was viewed by MAYBE a hundred people.

Maybe he is a friend of Chuckie's. Maybe he exercised that more unpleasant aspect of human nature that urges one to insult someone he deemed beneath him in order to feel better about himself. Maybe he's paranoid and afraid I will get more attention than him someday. Maybe he's just lonely and wants someone to talk to, but chose a crappy way of initiating a conversation. I dunno. I don't know the guy. When I saw the first mail, the name seemed familiar so I Googled him. Even though the search revealed his affiliations and the names of a few of his books, I still didn't particularly recognize him.

Maybe I'm just being too thin-skinned. It's not like I haven't been insulted before; my family made Roseanne look like the Waltons. What really ticked me off was not his opinion of the subject, but the fact that he vandalized my artwork to make his point, then sent it back to me, claiming it was an "improvement." For one, it wasn't an improvement; which only helps prove the belief that people on the left have NO sense of humor. For another, you just don't screw with someone else's art. You don't walk up to a comedian after a set and tell him "Hey, your joke would have been funnier if you had said" whatever.

And yes, I fully admit that I have nothing to do with the little flame war between Chuckie and RS McCain and the rest of the blogosphere. I've done two Football-head cartoons, both of which I was ASKED to do; first by CGhost, then by Will Teach at Pirate's Cove. I didn't mind; they were both quick jobs and got me a little recognition, which I intended to parley into further fame for my other cartoons and commentary, in hopes of garnering more hits on CGhost's site and my new site JBYP.

I've read enough of both sides to form the opinion that Chuckie is full of crap, so I have no problem with cracking jokes at his expense. I tend to do that with people who take themselves far too seriously. And yes, I poke fun at myself when I take myself too seriously; luckily I have a wonderful, intelligent, witty wife who is more than happy to help me recognize these moments.

I have no illusion about my skill as an artist or as a commentator. I'm above average, but only just. I'm not the wordsmith that Michelle Malkin or Thomas Sowell or Mark Levin is. At best, I'm on par with Glenn Beck, but only if you include goofiness in the equation; I TOTALLY smoke Beck on sheer silliness. I'm not a great artist like Alex Ross or Alan Davis or even the guy that did Calvin and Hobbes.

But these are things I enjoy doing, so I do them. And a few other people seem to like it, so I'm not just entertaining myself. I'm just a dude with a little talent for drawing and being a smart-ass, who occasionally draws something really neat (largely by accident) and occasionally says something a little more profound than "Hey, you want fries with that?"

So why would some big shot writer guy feel the need to go after lil' ol' me?

Dunno.

Well, he says he won't do it again. Time will tell. As I told him, I have no problem with differing opinion, provided you have some facts to back it up. I welcome discussion on topics, I YEARN for it. Debates are boring if both sides are arguing for the same opinion. Talking in a vacuum does nothing to further one's knowledge. I will be as polite as you; if you start off by insulting me, expect the same in return (but with far more panache.) And I think I deserve a little pat-pat for NOT calling Barrett a douche-nozzle for screwing with my cartoon; by all means, if you don't like the cartoon, then say you don't like the cartoon. But keep your damn dirty hands off the merchandise.

Crossposted at JBYP

Posted by TFMo at 09:12 AM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

October 22, 2009

And This Is Why People Call The ACLU.......

Yes, I know I have been "missing in action" for a bit now but to quote the old line "i've been sick..."
Well, yes I have on many levels; sick of the small town corruption and now sick with the flu.
Small towns have reputations for being bastions of ignorance for a reason...it's usually true.The sad part is, it's not the townspeople that are the issue,the people here are funny, kind, generous and very smart, no it's usually the city council that suffers, quite badly, from the "big desk tiny brain syndrome".
And the city council has many enablers....usually working on the greed theory. It's so much easier and more gutless to gloss over the crap that is occurring than to stand up and fix it. It's so much easier to screw over people buying the real estate than to let them know what they are actually getting themselves into.
For instance would you expect a town in California to pander to a church that is so rife with superstitious idiots that they are convinced that Halloween is "Satan's holiday"?
No? Well, welcome to my world.....
But before you start thinking that they "mean well', let me dispel that thought for you because they don't. As I already said the townspeople aren't the problem, it's just a handful of manipulative and very very dishonest people that are. The cast of characters wouldn't be believable in a movie and yet they are quite real.
You wouldn't think you would ever have to worry about a church, would you? Well, think again.
And why pray tell, are they so fixated on this? On imaginary bogey men instead of, oh I don't know going after the wife swapping groups that flourish here? Funny, I don't remember the real estate agent disclosing this, or the fact that I wouldn't be 'allowed' to celebrate Halloween by passing out candy to kids.....because the "hip" pastor isn't so much a pastor as he is a frustrated cruise ship activities director.
Did I mention he has a mullet?
How would you like to pay half a million bucks for a house, and the heinous taxes that go with it here in California, only to find yourself blinded by huge rented halogen lights aimed right at your front door on Halloween by "the church".....merely because they don't approve of Halloween? Okay, you might be able to buy that they don't like Halloween, after all some churches can be pretty backwards, except for the fact that they then put on their own Halloween party where they block off the street [and main fire department thoroughfare I might add] call their gathering a "Harvest Festival" [pagan alert] and the 5 kids that go to the church there dress up as witches and vampires. I am pretty sure the Lutheran Missouri Synod had no idea they were hiring the world's biggest idiot...after all, if you are going to piously protest anything that might ,to quote the idiot, "smack of paganism"...perhaps you should take your own advice and not put on a pagan demonstration, hmmm?
The pastor's wife, who is as dumb as a fence post then runs out in the street screeching "don't go there, come over here" at any child who might be brave enough to play Helen Keller and find their way through the blinding lights to my front door for candy.
The same pastor's wife who, in the first weeks we were here viciously and very unfairly gossiped about her neighbors...neighbors who obviously had already had enough of her bullshit....and repeated a story about her daughter to my husband and I [in front of her husband, the pastor, who just nodded and smiled as if she were recalling a lovely Christmas scene] that was so vile, so embarrassing that my face was red for about an hour. It's not like I have virgin ears ...please, ask anyone who was around when a cow kicked me on the ranch. No, what she had to say was beyond crude, and she thought it was hysterical. So much so that she could barely get the story out for laughing, but sadly she prevailed. My husband and I were rooted to the ground in horror, and I remember feeling the sick sensation in the pit of my stomach wondering what in the hell we had gotten ourselves in to.
One of my friends and neighbors really spoke the truth when she said "if it weren't for "Christians" everyone would be one" .......and this church is the poster child for that. Real Christians are not the town bullies, they do not force their views on others and they really do not take advantage of all too human weaknesses to manipulate the town council. And most of all they do not bear false witness.
And this church does all of the above. And brags about it......
It really saddens me that this kind of willful ignorance and nastiness is not only sanctioned by my town, but encouraged by it and simply because "someone" has the Polaroids...........
And that's why it is so necessary for a city council, especially in a small town, to be populated by decent honest people. Maybe someday we'll get some of those, but I'm not holding my breath.
Now excuse me while I go cough on the fake pastor.......
This is part one of this story, they really don't want me to write part two......

Posted by ChristmasGhost at 03:17 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Late Wednesday Cartoonmentary from TFMo!

Clickity-click for Teh Funnah!

Posted by TFMo at 09:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 20, 2009

Time For Your Meds, Uncle Bob

Reading today's news, I am once again struck by the stark differences between Conservatives and Liberals. I have to force myself to chuckle when I see Libs attacking Conservatives and spouting off about "Right-wing terrorists" and immediately pointing to jackasses like David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, and other nutjobs. I have to force myself to laugh, or punch the monitor. Laughing is cheaper.

This time, it was an article at The Other McCain, which featured this snippet from the Seattle Examiner:

"We are in the middle of a resurgence in right-wing extremist criminal activity that really started following Ruby Ridge and Waco," said Mark Pitcavage, director of the Ohio-based SLATT (State/Local Anti-Terrorism Training) Program. The program, for law enforcement agencies, is conducted in conjunction with the U.S. Justice Department and the non-profit Institute for Intergovernmental Relations. "It shows no sign of letting up at this point," said Pitcavage, who earned a doctorate from Ohio State University as one of the few expert scholars in right-wing extremism.

Sigh.

Allow me to school the idiots at the Seattle Examiner, and the rest of the fools out there that couldn't find a clue with both hands, a Sherpa guide, and a GPS.

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT RIGHT WING. Conservatives don't go for this kind of lunacy. We're about obeying the laws, and if the law is bad, we go about getting the law revised LEGALLY. When we gather in groups, like at the Tea Party protests, we don't wreck the place. We don't commit violent acts. We don't scare people. We don't attack cops. Good grief, just look at the photos and compare how the mall looked after the Tea Party left, and how it looked after Obama's Inauguration thing.

People like Koresh and McVeigh may claim to be Conservative, as does the media. But their actions tell a far different tale. Conservatives would not risk the lives of their own children to make a point. Conservatives would not blow up a building and purposefully murder innocent people as a means of voicing dissatisfaction.

People like the G20 protesters in Pittsburgh this past September show a stark difference between Conservative protest and Liberal protest. After a few minutes of clicking, I was able to find out the goals of the G20 protest group. **SPOILER ALERT** They're socialists.

Even in less violent cases, the left loves to go after Conservatives who do wrong. Whether it is closet homosexuality or adultery or theft, Liberal media adores the idea of "Conservative corruption." Here's another clue-in, free of charge: Conservatism is not corrupt, nor are its ideals based on corruption. What fails here is the person. Man is fallible; Man screws up. It's not the fault of the rule, it's the fault of the Man. When Conservatives go astray, it is because the Conservative in question strayed from Conservatism.

We're not about senseless violence, or breaking laws, or beating the crap out of people who just disagree. We don't lie about our opponents or seek to ruin them. I'm willing to bet that even Mark Levin would welcome Barack Obama with open arms, if the President abandoned his socialist agenda and embraced Conservatism.

We don't put up with the whack-jobs in our midst. The hardcore Birthers, the lunatic conspiracy extremists, the people who will shoot you if you so much as look at their house...these are the crazy uncles we try to keep confined to the attic, for the safety of others as well as himself. We don't heed Weird Uncle Bob's warnings of alien invasions and mystical cabals; we let him have all the tinfoil he wants to make his hats and we try to keep him on his medication.

And the stark difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Liberals keep running their Weird Uncle Bob for office. They don't keep him on his meds; he's down in the living room, screaming at the coffee table and scaring the kids. He's in the kitchen, trying to bake a dictionary. And worse, he's been put in charge of the family's finances and home security.

Yes, I am equating Liberalism with insanity. How else can you define it? A bunch of people that believe that killing an unborn child is perfectly fine, but shriek in horror at the idea of executing a serial killer can not be considered sane. These are the people who believe that incurring greater debt is the best way to get out of debt. They believe the best way to deal with someone trying to kill you is for you to drop your gun (or worse, give it to your assailant) and try to talk him out of it even as the knife slides between your ribs. They believe that giving people money for doing nothing will give them an incentive to go find a job and support themselves. They believe that taking money from those who create jobs will improve unemployment. When they want to build a bridge, they first blow up the perfectly good bridge that's there, build a monument, and then blame the original bridge as the reason no one can cross the river anymore. They believe that all the problems in society, that were largely caused by government interference, can only be solved by...drumroll, please...MORE GOVERMENT INTERFERENCE.

And despite all the times these ideas have failed miserably, they insist that they will work and have worked. This is nothing short of delusion and megalomania, sprinkled with OCD and psychosis. Insanity is loosely defined as performing the exact same task over and over and expecting a different result. This fits Liberal methodology to a tee.

The lunatics are running the asylum.

Crossposted at JBYP

Posted by TFMo at 08:14 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 19, 2009

WAY TO GO, PAM!!

Our good friend, the lovely Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs, just got signed to a six-figure book deal, co-authoring The Post-American Presidency with the illustrious Robert Spencer, author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), and The Truth About Muhammed. The book is due out in July 2010.

Congrats to them both, and deepest gratitude for all the work they do, exposing the enemies of our country and helping to make the world a little safer!

Crossposted at JBYP

Posted by TFMo at 04:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Special Announcement!

I want everyone...and yes, that means you..... to go over and check out TFMo's new website. Not only is he a brilliant cartoonist but he has proven time and again that he can also write some very smart commentary.
So, go forth and comment! And please link to him on your sidebars, it's just sad when a grown man cries you know?
And after all the belly laughs and sparkling commentary he has given you, don't you think it's the least you can do?
Okay, enough of the "pack your bags we're goin' on a guilt trip".........just hop on over there and make him smile for a change......

http://jbyp.tfmostudios.com/

Posted by TaxMan at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 18, 2009

PWNED! Sunday Bad, Cartoon PRETTY! from TFMo!

You just KNOW Obama plays a female Night-Elf....NTTAWWT.


Crossposted at JBYP

Posted by TFMo at 02:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 17, 2009

One Nation, Slightly Used

We on the Right warned that the election of socialist Barack Obama would lead to the end of US sovereignty, and the Left laughed and poo-poo'ed our concerns.

Well, guess what?

From the lovely Pam Geller: ACTION ALERT: Obama to Cede US Sovereignty in December

And from Drusilla Barron: Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, claims British Lord Monckton

And this is what the Communist In Chief will be signing: UNFCCC

In a nutshell, Obama is going to relinquish control of climate issues in the US to the UN. This is not just EPA standards and regulations, this also encompasses the FINANCIAL aspect, and anything that might pertain to climate change...which is pretty much just a matter of the Overlords's imagination.

No where in this report will you find mention of democracy, voting, ballots, or anything that gives us a choice or say in the matter; if Obama signs this, our country will exist at the whim of the UN, which is run mostly by countries that despise us. And I doubt that we'll get that sweet Veto Anything power granted to Russia and China.

Burn up the phones and clog the servers, fellow patriots. We have only a few weeks to get the word out on this and deliver a clear message to Obama: You do not have the right, the authority, nor the support of the citizens of this country to hand our freedom and our country over to any foreign government. Doing so is an act of treason, SIR, for which you and your socialist circle WILL be held accountable.

Posted by TFMo at 03:46 PM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

They did WHAT???

I once had respect for Newt Gingrich. I didn't agree with all his policies, but for the most part, I thought he was all right. I didn't like what he did in his marital life, but that's his own personal thing; I'm more interested in the professional.

Then I saw him in a commercial, sitting on a bench with Nancy "Aspiring to look like Joan Rivers" Pelosi, nattering about Global Warming...an ad paid for by the Gore Whores.

I hope they paid you enough to compensate for a massive blow to your credibility, Mr. Gingrich.

And now, along with the RNC and the NRCC, he has thrown his support behind Dierdre K. Scozzafava for the NY 23rd Congressional seat, over her Conservative opponent, Doug Hoffman. Newt and the RNC couldn't have labeled themselves more RINO if they'd all plastered horns on their noses.

With her laundry list of negatives, Scuzzifavor shouldn't even be allowed to watch Congress on CSPAN, let alone be in the room. Any Republican receiving a Margaret Sanger Award should be shipped off to a leper colony, and any Republican endorsing such a fool gets to bunk with her.

Here is a simple rule of thumb that anyone can use, in virtually any situation: If you are doing something your opponent likes, then you are doing something horribly wrong. Case in point, Al Sharpton, Daily Kos, and the Shrieker of the House approve of Scuzzifavor. This rule is the antithesis of appeasement, and this abomi-nomination is the poster-child of appeasement to the very corruption that has handed the Jackass Party the White House, Congress, and a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

She also supports gay marriage, which I am sure Obama loves, since he's enjoying his "Present" vote to the fullest extent on the subject. And no, I am not anti-gay. I have no problem with gays; if a person is lucky enough to find someone who loves them unconditionally and can be trusted not to drive them into bankruptcy or knife them in their sleep, then congrats; they're doing better than a lot of other people. The issue, just so's you good folks know, is that supporting a gay marriage law FORCES churches whose doctrine opposes such unions to accept them, and that is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Don't be fooled by the left's "Separation of Church and State" malarky, either; those words do not appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence; it comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Assembly, who had concerns that the government would be able to dictate dogma to the church.

Read that one again, you Perez Hiltons out there...the First Amendment protects RELIGION from the GOVERNMENT, not vice versa. For a gay marriage law to be passed would be a direct violation of the Constitution, because that would mean the GOVERNMENT would be allowed to dictate dogma to RELIGION.

And then there is her ACORN ties. As per Michelle Malkin's article:

...Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party — a socialist outfit whose political DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”

It should also be noted that Arkansas is where ACORN was born. Not to mention her hubby is a Union Organzer in NY, and she supports Card Check.

Do NOT accept any excuse from the GOP that they weren't aware of these ties. This information is not some closely-guarded-Colonel's-Eleven-Spices secret; this is public information, accessible to anyone; if I can sit in my living room and find this stuff out with half an hour of Googling on my laptop, then the hundreds of PAID staffers at the RNC with their massive database can too.

No, ignorance is a dodge. The only reasonable assumption here is that they are fully aware of Scuzzifavor's checkered liberal ties. And from that, it can be deduced that they WANT her in. For that to be true, then it can logically be concluded that the Powers That Be in the RNC are selling us out AGAIN.

Mr. Gingrich, you have cast your lot with the anti-American, anti-Constitution criminal scum. You are no Conservative, sir, you are a fair-weather moderate appeaser. For me, this is the final blow to what shreds of credibility you had.

Posted by TFMo at 01:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 16, 2009

WINNAH!! Badgerhawk!

Congrats to Badgerhawk for winning the Who The Hell Are These People? contest!

The correct answers (for those too lazy to look on that thread) were, from left to right, Mad King Chuckie, Sharmuta (lthough I would have accepted LGF's Army Of One), Kilgore Trout, the lovely Pam Geller, RS McCain, Dan Riehl, Rusty from Jawa Report, William Teach, and Ace from Ace of Spades!

Congrats again, and thank you all so much for reading!

Posted by TFMo at 07:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 15, 2009

Cartoon Request from Cap'n Teach by TFMo!

View image
Can you guess all the bloggers?

Posted by TFMo at 07:21 PM | Comments (36) | TrackBack

AGW=OMG

It's a scam.

I doubt that comes as a surprise to any of you reading this; you wouldn't likely be perusing a tiny little conservative blog like this if you were drinking deep of the Kool-Aid. But it truly needs to be clarified that this is, in fact, a massive scam.

The con men in question aren't the hippies, running around with green peace symbols on their faces every Earth Day, the bottom-most rungs of this winding ladder...this is strictly a suit-and-tie swindle of epic proportions. This is the Gore/Obama/Immelt/Soros crowd. Optimist that I am, I prefer to think the hippies honestly believe they are trying to do good, trying to save the planet. But as I hope to demonstrate, the suit-and-tie crowd knows its a scam, intend it as a scam, and will profit greatly from the scam.

One of the first things you must consider comes from the pioneer days. When settlers first came west, they discovered that the various tribes were maintaining the land...notpreserving it, but maintaining it. They would stay in one place for a while, hunting and farming that area, then move to another. In doing so, they insured that the various game animals would not be wiped out, nor would they grow so numerous that they would wreck the area by over-eating, leaving nothing for the other animals, and thus maintaining the food chain. Keeping the animals at a reasonable number, they also prevented various diseases that can occur in population explosions. The Indian's nomadic practices also avoided an over-farming of the soil, ensuring that the next time they were in the vicinity, there would be fertile land to use.

But perhaps the most interesting practice was using controlled burns. You see, if left unchecked, deadwood, old leaves, and undergrowth will accumulate in any wooded area. Anyone who has ever tried to build a fire without a starter log or any accelerant can tell you that if you try lighting a bare log, you're gonna have one cold, frustrating night. You use kindling, which is typically something small, dry, and combustible...like deadwood, old leaves, and dried undergrowth.

By performing a controlled burn, the Indians got rid of all this tinder. So if lightning struck a live tree, there would be less fuel for the fire, reducing the chance of a massive, uncontrollable forest fire that would wipe out ALL the game in the area, and probably a few Indians as well. How well did it work? Ask any of those hippies, if you feel like enduring hours and hours of babble about how beautiful and natural the country was when the White Man first arrived. That didn't happen by chance; that was Indians torching the forest from time to time.

So when Teddy Roosevelt decided to "preserve" Yellowstone National Park in a moment of time, he outlawed the needed maintenance. Within a very short time, the deadwood and undergrowth were piled high against every tree trunk, and animals (now illegal to be hunted) grew so numerous they were destroying the entire ecology. Wolves, the perennial villain (often for good reason), were killing deer and other cute animals. Those horrid wolves! They must die! So the wolves were hunted out of Yellowstone. Now all the sweet fuzzy little critters were safe from the nasty evil predators!

But not from themselves.

The cute and fuzzies no longer had a predator to keep their numbers in check. As a result, the bunnies bred like bunnies. As did all the other previous menu items. They started breeding like crazy, and devouring every leaf in sight...but just the live ones. The deadwood and such was left untouched, especially since some of the C&Fs liked to eat the bugs that eat the deadwood. More and more deadwood was piling up, the C&F crowd were chowing down like Brando at the Golden Corral, soon the food supply wasn't sufficient to maintain the massive number of eaters. Famine set in, and it brought its buzzkill cousin, Disease. Thanks to this "preservation", Yellowstone was becoming a pristinely preserved abattoir.

Let's not forget the forest fires! In fact, back in 1988 (yes, that's how long the stupidity had gone on, and continues to a large extent TODAY) Yellowstone caught fire. And it burned like the fires of Hell itself. It burned for MONTHS and more than half a million acres were gutted. Witnesses relate that the smoke could be seen from miles away. Even in New York, 1500 miles away, the effects could be seen in the atmosphere.

Did the tree-huggers learn their lesson? Not in California, apparently. Most of the yearly wildfires there are due to the same dangers the Indians learned to prevent; get rid of the kindling, and the fire has less fuel. It is illegal to remove the undergrowth in many areas, in the name of preserving.

Which brings us back to Global Warming and a look at what Gore and his Cabal of Doom would do to prevent the planet from exploding or whatever.

The AGW deception focuses mostly on cutting CO2, because all that nasty CO2 is making the planet heat up! Right. Nevermind the fact that CO2 occurs in NATURE. Nevermind that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute; Michael Crichton wrote in State of Fear that if you compare the atmosphere to the length of a football field, CO2 makes up the space of a DIME'S THICKNESS. And that's ALL the CO2, not just what can be attributed to Man; more than 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from Nature. They also neglect to mention (for those who weren't paying attention in Biology class) that plants FEED ON CO2! It's GOOD for the plants, which is good for us...otherwise, the plants wouldn't be able to release that OXYGEN that we've all taken a shining to. And how much would 100% compliance with the Green Nazi's do in regards of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere? Zilch. According to a paper written for PNAS, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions completely, WORLD WIDE, it would take a thousand years to show any real effect. (Anyone else recall the argument about how drilling for more oil is a waste of time because it would take TEN years to have any effect?) Oh, and that includes stopping all living creatures from exhaling.

Look at the Kyoto Protocols sometime. Billions and billions each year, and yet it will have virtually NO EFFECT on anything but the economy...and this is the opinion of Bjorn Lomborg, who DOES believe in AGW. In fact, in an October 2007 article he wrote for the Washington Post, he found that adherence to the Kyoto plan would make it nearly impossible to prepare and defend against the effects of ANY climate change, especially for poorer nations.

Do not make the mistake of believing these people's hearts are in the right place. Kyoto and the Green Movement are PURPOSEFULLY ineffective; I believe they know full well that screwing around with the environment is like playing Russian Roulette with five chambers loaded. This is why the AGW crowd has no problem with Gore using more electricity in his house for a month than a hundred homes use in a year. This is why these guys have no problem with jetting around the world and making a carbon footprint that dwarfs that of a brachiosaurus. They KNOW there is no reason to reduce emissions any more than they already are. If they were truly concerned about such things, they'd all be living like Ed Begley Jr, bopping around at 10 mph in a solar-powered car.

Not that I agree with Ed; I think he's an idiot. But at least he's not a hypocrite; he's worried about his impact on the environment, and he's actually DOING something about it. I can respect that, even if I don't agree with it. But the Gore Whores are just plain full of crap. The suits know damn well that there is no danger, at least not one we can really do anything about, and they know their plan will do absolutely nothing for the environment. And truth be told, by draining the economy with Cap and Tax and Green Initiatives and what-all, they are removing the MEANS by which we can help the environment. Green costs green, folks; check the price difference between ONE earthenware coffee mug and a pack of styrofoam cups. According to TargetOnline, a set of four mugs is $14.99. I can go to OfficeMax and get ONE THOUSAND Styrofoam 8 oz. cups for under $40. The breakdown is one cup for $3.74, or one cup for twenty-five CENTS, or almost fifteen cups for the price of one.

Posted by TFMo at 12:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 13, 2009

More Funnies from TFMo? Dude, get a real job!

The problem with doing these cartoons in advance is waiting for events to catch up. Luckily, the Obama Regime never makes me wait for long.

Posted by TFMo at 08:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 10, 2009

AAAAAND Back To The Sunday Funnies from TFMo!

I guess he figures he's earned his Peace Prize if he refuses to fight...?

Posted by TFMo at 11:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 09, 2009

Mo's On A Roll Extra Holy Crap Friday Funnies PART TWO by TFMo!

You only THINK I made a factual error in panel two...it was only a dream...only a dream....only a dream....

Posted by TFMo at 10:21 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Special Holy Crap Friday Funnies from TFMo!!

Yeah, that's pretty much our reaction. That and laughter. And projectile vomiting.

Posted by TFMo at 06:58 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 07, 2009

Special Wednesday Funnies From TFMo!!

We may need an extra tank....

Posted by TFMo at 04:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 06, 2009

A Hero Is Dead, Long Live The Cowards

So Derrion Albert was laid to rest, with thousands in attendance. Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, all these "worthies" have weighed in and gave lovely flowing eulogies, and shed tears for the cameras, and posed with this hero's poor grieving mother.

One thing I did not hear from these media-hounds was what truly needed to be said: I'm sorry.

Race-baiting, gimme-gimme policies that these "men" try to push, driving the implication that someone "owes" the black community for things that have not happened to a single living American today, the demand for hand-outs and the glorification of the single mother, and the propagation of corruption did more to put that young man in the ground than two-by-four that bashed in his skull.

What are black youths supposed to think, when people like the so-called reverends are telling them that they will never get a fair shot at life? What does it tell them when they live in the most corrupt state of the union, seeing criminals succeed while the hard-working, law-abiding citizens get shafted?

Yes, I call them "black." They call us white. Not European Americans, or Anglo-Americans, or any of that nonsense. Most of them were born here in America; show me a black man who came straight from Africa, and I will call him an African American. So deal with it.

These media whores use good Derrion's death and his mother's mourning to give themselves relevance. Without racial tension, these scum would have no purpose in front of the cameras, no bully pulpit, and certainly not the massive gobs of cash they effectively steal from the rest of us.

If anyone reading this knows anyone who knows anyone else who has contact with Derrion's mother, please, help keep these vultures from her.

Posted by TFMo at 04:52 PM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 03, 2009

Sunday Funnies from TFMo!

I wondered what happened to that guy....

Posted by TFMo at 10:51 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 02, 2009

Amazing Contortionists Now In Charge Of "News".....Most Likely Will Be Until 2010.

First up on the roster? The recession /depression is good for you!
From Live Science:

During the Great Depression, some of the hardest times our country has faced, the average life expectancy in the United States actually rose. This surprising bump in the population's health is also seen in other economic downturns - likely even the current one.

University of Michigan researchers Jose Tapia Granados and Ana Diez Roux found this unexpected boost when they examined historical life expectancy and mortality data for the years 1920 to 1940.

Over that time, U.S. life expectancy increased by 6.2 years during the Great Depression - from 57.1 years in 1929 to 63.3 years in 1933 - they found. The increase held for men and women, white and non-white.

And....it gets even more amusing in it's contortions:

"During expansions, firms are very busy, and they typically demand a lot of effort from employees, who are required to work a lot of overtime, and to work at a fast pace," Tapia Granados said.

That faster pace generates more stress, which could lead to an uptick in unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and drinking, he added. Adding to this, people also might sleep less and eat unhealthy fast foods. Stress alone is known to increase the odds of a host of diseases and increase the risk of premature death.

"Also, new workers may be hired who are inexperienced, so injuries are likely to be more common," Tapia Granados said.

Conversely, in recessions, there is less work to do, so employees can work at a slower pace and have more time to sleep. And because there is less money, people are less likely to spend on non-necessities like alcohol and tobacco.

In related news "Dirt naps good for you! After all no one can tell you that you have over due bills".

And then today's most amusing news by far....The LightWorker ....as in he barely works that's how 'light" it is....fails to bring home the bacon to Bacon Town/Chicago. Hilarity ensues:

Oprah is now eating her way across Denmark....soon she will finish [heh...'finish'..get it?] off the last fjord.
Video swiped from Ace at Ace of Spades HQ

Beyond hysterical UPDATE:
This is the actual text [partial...come on after reading this complete load of tripe from O'dumbass's speech could you handle more?]
President Modesty speaks and speaks and speaks and speaks.......

No one expects the Games to solve our collective challenges. But we do believe that in a world where we have too often witnessed the darker aspects [raaaaacist] of our humanity, peaceful competition between nations represents what is best about our humanity. It brings us together, if only for a few weeks, face to face. It helps us understand one another just a little better. It reminds us that no matter how or where we differ, we all seek our own measure of happiness, and fulfillment, and pride in what we do. And that is a very powerful starting point for progress.

Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn’t about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America’s experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals. It sprung from the hope that in this ever-shrinking world, our diversity could be a source of strength and cause for celebration; and that with sustained work and determination, we could learn to live and prosper together during the fleeting moment we share on this Earth.

If you are looking for the rest of it hop on over to HotAir where I 'borrowed' it from....
Some things may have been added by me...who knows?

Posted by ChristmasGhost at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The opinions and comments that you read here represent only their respective authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of any other contributors to this website. If you are offended by any commentary it is probably satire, or as we like to think of it (wacky us) FREE SPEECH.