As you all know by now, our lovely country is about to lose a national treasure, the Imperial Blogsister, the Duchess Rachel Lucas. At least for a while while she and her beau go on an Excellent European Adventure in Britain.

His Imperial Silliness is, of course, thrilled for her and her newfound happiness, nobody deserves it more, but with every gushing post about how excellent it’s going to be to live over there for a while, my heart aches with the thought of how she’s going to feel after a bit of Euroweenie National Socialist Nannying up close and personal. But she’s a tough one, so she’ll survive.

In this post, for instance, she tangentially mentions the possible boons of the Euroweenie practice of requiring all of their subjects to pay a tax to the Nanny State for the privilege of owning a radio or a television:

I’ve been reading a book for expats living in England, and finally found out why those BBC programmes (heh) are 40 minutes long, which is because they air over there with no commercials. Which also explains the television license fee you have to pay there, which you know what? TOTALLY WORTH IT. It’s about 140 pounds a year if I recall correctly and the fact is, I would pay twice that here in America to be able to avoid commercials on the major networks. Time is money, people.

Of course, we already do have that option here in the U.S. of A. It’s called Cable TV, and you can get about two dozen committed movie channels for that same amount of money, all unsullied by commercials. And let us be clear about this: we hate commercials just as much as she does, although we’ve found ourselves immunized to an extent over the years. Commercials are the time when you go to the loo, pick up another beer from the fridge or make sure that you’re not missing something better on one of the other 200+ channels.

Here’s the downside. The “fee” that you pay over there for having the nerve to own a “luxury” item such as a TV or a radio, goes directly into the pockets of Nanny State. She, in turn, then doles it out to the broadcaster(s), mostly it’s only one giant monopoly of a broadcaster, which is how they avoid having to have commercials to pay for their programming. And she only doles it out if their programming satisfies the whims, prejudices and political correctness to which she subscribes.

So if some brilliant writer comes up with an idea that will make the most thrilling, hilarious show in the history of television that only has one tiny little flaw: it happens to offend some sort of sensitivity currently officially protected by Nanny State, then it gets shit-canned because, well, if it doesn’t, then the station doesn’t get any money.

Even worse, if the news division of one of the very, very few governmentally supported (and therefore financed without those horrible commercials) gets too froggy about criticizing the regime government, then it only takes one whisper from the PM to slam the coffers shut.

I don’t know. I prefer it our way. If I like it, I pay for it. If I don’t like it, I don’t pay for it and I go somewhere else and if enough people don’t like it, then the shits go out of business.

Over there, you pay for it AND like it, no matter what.

Or you just don’t get to watch anything.

I think I can live with commercials for a bit longer.

Today’s feel good story, courtesy of the Imperial Blogsis (who will, much to our dismay, soon be leaving for formerly great Britain). Don’t miss her comments either, particularly as they relate to the illiterate imbeciles who claim that “guns don’t make you safer.”

This lady would disagree, we’re sure.

An intended rape victim shot and killed her attacker this morning in Cape Girardeau when he broke into her home to rape her a second time, police said.

The 57-year-old woman shot Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun when he broke through her locked basement door.

The woman told police he was the same man who raped her several days earlier. Officials do not intend to seek charges against her.

Things to note from the article:

1) This was the second time this scumbag intended to rape her. So don’t give us any of that “the lightning only strikes once in the same place” nonsense.

2) He knew what he was doing, as in switching off the power mains when he broke in to make sure she couldn’t call the cops that we’re always told by liberal whinebags that we should rely on for our self-defense.

3) Thanks to the goblin subhuman’s stupidity and the presence of a firearm, this lady actually received some actual justice. If he’d been caught after the first rape, and fat chance of that happening, he’d have been given a slap on the wrist by some pansy-arsed liberal judge weeping about the cold potty that the swine had been sitting on as a kid. Instead, he’s now satisfyingly and well-deservedly DEAD.

Yes, His Imperial Majesty has long been an advocate for the death penalty for the crime of rape. Actual rape, that is. Not the “oh shit, I slept with this bugger in a drunken stupor and I’m too much of a fucking coward to admit it, so I’ll just press bogus charges instead” variety.

If all of that doesn’t make you get the warm and fuzzies, we don’t know what will. And just in time for Christmas too.

Remember, children: When you unload a barrel full of buckshot into the chest (or face) of a rapist, the Baby Jesus smiles.

Thatisall.

Yes, I’m still here, don’t worry, I’m just a bit busy being euphoric right now, but I’ll get over it and be back to my usual angry, gloomy self

This is about the Imperial Firearms Advisor and Imperial Educational Advisor bidding their adieus to the BlogoSphere. Now, they’re not “just” Old Guard Bloggers who’ve done a lot to define this medium and meant a lot to people, they’re also very dear and very personal friends of mine, I can’t begin to sum up what they and our friendship has done for me over the year, so naturally it’s incredibly sad to see them go. On the other hand, I still know where they live, so I’m much better off than those who only ever knew them through their sites. On the other, other hand, the only reason I know them is through those sites (and my own).

We’re losing two powerful voices today. Throughout the years, no day has been complete without my daily “fix” from them, and I’m profoundly grateful for that. I also know where they’re coming from. I don’t mean to worry you and I certainly don’t want this to be about me, so before I say anything else, let me say this: I’m not going anywhere.

But I know how they feel. At some point you reach the state where you say “I’ve done my bit and I can’t really do any more, so why not just let somebody else take over?”

Life isn’t all about blogging, you know, and if I were ever to reach the point where I truly didn’t feel like I had anything more to contribute, then I’d retire too.

And it wouldn’t matter either. The snowball the two of them have started rolling isn’t going to melt away and evaporate because they stop posting. They’ve truly started something bigger than themselves, everything they’ve contributed over the years is going to stay with us and, though we are all going to miss the regular posts, the lessons learned, the insights achieved aren’t going to go away.

Connie has taught me things about philosophy, education and other subjects too numerous to mention that have all helped me grow, things that I’ve tried to the best of my abilities to pass on. Kim has taught me more about firearms and other things than I’d ever learned, things that I’ve already had chances to pass on.

Ripples, my friends, ripples. Just because the stone finally stops skipping and sinks doesn’t mean that the ripples aren’t still there.

Yes, I wish that they’d keep posting too, but I’d rather focus on what they’ve already given us and passing that on than waste time moaning about the fact that the posts will no longer be forthcoming.

Their farewells can be found here and here.

The former link has a “contribute” button that Kim, with his usual humor, has taken to refer to as the “Gold Watch” button. Well, if anybody ever deserved a gold watch, it would be him and his family.

I do not lament the future absence of their great blogposts as much as I celebrate the fact that we had them in the first place. And I vow that I’ll be passing on all that I’ve learned in the future.

Thanks, my friends, for being there and for becoming part of so many people’s lives, including my own.

You done good and yes, you did make a difference. A huge one.

…and make sure that the turkey isn’t the only thing stuffed at the end of the day.

For your reading gratification while you take in the smells wafting from the kitchen, we bring you a post from LC & IB Blackiswhite, who stumbled across a liberal turkey doing the usual liberal shtick of “celebrating” a national holiday by crapping, peeing and vomiting all over our beloved nation.

His skewering, slicing, dicing and obliteration of the twat is a thing of beauty to behold.

Ed Morrissey warns against the onset of Obama Derangement Syndrome, a sentiment we can certainly agree with to a point, even though it’s not like the Anointed One and his Nutroots don’t deserve a taste of their own medicine.

But he uses some mightily strange examples to prove his point.

For one thing, he (and Jake Tapper) uses these comments from Congressman Broun (R-GA) as a perfect example of it. Granted, Congressman Broun may be extrapolating a bit here based on what precious little evidence we have, thanks to Obambi and his minions in the Obamedia’s successful disinformation campaign, but Ed’s visceral response to this “canard”, as he calls it, is certainly not based on reality:

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”

To which Ed responds:

No, he wasn’t. Hitler was never elected to any office. He became Chancellor because of a deal struck between political factions warring with each other in the twilight of Weimar Germany, appointed to the position by President von Hindenburg. The Nazis never even won a majority in the Reichstag, and in fact lost seats in the last free elections before Hitler became Chancellor.

Why yes, Ed, but that’s a big whopping non sequitur right there. You can be forgiven for not knowing how parliamentary systems work, though, so allow me to enlighten you since I’m intimately familiar with how they work, having grown up under one: That is the case for pretty much any leader selected under such a system. They’re all appointed by getting together a sufficiently large coalition to push the appointment through. I may have missed one, but I think I’m on pretty safe ground when I say that if your criterion for being “democratically elected” is a majority of the vote, then there has never been a democratically elected leader of a parliamentarian government. Which, I guess, means that they were all “a lot like Hitler” in your book. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Furthermore, what Congressman Broun is saying isn’t that, because Obambi was democratically elected just like Hitler, then it logically follows that he is a lot like Hitler. That would leave a whole lot of Hitlers walking around out there, and I honestly don’t believe that anybody would be daft enough to say that.

What he is doing is deflecting the usual canard, and this really is a canard, that “because he was democratically elected, then he can’t be like Hitler, because Hitler wasn’t.”

Bzzzzt… Wrong. Because Hitler was, under the rules of a parliamentary system. That he later usurped all power for himself under the Enabling Act is irrelevant. He got to a position where he could do so purely through democratic means. Which is perhaps one of the strongest arguments against democracy that you can make, if it wasn’t because all of the alternatives are infinitely worse.

I agree with Ed that one should think long and carefully before drawing out Hitler parallels, lest one end up in Kostard territory, but I would like to remind him that Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply when the parallels are actually there. Cult of personality, animosity toward free speech, required oops, airbrush time, “encouraged” participation in a massive youth organization, shared socialist ideology and much, much more.

This is not saying that he is Hitler, but that’s not what Congressman Broun is saying either. He’s merely pointing out that it would be folly to become complacent, that seemingly perfectly innocuous and democratically elected people have taken their peoples by surprise before.

Unless, of course, one subscribes to the notion that the Germans were by nature a bunch of bloodthirsty, Jew-hating Nazis who knew exactly what they were getting into all along and loved every minute of it. One might want to present that theory to a survivor of Hamburg, Dresden or Berlin. If one could find one.

No, let’s not go off the deep end, but let’s not put on blindfolds and become ignorant of history simply because it wouldn’t be “nice” to point out the parallels.

Eternal vigilance.

Thatisall.

[Update from a different location: I ran this short article tonight on-air. While it reeked of a direct connection between the two, I failed miserably to point out the differences in government (I was up against the time clock) and the parliamentary procedures unlike our own. For that I was wrong not to amplify the remarks a bit further, instilling the truth to our loyal listeners. My humble and sincere apologies since I profess to bring the "Truth" to the airwaves. I bow to the Emperor's better graces, analysis and concur, completely-JB ]

In which we were, once again, to lay out in minute details just how insufferably stupid it is to be more concerned with being “nice” than with the archaic notion of “winning”, particularly when you’re fighting an enemy who wouldn’t know “nice” if it jumped up and bit his Marxist nose off.

But then we found out that LC & IB Mike had already said all that needs to be said on the subject, so why don’t you go read that instead?

So where do we go from here? I take it that quite a few among us are still shell-shocked, which is understandable, but we need to get started eventually. Suggestions have already been made in this post. Not nearly enough, but I’m confident that more will start rolling in at an ever more furious pace as we pick up steam. Yes, yes, I know that some are impatient, but throwing yourself at the enemy’s entrenched positions before you’ve rallied and made a plan isn’t going to work.

Another idea, and I’m sure you’re all going to think that I’ve lost my ever-loving Imperial mind but hear me out, is to read this book.

Put down the crucifix and the garlic, please. (But do keep the Brain Bleach handy).

Why should you read that book?

1) Because if you’ve found yourself thinking “how did it come to this?” over the last few days, that book will answer all of your questions. That is the manual that the radicals in this country have been following to the letter since it was written, and it explains in detail exactly how they pulled it off and how they managed to subvert, undermine and suppress everything that our nation once stood for. All while conservatives obsessed with “playing nice” obediently looked the other way.

If you’re going to beat an enemy, it behooves you to find out what makes him tick first.

2) Who knows, you just might find some ideas in there. Re-calibrate, flush out the Marxist drivel and… It worked for them, didn’t it? At the very least, you’ll be prepared for anything that comes and you’ll know ahead of time how best to sabotage it.

No, I’m not “nice.”

“Nice” is for losers. Such as McCain. And I don’t like losing. Particularly not when what I, what we all stand to lose is the only thing in this world worth having: Our liberty.

…or something like that.

An Alert Lurking Reader (come on in, dear, the water’s nice! ) tips us off to a site called “M.D.O.D.” I guess that I’m not the only one throwing around mysterious abbreviations with a smug grin on my face. Serves me right. But I, His Imperial Benevolence, forgive them, because those conservative doctors are a hoot and a half.

Take this post, for instance, an interesting dissertation on Altered Mental Status that, if you read it through, isn’t at all going where you think it’s going. Thinking back on the Imperial med school days, I find myself wishing that our textbooks had been written by those guys.

So into the Dept. of Education they go. Along with this doc, who has realized that Marxism is not just for economists anymore. Teaser:

It seems that the sickest 5% of patients are taking up entirely too much of my time, so I’m going to stop giving so much attention to those with heart attacks and strokes. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind them with chronic back pain or poison ivy, that they’ve got a chance too. They shouldn’t have to wait longer to be seen just because they were triaged to a lower acuity level. My attitude is that if the ER is good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody.

[...]

[...]

[...]

Yes, it is satire. I just had to hold off saying so until the last Obamalyte’s head had exploded. It cracks me up every time.

Welcome to the Empire, gents!

LC & IB John Hawkins lays out seven very good reasons for it. Great read.

Of course, being the much more simplisme Emperor that I am, although I agree with John’s points completely, all I need is to look back on the last 8 years.

Bush, followed by McCain, were the very epitome of “moderate” with their ever more left-lurching policies.

So how did that work out for us again?

We’re here today because of “compassionate conservatism.” Bush managed to squeak by in 2000 mainly because everybody were sick and tired of the Clintons and anybody associated with them, not because he was a “conservative.”

Over the next 8 years he and Congress then proceeded to govern like a “moderate”, spending like crazy and stuffing obscene amounts of pork everywhere they could find a crack to jam it in. In 2002, the GOP got a bump up, but that was almost entirely due to the war, and ever since then it was one long, slow inexorable slide towards the left with ever more disillusioned actual conservatives deserting the GOP in ever increasing numbers.

It culminated in the bitch slap of 2006 and then election 2008.

So tell me again how well this “reaching out” and “moderate” conservatism worked out for us?

The proof is in the pudding. If we don’t purge the GOP of “moderates” and start running conservatives, then this is just the beginning.

…by LC & IB Blackiswhite.

Daily must-read.

From National Review

Read. Think. Listen.

This is how we win.

October 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American — or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Barack Obama, in 2001:

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.

THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME

Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.

THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME

This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.

What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?

Bill Whittle lives in Los Angeles and is an on-air commentator for www.pjtv.com. You can find him online at www.ejectejecteject.com.

No, ha ain’t asking ya to spare a dime. Maxxdog needs some Rottie help in ACORNing an election. There’s an organization of conservative Minnesohhhta bloggers called the MOB (Yes, apparently there are enough conservatives up there to make up an organization) and they are having an election for the honorary title of Mayor of the Mob. Max and his cronies are a little un-PC and are seen as the bad boys of the MOB (sounds like our type of people uh?) and he sez that the election usually seems fixed by the guys at this site. So in a flash of momentary brilliance he thought “Why not ask the Rotts to swarm the place and vote for our candidate? Hell, it works for ACORN”. So whaddaya say pups, wanna have some fun and help a fellow LC out? Then hit the link and vote for Margaret on the right side bar. But hurry if ya do, election is over tomorrow.

It’s funny, really, because we were saying pretty much the same thing last night on our show, and then we find out today that we’re on the exact same page with the PUMAs.

Strange bedfellows indeed. It doesn’t make them any less right, though, at least not on this issue, which is that we can either join with them to win this one and then have a shot at fighting among ourselves later, or we can ignore this historical opportunity, let Obambi win and then, quite likely, see our rights to fight it out without oppression, intimidation or censorship wither away slowly or quickly.

Because make no mistake about it: If you don’t think that a President Obambi, a (former?) Marxist radical friend of terrorists will do everything within his powers as President to curtail our rights in order to secure his position for as long as he wants it, then you haven’t been paying attention.

We’re making this a permanent post on this blog, and keeping it here through the election because as much as we like to repeat ourselves to repeat ourselves to repeat ourselves, we don’t have the energy to deal with Eeyores while we’re working hard for McCain/Palin. Eeyores are all of you who listen to the media, without thinking, and run around saying “We’re doomed! Nothing can stop Obama! His youth army and voter fraud are too much to beat!” - and then you come here, or to other blogs, and leave comments like, “I’m worried about…”, or “I’m afraid…”, or “MSNBC said…”. Listen, this is a little tough love for all of you — start thinking critically, and stop spreading your rain clouds to others. The media’s been in the tank for Obama since 2004 — this is their dream candidate, and they groomed him into a Messiah. If you think the media’s ever going to tell any truth that’s inconvenient for their chosen One, then you’re just stupid.

Look at the party ID samples in every poll that “worries” you and see what the party ID breakdown is: the national breakdown should be 39% Dem, 35% Republican, and 26% Independent. The polls that “worry” Eeyores have Democrats at 45% or above in terms of party ID breakdown — with Republicans as low as 20%. In the last 20 years, Democrats have only had a 4% party ID advantage over Republicans. Why on Earth would that historic fact change in 2008 — and swing to a 25% or more Democrat advantage? That’s ridiculous. And everything Eeyores run around with, crazed over, is equally ridiculous if they’d just take the time to critically think through it.

ZING!

Read the rest. And Eeyores, because we have them too, kindly shut yer yaps. We don’t have time to deal with you anymore, we have an election to win and not a lot of time to do so, so the phone won’t be answered. No hard feelings, we’ll get back to you when we’ve won, it’s just we can’t find the time for you right now.

And PUMAs?: Welcome aboard, or maybe it’s the other way around. Doesn’t matter. We’re happy to work with you to get that Obaminable abortion of a candidate kicked to the curb in November. We can always fight among ourselves later. Really, we’d miss it too much if we stopped altogether, wouldn’t we? It’s been lots of fun in the past. Good times, you know.

Right now, however, there’s an existential threat to our Republic that needs to be dealt with, and that’s more important than any of our differences.

We can do it!

…in which we, once again, find ourself indebted to LC & IB Blackiswhite, who was the first to let us know of this video.

We still find ourself deeply in doubt about the “Hawaii COLB is Fake” claim. A lot of people, including the Hawaii government, attested to its genuine nature but his case is still intriguing, particularly when presented by Mr. Berg himself. It’s far from the ONLY question raised and is, indeed, rather minor compared to the rest.

As he points out: When McCain was challenged on his birth and background, he immediately released every scrap of evidence so people could have a look at it. No stalling, no legal action, nothing. Just “you wanna see it? Sure, here it is.”

That’s how somebody who HASN’T got anything to hide works and, as a result, the questions about McCain became moot overnight.

So tell us again: If there is indeed absolutely no doubt about Obambi’s eligibility for office, and that might very well be the case, why the obfuscation? Why the massive outlay of funds and time to prevent those easily producible documents from being released? Why, indeed, is this the case with any papers pertaining to Obambi’s background? His health records, his school records etc. etc.

Is this the behavior of somebody who has absolutely nothing to hide?

Not in our book.

Also, normally we wouldn’t do this, we’d just send you over there to watch the video there, but if you’re not visiting LC & IB Blackiswhite’s site on a regular basis already, then something is profoundly wrong with you. And, more importantly, this video needs to flood the zone before YouTube again, mysteriously, yanks a video critical of the Anointed One™.

LC’S and G.L.O.R’s, it has come to the attention of His Imperial Highness, and his duly appointed Officer of the Empire (Pacific Operations Command), that a goodly number of our patrons are given to this strange compulsion to utter the word “FIRST” when entering a new thread.

It seems odd to His Majesty™, since the statement “FIRST” contains no information that cannot already be identified by the numerical indicator on the page where said comment appears.

If you have a relevant comment to make, fine. If it contributes to the thread and topic, fine, in which case there is no need to claim “first”…this is about what you have to say, not how often you say it.

Be it therefore commanded, under pain of mockery, and a week of being subjected to the undivided and uncensored attention of Our Imperial Torturer™, that the practice of “FIRST” shall cease herewith.

By proclamation of a hot and very annoyed Emperor, as relayed by his humble servant.

CC: BC, Imperial Torturer™ and Henchman

From our friends at Stop the ACLU.