This and That...

[Warph]

What's Racist, What's Not (As of Friday, Oct. 3, 2014)

BY: Andrew Stiles

http://freebeacon.com/blog/whats-racist-whats-not-as-of-friday-oct-3-2014/

Liberals tend to devote a significant portion of their daily lives to proving how not racist they are. One particularly expedient way of doing this is to declare that something a conservative has said or done is totally racist, and then to place oneself in opposition to the thing that was racist: "See, I'm not a racist!"

As result, the List of Things That Are Racist has grown incomprehensibly long.  The Free Beacon's devotion to public service obligates us to provide this list (not exhaustive by any means) of what liberals do and do not consider to be racist.
Things That Are Racist

1. Talking about Ebola (Salon)

2. Describing the Hong Kong protests as "clean and orderly" (Vox)

3. Pointing out that white people use heroin (Salon)

4. #BringBackOurGirls (Salon)

5. Describing Obama as "angry" (MSNBC)

6. The American Revolution (Salon)

7. Children's books with white characters (Salon)

8. Criticizing the IRS (MSNBC)

9. Donating to the United Negro College Fund

10. Being half-white (Salon)

11. Supporting Herman Cain (MSNBC)

12. Opposing Obama (MSNBC)

13. Rocky III (Vox)

14. When black conservatives disagree with black liberals (Salon)

15. Noting that Obama has an Ivy League education (MSNBC)

16. Saying Obama likes to play golf (MSNBC)

17. Saying "Obamacare" (MSNBC)

18. Living in the suburbs (Salon)

19. Calling Obama "Obama" (MSNBC)

20. Criticizing liberals for constantly accusing people of racism (Salon)

21. "Tom and Jerry" cartoons

22. Cupcakes

23. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches


Things That Are Not Racist

1. Suing a fertility clinic after giving birth to a mixed race child that you wish was white* (Salon)

[Warph]

Why is it that one administration after another insists on carrying on an unseemly love affair with Islam? For several years, George W. Bush kept telling us that Islam was a religion of peace when, clearly, it was the one religion in the entire world that wasn't.

These days, we have Obama curtsying to sheiks, imans and ayatollahs, every chance he gets. For good measure, the eminent theologian, John Kerry, who merely moonlights as the secretary of state, claimed, at a ceremony to appoint Texas lawyer Shaarik Zafer to be special representative to Muslim communities, that it was America's biblical responsibility to confront climate change and to protect vulnerable Muslim majority countries. "It's a responsibility that comes from God," he insisted, without clarifying whether or not he was referring to Obama.

How reassuring it is to know that the State Department is being overseen by someone so deeply concerned with the well-being of our archenemies. And how is it that we need to have a special envoy to Muslim communities when we seem to get along fine without envoys to Catholic, Jewish, Presbyterian, Baptist, Hindu, Shinto or Amish, communities?

In this particular case, we had Kerry paying homage to two cults simultaneously. The first consists of those who insist that global warming is anything but a hoax created in order to enrich those invested in so-called green energy operations and the politicians who reside deep inside the pockets of the ecology nuts who exchanged their brains for membership in the Sierra Club. The second is the cult of Islam, which only pretends to be a religion so that pinheaded barbarians can pray to something besides their goats.

Yet another cult is the one devoted to personalities, which is why I despise politicians who are described as charismatic, and why I take exception to those who claim that someone like Gov. Scott Walker, for instance, shouldn't be the GOP presidential candidate in 2016. Such louts dismiss competence as boring. The problem is that charisma inevitably gets you someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Peron, Castro, Huey Long, Obama and Hugo Chavez.

Speaking of Chavez, the late, unlamented, dictator, left-wing Venezuelans have altered the Lord's Prayer in places to read, "Our Chavez, who art in Heaven...." and "lead us not into the temptation of capitalism." Over the Church's objections, Chavez's successor, Nicolas Maduro, has endorsed the new version.

Closer to home, we have Berkeley's city council members, who are forever in competition with their loony colleagues in San Francisco, deciding to dispense free marijuana to anyone making less than $32,000-a-year. I suppose now that the gauntlet has been thrown down, Frisco will have no choice but to offer free heroin.

As if it's not embarrassing enough that the chief propagandist for ISIS, Ahmad Abousamra, is an American who hails from Boston, it so happens he has dual-citizenship. Thanks to open borders, we are barely a sovereign nation these days, but allowing for dual citizenship is totally beyond the pale. That is especially the case when the other nation, as is the case with Mr. Abousamra, happens to be Syria, one of our archenemies. The question that comes to mind is how, even if we get our hands on the bum, the U.S. can even indict and convict him for treason when he is fighting for one of his two countries.

If someone told you that global-warming is the greatest crisis facing America, as Hillary Clinton recently stated, you would question her ability to run a lemonade stand, let alone a nation. But here she is announcing that a climate hoax is a greater threat than China and North Korea threatening our Far East allies; greater than ISIS and Iran threatening Israel and America; and greater than Russia threatening all of Eastern Europe. To me, the only threat that comes close to these others is the threat of Hillary Clinton being returned to the White House.

You would think that so long as the law of averages hasn't been overturned that liberals would occasionally be right about something, but, as you may have noticed, when it comes to liberals, including those in the White House, laws, even natural ones, don't pertain. So it is that this administration keeps assuring the worst villains on the face of the earth that they needn't ever worry about "boots on the ground," which has quickly become the most over-used expression since "at this point in time." Whenever I hear Obama or one of his stooges utter those words, I find myself imagining a kid finally confronting a schoolyard bully and assuring his tormentor: "Don't worry, I promise I won't punch you in the nose."

But there are times when even Obama, Kerry and Clinton, can't handle all the heavy lifting. At such times, Barbara Boxer is always ready to step in and even defend the administration's cover-up of the Benghazi massacre, insisting, "We shouldn't try to turn a tragedy into a scandal."

Well, Madam Senator, we conservatives didn't do the turning. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton did that when they spent weeks blaming the massacre on a silly video they knew played no part in provoking the terrorist attack. They might as well have blamed it on "Gone with the Wind," ocean currents or sunspots.

As you may have noticed, liberals are always asserting their expertise when it comes to things such as the economy, national defense and the climate, things they know nothing about. Worse yet, because the educational system is such a hash, they generally have the academic credentials with which to buffalo the unsuspecting.

For instance, what constantly amazes me about those on the Left who keep demanding that corporate taxes be raised is that they seem to be totally unaware of who in the final analysis pays those taxes. It's we the consumers. As even a child would realize, all the corporations do is add the taxes to their other expenses and pass them along in the price we pay for their products or services.

It's sad but also shameful that those so-called progressives who spend their lives demanding that the fat cats be soaked are apparently unaware that it is they, along with the rest of us, who wind up getting drenched.

....Burt

[Warph]

Former DOJ Attorney is Suing to Have Obama Deported

By Dean Garrison - Oct. 04, 2014

Larry Klayman, the former Justice Department lawyer and founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is suing to have President Barack Hussein Obama "Deported".

"In sum, deportation proceedings should be immediately commenced, an investigation undertaken, a full evidentiary hearing held, and Barack Hussein Obama should be removed from the United States," Klayman wrote in the petition.

Barack Hussein Obama?

Who is that?

The Inscription: "There Is No God But Allah"

According to Klayman, the Junior Obama never legally changed his name back after it was changed to Barry Soetoro (while an Indonesian citizen). This is just one of many reasons that Klayman believes we not only have a usurper in the White House, but that the man who calls himself Barack Obama should not even be allowed to live in this country.

Bob Unruh of WND reports:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/klayman-files-for-deportation-of-barack-obama/


The petition was sent to Thomas Homan of Enforcement Removal Operations at the Department of Homeland Security, Thomas Winkowksi of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Sarah Kendall of the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security at DHS.

Klayman explained it is based "on the grounds that he has falsified various birth and other documents with regard to obtaining a U.S. passport and other privileges as an alleged American citizen."

"It is clear, based on a mountain of evidence as set forth in and attached to the petition, that the president and his agents have falsified documents, such as his birth certificate and Social Security number, to qualify for the privileges of American citizenship such that his citizenship, which is based on false pretenses, must be nullified," Klayman said.

"As set forth in the petition, this includes but is not limited to the fraudulent production of a computer-generated facsimile of an official state of Hawaiian birth certificate. Even if a legitimate birth certificate exists, Obama's repeated use of a clearly forged birth certificate is still a crime and in violation of the law," he said.

If Boehner won't allow impeachment to proceed this [lawsuit] is one alternative solution to the problem.

Will it work?

That is highly doubtful, but I have tremendous respect for those who stand tall and do what is right in spite of the naysayers around them and in spite of the odds in front of them. The man in the White House is not only named Barry Soetoro, but he is very likely an Indonesian citizen, who gave up his American citizenship and never went through the proper channels to get it back. He is definitely not a "natural born citizen" and very likely not a citizen at all.

The truth is that it does not really matter if Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or anywhere else. If he is not an American citizen, it might explain why he has been using a fraudulent social security number for several years. If he is not a "natural born citizen," then he cannot hold the office of president.

I wonder if Indonesia would take him back?

If you would like to look at the petition that Klayman has filed, it can be seen here.

On a side note, Larry Klayman has failed before and taken some heat for it. Some might recall the Reclaim America disappointment of nearly a year ago. Failure is not fatal. Klayman picks himself up and keeps fighting. Maybe we should applaud his fighting spirit rather than condemn him for doing what most of us are unwilling to do. We should thank him for not giving up in the face of adversity. Anyone who has ever tried to do something meaningful knows the feeling of occasionally getting a little egg on their face.

Sure it's a long shot, but even the things that fail to produce optimum results are raising awareness with the public, and that's what we want.

America deserves the truth.

Source: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/10/former-doj-attorney-suing-obama-deported/

[Warph]

Boehner: "We have a system of government outlined in our Constitution" But I won't follow it concerning Impeachment

Posted on July 11, 2014 by Suzanne Hamner

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/07/11/boehner-system-government-outlined-constitution-wont-follow-concerning-impeachment-barack-obama/

For many, it came as no surprise when CNSnews.com reported that House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) "disagreed" with Sarah Palin's call for Obama's impeachment. Boehner would rather have the House of Representatives file a lawsuit against Obama aimed at "forcing" this president to "faithfully execute the law." Impeachment has been tabled by Boehner because he "disagrees" with impeachment; even though, the Constitutional remedy for an out of control executive is just that – impeachment.

In a June 25, 2014 statement, Boehner had this to say:

"You know, the Constitution makes it clear that a president's job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws. We have a system of government outlined in our Constitution with the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch."

According to Obama, he has the "authority" to pick and choose which laws to "faithfully execute."

While Rush Limbaugh claimed that impeachment was not forthcoming because there was not the "political will" and the people were not desirous of it, Limbaugh did get it right on the "political will." Politicians are not willing to follow the law. What Americans are witnessing is a blatant display of elected officials who, for whatever reason, refuse to follow the law, the Constitution, for violations committed by a sitting president. Instead, Boehner is pressing the House to file suit.

Now, most lawsuits outline, in detail, the specifics of the case. However, Boehner is not doing that. This supposed leader will be using "generalities." Additionally, most lawsuits require some sort of evidence of damage against the party filing and a stated remedy to the case at hand. What damage will Boehner assert? Who will be the damaged party? What will the remedy be should a court rule in favor of the House and the Republicans: a court order for Obama to "faithfully execute" the law or perhaps a monetary fine? Who is going to enforce that remedy?

Of course, Boehner is talking about the House taking a vote on a lawsuit as one has not yet been filed, nothing more and nothing less. If the House does not have the "political will" for impeachment, do they have the "political will" for a lawsuit? Boehner disagrees with impeachment, the Constitutional remedy, but approves of a lawsuit. Interestingly, the American public really doesn't know what to support.

Impeachment is the remedy for an out of control executive. However, even many conservatives squawk at following the law. Comments abound all over the internet on conservative websites stating Obama cannot be impeached because he's an ineligible president; Obama should be arrested and jailed, not impeached, for his criminal activity; impeachment, just like a lawsuit, is political grandstanding; the lawsuit has some chance where impeachment does not; and, America is stuck with him for another two years. It is obvious conservative America is just as divided on following and enforcing the law as the whole of America is divided along racial, gender, religious and socio-economic lines.

Boehner talks about the system of government outlined in the Constitution, intimating that system should be followed. But, he refuses to follow or disagrees with the remedy to restore that system. While Obama claims authority to enforce laws at his discretion, establishment Republicans, like Boehner, are following the Democratic Socialist Liberal party rhetoric of "choosing" which laws they want to follow or use in governing this nation.

RINOs, on the other hand, subscribe to the Obama ilk rhetoric, especially on the current immigration crisis. John McCain (R-AZ) supports the "pathway to citizen" or amnesty for the approximately 11 million illegal aliens residing in the US, claiming these people are being "deprived" of rights, especially the rights enjoyed by citizens. These "rights" McCain references are not the God-given individual rights endowed to all men, but what many consider "privileges" of being a citizen of this nation, such as voting or driving a vehicle. Republicans, just like the American people, are split along varying political rhetoric lines while Democrats stand united, supported by those RINOs like McCain, in their endeavor to "fundamentally transform" this nation.

To fundamentally transform this nation, to these Obama minions, the Democratic sheep and the powerful elite, means to destroy the Constitution and replace it with some charter or article giving government more power and the people less. Obama is known for his statement that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberty." What the usurper left out is that the Constitution is a document that "limits the liberty of government to exact dominion over the people." Treating the Constitution like a Chinese buffet helps their agenda along. Refusing to recognize the power to recall and remove those in office who exhibit "less than good" behavior plays into the hands of those seeking to destroy the founding principles of America.

So far, the plan is working and will continue to work. No matter what the remedy is for an out of control executive, legislative or judicial branch, some of the American public will support everything and anything but the supreme law of the land because they are buying into the snake oil being sold by the lame stream enemedia, the political pansies, and the loud-mouth wishy-washy self-appointed spokesmen for conservatives, who pander false rationale to not follow the law or to follow the law only in certain instances. In other words, these "institutions" pander for inequity of law, which some Americans, even conservatives, are sucking down faster than a "Big Gulp" thereby helping the process along.

The exact reason impeachment will not be forthcoming, even after the midterm elections, is because of one man – John Boehner. Since he disagrees with impeachment, it will not be considered. The American people could support impeachment 100%, but it still would not happen because Boehner disagrees with it. So, the rhetoric that the Senate will not convict or Harry Reid won't allow it to the floor for consideration does not play into the scenario when the House Majority Leader disagrees with the legal remedy for a lawless president. The establishment has spoken.

Obama has basically suspended immigration enforcement by executive decree because he "disagrees" with the current law and favors a different type of immigration law or amnesty or whatever flavor it is this month. Conservatives, for the most part, do not agree with Obama's actions as it does not follow the law and call for enforcement of the law. However, some of these same conservatives do not support enforcing the law regarding impeachment for an out of control executive.

Maybe it's time we all start disobeying laws we "disagree" with and start following the laws we like. Unconstitutional laws are not required to be obeyed. Therefore, it is constitutional laws that are being referenced to pick and choose what to obey. After all, isn't that what is being supported when we do not support impeachment, when it is contained in law, but support enforcement of current immigration laws, which are constitutional as the government is responsible for establishing those? It looks as though that is the case. However, it is this inequity that leads to anarchy, confusion and instability.

Let's face facts here, impeachment has been removed as a lawful remedy for an out of control executive only because Boehner does not agree with it. One can say that impeachment has now been "unilaterally" removed from the Constitution as an option, without so much as a vote by the people or an amendment ratified by the states. While conservatives rail against Obama for unilateral action regarding changing laws, some conservatives buy into the Boehner unilateral action. It will be only a small percentage of Americans who will be willing to "pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to maintain for the whole of Americans what the divided parts cannot agree upon.

God Bless America and those holding steadfast to our Constitution.

[Warph]

PUKELOSI??... Nothing DUMBER Than This Broad!... (Accept Maybe Dirty Harry Reid and the Rest The Of Liberal Jacka$$'s)

Oh Yeah.... after you read and watch what Neil Cavuto (I love this guy) had to say about SanFranNan and her use of the 'undocumented' word instead of 'illegal', see if you think he hit it out of the park with ONE GIANT GRAND SLAM!

There's nothing much more I can add here, counting on all of you to do the rest.  Besides that, everything is self-explanatory via this report, see what you think:

Fox News' Neil Cavuto has solved the riddle of why we can't call the beheading of a woman in Oklahoma terrorism: it's because liberals are too cowardly to call anything what it actually is. Take, for example, Nancy Pukelosi's recent obnoxious correction of a reporter asking a question about illegal immigrants.  "Are you referring to undocumented people?"  said she, in her most haughty and self-serving tone, a look of moral superiority attempting to break through the near solid layer of plastic she uses for a face.  Cavuto has had his fill of nonsense, and lights it up.

Nancy, what part of "illegal" bothers you?

Doesn't "undocumented" mean illegal? If you don't have documents, doesn't that mean you don't have them for a reason and might that reason be because, oh I don't know... that you're illegal? And don't illegals not get documents because they're not legal? Legal citizens get legal documents. Illegal citizens don't get legal documents, because like I said, they're not legal and the documents are for folks who are legal.So if they're undocumented, that means that they're unable to get legal documents which must mean that they're illegal and not entitled to any such documents.

Cavuto then goes into a painstaking description of exactly what constitutes legal and illegal, in terms that simply cannot be disputed.  Then he lets Nancy have it again.

So let me say those words again because they are getting to be as rare as Washington Redskins; Illegal alien, illegal alien, illegal alien. That's what you are here when you have no documents, you have no right here, you have no rights here, because again you shouldn't be here. So you are entitled to nothing here. This isn't about saying things that, well, just might offend you, Nancy. This is about something called our Constitution and honoring it, Nancy.

Now I know why it is so tough for you to call terrorism what it is. Think about it. You can't even muster the words to call millions who shouldn't even be here what they are they're not undocumented. But I'm beginning on wonder whether some of you guys are just unhinged. Because this isn't about millions of illegals not having papers, no offense, Nancy, this is about you not having anything approaching a clue.

Are you referring to intolerable people, Neil?  Yes, yes you are.  Because Pukelosi is.

That says just about all there is to say to our most superior and benign Lady of California, her Holier-than-thouness herself, Representative Nancy "SanFranistan" Pukelosi.

Listen below...you should enjoy it!

Throwing this in, too:
Immigrants Kicked Off Obamacare Now Suing Over Discrimination

[Warph]

ON OUR SOIL: Muslim Terrorist Leader Threatens To Behead 3 Members of Congress

Posted on October 5, 2014

http://clashdaily.com/2014/10/soil-muslim-terrorist-leader-threatens-behead-3-members-congress/

These people want to bring jihad to America. What will Obama do about this threat? Check it out...

Although infiltrating the government, media, and schools is an easy and effective way of establishing an Islamic State, it often leaves impatient jihadists chomping at the bit. The "peaceful" ulterior motives of the moderate Muslims take too long, and militant Islamists resort to spreading Islam "by the sword," and we don't mean a sharp wit and debate.

Muslim leader Abu Asmaa Al Hijazi, a member of the Shumoukh Al-Islam sect of al-Qaeda, has commanded Americans to conduct "lone wolf" attacks in the U.S., killing soldiers and their families, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) via HS Today.

Al Hijazi has recently come forward to call for the heads of certain members of U.S. Congress:

Continuing, Al Hijazi admonished followers that killing women is permissible if they've been involved in fighting Islam. He wrote that Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ark.) as possible targets because they signed legislation supporting the recent Israeli military campaign in Gaza. "Those women must be put on the list of targeted [people] in order to present their heads as offerings to Allah," Al Hijazi said.

[Warph]

This is UNBELIEVABLE....
Our SICK SOB President Obama SENDS NOTE Praising Oklahoma Mosque... AFTER BEHEADING

Alton Nolen, who goes by the Muslim name of Jah'Keem Yisrael, beheaded 54 year-old Colleen Hubbard in the front office of Vaughan Foods after he was fired.  Nolen stabbed a second victim several times.

Nolen was a member of the The Islamic Council of Oklahoma mosque.  His Facebook page shows several photos of Jah'Keem interacting at "the Islamic Mosque in Oklahoma City." (Truth Revolt)

Alton Nolen was "shouting Islamic phrases" during the bloodbath.

Now there's this:
Barack Obama sent a special note of praise to the Oklahoma mosque after the beheading.

KFOR reported, via Jihad Watch:
Oklahoma Muslims marked the end of the yearly pilgrimage to mecca with communal prayer and celebration called Eid Ul-Adha on Saturday.

Leaders of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City say it's been a tough month for Muslims here in Oklahoma after being associated with the beheading at Vaughan foods in Moore.

Leaders of the faith here in the state say vicious messages are being left for Oklahoma Muslims, telling them to get out of Oklahoma and threatening to behead them all because the man behind the beheading claimed to be Muslim.

But the Muslim community received the highest form of praise from the White House for their hard work in helping rebuild the Moore community after a destructive tornado tore through the city in 2013.

Today, an official from Washington D.C. flew in to Oklahoma to present a special thank you to the Muslim congregation.

He read a message from President Barrack (Insane) Obama, extending warm greetings from the American people during the Muslim holiday.

"Your service is a powerful example of the powerful roots of the Abrahamic faiths and how our communities can come together with shared peace with dignity and a sense of justice," President Barack Obama said.

(Stupid bastard!!!!)

The story made FOX and Friends on Monday, Oct. 6th:

[Warph]

*** Bumper Sticker Of The Day ***

[Warph]

[Warph]

A Movie Review

So I'm watching 'Mars Needs Women' on one of those goofily named cable channels in the upper four hundreds and a few minutes into this thing I realize the flaw in the premise.

You're all familiar with this film, correct? Seen it a thousand times no doubt. It begins banally enough: there's a couple playing tennis, a couple out to dinner, then suddenly poof! people start disappearing. And not just any people: women people. What's going on? Where did they go? Who is responsible? (It's 1967, mind, so there's a lot of big hair. Is that a clue?)

As Dop, a medical missionary from the Red Planet, explains it, "A critical recession in the Y chromosomes in our genetics has resulted in a preponderance of male births over female." Hence, Mars needs women. And not just any women: five volunteers, unmarried, in good health, "possessing the common indicators(1) of fertility and reproduction," and, presumably, open to new experiences (this is the sixties after all).

So the whole thing is neatly explained in the first ten minutes of the film.

Except it's not.

Call it an unwarranted assumption on the part of the filmmakers, although, in this case, it may just be a language problem. I don't know if the Martian word for need possesses all the connotations it enjoys in English. After all, there are different degrees of neediness, depending on context.

I need a hug. I need a lawyer. I need a kidney.

Granted, it is conceivable that someone could need all three if, say, his kidney had been stolen by pirates.

The point is, it's difficult to come to terms with the need for women on Mars before it's explained how women came to be on Mars in the first place. Or men for that matter. Or how Martian men could reproduce with Earth women when Dop and his crew can't even consume human food. And seeing as there's a 100:1 imbalance in the ratio of space men to women, will five Earth women do it? And since it's the male who determines the sex of the child, how is this solving anything? What if all the women give birth to boys who carry the same genetic defect that got Mars in this fix to begin with?

Plus, why Bubbles Cash?

I say all that to say this: explanations that explain nothing are key to deconstructing a film like 'Left Behind', starring Nicolas Cage and Lea Thompson, which opened in theaters nationwide on Friday.

Why review a Left Behind movie? Isn't it a bit like shooting fish in a barrel (something I've done only once with dubious results)? Isn't this just an opportunity to snark away at an innocent attempt to bring wholesome faith-based entertainment into the googolplex alongside such acts of degeneracy as Dolphin Tale 2? Who are you to spit your East Coast privilege all over family fare?

What's with all the questions? Do I come to your place of business and harangue you? Good gravy and a Gucci handbag, calm down.

Before I can explain how I found myself shelling out eleven bucks for a ticket and sixty-five dollars for boxed comestibles, I have to provide some background. This will take a while. Please be patient. Any ignatz can scramble together 750 words and bake an easily digestible review. But I have a process. If I don't work through my process, I suffer serious emotional and physical distress. My doctor says it's just acid reflux, but my doctor also has a chart illustrating which parts of the body can be consumed safely if cooked to a core temperature of 180 degrees, so who are you going to believe?

It was a dark and stormy night. I was surfing the cable television when I innocently discovered something bloodcurdling that wasn't Two Broke Girls or every new show on FX.

I had HBO.

I did not order HBO. I did not want HBO. So I decided to call someone who could hopefully rid me of HBO.

Now I should explain that I grew up in an "ethnic" neighborhood in Queens, New York, in the supposedly bad old days of the melting pot, when first- and second-generation immigrants from different lands lived in relatively close quarters and in relative peace. Now we're multicultural. And the old ethnic slurs have proved inadequate to truly express the resentments and enmities that our enlightened age has managed to foment in the name of a global community of diverse equals.

Anyway, back in the day, when you talked about a business, you referred to it by the name of the owner. Hey, I'm going to pick up some milk at Dominic's. Get the bread fresh from Klaus's. I'm at Mrs. Wu's—you want anything?

I have carried this quaint custom over into adulthood. When I call customer service, I always ask to speak with, for example, Mr. Hellman, Mr. Mallomar, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wesson.

Like that.

Sure, people make fun of me, but I make fun of people, so it's pretty much a wash.

As it happened, Mr. Verizon was "not available." Neither was Mr. Fios.

So I settled for Kevin.

Kevin: How can I help you today?
Me: I have HBO.
Kevin: Is it not working?
Me: I have HBO.
Kevin: Did you order something else? Showtime...?
Me: I did not order HBO. I do not want HBO.
Kevin: Allow me to review your account. Could I have your date of birth and address for verification purposes?
Me: No.
Kevin: Sir, I can't access your account without—
Me: You could be one of those Russian hackers I saw on the news trying to give me HBO.
Kevin: Sir, I ... I ...

This went on for about 15 minutes. He said something, then I said something, then he said something. Next thing I knew I was trapped in one of those newfangled "conversations" that are all the rage with kids these days.

Kevin: It says here you renewed your two-year contract recently. As our way of saying thank you, you now have twelve months of HBO free. It's a gift.
Me: But I didn't get you anything.
Kevin: Have you checked out the gritty new original HBO series The Knick, starring Clive Owen?
Me: The Knick is just House set at the turn of the century. House was just Sherlock Holmes set at the turn of another century. In fact, everything is just Sherlock Holmes set somewhere and sometime, except The Ed Show, which is Vampire's Kiss set in a preschool.
Kevin: You're free to cancel in just twelve months.
Me: If I wanted to be immersed in savagery, perversion, and nihilism, I would have gone to a state college. I don't want HBO.

So I have HBO. And lo and behold, there's this show, The Leftovers. The series follows the denizens of a small town as they react to a Rapture-like event. People just disappear for no rhyme or reason. Who is left behind and who has been "taken" and why are great mysteries. Debates rage. People and dogs act up. There is profanity. It's HBO.

Shortly thereafter, This Is the End, starring the ubiquitous Seth Rogen and James Franco, came on. It's an apocalyptic comedy starring a bunch of Hollywood types playing themselves trying to figure out where everyone went and what's going on after, again, another Rapture-like event. There is profanity and hippie humor, and the moral (if you can call it that) is pretty much be less selfish and you too will be whisked off to Paradise where you can party like the Rat Pack's half-wit nephews.

So you see, the Rapture is sort of in the air. (crickets)

Could this mean something? Should I be preparing? What do I believe about the End?

Hence, seventy-six simoleons to see 'Left Behind'.

....Anthony Sacramone