March 8, 2014 - Barack Obama is the man who first told the world about the "inhalator." On March 6, he had trouble spelling the word "respect" during a tribute to singer Aretha Franklin (video below).
Obama blew the spelling of "respect" during a concert at the White House on Thursday night to celebrate Women's History Month. Obama said, "When Aretha first told us what R-S-P-E-C-T meant to her [crowd laughter, pause] she had no idea it would become a rallying cry for African-Americans, and women..." Blah blah blah. One has to wonder how many people were laughing at Obama for not being able to spell a word that most third graders can spell while drunk.
Is it surprising that Obama had trouble spelling such a simple word? Not really. His teleprompter was not helping him and he was too distracted by thoughts of how cool he must be to be introducing Aretha Franklin. Fellow Man of Genius Joe Biden thinks that "jobs" is a three-letter word.
Rush Limbaugh reminded us that the Obama flub will be treated lightly by the left-leaning mainstream media, as opposed to the brutal way in which they treated Dan Quayle. El Rushbo said this on his Friday show: "Vice President Quayle participated in a spelling bee. The word was 'potato,' and the spelling that he was given had an E on the end of it. And when the child spelled potato without pronouncing the E, the vice president called him on it. And said 'Oops, oops, oops, sorry, you blew it, it's p-o-t-a-t-o-e.' 'No, it's not, no E on there,' and Quayle, 'Right here it is.' And that's all it took. From then on, Dan Quayle, biggest idiot on earth. And that image lasted for quite a while."
May 31, 2013 - 8:30 PM CDT - The tornado outbreak in the nation's midsection today caused a lot of panic, and news rooms were not immune. A bogus report of "mass casualties" at a Holiday Inn in Earth City, Missouri by a Fox News affiliate today worried a lot of people unnecessarily.
There was also the bogus report of people trapped under rubble at Busch Stadium in St. Louis, which also must have frightened a lot of people. Fox is not the only media outlet today to pass along outlandishly bad information. AccuWeather and KMOV St. Louis were also guilty of horrifically irresponsible journalism. It's as though these "journalists" were more concerned with beating their competition to publish online than they were with actually confirming what it was they were reporting. The end result was not journalism, but nothing more than bad gossip.
It was a frustrating day on Twitter
Sharing the blame, however, are all of the gullible idiots on Twitter who mindlessly re-tweeted the bad reports. They are the kind of morons who lack any critical thinking abilities and are too lazy to take a moment to confirm something they see online.
Okay, but WHICH "local news sources?
They're the kind of fools who just love bad gossip and eagerly pass it along. Dozens of people were tweeting the Holiday Inn rumor, with no link to any source. It got so bad that Chicago News Bench tweeted this: "KMOV TV has NOTHING about a "mass casualty" event at a Holiday Inn. PEOPLE, CITE YOUR SOURCES OR SHUT THE F--- UP" (@chinewsbench).
This is probably what the targets looked like.
Source: Huffington Post
April 13, 2013 - A police sergeant in Port Canaveral, Florida was fired in the wake of being accused of having shooting targets with the likeness of shooting victim Trayvon Martin. Port Canaveral is about 60 minutes away from Sanford, Florida, where Martin was fatally shot by George Zimmerman in February 2012.
Sergeant Ron King was fired on Friday "after he brought Trayvon Martin shooting targets to a firearms training session," reports WFTV-9.
Trayvon Martin
King was supervising a training session at the Brevard Community College campus in Cocoa on April 4. King purchased the targets on the internet, Port officials told WFTV.
King, reports reports WTVM-9, is alleged to have offered two targets with Martin's likeness to two other officers at the training session. King and the two officers were all on duty at the time. The two officers said that they refused to use the targets.
June 7, 2012 - Last Sunday, I heard David Axelrod make an incredible statement on CBS's "Face The Nation." I had to shake my head. "Did I hear that right?" I wondered. Yes, I did: Axelrod said that when Obama first took office, the U.S. was losing "800,000 jobs a day."
A day?!? "That can't be right," I thought. It isn't, and if it was correct it would mean that the U.S. lost 24 million jobs in 30 days. At Axelrod's rate of "800,000 jobs a day," it would mean 144 million lost jobs in only six months - or 288 million jobs lost over 12 months. Impossible? I think so.
From the June 3 show transcript, Axelrod is quoted as saying, "Bob, first of all, obviously the-- the numbers this month were disappointing. The President said when he took office back in 2009 and-- and the country was losing eight hundred thousand jobs a day..." Full transcript...
A CNN report in February, 2009 noted that "Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January." That's per month. Divide 598,000 by the 31 days in January and that comes to just over 19,290 per day, considerably less than Axelrod's hallucinatory 800,000. Story at CNN...
Of course, host Bob Schieffer - as he often does - just let that incredible statement slide past without comment. Was Schieffer just not listening carefully, or does he not know that the entire population of the U.S. is not much more than the number of jobs that Axelrod claimed were lost in the first year of Obama's presidency. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. population estimate for Jan. 1, 2009 was 305,529,237 people. That's everyone of all ages. So how could Axelrod - and Schieffer - think that 288,000,000 jobs were lost in 2009?
I was beginning to wonder what kind of drugs they hand out in the West Wing these days, but then I was made aware that drugs might not be the cause of Axelrod's math stupidity. After all, Boss Obama is not very good with math, either. Remember when Obama said there were 58 states ("we've been to 57 with , ah, one more to go")? Yes, well, today I saw this beautiful headline: "Obama Can't Do Fourth Grade Math; '60 Mil. Divided by 600 Thous. is $54.94'" over at PunditPress.com, where they have that and other fun Obama math items to laugh at. And think about this: If everyone in Obama's administration is this math challenged, how can we trust them with the mathematics required to balance a budget?
Houston (L) and Bennett (R) (AP photos; via salon.com)
February 14, 2012 - Non-genius Tony Bennett, 85, is a great singer and, from all accounts, a nice guy. Trouble is, he's also a dim bulb, and says that the War on Drugs is to blame for the death of Whitney Houston.
Bennett said that while on stage at Clive Davis' pre-Grammy gala on Saturday, February 11.
He took the opportunity to politicize Houston's death."Let's legalize drugs like they did in Amsterdam," he told the audience, "No one's hiding or sneaking around corners to get it. They go to a doctor to get it."
There is so much that's wrong with that statement, and with the rest of what he said, that it has gotten a lot of criticism, even from those likely to be supportive of the octogenarian crooner. The Hollywood Reporter noted the weirdness:
Bennett's statements come months after Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for his involvement in prescribing and administering a fatal dose of the drug propofol. Winehouse, who had battled addiction for many years, died in July of alcohol poisoning. While the cause of Houston's death is not yet known, the singer was said to have fought addiction in recent years.
Just hours after the news of the singer’s death, Bennett was at a Grammys event in the Beverly Hills Hilton – where Houston died just a few floors above – and said, “First it was Michael Jackson, then there was Amy Winehouse, and now the magnificent Whitney Houston. I’d like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit themselves to get on government to legalize drugs … Let’s legalize drugs like they did in Amsterdam. No one’s hiding or sneaking around corners to get it. They go to a doctor to get it.”
Let's try to understand Bennett's muddled thinking: People should "go to a doctor" to get their drugs, he said, in the same breath in which he cites drug overdose victim Michael Jackson. Uhm, didn't Michael Jackson get his drugs from his doctor? Why yes! He did! Somebody tell Tony Bennett about that, okay?
Let's assume that the poison that Whitney Houston was using had been legal, as Tony Bennett says it should have been. Would that have prevented her from overdosing and/or using it so excessively that it contributed to her death? Did the War on Alcohol contribute to any booze related deaths last year? What? There is no War on Alcohol?Well, see? That's my point. Legalization does not prevent abuse. Ask any alcoholic.
Indeed, Salon.com kinda sorta thinks along these lines as well. Williams wrote:
Yet what really muddles the waters is the examples Bennett used, of Michael Jackson and his friend Amy Winehouse. The claim that “Once it’s legal and everybody can do it” problems go away is sadly untrue. Michael Jackson didn’t meet his maker shooting heroin into his veins; he died of “Acute Propofol Intoxication” — and his doctor, Conrad Murray, was subsequently convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Other drugs found in Jackson’s system at the time of his death were the FDA-approved Lorazepam, Lidocaine, Diazepam and Midazolam. Winehouse, meanwhile, died of alcohol poisoning.
See? That's my point. For Tony Bennett to say that the absence of a War on Drugs would have saved Whitney Houston is so profoundly naive that it makes him sound like a serious Libertarian. Bennett should, as they say, just shut up and sing. The sooner he shuts up the better, too...
In September, 2011 Bennett caused a firestorm of resentment when he told Howard Stern that America was to blame for the 9/11 terror attacks. “They flew the plane in, but we caused it,” he said on Stern's live broadcast. Bennett soon issued an apology, but the damage was already done to his credibility with a lot of people. The more recent statement about Whitney Houston being a victim of the War on Drugs does not exactly help his public relations efforts.
When you look at these 51 mugshots your initial reaction might be, "What kind of moron would do that to themselves?" Then you quickly remember that these are people who were photographed by the police for (allegedly) doing stupid things. Limited intelligence and tatoos often go together. I'm not saying that everyone who gets ink is a moron, but you can't deny that these folks approached self-adornment in a very bad way. See all 51 photos in this "collection of mugshots of tattooed faces and body parts for your study" at Anorak.
July 2, 2010 - The Democrat-dominated Chicago City Clowncil - excuse me, Council - today passed an ordinance that shows their utter and unanimous contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the Second Amendment. The Chicago Sun-Times reports today:Grumbling about a U.S. Supreme Court they say is out of touch with America’s cities, Chicago aldermen voted 45-0 today to approve a rushed-through compromise gun ban.... Within 100 days, anyone who wants to keep a gun in the city will have to register, get their training and pay the fees. Also within 100 days, any of the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of a gun offense will have to register at their local police station like sex offenders.In other words, the aldermen know that they have to live with the Second Amendment, but they'll be damned if they'll make it easy for citizens to actually excercise their right to own and bear arms. Which leads us to the main thrust of this post: Stupid things that aldermen said at today's council meeting (all quotes taken from the Sun-Times unless otherwise indicated):
Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th) said that law was written for militias and, “they guaranteed the right to carry around muskets not Uzis.”Uhm, Ald. Smith, are you serious? I've met you, I've spoken to you, and you didn't seem as stupid as that quote makes you sound. Can you show us where in the Constitution the word "musket" or "muskets" appears? Furthermore, can you show us any evidence that the authors of the Constitution meant "muskets only?" For that matter, show us where that is in the Federalist Papers, or in any other writings by any of the Founders. Do you really believe, for example, that the Founders meant long guns and not pistols, swords, knives, bludgeons, or any other kind of weapon?
“No Supreme Court judge could live in my community and come to the same conclusion they did a couple days ago,” said Ald. Sharon Denise Dixon (24th).As for Supreme Court judges living in the 24th Ward of Chicago and her presumption about their conclusion, well, the "judges" (justices) do live in Washington, D.C., a rough town in its own right. The same justices who ruled that D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional in 2008.
After that ruling (Heller),"violent crime fell" in D.C., says the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "even faster in the District of Columbia than in the U.S. as a whole. In 2009 alone, the District's murder total dropped 25 percent, to the lowest level since 1967."Of course, geniuses like Mayor Daley and Ald. Dixon are immune to hard facts. They'd rather go with the typical liberal emotional argument, facts be damned. The D.C. ban first went into effect in 1976, and according to the Washington Post it was essentially ineffective - gun violence "continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times." Chicago's experience was virtually identical over the same period.
Alderman Dixon needs to get out and talk to her constituents more. Is she completely unaware of the high rate of gun violence in her ward? Does she think that the majority of those shooting are by law-abiding folks, or perhaps by criminally-minded people who possess the guns illegally and won't give a damn about this new ordinance?
“I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court justices that voted to strike our handgun laws have spent any time in the communities that many of us represent,” Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) said. “There’s no way if they knew the violence our young people face every day that they could decide this was a reasonable course of action.”.Alderman Preckwinkle, see my remarks regarding Ald. Dixon's equally stupid remark, and know this: The violence that the American Revolutionaries faced everyday was worse than what your constituents see in the 4th Ward. Read the Federalist Papers. Stop believing the false myth that gun control reduces crime - it doesn't.
The reason for the Second Amendment was so that the citizenry could protect itself. Yes, they had a tyrannical government in mind, but I seriously doubt that John Adams would object to a little old lady blowing away one of your drug-crazed, murder-bent 4th Ward residents as he breaks through her apartment door. The Supreme Court upheld the letter of the Second Amendment, Ald. Preckwinkle. Go tell the elderly, the small females, and the shop owners in your ward that you believe they have no right to protect themselves against an amoral segment of society, created and perpetuated in large part by the decayed moral "values" of liberals such as yourself. Go on, tell them.
But Ald. Ed Burke (14th) retorted, “We can disagree with the Supreme Court all we want, but … this is the law and we’re going to have to follow it.”Burke's comment sounds reasonable at first, until you realize that he is saying that he disagrees with the Court's upholding of the U.S. Constitution. Why does Alderman Burke seem to resent having the Constitution applied equally to all Americans? He did redeem himself somewhat, however, when he said that he had to "confess that back in 1982, when I was chair of the police committee that perhaps I and so many others that voted in favor of this [handgun ban] ordinance exhibited too much ardor for the ban and we perhaps we should have been more sensitive to weighing the rights of legitimate citizens to have weapons." Well, that's nice, but notice Burke's elitist attitude in the "weighing of the rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
Still, Burke seemed determine to make an ass of himself. He also uttered this stupidity:
“All the gang-bangers out there who have been convicted of gun offenses who think that they can flaunt this law, they’re going to be locked up,” Burke said. “Each day that you don’t register, it’s a separate offense. If you don’t register for 365 days, that’s 365 offenses.”Alderman Burke doesn't seem to understand that it's been primarily the bad guys who have committed gun offense. Does he not see the profound irony and simultaneous idiocy of his speaking about gang-bangers who have "been convicted of gun offenses," and are no longer imprisoned, and will - in his apparent opinion - have the opportunity to register for legal gun ownership? Does Ald. Burke favor allowing those who have been convicted for gun violence to be able to legally register - and own - a gun? His statement indicates so.
Finally, Mayor Daley himself made another of his typically stupid statements. CNN quotes him as saying this:
"Either we enact new and reasonable handgun laws in Chicago to protect our residents -- as the council has done -- or we do nothing and risk greater gun violence in our streets and in our homes," Mayor Daley said.Mayor Daley is a deaf, dumb and blind imbecile insofar as gun ownership is concerned. Nevertheless, somebody should urge him to read the the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post pieces that are referenced above. Then he should watch this short video by Penn and Teller (contains strong language):
This video is hysterical. It mocks the idiots in the Obama Regime for criticizing the recently passed Arizona immigration law (SB1070) even though they did not read the 10-page bill. Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer approved this video.
According to SecureTheBorderAZ:"Governor Jan Brewer took President Obama to task for making Arizona's unsecured borders and illegal immigration crisis a laughing matter. However, since then, Washington's comedy of errors has grown far worse, with top cabinet officials admitting that they havent even read Arizonas new immigration law. Broken borders are not a laughing matter, but the failure by Obamas trusted officials to read Arizonas law before commenting and condemning it is laughable. Read the law for yourself at: www.SecuretheBorder.org."
April 22, 2010 - Chicago laughingly calls itself a "City in a Garden." Mayor Richard M. Daley prides himself on being a green guy, very environmentally sensitive. Don't make me laugh. The next time you pass a public school in Chicago or walk through a park, take a closer look at the "grass" - particularly on athletic fields. It just might be fake.
While Mayor Daley is vocal about planting weeds on the "green" rooftop of City Hall, he's rather quiet about the fact that a lot of natural grass is being ripped up and replaced by artificial turf. That's right, fake grass. It contributes nothing to the environment. It doesn't produce oxygen. It provides no habitat for insects, no feeding ground for birds or other small animals. The Chicago Park District says it will save money because it's cheaper than maintaining real sod.
Today, Mayor Daley played host to Ray LaHood, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transporation. They addressed a crowd in Daley Plaza downtown, surrounded by concrete, steel, glass and asphalt.
LaHood told the crowd,"You are in the greenest city in America with the greenest mayor in America! And we all oughta be happy about that!" I don't know whether LaHood was serious,just naively mistaken, or really that ignorant of the thousands of cities, towns and villages across America that are far greener than Chicago.
As Bill Cameron reported on WLS Newsthis afternoon, LaHood's words "sounded good, but Chicago still lags far behind many other big cities on the basic environmental discipline of getting normal household garbage recycled."
Cameron did not mention the fact that Mayor Daley seems intent on getting ahead of other urban communities in the replacement of natural grass with artificial turf.
The cost-savings argument made to justify the fake grass is insulting. The city is doing a very anti-green thing by destroying natural grass in the name of cost savings. If a private company tries to save a few dollars by not "going green," however, they chance being ridiculed or even fined. Let the city rip up the environment, however, and it's called "another park improvement."
Furthermore, to carry the Park District's cost-saving argument to its logical end, real trees should be replaced with artificial ones. After all, it costs a lot of money for tree trimming crews to maintain the tens of thousands of trees in parks and along the public way. A single new tree planted by the city can cost well upwards of $200, not including labor costs for sticking it in the ground.
The next time you hear Mayor Daley talk about being green, ask yourself this: How green is it to replace hundreds of acres of natural grass throughout Chicago with what amounts to outdoor carpeting?
Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) is like the gift that keeps on giving. Now infamous for his moronic concern that the island of Guam might "tip over or capsize," Johnson seems to be a habitual imbecile.
We found another of his gaffes (below) of him calling last year's heavy flooding in Georgia a "national disaster," when in fact it was a "major disaster." Hear Johnson's gaffe at 2:54 in the video below.
A congressman should know the correct terminology for what his own state is the recipient of. Dear Leader Obama declared it to be a "major disaster," not a "national" one.
Under Stafford Act authority, "major disaster" is defined as:
A major disaster, according to the Stafford Act, is “any natural catastrophe [...] or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under [the] act to supplement the efforts and available resources or states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.” The President issues a major disaster declaration after receiving a request form the governor of the affected state. The governor of the affected state must base a request for a declaration by the President on a “finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments and that federal assistance is necessary.” (1, p. 9)
Chicago News Bench obtained a copy of the diagram that Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) had with him when he told Admiral Robert Willard, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, that he feared Guam might "tip over and capsize" if more military personnel were located on the little island. The diagram was given to us by ... uhm, let's just say we can't reveal our source. For more about this, see "Is Rep. Hank Johnson the Dumbest Man in Congress?"
Can an island in the middle of the ocean - or anywhere - tip over? Congressman Hank Johnson (D-Georgia) apparently thought so when he was discussing relocation of more military personnel to Guam.
After droning on and on about the physical dimensions of the small Pacific island, Johnson said he was worried that the island might capsize like Barney Frank in a hot tub.
"My fear is that, ah, the whole island will, ah, become so overly populated that it would tip over and ah, and capsize," he said to a top military commander. You can watch him say it at 1:15 in the video here.
Stupid: Hank Johnson
It couldn't have been easy for Admiral Robert Willard, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, to maintain a straight face during his completely bizarre grilling by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) last week. Willard was testifying before the House Armed Services Committee at a hearing concerning his command's FY 2011 budget.Full post at Mother Jones...
Admiral Willard somehow managed to keep a straight face. He responded, "Ah, we don't anticipate that. The Guam population is currently about 175,000."
Manhattan is about the same size as Guam and has about 100 times the population and much more construction. There is no indication that Manhattan is in danger of capsizing. Later, Johnson defended his idiotic remarks by saying that he was just kidding. "Johnson tells 11 Alive News that he used what he thought was a humorous metaphor," reported NBC 11 Atlanta, "'Often, I've been known to use humor as I deliver a message. That's just one of the gifts that I think that I have,' Johnson deadpanned."
If Johnson really was kidding, then his sense of humor is very strange. There he is, in a very serious moment, discussing very serious matters, with the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command -- and he's making jokes? No, no, no.
A normal person would not have done that in the first place, but if they did, they would have quickly chuckled and said something like, "I'm just kidding, I know that Guam couldn't possibly tip over because it's attached to the bottom of the ocean."
Johnson did nothing like that. He gave no indication that he was intentionally saying something that he thought was funny. To Johnson's credit, though, it was a damned funny performance.
Congressman Phil Hare (D-Illinois) is a liar. He's also an idiot. He's a lying idiot, in fact, and the videos below prove it. On April 2, 2010 a video of Hare was posted (see it below), in which he was asked by a blogger about the constitutionality of the health care bill that was recently passed. "I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest," he said, "I care more about the people that are dying every day that don't have health care."
The video, and Hare's admission to violating his Constitutional oath, immediately got national attention. Hare has since put out his own video, which is a brief and very lame "explanation" of what he told the blogger. As in the blogger video, Hare lies in his own response.
What Hare and other Democrats do not seem to care about is the oath to uphold the Constitution, taken by every member of Congress, which does not allow exceptions to be made. Would Hare also favor unconstitutional legislation to completely ban automobiles because of "people that are dying every day" in car crashes? That would be unconstitutional, too, but it idiots like Hare could use the same excuse "about the people that are dying every day" for such a law. What Hare and his ilk have done, quite simply, is to take the law into their own hands like a bunch of vigilantes.
WGIL Radio reports: The congressman representing the Galesburg area is once again on YouTube; but this time, he's trying to clean up the potential damage created by the last time he was on YouTube. 17th District Congressman Phil Hare has posted a video to his own YouTube page where he again tries to explain what he said following a town hall meeting Thursday in Quincy. Bloggers and even some radio talk show hosts have claimed Hare said he doesn't care about the Constitution.
WGIL quoted Hare: "I said, and I quote, 'I am not worried about the Constitution on this,' meaning, the health care bill," Hare said. "I was not worried that the health care bill would be ruled unconstitutional. If it had been, I wouldn't have voted for a bill that I knew would be unconstitutional."
Hare, however, admitted to the blogger that he doesn't know how (or if) the health care bill fall within constitutional limits.
BLOGGER: Where in the Constitution does it give you - HARE: (interrupts) I don't know -. BLOGGER: - the authority to - HARE: - I don't know.
Congressman Hare has shown that he's willing to make exceptions to the Constitution for his favored bits of legislation. That's what he said. What other Constitutional exceptions is he - and other legislators - willing to make? Hare is like a drunk driver who gets ticketed for DUI, then tells the judge that he's really a law abiding citizen in most cases, but he's just not worried about how well he drives while boozed up.
Televangelist Pat Robertson recently said that Haiti's disastrous earthquake was supernatural punishment. "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil,"he told viewers of his 700 Club television show on Wednesday, Jan. 13. We'll assume that by "the devil" he meant Satan.
Robertson's statement was nutty and I don't share his opinion that the poor Haitian people are being punished because their ancestors might have made "a pact" with Satan - or anybody else. What the Haitian people are paying for, and dearly, is a multi-generational endurance of bad government policies. The eastern two-thirds of Hispaniola, the island that Haiti sits on, is home to the Dominican Republic, a nation full of resorts and lush greenery, decent infrastructure and democratic institutions. Satan had nothing to do with their current situation, either.
As crazy as it sounds, however, Robertson's statement is not as crazy as what Danny Glover said when he spoke on Grit.tv recently. The two statements, however, have remarkable similarities.
Danny Glover, a mentally deranged Liberal, actor and lover of socialist dictators, spoke by phone and gave his theory as to why Haiti was hit by a horrible earthquake. Glover blamed the earthquake on global warming, climate change and the failed Copenhagen conference (COP15).
"When we did what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen," he said, "this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?" (Hear it in the video.) Glover's theory about the cause of the Haitian earthquake is more bizarre than Robertson's for a few reasons.
Glover is crazy to begin with, but he's also so damned ignorant that he does not understand that a degree or two of climate change does not affect tectonics (earthquakes). Earthquakes are geological. Weather and climate are metorological. There is no such thing as "earthquake weather." The popular theory that the alignment of the moon and the sun can cause earthquakes has no established scientific basis. But there's Glover, who doesn't understand these simple facts, trying to sound all uptown by giving us his idiotic, superstition-based based that the failure of COP15 caused the recent quake in Haiti. Ye Gods!
Whereas Robertson's theory of a pact with Satan ("the devil") is based religious theory, said theory is many millennia old. Glover's theory boils down to this: The planet Earth, "Gaia," if you will, is pissed off because a conference held a few months ago in Denmark did not turn out the way some humans had hoped it would. Both Robertson's theory and Glover's theory require faith to be believed. But ask yourself which is easier to have faith in: Robertson's supernatural being (Satan/the devil), who wants to enslave Mankind? Or Glover's planet, an inanimate ball of rocks and minerals with a molten center that is mostly covered by a thin coating of water?
Robertson is correct in saying that the French once held tyrannical rule over Haiti. The Haitians revolted and threw the French out. As for the alleged pact with Satan, well, there are plenty of people who have literally sworn allegiance to Satan and have not suffered as Haiti has. Also, Robertson doesn't explain why the descendents of those he says dealt with Satan are paying for any alleged contract that their ancestors signed with Satan. By rights, I suppose, it's the original signers of the mythical contract that should have suffered the recent 7.0 earthquake.
If Glover's theory of a planet angered by a failed conference is to be believed, one must ask why Gaia has not yet destroyed California with a 10.0 earthquake, or why Gaia never lifted a finger to defeat Hitler's Germany or Tojo's Japan. Perhaps Glover thinks Gaia is ticked off because Humankind has failed to stop any slight warming that might be occurring, even though thousands of periods of severe warming and cooling predate the Industrial Revolution by thousands, millions and billions of years. The Satan theory put forward by Robertson is, frankly, more logical.
Glover, as mentioned, loves socialist dictators. In the photo here, he embraces Venezuelan crazyman Hugo Chavez. Now, Chavez believes firmly in Satan. You may recall that Chavez has, on at least two occasions, said he could smell the sulphur in the room because Satan had just been present. Perhaps Chavez, too, believes in Robertson's theory about Haiti's current state of affairs being tied to a pact with the devil. I would love to see Glover and Chavez in a debate over these dueling theories.
As I said, both theories require faith, with requires leaps of logic. But let's look at the Robertson and Glover theories as screenplays, just for the sake of discussion. Which character would make "more sense?" Satan, a fallen angel bent on revenge and enslavement, who becomes angry with a group of people because of a broken contract? Or Gaia, a spherical chunk of real estate floating through space that becomes homicidally annoyed by a failed conference?
I gotta go with the Satan character. Alec Baldwin would be a great casting choice, you know what I'm sayin'?.
ALSO SEE:Pact With Gaia - Daily Telegraph (Australia)
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
Here's a funny post about end-of-the-year articles that try to analyze and review the previous decade. Andy Borowitz manages to make a fool of himself by mocking those who do so, in a hilariously ironic twist. Borowitz wrote a short piece at the Huffington Post in which he said, "Between now and New Year's, gas-bags of every stripe will be offering their bloated reviews of the decade about to end."The Andy Borowitz bio at HuffPo says he's a comedian. Uh huh. Perhaps he was trying to be funny, then, and is not as stupid as this dumb passage in his brief little post makes him seem:
"The decade began with Bush f---ing the voters and ended with Tiger f---ing everyone else."Andy Borowitz probably spent hours crafting what he thought was a clever tie-in of G.W. Bush and Tiger Woods. He failed embarrassingly, but the libtards who follow him probably think he's a crafty wordsmith.Aside from the crudity of it, that sentence shows an incredible ignorance of both the calendar and of arithmetic. Bush took office in 2001, but Borowitz refers indirectly to the Florida ballot confusion of the 2000 presidential election. 2000 was the last year of that decade, not the beginning of one. In reality, it Bill Clinton who ended the decade of 1991-2000 by f---ing the economy and our military and intelligence services. For a good part of that decade, Clinton and was about as busy as a tiger f---ing any skirt that got near him.
As for Tiger, he was busy being busy in 2009, which is not the last year of this decade. Here, let me explain it for you, just in case you're as stupid as Andy Borowitz.
See, 2010 is NOT the first year of a new decade. 2010 is the last year of this decade, the one we are currently in. Someone should explain to Borowitz that the "10" in 2010 means that it is the 10th year in the decade. Gad, we just went through this nonsense in 1999, when the math-and-calendar challenged crowd thought that 2000 would be the first year of the new milliennium when, in fact, 2001 was. See, the "1" in 2001 is your clue.
Try this little excercise. Count to ten. One, two, three... and so on. When you get to 10, you will proceed to eleven. See the "1" at the end of 11? Another clue: You're now starting the next ten. "9" was not the last of the first 10, and 2009 is not the last of the first 10 years of this decade. Got it?
Although we have another year left in this decade, let me be the first to nominate Andy Borowitz as "Gregorian Loser of the Decade." I may be premature with that, but I suspect that nobody will write a dumber post about "the end of the decade" than the witless Borowitz has managed.
Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed
This stunning video shows the real reason why Barack Obama was able to become the president of the most powerful nation on the planet. Hint: He also became the president of one of the dumbest nations on the planet. WARNING: If you're an idiot, you will not understand why this video is so funny. Best you just move along now, because the rest of us will be laughing at you.
Cool Hats & Shirts for Cool ConservativesLeave a Comment...Chicago News Bench RSS FeedWe're on Twitter...
(Nasty Language Advisory) But it sure am funny. I post videos to YouTube. (Who doesn't, right?) On most of my videos (not all), I disable the commenting for two simple reasons: First, 99.9% of comments to videos are written by semi-literate imbeciles who simply want to misdirect the anger that they still hold for their abusive parents. It's not much different than comments to most blogs. Second, why should I waste my time moderating useless rants from useless imbeciles? Of course, now and then one of those imbeciles crawls under the door and sends a comment to my YouTube inbox. Here's one now, from "charlieclockwork" on July 26:
I like how disable the ability to add comments to the vids of yours that pretty much any TRUE Chicagoan would call you a pansy ass fag for giving people shit for pretty much almost completley stopping on a dead traffic day with no school in session. Everyone agrees with me and thats why your bitch ass won't let people comment. your an oversensitive duchebag, get out of MY city and go to a farm community where real life isn't happenig!! dork!! Rogers Park eats pussys liike you everyday for a snack, Morse ave CrazY bitch.
Of course, I could not resist replying:
Uhm, did I not just read a comment from you? I think I did!
Thanks for writing. I am happy to know that my videos elicit such passionate, well-written, intelligent comments from geniuses such as you. Perhaps I should reconsider my commenting policy here. After all, having more well-crafted, thoughtful comments such as the one I am responding to would surely add to the general knowledge base of Mankind. I do, sometimes, allow commenting on videos if I think it might pull in some perspective. One such video is "Anti-Violence March, Parade in Uptown, Chicago." From 94 viewings, "Scardataz" wrote this helpful comment on August 1:
THATS NICE FUCK IT UP UPLIFT LOOK YEAHIf anybody knows what that means, please let me know. I'm not sayin' it a bad comment, just that it's confusing and really doesn't add anything. Plus, it contains the word "fuck," which I never allow to be used on Chicago News Bench. Know what I'm sayin'?
So, that's why I generally don't accept comments. Horrible grammar, lousy spelling, drug-induced fuzzy thoughts, incomplete rambling sentences ... I don't need it, not on a regular basis. But I admit that it makes for a stoopid-but-fun post now and again.
Are YOU a citizen of the United STRAIGHTS of America?
You may remember the false charges brought against the Duke University lacrosse players in 2006. The District Attorney in that case, Michael Nifong, was convicted on charges of hiding evidence, lying, and perpetrating fraud on the court. More recently, Barack Obama made false charges against a Cambridge police officerfor his response to Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama said that the officer overreacted and hinting at racism on the part of the police. Nifong was punished for lying, and for bringing distress to people who did not deserve it. When will Obama be made to pay a similar price for a similar offense? Leave a Comment...See Our Online StoreChicago News Bench RSS FeedWe're on Twitter...
