One James Dobson of Colorado Springs issued an asinine promulgation regarding Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, citing his interpretations on both Biblical understanding and his understanding of the United States Constitution. This author finds both these declared outrages hypocritical and careless, considering the source.

I am certain that many of you are already more than well-aware of James Dobson, his radical pro-life, pro-militant Christian organization ‘Focus on the Family’, and dozens, even thousands, of cloying imitators in his particular vein of hard-lined Christianity. The accusatory critique Dobson slammed Obama with is amusing in the least, and an outrage in the worst.

Why don’t we begin with Dobson’s claim that Obama is “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology”. Yes, let us begin with that universally stupid statement.

Dobson has more than a little gall with that issuance; Dobson and his supporters are among the most fundamental groups of Christians that our world has. It is Dobson (among many others) who believes that abortion is a violation of the Bible; the Bible makes no mention of abortion. So explain to me please how this erroneous interpretation of the Bible in regards to abortion, among other matters, isn’t an aberration of ancient beliefs? It seems to me that when you seek to provide justification of your own intolerant and unthinking personal beliefs by using a MYTHICAL AND UNPROVEN TEXT which makes no reference to your currently clung too dilemma, then you are most certainly guilty of distortion…at the very least, and at worst you are guilty of a bold and braying lie.

So, Mr. Dobson you’ve little room to make such a critical assertation against a man like Obama, or those like him. You are responsible for some of the greatest and most damaging distortions of the Bible in history. You are a bizarre, primitive, fell and wretched man who seeks to impose upon the masses morality as you see it, not as Jesus saw it. You Mr. Dobson have the shocking audacity to interpret the terms ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ as ‘buzz words for homosexuality’. I cannot sufficiently express my thorough and most sincere disgust with that sentiment. The presumption that your interpretation of the world and the Bible itself is the absolute, unyielding, infallible truth is most humorous, or it would be were it not such an immediate threat to so many people.

Continuing on with your very clear anti-abortion stand, you insult the intelligence of Obama by loudly proclaiming that he is trying to govern “by the lowest common denominator of morality”. You weren’t finished though, continue to dig deeper the grave you so direly deserve, calling his actions “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution”.

Fruitcake interpretation you say…I say you haven’t properly familiarized yourself with this nation’s most treasured document, as you yourself prove with your own poorly chosen and misinformed words:
“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right in regard to the lives of tiny babies? What he’s trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe.”

Well, Mr. Dobson, I find myself overwhelmed at that statement. There are several glaring problems with your perverted sense of self-importance and lackluster logic.

First, this nation is not a Democracy. We are a Republic. A Democracy is defined as such:

“A form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly–through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.”

A Republic, on the other hand, is defined as such:

“A system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.”

Last I checked the people of this great nation elect representatives to effect policy: local, national and international. We don’t actually have the personal power to change the way this nation is governed by our individual vote. Two similar systems, but entirely different. But I think you might prefer a genuine Democracy over our chosen Republic; in a Democracy lunatics like you somehow manage to hoard power and wealth without reprisal as demagogues.

Furthermore, since this nation is a Republic (and it is the same in a Democracy, before you ask), yes you ARE required to conform to the notion of the majority. No, Obama isn’t the majority but he certainly represents a large number of people, and with any luck, the majority in November. Crossing the lines set forth by the majority is also considered, oh, how do you say, socially unacceptable, illegal, and oh yes, fucking stupid in your case.

Finally there is the small matter of ‘everybody agreeing’. Newsflash genius, in a Democracy or a Republic, the concept of everybody agreeing is also taken to mean the legality or illegality of a particular matter. I believe I’ve already illustrated that point above. However, just because you and yours are on the losing end of this particular, and exhausting, battle, doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to fight for what you believe. That is the beauty of this great nation; even if you are dead wrong, a cosmic disgrace to mankind, and an irrevocable foolish and ignorant person, you’ve the right to voice your retarded and blatantly vacuous opinions.

So you see, Dobson, not only are you sorely lacking in expertise of how this nation is governed, but you lack also the basic ability of critical thought. Then again, most men of blind and unforgiving faith possess just enough critical though to allow for the misleading and punishing enslavement of those foolish enough to follow them.
Do us all a favor, Dobson, follow your dear and fluffy Lord in a far more literal sense; he died for his beliefs. Rather than continuing to spew forth the hatemongering filth you are so fond of, why don’t you attempt to control the baseless rhetoric…or simply crawl back under the rock from which you emerged, or maybe throw yourself into oncoming traffic for the greater good of your nation. Anything will work just so long as your poisonous tongue is no longer an abuse to the thinking and sensible and MULTI-CULTURAL individuals who call America home.

The recent declaration by Presidential candidate (and with any luck the next President of the United States) Barack Obama that he will not be using public funds for his campaign has brought about shockwaves of anger from the infuriated, and beleaguered right. I cannot tell you how tired I am already of hearing about Obama’s ‘flip-flop’ on stated intentions. John McCan’t and company have more than a little audacity when leveling that charge against the rival candidate, as do his supporters in the terminally uneducated and slothfully lazy ranks of conservative douche bags (Hint: if you are insulted, you’re probably one of the terminally uneducated, slothfully lazy douche bags).

I could rail on about the many policy reversals McCan’t has been father too over the years, but I won’t bore you with three pages of FACTS about his tarnished, lack-luster and spineless political history. What I will regale you all with is the most recent spate of political attacks on Obama for his decision to rely on donations to run his already explosively successful campaign.

Publically available funding for presidential candidates limits how much money a candidate is legally allowed to raise from their base of support. This we all know, and if any of you reading this don’t know this already, please consider one of the following options for my convenience: Commit suicide prior to the November elections, or take a leap and vote Democratic this November (since you are so easily led by fools and panders I figure you might be led just as easily by someone with a shred of independent thought).

Well, this Monday morning brings yet more disinformation to the political storm surrounding Obama. Factcheck.org has released an article which seeks to belittle the decision Obama made by claiming that McCan’t actually doesn’t use a terrific amount of money from lobbyist and PAC sources. The article loudly proclaims that McCan’t and the RNC use very little money from aforementioned sources as reported by their receipts. McCan’t receipts account for nearly one million dollars, about 1.1 percent for this campaign. Now, in the political quagmire our nation is broken before a million isn’t very much money, but it is still a substantial amount of money to average Americans like you and me. So fuck you John. More importantly Factcheck.org is calling the reasoning employed by Obama a ‘lame excuse’ and an ‘overstatement in the least’. Perhaps the term ‘fueled’ was a bit excessive, after all, 1.1 percent is not very much money at the end of the day. But you know what those sorry pricks at Factcheck.org didn’t bother to mention?

Obama’s use of lobby and PAC money.

Factcheck.org made no mention of the fact that total contributions to Obama’s campaign from lobby and PAC money total up to an astonishing -$750.00. You read that correctly, it isn’t a typo. A negative amount of money for Obama from the self-serving, corrupt lobbyists and PAC’s of Washington D.C.. How he accomplished this I do not know; I couldn’t find the exact figures for either Obama or McCan’t, and neither could Factcheck.org for that matter, and if they could find them, they aren’t sharing the information.

As I said earlier, the term ‘fueled’ might be a bit excessive. In that light we are forced then to examine the phrase ‘lame excuse’ as well. I suppose we don’t have to scrutinize it, but that would me, all of us, just as lazy and just as guilty of the one-sided, haphazard, and accusatory attitude as factcheck.org is to be damned for. To call Obama’s decision a ‘lame excuse’ is an aberration of the phrase, a gross violation of free speech, a negligent and insulting use of the freedom of the press. Why do I hold said statement in such undeniable and lasting contempt? Because Obama in this instance, holds the moral high ground; he has every right to condemn the RNC and McCan’t for their use of PAC and lobbyist monies because he hasn’t used ANY!

Finally there is the very important issue of the figures Factcheck.org has used for their damning Obama’s decision. In their own article they make the very bold claim that McCan’t and the RNC report less than 2.0% income from lobbyist and PAC funding based on their receipts.

Based on their receipts, people. The receipts they are required by federal law to keep and present on demand, just like the DNC and every business in this country. However we all know the Republican party hasn’t been, shall we say…forthright in the economic arena. All one must do is take a quick look at the economy for the last eight years to understand the Republican power over the economy. Yet somehow our maligned Republicans have managed to ride out the shocking economic chaos they themselves unleashed without sustaining any major personal loss. In fact, many of them have somehow, magically and inexplicably, become wealthier. I wonder how many receipts document those substantial gains.

So at the end of this document we find ourselves staring directly at the face of bought and paid for journalism. We stare at the hard-eyed, utterly remorseless and inimical countenance of the corporate stranglehold over our hard-won government. We blanch when faced with the prospect of honest contemplation of how our ‘venerable’ leaders actually accumulated their monstrous wealth, hording it away for their personal use, all the while complaining of the burden taxation places upon the bulging bank accounts they so dearly treasure. We find ourselves permitting the ruthless accumulation of personal wealth by those we entrust our futures too. Yet we are swift to level judgment against a single man who dares to decry the inglorious tactics employed against us.

So tell me, America, who will you believe in come time to vote? Will you place your hopes and trust in a man whose shameless collection of veterans benefits has continued unabashedly for over three decades, a man who has no qualms with betraying not only his personally stated commitments but those of his constituency as well, a man who’s stated opinions of war are nothing less than a mocking disservice to our military…a man who isn’t worthy of your trust and confidence.

Or will you perhaps place your expectant reliance and hope in the care of man who’s stunning rise to power has overwhelmed this nation, a man who’s urgency and dedication to much needed change and reform are nearly tangible, a man who has shown time and again the ability to persevere gracefully through adversity and ridicule…a man who is more than capable of guiding our nation to a better course into the future.

Just when it couldn’t get any worse…

We’ve seen presidential candidates come and go over the past year or so, each rising and then falling to the roadside in defeat, many times victims of their own short-sighted and poorly thought out statements. Now only three candidates remain, really only two. McCain has been called upon by the rank and file fool of the Republican world; he is the reeking filth that will run on the Republican ballot. Oh lucky us. Yet to name their grand champion is the Democratic Party, a tiresome contest of bitter, opportunistic, and petty arguments thrust upon the country. Clinton and Obama are still struggling to become the nominee (though Obama has all but clinched the nomination), and as the final days of the campaign draw near America will finally have their nominee, and the merciful ending of this grueling campaign.

Yesterday I published a six page diatribe against Clinton, for many offences. I made very clear to the world at large exactly how I viewed this self-centered, paltry, and needlessly troublesome woman. The condensed version: Clinton is a useless, divisive, and brashly arrogant person unworthy of running my country, but too blind, too stupid, too obtuse to realize it.

Yet. She doesn’t realize it yet. Her wins in Kentucky and West Virginia have somehow given her renewed strength, even hope (which is odd in the least, seeing as how she condemns Obama and his message of hope every chance she gets) for her campaign. She claims that her victory in Kentucky let “the naysayers and skeptics” know that she was very much a viable candidate. Bullshit, Senator, I call bullshit on that count. As I quite clearly stated yesterday your victory came courtesy of the highly sought after ‘inbred, ignorant fucking swine’ voting group. I’m sure you’re just so very fucking proud of that victory. You impossibly stupid, pandering, lily-livered, two-faced ass of a candidate.

But I suppose I would be remiss in my verbal assault on your tarnished character, and rapidly decaying campaign, if I didn’t mention your latest chickenshit move to remain in the race, even to snatch away victory from what will be a lawfully elected Presidential candidate. ABC News made mention of it, and they were fairly clear in their assertation of what you are really trying to do; problem is, they were also more or less polite. I don’t like treating white-collar criminals politely, and that is what you are Senator; a criminal, a thief, a deceptive and manipulative vulture who preys upon the weaknesses of this country. You are little better than the current administration…at least they can claim sheer and unadulterated stupidity for the party actions.

Early on in this campaign Michigan and Florida were both banned from the primaries because they defied the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by voting earlier than they were authorized. Both you and Obama agreed to NOT to campaign in either state, agreeing with the DNC ruling. Suddenly though, you’ve decided to question said ruling and are demanding that Michigan and Florida votes be counted. Oh, I almost forgot…your campaign staff is chaired by MANY former members of the DNC; people who have been running the Democratic Party for fifteen and twenty years are advising you on how to run your campaign, the same people who essentially banned Michigan and Florida votes.

And just what is your pathetically weak reasoning behind this sudden demand?

“Some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules. I say that not counting Michigan and Florida is changing a central governing rule of this country.”

Well, if that isn’t a sharp departure from a previous statement you made regarding these states, in particular, Michigan:

“It’s clear this election Michigan is having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot.”

This statement, made in the fall of 2007 is a 180 degree turn around for you. You went from complete disregard of Michigan, to Michigan being of vast importance. Why is that? Well because when the DNC struck down the votes from Michigan Obama removed his name from the ballot in a show of good faith to the DNC. You on the other hand, left your name on the ballot thereby garner many votes in that state, and now you are demanding that they be counted and credited to you because your campaign is sinking with great rapidity in that stinking, rhetoric infested shithole of swamp you’ve created. Well, if nobody else will say, I will: You are a gutless fucking coward, Senator, and despicable, bottom-feeding cheat as well. Just the type of person we need to carry this country into the future. Go fuck yourself, you sorry cunt.

For those of you who have been visiting this site for any length of time you already know that I think of Hillary Clinton as an abomination, a pandering and deep-pocketed thief of a politician, highly undeserving of holding public office in these United States.

Do I hold such strong and unyielding opinions because I am a sexist or a Republican? No, I am Democrat through and through (although a bloody minded Democrat), and I believe quite firmly and unrestrainedly in equality. To be clear, ‘equality’ as I use it means that people are people and I see no distinction as far as physicalities are concerned. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we all bleed the same blood. So why then do I feel an overwhelming need to harpoon Clinton and do all that I can to damage her campaign, to sink her dreams, to punch as many gaping holes as is humanly possible in that insanely arrogant aura of invulnerability of hers?

The very simple answer is that I despise her nearly as much as I despise the current ass of a President. But I do enjoy presenting the ever-enduring and unassailable fact while I engage in destroying the object of my absolute loathing. So my fellow disaffected and disenchanted Americans, do read on.

I wasn’t always dead set against Clinton; I was at one point somewhat fond of the idea that she might one day be the President of this nation. That warm, fuzzy feeling barely got the chance to breathe free, democratic air before withering, then quite abruptly perishing. Part of the reason is that several candidates surfaced which were (and still are) more qualified individuals, with the added benefit that their views fell closely inline with my own. Clinton, for the most part, couldn’t be of worse aim when it comes to matching views with this author. And she doesn’t have to be, I don’t expect her to be.

Yet more qualified, more personable candidates aren’t the reason for my disgust with the Clinton camp. Intellectual disagreement is a common thing for both me and this wide, wide world. Disagreements in the realm of the mind don’t normally result in unconditional revulsion and screaming rage with the exception of the worst offenders (read George W. Bush). Somehow though, our Democratic friend from New York has managed to plant the seeds of recalcitrant fury in my mind…in other words, Clinton has put herself firmly in my sights and I will rip apart her every statement and lie when at all possible.

What unnerves me most about Clinton is her vindictive attitude toward her fellow Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. Nearly always, she is abusive and inflammatory in her remarks regarding Obama. She consistently resorts to the simple-minded tactics of a twelve-year-old whenever her positions or actions are drawn into public view by Obama. She scorns the genuine and professional offerings and proposals her opponent makes. She regularly demeans and chides her opponent for statements he hasn’t even made, blaming him for the actions of people he knows. She displays a concerted effort at burying Obama during this primary instead of concentrating her firepower on the real enemy, the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. Clinton displays little ability to clearly identify the source of the problem, let alone find an effective solution to the problem.

A long list I know, and also dreadfully true. Any who says otherwise is either a complete fool, or a rabid supporter of Clinton who rather prefers to imagine the beast as the beauty instead of seeing truly what they support. But wait! There is more…much more!

Her inability to deal with her political opponents with a professional touch (note I did not say ‘graceful’ or ‘friendly’ or anything else that would imply her behavior is unladylike; I care not whether or not she is viewed as ladylike, I want a professional, clear-minded, and intelligent person as my President) aside, her own professional history provides the very picture of hypocrisy. Little in this world shines as brilliantly and hotly as my utter contempt of the hypocrite. This widely popular crime, even more popular in politics, will always place an individual in sharp relief to these eyes, more importantly, in sharp relief to this mind.

She claims to be a candidate who is dedicated to enabling the ‘working class’ of America. She damned Obama as an ‘elitist’ for remarks made in a speech (remarks I agree with 100%). She offers many a sympathetic speech for these struggling people, and promises to provide them with the tools they need to succeed in life, even to thrive. Yet her past actions, her past employment offers a very stark picture of what she actually takes from the working class of America. Indeed, her current campaign staff speaks to the nature of what Senator Clinton believes the working class of this nation is entitled too. Simply research the name Mark Penn, and Burson-Marsteller Inc. and you will find that Penn, a C.E.O. of said company, and the company are highly regarded in the business of CRUSHING UNIONS in this country. Tell me again, Senator Clinton, how you will help the working people of America by destroying the Unions that attempt to protect them; the anticipation is killing me. If the current staffing of her campaign isn’t enough to inspire boiling rage then maybe one could dig into companies like Rose Law Firm, notorious for busting unions. Or maybe something a little better known to the public eye, Wal-Mart, where Clinton was a C.E.O. for six years, busying herself with firmly quelling unions within Wal-Mart; not too mention the use of sweat shop labor around the globe, blatant discrimination against female employees and many other labor crimes attributed to Wal-Mart.

I could continue to detail the labor offenses ascribed to Clinton and people like Mark Penn, but I’ll let you research that on your own. My goal here is not to provide everyone with a clear indictment of her misgivings; rather I aim to bring into the clear daylight some of her more egregious actions. The website, Salon, has an impressive three page article on Mark Penn and his company, as well as his association with both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.

Her professional history alone damns this candidate to the already overcrowded and mind-numbingly loud world of hypocritical politicians. Do all politicians lie? I cannot give you a definitive ‘yes’, but I can damn sure give you a very definitive ‘yes, nearly all politicians attempt to conceal the real truth of the matter’. Hillary Clinton differs only insofar as she prefers to leave her own shoddy history far displaced from her loudly proclaimed current viewpoints on national and international affairs. When questioned about mistakes past, the fact and statistics queen suddenly is incapable of remembering why she did something, or in some cases, if she even was involved.

However I understand well that people can, and do, change throughout life. I sincerely doubt Senator Clinton is now exactly the same as she was in 1984. We’ve all made mistakes, even the most genuine and honest of us. Mistakes for the most part are forgivable, certainly not all mistakes will be granted immunity from closer speculation and a measured punishment, but hers are mistakes that are of little concern these days (provided she doesn’t decided to perform an encore). Her past is only the most minor of my concerns.

Of more import are her views and stated position on several critical issues this country faces now and will face for the next eight to twelve years, issues that our next three presidents will be hard pressed to correct. From the highly visible problems such as the economy, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, healthcare and the housing crisis to the problems which have thus far been kept from our media agencies; welfare, child protection, education and the like. These are the things I take issue with. These are the things she cannot, or will not, provide the public an honest answer.

Clinton denounces ‘hope’ and ‘change’ and in doing so criticizes her opponents campaign. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, happens with each and every election. Her own campaign runs on ‘experience’ and how much of it she has, and why said experience would enable her to run this country with far more skill than Obama is capable of. With near flawless consistency Clinton has hammered away at Obama’s lack of experience and how a presidential candidate has an urgent requirement for years of experience at the national level. Fine. We get it, you’ve been playing the game for over thirty years. One could safely presume that these years of hard-earned experience have shaped your highly-educated and sharp Democratic mind into a weapon of formidable force; a weapon which will work for the benefit of those you lead into the future. A reasonable expectation, yes?

Then why, Senator, do you further jeopardize an already sundered Middle East with continued war? I’m not talking about Iraq, Senator; I’m referring to your refusal to negotiate with Iran, your truculent and careless mention of nuclear weapons and the use thereof. Tell me, Senator, your years of experience have taught that the best way to deal with a nation not even our enemy is by hurling ICBM’s at their major cities? This is how you plan to solve the bloody and expensive problem that our current fool of a President began? Threats of continued, indeed, a new war, will not win you this nations highest office, nor will curry favor with international powers. Last I checked Obama was at least willing to negotiate with Iranian and North Korean leaders directly; something you flatly deny even considering. Apparently the less experience you have, the less warlike you are.

Then there is the urgent, and extremely costly, matter of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What will you do there, Senator? Would you have our military, stretched and thin…bloodied and weary, remain until the job is done as McCain and Bush would like? Or have you suddenly decided that you can pull the troops out in several years? And maybe, while we are the topic of war, you could remember how you voted at the start of this debacle and announce your mistake to the people of this nation.

Next up in this laundry list of complaints against Clinton is her financial abilities. Yes, she and her husband are wealthy, demonstrating an impressive ability to garner personal wealth. But her campaign is $20 million in debt, and she isn’t done. This might be an insignificant matter, then again it might not be. After all many candidates go into debt while running for public office, but at least one Democratic candidate isn’t in debt. My basic, and very simple question, Senator: How can you consider yourself capable of drawing up a plan for the entire nation’s economic security and well being when you clearly aren’t capable of managing your own campaign?

These are some of main concerns about the esteemed Senator from New York. She has failed to act as an adult would during the length of this campaign, let alone how a future U.S. President should act. She is snide and underhanded, she pounces on the merest opportunity to defame her rival in the Democratic Party, and she ignores her Republican opponent with disturbing regularity. She lies about personal experiences (read Bosnia, three separate times).

In short, Senator Clinton is directly responsible for the creation of a party rift, she has succeeded in dividing this party into hard-lined, immovable factions; this does not bode well for November…and she does so in the name of perseverance and fairness to the voter.

Well, Hillary, something you might want to consider in the name of perseverance and fairness; the Democratic Party is split, our nation is on the brink of economic ruin, our military is battered and over-extended, our health care is nothing less than deplorable (I would tell you to watch ‘Sicko’, but I know you would never deign to watch something so basic and demeaning to the country…then again, I’m quite certain you have all the facts you need readily available), housing is at an all time low, environmental conditions are rapidly spiraling out of control…how about showing the ability to allow the Democratic Party to persevere through the adversity which is our own apathetic leadership and the gutting imposed by the Republican Party, how about displaying some fairness to the country and to the world at large? Why don’t you try those on for size?

Last in line is the media. Just to be clear here, I am attacking both the media and the Clinton camp on this count…I would hate for you all to believe that I am a single-minded and short-sighted individual capable of launching an assault only at one target. I might lose sleep over the very idea.

In recent weeks we’ve seen a few more primaries come and go with wins for both Clinton and Obama. As a result Obama now has 1,962 of the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton has 1,779 of the 2,025 delegates needed. That means Obama requires 63 more while Clinton requires a ‘whopping’ 246 more to win. Why the emphasis on ‘whopping’ you ask? Because the media seized, twice now, on ‘whopping’ victories for Clinton in West Virginia and Kentucky, which to be fair, she did win both by a large margin.

Now I realize that through the course of this diatribe I have been rather civil (to a worrisome amount, actually), but this last matter requires something other than civility and courtesy. Something along the lines of…oh, I don’t know, say…WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS?! Yes, that ought to suffice, works wonderfully actually.

West Virginia and Kentucky are small, simple-minded states, peopled with bigots and racists, or as the media has labeled them ‘white males without a college degree’. Feel free to call me an elitist for that comment, I don’t mind…because I am an elitist, and unafraid to admit it. Don’t believe the statement about bigots? Well, consider this then, 40% polled in West Virginia stated unabashedly that race affected their vote. I don’t believe I have to say much more on that count.

On the flip side of the coin, Obama delivered a thrashing to Clinton in North Carolina and Oregon…yet not word one on how overwhelming a victory it was. Not a single headline proclaiming a near knockout victory for Obama. No, all the headlines focused on the queen of pastel pant suits and how absolutely amazing her victories were. Well allow me to tell you that her victories in West Virginia and Kentucky are hardly amazing or shocking. As another blogger put it, these two states are peopled by a bunch of racist crackers! It shouldn’t come as any surprise that they voted for the white person…so, to all the media outlets and their corporate masters, lay off the victory parade for Clinton.

And during the course of these two pathetically predictable victories Senator Clinton has the audacity to announce that these wins are proof that America still believes in her and wants her as the next President. No Senator, no. That isn’t what they are saying. Not even close. What they are saying is that they are enlightened, liberal bigots who won’t vote for McCain, but by golly, we jes caint’ vote fer no darkie so I ges we’s jes gonna vote fer the white lady, whats-her-name wearin’ them there pant suits. I hope that clears up any confusion which might still be lingering, Senator. But hey, this might help you cope a little easier with your current crisis, there is hope left…the infinitesimally, nigh unreachable, all-but-impossible long shot of your snatching the delegate count does yet exist. But then again, America doesn’t need hope…we need experience, in which case, experience should be deafening you by know, what with the constant din of raging voices informing you that victory is indeed, all but impossible for you.

Finally, I know, this has been a long one, Clinton and her claims of sexism. Well, this is where I depart from the civil, if a little…acerbic, discourse above, hope you all enjoyed it. You dare to level charges of sexism against this nation, bemoaning the negative effect it has had on your campaign, charging the faceless masses with this crime, yet your victories in West Virginia and Kentucky come courtesy of the fine nigger-hating, hard-working, union deprived, terrifyingly ignorant, rabidly religious folk of those two states. My, my, my,…and where is your denouncement of such abhorrent behaviors and beliefs? Where is your damnation of this contemptible state of mind? Nothing to say? I thought not. Perhaps it is because you are well aware that your under-educated white friends in these two states are just slightly more racist than they are sexist, boosting you to an easy fucking victory in these places.

You’ve a lot of nerve, Senator, to complain of sexism while capitalizing on racist scum of this country.

Well, the time has come to end this exercise in verbal abuse. Hope you all learned a little something and, even better, thought incredibly nasty things towards our fine New York friend. In closing, I’d just like to say the following: GO THE FUCK AWAY HILLARY…YOU’RE UN-FUCKING-WANTED.

This isn’t really what I intended on posting today, in what is becoming an infrequent event on this blog. Initially I was going to roar obscenities against a very self-important judge in Ohio for damning a father to jail for his daughters educational failings…but, you can all read about that some other place. Besides, I’m certain you quite well aware of the end result of such a rave, the judge is a pompous, lazy, iniquitous ass who deserves little more than a shallow grave.

Moving on…

The following is my response on a forum to the remarks made by someone who has never been in the military, yet hails the world with an avatar which I made for members of the United States Air Force, past and present. You might say that is an instant way to gain my unerring hostility and a definite way to learn the full measure of might and mean from a former serviceman. Or you could call it stupid, or both.

But, if any of you out there feel a burning to desire to catch up before reading my commentary on this brash fool of a man, do so here. Otherwise, simply read below.

“Seems to me you have some rather firm opinions regarding the nature of this war in Iraq, and you’ve the right to hold those opinions. However I cannot help but wonder why it is you criticize the United States Armed Forces, and the actions undertaken by them, yet you have as your avatar an image created specifically for current and former members of the Armed Forces. A source of confusion, you might say.

Furthermore, we here at this particular forum are taken with far more understanding of the nature of this war than most of us would like. We are very well aware that the Iraq conflict is a brazen insult to democracy and to the values this nation claims to harbor and champion. In other words, we don’t need or want regalement about the cause of this war.

As to your views on CPL. Jessica Ellis, you’ve spoken out of place, as you have in regards to all servicemen and women who have died in the Sandbox. Your derisive commentary on ‘they died believing in a cause’ is an insult to their memories, their families, the men and women they served with and next too, to all military members having anything to do with this war. You weren’t there; you did not, and do not know the men and women you loudly and unabashedly criticize. To say in so public an arena that you are angered and irritated because you again have to bear the obviously intolerable weight of ‘flowery speeches, monuments and parades’ is an insult to ALL members of this nations military.

I am very recently out of the military, and I did not serve time in the desert, for reasons which shall not be discussed here, but through no fault of my own; that is as much as you need know. But I sent young men and women to war each and every day. Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters…I sent them to war. And something you might not know, despite your wielding of a military icon as an avatar, the vast majority of those soldiers willingly went for the good of the men and women next to them; because they believed in the ‘cause’ that was safeguarding the people that become a surrogate family to them.”

I have seen the name of Doris Lessing many times, although I have never read any of her books. I am told she is an excellent writer, a woman of high intelligence and even grander ideals. In the whole Doris Lessing is a woman who is spoken of in the highest regard in almost every circle. She is an author and a feminist, a woman who has worked hard throughout her life to place herself and other women on an equal playing field. In other words, Doris Lessing is a woman very deserving of the greatest respect one can offer.

She is not the kind of ‘feminist’ we normally see in our day and age. She, like many women not of the younger generation, was at the forefront of a desperately necessary battle for equality of the sexes. Lessing actually knows well the meaning of ‘equality’, as so many other people in our world today do not, men and women both. Lessing is the pre-eminent icon in the feminist world to my mind; she is what all women who cry ‘equality’ should aspire to be.

But this article is not a history of Doris Lessing and her decades of writing, nor her accomplishments in the cause of feminism. This article is about a recent opinion which she has voiced, a point of view in dire need of being heard by our world at large.

Lessing is tired of women bashing, degrading and abusing men, especially those who could be called kind, gentle, and intelligent. She is also tired of men standing by and absorbing the blows without retaliation.

I imagine I have little need to state my full and unyielding support of this sentiment. I myself have voiced nearly the same idea time and time again with no other result than my being called an intolerant sexist by the world at large. Now one of the worlds greatest women and arguable the greatest feminist has voiced the same idea, and I may assure you that her voice reaches a great deal farther than my own. Is she a sexist? Is she intolerant? Or is Lessing merely a traitor to the ranks, a stirrer of dissent among the world’s feminists?

I say she is none of the above, just as I am not an ‘intolerant sexist’ for my holding to the same views. The abuse of feminism is what Lessing is attacking, women who use the name of ‘feminism’ to further a personal cause driven by greed and vengeance, women who seem to believe that they are entitled to destroy without mercy the life a man they once knew very well, even loved. These are the things (yes, any person who brings ruin to the undeserving is a ‘thing’, unworthy of being called a human) Lessing is attacking, not the idea of feminism, not the cruelties actually imposed on women by men around the world, but the idea that a woman is allowed to orchestrate the ruination of a man simply because the crime goes unpunished.

Lessing does not end her verbal attack on these malicious and mentally indolent women though; her barbed tongue lashes out at the victim as well. Men, she states (quite accurately in the mind of this author), do nothing in response…they merely absorb the blows and drive on when they should be fighting back.

In recent years society has deemed appropriate that a man can, and even should, be blamed for a woman’s misfortune. I understand that this mindset developed as a direct result of mistreatment, and from many directions. Yet I also understand that for every case that reaches the eyes and ears of the nation, there are dozens which do not, because most men aren’t the supreme, ever-culpable assholes that we are portrayed as. Still, for the actions of a highly identifiable few, men as a whole are blamed. I find that decision worthy of nothing more than utter disgust.

Because of this decision and societies enabling thereof, women are now able to crush a life at will and without the need to demonstrate cause, indeed, even evidence of misgivings attributed to some faceless (and likely broke) man. My own ex-wife very nearly derailed my life without the need for evidence supporting her claims; it took me months of difficult, uphill battling with the state and reams of paperwork to reverse the damage, and not all of it was reversed.

But the slandering of the male sex doesn’t stop, nor does it begin with matters of parenting and marriage. Lessing’s comment was spurred by an experience in a classroom in which a female teacher blamed war “on the innately violent nature of men”. I’ll let you read the rest of the article here, if you like.

For centuries much was blamed on women, without cause, and now the tables have turned and much is blamed on men, without cause. The reverberating ding in my skull is this; blame is not to be laid on men or women, blame is to be laid on those responsible for the wrong. If one man, or one woman, commits some crime large or small, how can you possible justify laying the blame on the entire sex? If ten thousand men are shitheads, how can you justify blaming and punishing the remaining countless thousands, millions, of men for the actions of the minority?

People these days are in serious need of having boot put to fat, lazy, bellicose ass. A female teacher speaks of the “innately violent nature of men” to a class room of young children…but does she speak of the “innately malevolent and lazy nature of women” to her class? I think not.

But, after a brief struggle with temptation I decided it was easier to give in and rant and rave about this newest form of theological shit. And I should warn everyone of this one, it might offend some of you, but I won’t say who (because actually I am aiming to ruin your life, or at the very least make you lose sleep…it makes my heart smile).

The Roman Catholic Church in all its antiquated, child-molesting glory has struck another mighty accord in the name of God, the Father and the Holy fucking Ghost. An announcement, you might say, of biblical proportions has been issued to this ghastly pit of a world we live in; an unholy abomination has crept into the very midst of the House of God in Rome. Yes, the last and final stronghold is in danger of falling prey to Lucifer (who has recently informed me that he has resigned and is no longer in charge of Hell) and his minions…Satan’s emissaries have invaded Rome.

Bear in mind, ye faithful servants of God, that these creatures of absolute darkness aren’t your average, even classic Satanists. Anton LeVay now sheds tears of horrific joy as his religious creation adapts to the more modern world.

No, these hounds from the depths of black hell are insidious, even friendly people. They could be people you have known for many, many years. People you have trusted, people you have cherished many a moment with. But do not allow yourself to stray from the path of righteousness! These foul beasts must be stopped! It’s a good thing the Dope Ratzinger has reintroduced exorcisms, a squad for every blowjob lusting bishopry.

So in order to further along the holy mission of the venerable Papal state I am providing the public with the knowledge to ferret out these cruel and inhuman servants of the Prince of Lies, as well as the weapons with which to send them howling back to Hell. Read on…

How to Spot the New Satanist

If a person has done one or more of the following, the are a Satanist. Period. No questions asked (at least, not any questions of worth or sense).

1. Turned away from the Holy Church.
2. Is a heathen.
3. Wants a divorce.
4. Wants to use birth control.
5. Has sex before marriage.
6. Thinks they are psychic.
7. Use ‘New Age’ therapies.
8. Use the internet (Gotcha…you are all going burn)
9. Practice yoga.

If you find any of these people, do the following:
1. Locate Priest and interrupt child porn session.
2. Inform Priest of Satanic activity (wait until alter boy leaves the room).
3. March with pious conviction to scene.
4. Watch with pious conviction as Priest damns sinner to hell.
5. Help prepare the pyre.
6. Watch with pious conviction as the sinner gets a taste of the well-deserved and fiery hell which awaits him in the afterlife.

But seriously folks…don’t take my word for it. After all, I have a special room (maybe even 12 rooms) reserved in your so-called ‘Hell’, and all I can say is that they’d better come with smokes, beer, and hookers…cause if not, I’m coming back to kick somebody’s ass. You can take the below for confirmation…and in just in case you don’t get it…I was being sarcastic up there…don’t go killing anyone for Christ.

“600,000 “Satanists” in Rome? (from wild hunt blog)

While America is distracted by the Pope’s visit, the Christian Broadcasting Network (home of Pat Robertson’s “The 700 Club”) spotlights the growing popularity of exorcisms in Italy (a topic I’ve touched on before).

“In this predominantly Catholic nation the devil is gaining a foothold. “There is a greater openness towards the devil,” Rev. Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s chief exorcist, said. In fact, Rome has been called the most ’satanized’ city in Italy. “Satanism and the occult are in fashion,” said Father Pedro Barrajon, a professor of theology.”

None of this rhetoric is new or unusual (indeed, the good Rev. Amorth seems willing to talk to any news outlet that will give him the time of day), but what did draw my eye was an un-sourced statistic thrown out by the CBN reporter.

“There are an estimated 800 satanic cults operating in the country, with more than 600,000 followers. And their numbers are growing.”

Over half a million Satanists? Really? That seems like an awfully big number. To get some perspective, I checked in with theistic Satanist Diane Vera’s web site, where a whole section has been devoted to Satanic panic in Italy. According to Vera, these high numbers may be including Satanists, occultists of all stripes, Pagans, psychics, and other “heretical” individuals (teenage metal heads, for example).

“Among Christians, including Catholics, an increased emphasis on demons and exorcism leads inevitably to an increased fear of all non-Christian spiritual practices … All the “We’re not Satanists” disclaimers in the world will not stop conservative Christians from associating non-Christian spiritualities - especially the more “magical” spiritualities - with demons and/or with Satanism. Even in the eyes of those relatively few conservative Christians who are well-informed about the beliefs of Pagans, occultists, etc.”

This view is backed up by the blog Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion, who dug into census data and found that there were only 240 or so “organized” Satanists (as of 2003).

“Therefore, despite the many more relevant numbers often supplied by mass media - those who propose such numbers should, of course, be capable of supporting their statements with evidence as far as we can see from the numbers right now - the groups of organized satanists only represent an insignificant percentage of the Italian population even if, of course, the experience lived can be extremely hard for the people involved. The organized satanism is therefore a phenomenon that is often overrated, as a matter of fact, it concerns only a few thousands of people all over the world.”

Taking all this into account, it becomes clear that exorcisms aren’t simply a tool against “demonic possession”. No heroic Father Merrin casting out the demon in little Regan. Instead, we have a struggle against all forms of non-Catholic thought. If you embrace a theology outside the bounds of the dominant monotheisms, or simply want to divorce your Catholic husband, you are demon-haunted and ripe for spiritual torture-tactics.

“Typical cases, he said, include people who turn away from the church and embrace New Age therapies, alternative religions or the occult. Internet addicts and yoga devotees are also at risk, he said.”

The rhetorical slight-of-hand that turns all non-Catholic thinking into demon-possession hasn’t escaped the notice of Pagan groups around the world, who condemn this new commitment to “curing” people who may simply be happier as Pagans.

So while Benedict XVI makes nice at an inter-religious gathering in America, those under his purview continue to ignore his wish to “discuss our differences with calmness and clarity”, and instead label anyone in Rome rejecting Christianity as “Satanists”. But then, perhaps Benedict’s call for “sincere dialogue and cooperation” was only extended to the religions big enough to be invited to the party. Pagans, Heathens, and assorted polytheists, on the outs since the time of Theodosius, need not apply.”

Our wide world is shot through with hot spots; bloody and brutal civil wars, human rights violations, wars over natural resources, and wars to maintain political power. Sometimes these unpleasant affairs aren’t titled as a war in order to keep things tidy and clean for the sake of the world, like the recent political crackdown in Pakistan; or the current political meltdown in Zimbabwe.

I wrote extensively regarding the events in Pakistan and the illegal, inhumane actions employed by Musharraf. Nobody in the international community seemed terribly compelled to take action against Pakistan; instead our own corrupt government lent its support to the Pakistani’s. Deplorable what we did, when you give an honest and hard look at what actually occurred there. Yet the long list of individuals who found grievance with Pakistan and the American government (as well as the many other governments who did nothing) remained safely in the realm of useless complaints, disregarded and ignored completely.

Now in the small nation of Zimbabwe another conflagration is gaining strength. Like the situation in Pakistan the gory affair finds its roots in political power. Specifically the current president of that nation wishes to remain in charge, even though he has held sway there for nearly thirty years. Recent election results have not been released to the people and now Mugabe has ordered military intervention to ensure his seat. In addition to the military having a hand in this untidy thing, the police, the intelligence service, and a certain youth militia are also playing the game.

People are being beat and killed when the refuse to cooperate with Mugabe and his wishes to remain President. Women are being raped and children taken. Homes are being burned to the ground. Over 150 people have already been injured in the government-backed violence.

And nothing is being done by the international community.

Forget the fact the Mugabe has a ‘shoddy’ human rights record. Forget the fact that Mugabe was the sole source of the worlds worst inflation rate in history, 164,900%, spawning a decade of recession. Forget the fact that a man who came to power through violent means thirty years ago is now perpetrating the same crimes as those he once deposed. And last but not least, forget the dismissal of critism on his human rights record:
“Today we hear the British saying there’s no democracy here, people are being oppressed, there’s dictatorship, there’s no observance of human rights, rule of law,” Mugabe said, according to the news agency. “We, not the British, established democracy based on one person, one vote, democracy which rejected racial or gender discrimination and observed human rights.”
Again, nothing is being done by the world at large. The only nation performing any sort of retaliatory action is South Africa. Really though it is not the government of South Africa which stands in opposition to Mugabe and his criminal government, it is the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union who stands defiant against Mugabe. They are refusing to send shipments of weapons from China to Mugabe and his military.
So I cannot help but wonder…what will come of our own nation? One day, and one not far off I believe, our people will again witness the grinding misery of an oppressive government. And in the days that follow those miserable months and years, our nation may well find itself perched upon the edge of war amongst ourselves…and who will help us?
Out.

And I mean that quite literally, just so we are all on the same page. Keep in mind that not just anyone, and realize the following fully and completely, that entry to my list of proposed ‘walking corpses’ is restricted to a strictly adhered to set of standards; only the very worst of mankind are able to pen their name on the roster. So most of you should be safe, you may all breathe a sigh of relief…I’ll wait.

Everyone good now? Moving on…

Anyone that knows me is well aware that I am a HUGE fan of the death penalty. I don’t believe in that tired old credo ‘judge not lest ye be judged yourself’. That is horseshit if I have every heard it; people judge everything and everyone they come in contact with. That is the way of it and there isn’t anyway around it. The sooner you own up to it the better off you are, besides, it can be a great deal of fun to judge other people. Give it a shot and you’ll see what I mean.

Forgive my digression there; let us get back on the topic of the day. The death penalty, capital punishment, just rewards…whatever you like to call it. Relatively few cases ever come down to the death penalty these days, and some of the time I don’t mind, but there are certain cases where I scream and shout at my faithful television, wondering for all the world why the death penalty isn’t being sought. There is one crime that always inspires the clarity of wrath and a sort of…divine, anger in me. And never has the death penalty been sought for this crime, though it most certainly should have been sought since day one.

The absolutely hideous and vile crime of child molestation ranks at the very top of unforgivable crimes in my book. Such a crime should be met with unwavering and ruthless penalties. Yes, the accused must have their day in court, as our law commands, and even these worthless, cowardly creatures deserve the chance of justice. What they do not deserve is that which they have destroyed and of their own volition, forsaken. They do not deserve the chance, however infinitesimally small, at redemption of any sort. These breathing insults to decency have ruined a life, sometimes beyond repair, a life that had in no way injured their own. Yet for whatever foul reason they took it upon themselves to bring devastation to the young life of a child. These people deserve nothing more than the headsman’s axe. Hanging is too good for them…and if you are one who believes in certain ancient religions, how are such wretched creatures to find their way in the afterlife, what with no head.

The great and hurricane ravaged state of Louisiana has recommended the death penalty for one such person. The man stands accused of raping his eight-year old step-daughter. Lucky for him that I didn’t catch him, the question of his fate would have been a moot point. People, some anyways, are complaining that this recommendation is yet another hammer blow in the race war though; the accused is a black man.

Fair enough complaint, or concern if you like, but luckily for Louisiana and the United States of America, the Pickled Jester has the answer to the problem. Then again, don’t I always have the answer (this is where you nod and agree with me in your most vigorous and worshipping manner)?

The answer…to stave off any concerns about racial inequality is too…

KILL ALL THESE SICK BASTARDS!!!

I don’t care what color your sorry ass is, you rape a child and you have given up the right to not only your life, but the right to call yourself ‘human’. These people are beneath even the lowest invertebrates’ of this world, a damning parasite, blight and a disease to our world. They should be treated as most other harmful predators are, shot like a rabid dog.

Out.

It is a well known fact that the United States and Israel are very close allies, an alliance that has been in place since the inception of the Jewish state in 1948. The Israeli state has always been counted upon for support in the mid-east, a stalwart ally in the worst of times, so to speak. I will not bore you with the many egregious breeches of trust the Israeli’s have committed against us, and I am certain, we upon them.

No, this article is not intended to provide the reader with the brief, but colorful history of Israel. This piece, rather, is provided to the world at large so that we may see clearly the cruel and abject face of a group of barbaric tyrants. I am not against the existence of the Jewish state; I believe that all peoples have a right to call someplace their home. I am not against the defense of the Jewish state. I’m not even advocating that the U.S. abandon the Israeli people to the fate so many Arab nations wish for. I am simply advocating for something resembling decency, and if not that much, professional courtesy, so to speak.

Most of us are aware that Jimmy Carter is planning to visit the Palestinian Hamas soon. We are also equally aware that both the Israeli government and the Bush Administration are firmly against such a visit. Though Hamas was legally elected as the reigning power in 2006 two powerful governments will not deal with them in any other way but a sneering, threatening manner. It is the shabbiest display of international politics I have ever seen.

Normally when a visiting dignitary sets foot in Israel a security detail is provided, in addition to any security the dignitary may have brought with him. In the case of Israel the ‘Shin Bet’ provides that extra security. It is more a matter of courtesy and custom really; the American Secret Service provides security to visiting Israeli diplomats and government officials when on American soil. In other words when an important figure from America shows up in Israel, he or she is afforded protection from the Israeli secret service.

President Jimmy Carter will not be receiving this customary protection in his upcoming visit.

Though we have been allies for sixty years now, and though it was Carter who negotiated the first peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, Israel has told Carter to go to hell. Not literally of course, but any fool can read clearly the intended message. Israel has no desire for peace save on its own absolutist and oppressive terms. The Bush White House is full agreement with Israel on this matter (and many others for that matter), and it should come as no surprise to even semi-cognizant people that Bush and his cronies will have no peace except under our tedious and heavily demanding terms. This, America, is a grating digression from the values that formed this nation in our early years. It is a betrayal of all that we hold in revered awe, it is a violation to the men and women who have struggled and fought to build this mighty nation. This greed inspired divergence from our own vaunted Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Our Founding Fathers believed in the inalienable rights of man: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We had to fight a war to win our freedom, the ability to pursue the basic rights so valued by our forefathers. Yet if the same goal was to be obtained while averting war we would have done so gladly and swiftly. The same values find troubled residence in the mind of Jimmy Carter.

This ‘snubbing’ of international accord because Carter intends to meet with the self-created enemies of the Israeli state is a deplorable insult. That our own government is allowing such insult to live unchallenged is an even greater insult. Carter was right in his saying that Israel is sponsoring ‘apartheid’. The Israeli government has becoming hungry over the years, all the while not acknowledging the bloated power they already possess. The ruling hand of Israel has become increasingly totalitarian in regard to the Palestinian peoples, the peoples they displaced nearly overnight.

Carter was absolutely correct in his assertation of this corrosive state. But he fell short in his descriptions of the Israeli state; Israel has become that which they have loathed and grieved for over 60 years, they have become the new Nazis.

Out.