This and That...

[Warph]

Frackety-Frack Hollywood: Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking, Falsehood-Infested Pet Project Film "Promised Land" Funded by Arab Oil Emirate Abu Dhabi, Is Box Office Dud!

Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on January 6, 2013

Hypocrisy and lying from the Left never takes a vacation, boys and girls.

Nipping at the heels of Al "Global Warming Lies Have Made Me Sooo Filthy Rich" Gore's hypocritical sale of his failed Current TV to Al Jazeera, a Muslim propaganda news station owned by the Middle Eastern Qatar government that has made billions for itself with oil production, is this new hypocrisy from Leftwing Hollywood.

Funding for the anti-fracking film "Promised Land" is not just partially funded by oil-rich Arab Emirate nation Abu Dhabi, but the leftist movie is loaded with propaganda crap, leftwing theories unsubstantiated by studies or science, and blatant falsehoods intended to brainwash ill-informed American audiences to be just as ignorant and sanctimonious about fracking as Damon is.

Quick reminder: last March, Obuma's EPA quickly and quietly backpedaled on its lawsuit against a Texas company for its fracking operations.  It was the third contamination lawsuit the federal agency had zealously launched, then dropped, when evidence didn't support the EPA's claims of contamination.  Fracking pumps a mixture of water, sand, and chemical to create fissures underground that allow natural gas to flow freely into cased pipes.  Abu Dhabi and other Middle Eastern oil nations don't want the US to be oil-independent, so any opportunities to slam the natural gas competition are seized upon.  No matter that their rhetoric and attacks are fact-deprived.

Way to go, Matt Damon.  Looks like you've picked up the dingy glove dropped by your deceased mentor, the ultra-Marxist radical whackadoodle and former Boston University professor Howard Zinn.

Next proposed Damon project: dirt-digging, back-stabbing, one-sided film against the Green Bay Packers, funded by the Chicago Bears.

As reported by The Daley Gator via CNS News, Stunning Revelation: Matt Damon's Anti-Fracking Propaganda Film 'Promised Land' Was Financed With Arab Oil Money:

"Promised Land," the anti-fracking film written and produced by Hollywood stars Matt Damon and John Krasinski, was made in part by a production company owned by the government of Arab oil emirate Abu Dhabi – a state in direct competition with American oil and gas producers.

The film is financed in part by Image Nation Abu Dhabi, a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Media which is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, one of 13 Arab emirates that makes up the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and serves as that country's capitol.

Abu Dhabi media was created by the Abu Dhabi government in 2007 with $27.3 million as part of that country's effort to diversify its economy into new markets such as media production.

The film's Abu Dhabi connection is significant, because the UAE is the world's third largest oil exporter, according to 2011 figures from the U.S. Energy Information Agency. The country also holds the 7th largest proven reserves of crude oil and natural gas in the world. The UAE was ranked 17th in the world in natural gas production in 2010, according to EIA.

That the UAE is a major natural gas and oil producer puts it in direct competition with U.S. natural gas producers, who have seen a revolution in production with the increased use of fracking – an old process that has found new uses as technology has made it possible to drill new wells and open up gas reserves that were once thought inaccessible.

As fracking has found wider use, especially in the U.S., natural gas production has soared, bringing new jobs and economic opportunity to many American communities and weakening the hold that states such as the UAE once had on oil and gas production and global prices.

The film tells the story of Steve Butler (Damon), a natural gas company salesman, as he travels to an impoverished Pennsylvania town trying to acquire drilling rights from local landowners and environmentalist Dustin Noble (Krasinksi), who is intent on stopping him.

While the film focuses on the battle between Damon and Krasinski for the hearts and minds of poor, rural Pennsylvanians – culminating in a town vote on whether to allow Damon's gas company to develop the farmland that sits atop large natural gas reserves – underlying the decision is a debate on the economic benefits of fracking.

Those economic benefits, promised by Damon's gas company salesman, are weighed against the supposed economic costs of hydraulic fracturing – fracking – the process used by gas companies to break the shale rock formations that contain the gas reserves.

Krasinski's character presents a host of supposed environmental consequences the town will be faced with if it allows fracking to occur, including so-called flaming water, contaminated ground water, and sick livestock.

Those supposed consequences have all been debunked as either lacking in evidence or not resulting from fracking.

In one scene, Krasinski's character demonstrates to a fifth grade classroom how fracking can allegedly result in flaming water – a phenomenon that happens when water is infused with methane and then somehow set alight.

In the film, Krasinski's character tries to show the children how dangerous flaming water can be by pretending to set the class' pet turtle on fire.

In reality, flaming water is not produced by fracking as Colorado regulators found when they investigated so-called flaming wells documented in the anti-fracking documentary Gasland. Colorado Department of Natural Resources scientists found that the methane in the wells was a natural occurrence, not a byproduct of fracking.

In another scene from the film, town supervisor Gerry Richards states that fracking can cause natural gas to seep into groundwater – a claim that has been debunked by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who has said publicly that there is no evidence of groundwater contamination from fracking.

"In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater," Jackson told Fox News in April 2012.

Beatles' destroyer Yoko Ono is against fracking... all the more reason to avoid The Damonator's film.

[Warph]

They're On the Dole And Watching The Pole- Welfare Recipients Taking Out Cash At Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores, X-rated Video Stores

Cover of todays N.Y.POST:

Isn't this where you thought your hard-earned tax dollars were going?

Via NY Post:

They're on the dole — and watching the pole.

Welfare recipients took out cash at bars, liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs — where they presumably spent their taxpayer money on lap dances rather than diapers, a Post investigation found.

A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank's Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.

The state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), which oversees the "cash assistance program," even lists some of these welfare-ready ATMs on its Web site.

One EBT machine is stationed inside Club Eleven, an infamous Hunts Point jiggle joint known as much for its violent history as its girls in pink thongs.

Cops have been cracking down on the Bronx club since 2009 and shut it down temporarily in 2010. In July, five men were stabbed and two others shot outside after bouncers broke up a 4 a.m. brawl with pepper spray. The club appeared to be shuttered when The Post visited Thursday.

Club Heat, another Bronx strip club that dispenses EBT cash, is also no stranger to violence. A 33-year-old woman was fatally shot in the head outside the club in December 2011.

Critics blasted the government for turning a blind eye to welfare's sleazy money.

"This is morally scandalous," said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "I have nothing against strip clubs, but that's not what benefits are for. I don't blame [recipients]. If you are poor, it's a crummy life and you want to have a drink or see a naked woman. I blame the people who are in charge of this."

[Warph]

Obuma supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases... Gee, I wonder why?

This is toooooooo Funnnnnny!:

(Washinton Times)  Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.

With President Obama back in office and his life-saving "fiscal cliff" bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.

"What happened that my Social Security withholding's in my paycheck just went up?" a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. "My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don't feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna' hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?"

Shocker. Democrats who supported the president's re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy "1 percenters," you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.

So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.

"I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th," wrote the ironically named "RomneyLies."

"My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn't help," wrote "DemocratToTheEnd."

"BlueIndyBlue" added: "Many of my friends didn't realize it, either. Our payroll department didn't do a good job of explaining the coming changes."

So let's explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a "holiday" on the payroll tax deduction from employees' paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year's, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.

"Bake," who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. "My paycheck just went down. So did my wife's. This hurts us. But everybody says it's a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a 'premium.' Nope. It's a tax, and it just went up."

Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the "holiday," which makes it a new tax — wouldn't really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. "Honeycombe8," though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at. "$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for ... Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer's contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes ... every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month ... food, vitamins, treats."

The Twittersphere was even funnier:

"Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama," wrote "Meet Virginia."

"Nancy Thongkham" was much more furious. "F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!"

"_Alex™" sounded bummed. "Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks." Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. "I'm starting to regret voting for Obama."

But "Dave" got his dander up over the tax hike: "Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him"?

Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. "Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!" posted "Orinoco."

But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the "holiday," and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.

How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, "More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said," according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).

A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don't even know: They'll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you're shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, "Who'd you vote for in November?" When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: "Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?"

The looks on their faces will be priceless.

[Warph]

Carl Sagan, the eminent astronomer, once stated the case for religious belief as succinctly as this: "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Someone I can't identify once, in comparing actors and politicians, pointed out "If they can learn to fake sincerity, they have it made."

Eric Hoffer, the late longshoreman/philosopher who wrote one of my favorite works of non-fiction, "The True Believer," observed: "If a society is to preserve stability and a degree of continuity, it must know how to keep its adolescents from imposing their tastes, attitudes, values and fantasies on everyday life."

To truly digest the wisdom of that statement, you merely have to consider the recent election in which this nation's youth, by giving Obama a seven million vote plurality over Romney, sentenced America to an additional four years of rule by presidential fiat.

But it isn't just youngsters who have taken leave of their senses. In California, Mohammad Safi, a graduate of a medical school in Afghanistan, first began working as a staff psychiatrist at a mental hospital in 2006, earning $90,000 a year.  Last year, he made $822,302.

At first blush, you'd say there's no way Dr. Safi could be making nearly $70,000-a-month legally, but you'd be wrong.  It seems that he benefited from a bidding war after a federal court forced the state to improve inmate care.  That resulted in prisons raising their pay scale to lure psychiatrists.  That, in turn, compelled the mental health department to follow suit in order to hang on to their employees.  So you had two clearly over-funded state agencies bidding against each other, and in the end a guy with a degree from some school in Afghanistan ends up being a millionaire, all at the taxpayers' expense.  

Clearly, there are more loons serving in our state government than there are under Dr. Safi's supervision.

Lest you think this is an isolated case, last year 15 other psychiatrists on the state payroll made over $400,000, while only one shrink made that much in the other 11 most populous states.  Is it any wonder that whereas some American cities have what are called sister cities scattered around the world, California has a sister country?  It's called Greece.

Even when Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma does something right, it can have tragic consequences for innocent people.  A while back, he signed a law prohibiting access for any Russian official linked to the murder of imprisoned whistle blower Sergei Magnitsky to visas or U.S. bank accounts.  Magnitsky, in case you missed the news, was the man who announced that members of the Russian government had been robbing the country blind.  A day or so before he was to be released from custody, he was killed, no doubt on orders from President Vladimir Putin, the former butcher in charge of the KGB.

In retaliation for Obuma's action, Putin saw to it that a law was passed denying Americans the right to adopt Russian children.  As I understand it, there were 46 such adoptions already in the pipeline when Putin decided to punish Russia's orphans in retaliation for a law that punishes corrupt Russian officials.  And this was the schmuck to whom Obuma promised greater flexibility once he won re-election.

That brings me to a pet peeve: the notion that there is something morally repellant about assassinations.  I can understand why heads of state would take exception to it.  I can even understand why those of us who live in a country where we have access to free elections would be opposed.  But when you consider that Pol Pot made it all the way to his 73rd birthday; Stalin made it to 75; Mao tse-tung, to 82; and that Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe are still causing trouble at the ripe old ages of 86 and 88, respectively, it's hard to argue that the world wouldn't have been better-served if they'd been eliminated by any means possible decades ago.  And is there anyone out there who's not named Bashar al-Assad, 47, who would have any objection if an assassin saw to it Syria's serial killer didn't make it to 48?

I will give the last word to Mrs. Duane Plummer, who used to live on Lake Road, Webster, NY, where William Spengler recently murdered two firemen who had been lured to a fire he started because, as he confessed in a note he left behind, he really enjoyed killing people.

In response to the anti-gun hysteria generated by headline-chasing politicians and their enablers in the media, Mrs. Plummer wrote: "Another unbalanced person who served only sixteen years for killing his grandmother.  Huh?  Because of this latest travesty, my husband and I will no longer use matches and are starting a ban-the-match campaign.  It may not get any further than our stop-making-roads campaign because cars drive on roads and kill people.  But we need to do something to stop this madness!!"

[Warph]

                             


Dear CRM 495 Students:

Welcome back!  It's hard to believe that Christmas break is over and that it's time to start a new semester.  It's almost as hard as believing that one of your professors is actually sending you an email using the word "Christmas."  But even the liberals agree that I am no ordinary professor.  Please allow me to explain.

After I got tenure, I left the political Left and became a conservative Republican.  I know you've never had a conservative professor before and you are probably wondering what to expect.  In a nutshell, you can expect to hear the truth about a number of things for the very first time in your college career.  And that means you can probably expect to be offended from time to time.

Just in case you are wondering whether you are getting in over your head, let me give you a few examples of beliefs I hold, which you may well deem to be offensive.  Based on the following revelations, you can make an informed decision as to whether this class is really for you.

African-Americanism.  I think the term African-American is ridiculous.  If you insist on being called this then you aren't American and you've probably never been to Africa.  If you demand to be a hyphenated American then you're just
un-American.  Get over yourself or get out of the country.  Sorry if you're offended but you offend me with your ethnocentrism.


Coke.  I cannot stand that four letter word that begins with "c" and refers to female genitalia.  Repeating it at "The Vagina Monologues" does not make women empowered.  It makes them unrefined idiots.  If you c*** c*** a feminist play without using feminists who say the word c*** then you simply c*** be taken seriously.  Sorry if you're offended, but women who curse like sailors offend me.


Daddy issues.  Every semester, I get at least one female student who comes into class late and hyperventilating.  She makes a scene in order to get sympathy.  Then, she apologizes after class while dumping all her personal problems on me.  Let me be blunt: women like this have daddy issues.  Put simply, daddy didn't give them enough attention and now they are seeking it from me because I remind them of daddy.  Sorry that offends you.  Go tell your daddy.


Guns.  I have more guns than I need but fewer than I want.  In fact, as I sit in my home office writing this email I am positioned between two packed gun safes.  There are enough guns in this room to issue a 21 gun salute in the event you don't make it through the semester.  There are also about 12,000 rounds of ammunition in this room.  And there is more elsewhere in the house.  Some people are afraid of guns but I am afraid of gunlessness.  Most of your professors say that homophobia is a social disease.  I say that hoplophobia is a social disease.  If you don't like abortion... oops!  I mean guns... you don't have to have one.


Momma's boys.  Every semester, I get at least three male students who cannot run their lives.  They constantly ask me questions that I have already answered on the syllabus.  When is the first test?  What kind of questions are on it?  How many tests are there?  These are the kinds of young males who still could not wipe their bottoms when they were 12 (and probably still can't do their own laundry).  If you are one of them, you have no chance of passing my class and no chance of succeeding in
life.  Please drop out now and join the Marines.  Sorry if that offends you but you need to be a man.  If that's too much to ask, just complain to momma next time you're home dropping off your laundry.


Pepsi.  I cannot stand that five letter word that begins with "P" and refers to female genitalia.  Every year at The Vagina Monologues, they sell p***** pops, which are little candied vaginas on a stick.  The feminists walk around licking them in a display of feminist empowerment.  I hate to be p**** but why don't they sell p**** pops, too.  Maybe that would offend them.  That's too bad because their sexism offends me.


Queer Centers.   When I was a kid, we played "smear the queer" (dodge ball).  Later, they said we could not call it
that.  Now, the word "queer" has made a queer re-entry into the realm of social acceptability.  Some colleges are even opening "Queer Resource Centers."  Make up your mind, thought police.  And stop acting like women with daddy issues!  Sorry if that offends you.  Indecisiveness offends me.


Racial Preferences.  If you can't get into college without checking a box that says African-American or Hispanic, you do not need to be here.  Sorry but the only reason there are racial differences in SAT scores is because minorities refuse to take off the training wheels.  You're just as smart as anyone else so hop off the Big Wheel and join the bike race.  Sorry if you're offended but your racism offends me.


Wolf-crying.  People cry racism all the time.  In fact, I've been told I'm a racist for opposing affirmative action.  That's funny to me.  I don't think blacks need a crutch because I believe they are equal.  Therefore, I'm called a racist... even though I was the first kid on my block to own a Flip Wilson record.  Those people... (oops, I said, those people).... need to chill.  In fact, I should let them borrow my old Flip Wilson record to lighten the mood.  Next thing you know, they'll say Flip Wilson offends them because Geraldine made fun of cross dressing.  Have I mentioned that cross-dressing offends me?


XXX.  Pornography is more than disgusting.  It is evil and I hate it.  This is probably not offensive to anyone... unless, of course, you are a porn star.  But, once you become a porn star, you pretty much give up the right to be offended.  If you're offended anyway just drop my class and sign up for one of Dr. Porco's instead... (no I did not make up that last name).  Dr. Porco was just hired by the UNCW English Department despite.. (or perhaps because of)... the fact that he published a book of pornographic poems... some of which were written while he was drunk and hanging out in topless bars.  He tries to pass them off as academic.  And that offends me, which is why I simply choose not to read them.


Now that everything is on the table, you are ready for your first assignment.  Since this is a class covering the First Amendment, we are going to focus on important US Supreme Court decisions dealing with free speech.  Our first case will be Gitlow v. New York.  I want you to read it with two questions in mind:

1. Since the Supreme Court nationalized the First Amendment, speech codes have emerged on most state-run campuses.  How have these speech codes survived in light of the nationalization movement?

2. Holmes' dissent in this case has been often quoted.  If he is correct in saying that "every idea is an incitement" then how can universities actually enforce speeches codes?  As they are actually enforced, do these codes violate other portions of our constitution?

As you can see, we'll be tackling some serious issues this semester.  So we need to weed out all of the self-absorbed, hypersensitive products of the era of political correctness in higher education.  That was the purpose of this email.  If you are still reading then congratulations!  You've demonstrated more intellectual integrity and emotional maturity than the majority of your professors.

See you next week in class.... and remember, every idea is an incitement.

Prof. Mike Adams, PhD

[Warph]

Why has everything turned out so wrong, she asked?

Recent events in our nation have baffled those of the conservative stripe; none more so than the decisions made by our fellow Americans this past November. The reelection of Barack Obama, seemingly trailing in the polls up to the last days, was the most frustrating; but there were others that were even more disturbing. For the first time, voters in several states endorsed laws permitting homosexual marriage while others approved the recreational use of marijuana.

The reelection of President Obama in the face of high unemployment, low housing values and general economic misery can perhaps be explained away as another triumph for the cult of popularity, but what of the rest? How to explain these abrupt turnabouts in the attitudes of Americans? Has the electorate really and truly taken a turn to the left; and if so, why? One answer may lie in cyberspace.

At the advent of the Internet age, we thought that this new medium would be an ideal venue from which to promote conservatism, to shout our message from the virtual rooftops, unimpeded by the constraints of liberal editors and the rest of the mainstream media establishment. And for a while, we were right. From sites like Newsbusters.org that pioneered the documentation of media bias, to forums like FreeRepublic.com where thousands of posters formed pajama patrols always on the lookout for leftwing mischief, the Internet has indeed been a powerful tool for advancing conservatism.

And the Internet continues to be a considerable source of news and information for millions on the right. It's just that far too many Americans have now become addicted to, and thereby under the influence of, the same forces of the left that control them through TV and the public school system; the same political correctness that defines what is right and wrong — not through any application of the Natural Law or, Heaven forbid, religious strictures — but merely by way of popular opinion, as defined by you-know-who.

And by this I don't mean just the obvious purveyors of liberal tripe like the Huffington Post or Media Matters, or even supposedly neutral sites like Google or AOL where the homepages are basically mainstream media digests. No, to me, the most dangerous threat to the future of America as we know it, is so-called social media, where the kind of the peer pressure on young people to conform to liberal norms so disastrously present in our classrooms is now brought to bear outside of them as well. And sadly, in today's America, folks who want desperately to be buddies with their kids instead of parents, more often than not follow their children rather than lead them.

And what's not to like? Just think of it: a society where tweeting a two-sentence screed on the evils of religion makes you a great patriot; where, with a flick of the thumb, one can engage in the ultimate in effortless charity by texting a donation to the latest cool cause; a culture that encourages you to stand up by not standing out. The point is, social media is a boiling cauldron of socialist, feel-good egoism that is a virulent breeding ground for cultural and political groupthink.

Groupthink, a term that was developed by psychologist Irving Janis, who applied it to his study of what he considered American military blunders, is nonetheless an accurate description of the current political situation among a great many of our citizens. It has been generally defined as:

"A psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or deviant decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions. The primary socially negative cost of groupthink is the loss of individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking."

And this loss of independent and critical thinking combined with an inordinate desire for "harmony or conformity" is, to my mind, the best explanation of "what went wrong" last November and will continue to go wrong until half of the country stops getting its political information 140 characters at a time. But I'm not holding my breath. After all, who wants to be "unfriended?"

[Warph]

Slick Willy Clinton....  "Father of the Year?"  What   If it were "Philanderer of the Year," I'd be more inclined to believe William Jefferson Clinton earning this dubious award.

Former First Daughter Chelsea is pushing 33 and married, so the "father" part of the award to Slick Willy seems over the top... wouldn't you say

At least they didn't give the father award to Woody Allen...

                 

Reported by Politico, Bill Clinton named 'Father of the Year':
Former President Bill Clinton is getting props for being a good dad.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2013/01/bill-clinton-named-father-of-the-year-153760.html

Clinton was named the "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Council on Wednesday last.

The group selected Clinton for his "profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations," Dan Orwig, chairman of the National Father's Day Committee, said in the announcement.


Jeez.... In 2007, Democrat presidential candidate, indicted liar, and unfaithful scumbag John "Baby Daddy" Edwards won the Father of the Year award.

You just can't make this stuff up, people.

                   

[Warph]

Proof PETA Kills             

               

The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) requires all animal shelters to report the number of cats and dogs they take in each year. The records indicate how many cats and dogs were reclaimed by their owners, adopted out, transferred to other Virginia releasing agencies (i.e. animal shelters and animal control), transferred to out-of-state releasing agencies, died of natural causes, euthanized (killed), and how many the shelter held alive at the end of the calendar year. We added the dogs and cats euthanized and divided by the total number of dogs and cats taken in excluding those held only for sterilization surgery to determine the percentage of dogs and cats PETA killed in a given year. In 2009, Virginia modified its policy and eliminated animals held for sterilization from the records.

We obtained the reports by filing public records requests under Virginia's sunshine laws with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The information for years 2004-2010 is also available on the VDACS website for public inspection (animals classified as "other" from 2004-2009 include those reported by PETA as held for sterilization).

               

[Warph]

                         

Koran-Burning Pastor To Hold "Burn Obama Effigy Day"...

"We will burn an effigy of Barack Hussein Obama on a bonfire of political protest at 2pm, Saturday January 19th, 2013. He lied his way back into the White House. But he does not get a free pass just because he is black.

We protest in disgust, in civil disobedience, in anger, in hope, in prayer, that the Untied States of America will wake up. We protest in proclamation: I did not vote for him. He must be impeached, removed, because he is a liar, a deceiver, a murderer, he is anti-American, anti-Christ."


I think it's safe to say Chris Matthews will not be in attendance...

[jarhead]

Poor ol Lost Joe. He doesn't know whether to sh#t or go blind so he just closes one eye and farts !!! Gotta  feel sorry for the old fool.

Joe Biden gives himself huge promotion in speech, sets tongues wagging
4 hrs ago
Here's the question Washington D.C. is asking on the day of Vice President Joe Biden's swearing in: Was what happened last night just a regular ol' Biden screw-up, or a slip of the tongue that reveals lofty ambitions? At the Iowa State Society inauguration ball late last night, Biden told supporters: "I'm proud to be president of the United States." Oops. The audience laughed and cheered, before Biden's son Beau interrupted the veep and told the crowd he'd misspoken