Friday, December 05, 2008

Hither and thither 12/5/08

Of note (and subject to updates later as needed):
  • Liberals are nuts. I know, I know; It's WorldNetDaily, sometimes called WorldNutDaily. But psychologist Dr. Lyle Rossiter makes the case in his book The Liberal Mind. Rossiter says that "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do.... A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do." Further, "the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population" by "creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; augmenting primitive feelings of envy; [and] rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government." Just sayin'.
  • "Evangelical" leader working hard to deflate the term. Richard Cizik is the Chief Lobbyist and Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, and an Obama-supporter. In the Virginia primary, Cizik felt fine about supporting the most viciously anti-child politician ever to seek the Presidency, rather than a solidly pro-life Republican candidate. Particularly, Cizik felt that Obama, who said deciding when life began was "above my pay-grade," and viewed inconvenient grandchildren as "punishments" who should be killed at will, was less ignorant and more humble than the woman who knowingly gave birth to a child with Downs Syndrome. Plus, Cizik thinks evangelicals should back off of their opposition to special rights for particular sexual perversions. Sigh.
  • What would you think of a headline that read "Texas bill would force patients to be fully informed before major surgery"? Wouldn't you think it an odd title? What about this, then: Texas bill would force woman to see ultrasound of fetus before abortion? Well, of course that makes sense, because (A) it's in a branch of the MSM; and (2) the MSM regards abortion as a sacrament, not a surgery.
  • But won't that bill become academic once Cizik's man Obama signs FOCA as his first presidential act?
  • And now, for something completely different, just... oh, my gosh. It doesn't even say whence it's "imported." And what's sadder — I'm sure people actually buy it. (And I feel sure I can guess who they voted for.) And on that subject...
  • The One has already further distinguished himself from previous president-elects. How? By not attending church. Instead, he goes to the gym. (He clearly hasn't read this nor this... among a great many other things.) Obama's excuse is that he doesn't want his large retinue to upset the worshipers. My response: you don't think gyms are filled with worshipers?
  • To that, someone might retort, "A gym isn't a place of Christian worship!" To which my surrejoinder would be: neither was his last church. (Ba-dum bum.)
  • If it were Bush, the headline would read, "Bush chooses retinue that is threatening to worshipers!"
  • Back to lighter fare, non-bariatrically speaking: chocolates so good, they're irresistible!


Doug Hibbard said...

Where can we get the chocolate? Cause, man, that's great!

DJP said...

Um, I think - here.

Mike Westfall said...

1) One of my kids gets anaphylactic reactions to nuts, so she will will be especially protected from liberals.

2) The word "evangelical" means nothing to me anymore. There's no πνεύμα left to deflate from that dodge ball.

3) You're complaining that the headline is not objective? You do know, don't you, that objectivity is a social construct.

4) OK, the Blessed Vial of Holy Sand is imported from somewhere unspecified. I thought the important part was that it is "specially" imported. That makes all the difference. So... Where's my credit card?

5) You complain that The One didn't go to a place or worship, but went to the gym instead. You contradict yourself.

6) Yum.

DJP said...

MM - You do know, don't you, that objectivity is a social construct.

That's how you see it. I see it differently.

(ba-dum bum)

RT said...

Blessed by an "Ordained Minister" no less! Doubtless a graduate of CJTS (Crackerjack Theological Seminary). I think the only holy sand I would pay for would be from the beach at San Clemente where Richard Nixon used to take his morning walks.

Angie said...

Those chocolates do sound good, but have they been blessed? Are they holy chocolates that can be specially imported via an international parcel service just for me? If I eat them will I be spiritually enlightened? Maybe I can make earrings out of them to go with my sand necklace...

That quote about liberals is most excellent. It is to the advantage of a liberal politician to keep their followers in an infantile mindset so they do not think logically and become conservative.

DJP said...

Probably blessed... but I'm not sure if it was by an Ordained Minister.

If they chew "gritty," the odds are good.

RT said...

Well, the ad claims the minister is ordained and, given the low standards for ordination, it wouldn't surprise me. They ought to claim apostolic succession instead of mere ordination - now that would be amusing. Of course I already own bits of bone once belonging to Mary Magdalen and St. Benedict - duly authenticated by one of the successors of St. Peter - so I don't think I will spring for the Blessed Vial!

DJP said...

Yes, RT, I'm sure we've no doubts as to the qualifications of the Sand-blesser. I was responding to IBEX Scribe's concerns as to whether the Calvin Chocolates would be equally packed with equally Official spiritual power.

threegirldad said...

Richard Cizik:

"I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition I don't think."

How reassuring...

RT said...

Thanks for clearing that up. It was just inconceivable to me that the Calvin chocolates could require blessing from any human agency, ordained or otherwise, predestined for blessedness as they have no doubt been from the foundation of the world forward.

DJP said...

Good point, RT.

3GD - well, I certainly agree with Cizik's last three words.

threegirldad said...


I was going to say the same thing, but thought the better of it (didn't want to risk being guilty of excessive snideness).

Thanks for saying it.

CR said...

DJP: But won't that bill become academic once Cizik's man Obama signs FOCA as his first presidential act?

It appears that Obama may not do this as one of his presidential acts. Like, when he said during the campaign, he would start immediately removing troops from Iraq, it appears he was just duping and pandering to the far left kook fringe. It may come later down the road, but not immediately. We can also expect him at some point to issue an executive order getting rid of don't ask and don't tell. But it won't be one of his first presidential acts.

I think one of his first acts we can expect is to reverse President Bush's exective order banning federal funding of new embryonic stem cell research. Thank you, Obamagelicals.

Rachael Starke said...

Re: the FOCA thing and the last few weeks-

I've been praying that the whole PP speech was a holdover from politics pre-YouTube and the blogosphere. IOW, politician makes the rounds at major donor/special interest events and at each one, pulls out his/her Mad Libs speech that goes something like:

"The first thing I'll do when elected is [donor's pet passion]. It's [insert hyperbolic adjective here] important. and we can't let the [pejorative adjective for Christians/conservatives][perjorative noun for Christians/conservatives] win."

Rinse, repeat at each event.

Pretty SOP before YouTube and bloggers were able to call them on it.

I'm pretty sure he's said a couple of these kinds of things. So the question is, which one is he so committed to that he's willing to tick off all the supporters. If it's FOCA, God have mercy.


Wait a minute.

Mad Libs. Get it?

And I didn't even try.

Then again, how hard do we have to?

Oh, wouldn't that be such a great addition to the BibChr store???!!

CR said...


Obama has a lot of Clinton staffers in his soon to be administration. They don't want to make the same mistakes like Bill Clinton did like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." That mistake and other mistakes cost the democrats control of power in Congress.

He did have to feed his base a bone - FOCA and get rid of Don't ask don't tell, etc. etc. etc. I think he really wants to do those things. But also remember, he will fill the judiciary with liberals that will eventually do those things for him. Democrats spent the last eight years stiffling some Bush appointees and confirmation of judges came almost to a complete halt after the 2006 election.

So, I think he wants to get through a lot of these things, but even if he doesn't right away, he'll have judges to help out. I mean, look what is happening here in CA. Why do you think the CA state sumpreme court is hearing the case, it's because they want to stifle the will of the people and get their liberal agenda through. As far as liberals are concerned, ta heck with with the people.