METROSEXUALS OR POLITICIANS?

Anyone that has paid any attention to the recent Republican Presidential Candidate Derby can't help but wonder where's the substance?  Remember the old 1984 Wendy's Commercial "Where's the Beef?"  Well it seems that at times this race is about nothing but beef, i.e., beefcake and sometimes a little cheesecake.  Until Mitt Romney began putting his foot in his mouth by adopting Liberal views on global warming and unions, he was considered the ultimate Republican stud muffin.  Enter Rick Perry and we may have a real hair competition not seen since the hair poofs John Kerry and John Edwards were the Democrat Presidential ticket in 2004.   Republican Mitch Daniels was pinged upon because he's short, balding, and boring! 

*   *   *   *   *



Does anyone care that they're

both intelligent women?



As mentioned earlier, there's plenty of cheesecake too!  You can now purchase a 2-pack of "Babes in the White House" bumper stickers featuring Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.  A classic way of eliminating the competition when you can't beat them with ideas is to trivialize them.  The methods used by the Democrats to eliminate capable Conservative women are at times reprehensible.  One method is to play the "pretty face but no substance" angle.  So far this hasn't really worked because both women are articulate and could hold their own against the teleprompter assisted Obama.  In the case of Palin, she has been subjected to legal harassment, libel and slander, and a vicious Lame Stream Media hate campaign that has not been seen since the Nazi pornographer, Julius Streicher put out the anti-Semitic Der Stürmer.  

Bachmann is beginning to feel the effects of the Liberal-Fascist media hate machine.  The Media is nitpicking her every word to make her appear to be, as Chris Wallace on Fox News put it, "a flake."   For a bunch that claims to be enlightened and non-sexist, the Democrats and the Coastal elites are the biggest knuckle dragging troglodytes ever to trudge the surface of the Earth.  What's ironic about these sexist attacks by the Left is that both women are examples of the feminist icon as postulated by such feminist multimedia as Ms Magazine in the 1970s.  Both Palin and Bachmann are independent, intelligent, have families, successful careers, and genuinely seem to love their husbands.  In other words, they have it all because they are closer to the average American woman than Michelle "Antoinette" Obama.  And unlike most Liberal women, they've earned their success based on their own hard work.  The average Democrat female "success story" is based upon connections and not character.  Hillary Clinton hitched her wagon to Bill Clinton.  Nancy Pelosi came from a prominent Baltimore, Maryland political family.  Scratch a female Kennedy public figure and well, you find a Kennedy.

*   *   *   *   *

Alleged Conservative pundit, David Brooks endorsed the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama because he liked the crease of his pants.  Chrissy Matthews felt a thrill up his leg whenever Obama spoke.  Is there some sort of political bromance going on here or is this just hyper-educated coastal elite talk?    It also sounds very metro sexual because it is superficial and not substantive.  It seems as if it's more important what clothes are in a candidate's closet than the skeletons in his closet.  Something sure looks like it's in the closet and it ain't designer suits, shoes, or skeletons.

UNCIVIL SPEECH: WE'RE ALL FAT ASSES NOW.

Last Friday was the first anniversary of Michelle "Antoinette" Obama's "Let's Move" program. This non-event was celebrated naturally with a party, as Egypt and the rest of the Middle East burned.  The signature theme of the Obama Administration seems to be that you never let an opportunity to party go to waste even if the United States is going to Hell in a hand basket.  This is pathetic when you realize that Obama has no idea of how to do the job the American people elected him to do.

* * * * * 

The "Let's Move" program is a disguised political and economic agenda consisting of nutrition and exercise components that are aimed at eventually gaining complete control of the American agricultural economic sector.  Recall the take-over of two thirds of the American automobile industry and you'll understand the modus operandi of the Obamas.  The bottom line in this scam is that the rest of us that are not in the ruling class are mere "fat asses" to be manipulated by those that know what's good for us.  

The "Let's Move" program is also a more benign method of a hostile takeover of the agricultural economic sector than was the first Five Year Plan used by the "Soviet Exterminator" Joe Stalin. Stalin violently created agricultural collectivism, i.e., stealing the farms of the entrepreneurial Kulaks in the late 1920s and 1930s.  The Kulaks paid a dear price for their resistance to Stalin's economic "reforms" (sic).  As we know, school lunches in the United States are largely comprised of various food commodity surpluses purchased through agricultural price supports by the Federal government.

     In the past year, Michelle Antoinette has moved for legislation that now regulates the public school lunches of any kid that isn't fortunate enough, as the Obama's kids are, to be sent to a private school that has catered lunches.  At least we would think so, because of the exorbitant tuition that these elitists pay to keep their kids away from the "Little People's" little people.  With elevation of the Afro-Fascist Obama to the American Presidency, racial hegemony has given away to economic and social hegemony. 

     Would the Founding Fathers and Mothers have ever envisioned that the Federal government would reach into the lunch buckets of kids and prescribe what they are to eat.  The alleged founder of the Democrat Party, Thomas Jefferson would turn over in his grave because of this intrusion of government into the traditional bailiwick of parents as to what to feed their kids. 

     It is also intuitive that another goal of this culinary hegemony is total control of every aspect of the non-ruling class members' lives.  This is the goal of socialism: total control of the average man and woman.  Equality of misery for the masses, except for the ruling elites.  

Led by the Afro-Fascist Obama, the ruling class, i.e., the plutocrats like Warren Buffett; the oligarchs, like our tax cheating Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner; the Stalinists, like Hillary Clinton; and the ethnic/racial/cultural rabble-rousers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are presiding over the collectivization of America.

Sadly, the First Couple engages in a, "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.  We have seen pictures of the First Lady scarfing down ice cream cones and Presidunce Obumbler wolfing down cheeseburgers and greasy fries while, if they had their collective way, the rest of us alleged fat asses would be relegated to eating raw turnips and beets.  They'd be raw because under Obama's regressive energy policy, there would be no energy to cook the veggies with!  This gustatory hypocrisy gives a new, but sinister meaning to the phrase, "Let's do lunch." 

     So eat that junk food while you still can, you foolish fat asses that voted for this incompetent Liberal-Fascist regime. If all goes according to the Liberal-Fascists' plans, you'll be lucky to end up with bread and water: once a day.
        

What is hate speech?

What is hate speech?  According to Answers.com, it is "Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group. The article points out that the United States is unique among the judicial systems of the world in extending broad protection to such speech. Evidently, university speech codes were developed with the 1942 Supreme Court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in mind. 

Chaplinsky established the "fighting words" exception to determine whether the offending speech is protected or not. The court opined that, "...as those [words] that neither contributed to the expression of ideas nor possessed any social value in the search for truth and that incited an immediate, violent response.  Sounds a lot like the old "no redeeming social value" test found in obscenity cases.  And like obscenity, fighting words are in the eye of the beholder.

Hate speech as defined by the Liberal-Fascists is a different animal. It is a tool by which they supress any opposition to their agenda.  Hate speech, therefore,  is any criticism of Obama's agenda by equating the agenda with Obama himself.  Perhaps the master stroke by the Democrats was in nominating Obama instead of Hillary Clinton for the presidency.  Yet somehow, the press handling of Obama with kid gloves smacks of racism, i.e., the soft bigotry of low expectations.  Chris Matthews epitomizes this institutionalized media bigotry.  Watch this little exchange between Matthews and his fellow Leftist media stooges, Keith "Mr. Depends" Olbermann and Rachael "Mad Dog" Maddow.

Gee, Chrissy, did you forget that Obama is half white? No, I wouldn't have expected anything less stupid from a half-wit like you.  This patronizing attitude by white Liberal-Fascists fits the definition of hate speech because it's reflective of a deep seated bigotry.  These are the most dangerous bigots because they are political sociopaths dressed in sheep's clothing.