Archive for January 26th, 2009

Democrats Seek To Deprive Poor People Of Their Right To Have More Children Than They Can Afford

Why do the Democrats hate children and poor people?

Christian Defense Coalition calls Speaker Pelosi’s decision to add contraceptives to the economic stimulus package bigoted, racist, elitist and anti-child.

It is unthinkable that the Speaker of House would try to stimulate the economy by seeking to reduce the number of children.

Our political leaders should do all within their power to protect, support and encourage America’s children, not crush and destroy them.

This policy would lay the foundation for racism and eugenics because it would seek to reduce the number of children to the nation’s poorest economic groups, which tend to be persons of color and other minorities.


Speaker Pelosi’s actions are even more troubling and hypocritical when one realizes she herself has five children. Perhaps she thinks they have more value because they are white European children.

Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, states, “I was stunned to learn that on a national news program Speaker Pelosi defended a move to make contraceptives a part of the economic stimulus package. This is one of the most bigoted and anti-child policies I have ever seen embraced by a public official.

“It is hard to believe that this kind of legislation is coming out of America. One would expect it more from China or other oppressive governments.

“Speaker Pelosi shows a clear lack of compassion and understanding of social justice by laying the groundwork for racist and eugenic social policies. Clearly the focus of the distribution of these contraceptives would center on minority communities which tend to be poorer and more economically challenged.

“This situation is even more troubling when one realizes that Speaker Pelosi has five children herself. Does she believe that children born to white parents deserve the right to live more than other children?

Yes, that’s right: Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to inflict a genocidal holocaust on the poor and minorities by allowing them to choose whether or not they have to have children every time they have sex.  Monstrous.  Simply monstrous.  Why do those racist Democrats want to deprive poor people of the opportunity to support five children on a minimum wage salary?

(h/t Digby)

3 comments January 26th, 2009 at 09:07pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Choice,Democrats,Politics,Religion,Republicans

It’s Pronounced “PENNIS-tun”

Why yes, I am about twelve years old…

CRAPSTONE, England — When ordering things by telephone, Stewart Pearce tends to take a proactive approach to the inevitable question “What is your address?”

He lays it out straight, so there is no room for unpleasant confusion. “I say, ‘It’s spelled “crap,” as in crap,’ ” said Mr. Pearce, 61, who has lived in Crapstone, a one-shop country village in Devon, for decades.

As a timesaver, here are the other place names in the story, in order of appearance:

East Breast
North Piddle
Spanker Lane
Crotch Crescent
Titty Ho (my personal favorite)
Slutshole Lane
Pratts Bottom
Gaswork Road
Hoare Road
Typple Avenue
Quare Street
Corfe Close (only a problem if your address ends in a 4)
Tumbledown Dick Road
Butt Hole Road

Of course, my own adopted state of Pennisylvania Pennsylvania has placed Blue Ball and Intercourse very close to one another.  I wonder if there’s a shuttle bus.

1 comment January 26th, 2009 at 06:52pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Coolness,Weirdness

Monday Media Blogging – Diamond Center Edition

While I did not particularly like The Bay Area during my four years of college there, there was one thing about it that was truly awesome: The commercials.  And the most awesome of the Bay Area commercials were the ones for The Diamond Center, featuring the ever-cheerfully sleazy Paul in a variety of bizarre scenarios.

Alas, Paul’s masterpiece, “I’m A Credit Man” (to the tune of “Soul Man”), appears to have been lost in the mists of time.  If anyone finds it, please let me know immediately.

January 26th, 2009 at 11:31am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging

Bill Kristol, Wanker To The End

Bill Kristol kicks the wankery up to 11 for his NYT farewell column:

Conservatives have been right more often than not — and more often than liberals — about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of.

I’m not sure what his definition of “right” is.  I can only assume that it means he agrees with them, rather than that they had any kind of actual real-world success.  And then there’s this:

In 1978, the Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield diagnosed the malady: “From having been the aggressive doctrine of vigorous, spirited men, liberalism has become hardly more than a trembling in the presence of illiberalism. … Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty?”

He’s confusing “liberalism” with the Democratic Party.  Liberals are plenty vigorous and spirited, but most Democrats are not.  Anyway, good thing Obama’s a conservative:

We don’t really know how Barack Obama will govern. What we have so far, mainly, is an Inaugural Address, and it suggests that he may have learned more from Reagan than he has sometimes let on. Obama’s speech was unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative.

Obama appealed to the authority of “our forebears,” “our founding documents,” even — political correctness alert! — “our founding fathers.” He emphasized that “we will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.” He spoke almost not at all about rights (he had one mention of “the rights of man,” paired with “the rule of law” in the context of a discussion of the Constitution). He called for “a new era of responsibility.”


Can Obama reshape liberalism to be, as it was under F.D.R., a fighting faith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty? That would be a service to our country.

If Obama fails, it will of course be due to liberalism.  But if he succeeds, it will be because he turned liberalism into conservatism.  Awesome.  How will the NYT ever replace such a bold and original thinker?

2 comments January 26th, 2009 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Media,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




January 2009
« Dec   Feb »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *