Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Definition of Fecklessness

31 March 2017

So I happened to stumble upon the Sean Hannity Show on SiriusXM yesterday, and heard his interview with Austan Goolsbee, the alleged economist who worked for the Øbama administration. During this exchange, Hannity pointed out the Trump plan to end Øbama’s “war on coal,” and all Goolsbee can do is point out that Trump is disingenuous because natural gas competes with coal and Trump is removing barriers from its production, too. REALLY?! Øbama quite literally put the coal industry out of business. Øbama quite literally put energy production out of reach on federal lands – Goolsbee touted that such production more than doubled “under” the Øbama administration – rightly countered by Hannity that this occurred on PRIVATE land IN SPITE OF Øbama’s efforts.

There was also discussion regarding Øbama’s record accumulation of federal debt (Goolsbee: inflation; Bush’s fault) and many other points of Øbama administration failure to which Goolsbee seemed only able to spew liberal talking points.

Folks, I don’t get it. I cannot conceive of how these idiots continue to try to defend the indefensible. Are they counting on the audience being too stupid or equal ideologues that they cannot see through this stuff? And, yes: there are those who will pull the lever next to “D” if the devil himself was the candidate – just as there are for any other party – but, honestly: how can anybody espouse the liberal “logic” and remain sentient?

Again, I firmly believe that liberalism is an not yet medically defined form of mental illness.

-Pateratic

BOEHNER: Have you forgotten who you ran as?

12 December 2013

“I think they’re pushing our members in places where they don’t want to be,” Boehner fumed, “and frankly I just think that they’ve lost all credibility.”

con·stit·u·en·cy (kənˈstiCHo͞oənsē/) noun 1. a body of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body. “the politician who wishes to remain in the good graces of his constituency”

When Boehner stepped into the role of Speaker of The House, though we did not elect him, we all became his constituency – whether liberal, moderate, or conservative. As for their “members”, I can only ask members of what?! These are supposedly elected representatives. They are supposed to be representing their constituency. Where they “want to be” should be irrelevant. Where their constituency want them to be should be their driving motivation. Though the loud voices being heard are the conservative organizations, just who do you thinks sends these organizations the donations that allow them to operate?

Boehner, Ryan, and anyone else on the alleged conservative side of the house need to take a step backward and consider their position. Most, if not all, were elected because of their alleged conservatism. We who elect conservatives are increasing weary of the constant caving we see from those who sport that “R” next to their state abbreviation. YOU are undermining your party through your actions as your base turns their collective back on you in support of “third party” conservatives. Ultimately, this ensures that those sporting a “D” get into office – and we both are defeated.

And it should be fairly clear from the above whom we conservatives think has lost their credibility…

-Pateratic

Hypocrisy vs. Compassion: Planned Parenthood Exposed

11 November 2013

I cannot say it better than this gentleman did: If abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s business…then how do you explain this? 

-Pateratic

Hear ye, hear ye! A royal decree!

7 August 2013

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it…” Princess Pelosi, 9 Mar 2010

All ye loyal subjects! Hear ye well that King Øbama has decreed in his majestic benevolence that the nobility which maketh the Congress, and their vassals, and their servants, shall henceforth not be subject to the GRAND TAX humorously called the “affordable” care act.

Be it further known that his glorious highness Øbama has decreed this necessary to prevent a “brain drain” within his court; however, he cares not one wit – nay! HE DESIRES! – that a similar brain drain occur across the guilds and trades in the land, rendering all subservient to Washington.

Frankly, I’d argue the brain drain occurred in Washington long, long ago. If you need any further proof that there are two classes in this country – the elite political class, and the rest of us – then I haven’t a clue what form that proof need take.

-Pateratic

Piers Morgan: Get the @$%& Out

24 January 2013

OK. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m back. Some of you knew it would come to this, and that I couldn’t keep my big mouth shut long.

I have a question.

Where does Piers Morgan – or, better: Piers Stefan O’Meara – get off? Really. The dolt hasn’t seen fit to become a citizen, yet believes he’s entitled to a voice in the US? This parasite suckles from the teet of our economy, and spews leftist garbage better than Øbama himself. What right does this bastard have trying to set policy or opinion in the US? Like Bono of U2:  absolutely none. I really don’t understand his employment by CNN, either – it’s not like there is any shortage of left-spewing socialistic personages here in the States. (Well, OK. Maybe there is a shortage of left-spewing socialistic personages who’d actually rather “work” for a living than live on the dole or the government payroll. But I repeat myself…)

I just finished viewing one of Morgan’s gun control rants in which he so daintily dismisses the gun problem in Mexico – a country with absolute gun control laws – as “a special case”. No, dipshit. It is clearly not a special case. Mexico, like every other patch of dry land in the world, as well as several oceans,  has these things called “criminals”. Criminals are, notably, people who are known for not  following the law – and most of these are not very particular about which laws they break. That the criminals in Mexico, by and large, also ignore drug trafficking laws is not a special case, but further demonstration of the point. Too, consider this: would Mexico’s drug cartels be so hugely powerful if the law-abiding Mexicans had the means to push them back? Alas, though related to the discussion here, that is another subject.

Let us talk a wee bit about “gun violence” in your beloved Britain, shall we? Can we agree that  like Mexico, Britain also has absolute gun control laws? Can we also agree that, unlike Mexico, in your glowing example – Britain –  there is no “special cause” such as a massive drug trafficking-based economy?  Without this “special cause”, there were still 7,006 firearm related offenses in just England and Wales, according to The Home Office, during 2010/11. So clearly, Piers, guns control laws work, right? Clearly not. You see only 7,006 reported offenses, and crow. I see 7,006 bits of discovered, exposed proof that your premise is fundamentally flawed. I see 7,006 demonstrations that criminals, by definition,  don’t give a rats bahookie about gun control laws. And, as a statistician,  I see far, far more than 7,006 since there are always large numbers of crimes that  go unreported, and an even larger number that go undetected. 

And the problem with “gun violence”, as you like to call it, isn’t the law-abiding gun owners. These are the people stripped of their right to meet force with equal force by misguided “gun free” laws – even that bastard at Fort Hood was safe in the knowledge that solders are not allowed to carry on base. I posit that the vast majority of the incidents bemoaned by the gun control zealots – particularly those in which the shooter survived and was arrested – likely wouldn’t have happened at all if those perpetrating them had an inkling that they’d be met with equal force. Think about it, genius: the huge majority of these incidents occurred in places were law-abiding folks are not allowed to be armed. It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to see the connection.

Piers, if you’re so enamored with your British home and their gun control, why don’t you just return there?! Doing so, you have no worries regarding the second amendment –  what it was intended for, and your perceived problems with it – and, in my opinion, you’ll make the US a better place.

-Pateratic

Gone Galt.

9 November 2012

Well, folks, I’m “going Galt”. With the demise of the country as it was intended by the founders; with the USA having finally achieved that tipping point where such an abject failure can be re-elected simply because he has Santa’s bag hanging off his back – I am going to do all in my power to absolutely minimize my “fiscal footprint” and ensure that the leeches can no longer hang from my behind. If you are a productive member of society in that region of North America formerly known as the US of A, I recommend you do the same.

Pateratic, over and out.

I’ll have a lot more flexibility after the election…

22 October 2012

As we draw up to the 2012 presidential election, that famous “hot mic” gaffe of Øbama – the one that exposed him for the traitor he is – comes to mind. What, precisely, is it that Øbama felt he’d need more flexibility to do with a country that, until very recently was (and quite possibly still is) our sworn enemy? What is it Øbama wishes to do for Russia when he no longer has to worry about voter backlash?

I’ll have a lot more flexibility after the election…

And who else is the Appeaser In Chief looking to exercise this new flexibility with? I have a few ideas. How about Iran and Al Qaeda? After all, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” And what’s the best way to make sure the future doesn’t belong to someone, I ask? I think it is via the same means his friends in Al Qaeda are so adept at employing. Imagine all the slanderers of the prophet they could ensure won’t own the future if Ahmadinejad is successful in achieving his nuclear goal? And the delivery vehicle Uncle Joe ensures us they don’t have? Proven a fool, again, Joe. A suitcase and a willing suicide bomber is all they need – and they seem to have no shortage of either

I’ll have a lot more flexibility after the election…

Chilling to think about, isn’t it? Perhaps he’ll have more flexibility to remove our ability to defend ourselves if he doesn’t  face any reprisals? How about more flexibility to prosecute that raging battle between him and Christianity? You know: the one regarding his signature legislation obviating the 1st Amendment rights of religious organizations and the conscience rights of religious health care providers? More flexibility to cram more socialist laws down our throats without any threat to his re-election chances?

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

-Pateratic

Mr. President: You’re Pathetic.

5 October 2012

After going down in flames to Romney in the first presidential debate of the 2012 election cycle, a debate in which Øbama couldn’t help but repeat time after time already-embarrassingly-refuted claims against Romney (such as the chimerical $5B tax cut plan, unbelievably repeated again after the debate. Repeat the lie often enough, eh, Barry?) – likely due to oxygen deprivation, per Internet Inventor, climatologist, and High Priest to Gaia Al Gore – Øbama comes up with this gem: “but if you want to be President, then you owe the American people the truth.”

OK, Øbama, I’ll bite at that one. Let’s see your university transcripts.  Let’s see how you were registered there – does it indicate a solid, natural-born US citizen? Or a likely natural-born citizen who passed himself off as foreign-born to garner preferential treatment and financial aid? How about that birth certificate, Big  “Ø”? What will that tell us? That you hide that, too, brings up the potential that you ran for president illegally. I still suspect you’ve simply always been a liar, lying to benefit yourself, and releasing either document will expose the lies.

How about “Fast & Furious”? What was your involvement in that? Since you invoked executive privilege, we know you’re involved – even if you weren’t before. In any case, you’re responsible for what occurs during your administration; under your watch, so to speak – though the intent of the term watch doesn’t really apply to the behavior we’ve observed from you these too long years (Watch ≠ Golf, by the way).

And now, this mysterious and miraculous improvement in the unemployment number. Incredible what star power  you have, eh, Øbama? The unemployment number hasn’t moved that much in such a short time in almost thirty years, but – ah! Serendipity! – it managed to do so two days after you embarrassed yourself, your administration, and your party in one of the worst presidential debate thrashings I’ve ever witnessed – and I saw the Reagan/Carter debates! I probably shouldn’t complain though: it’s truly the first transparent act from your administration since it began back at what seems such a long, long, unbearably long time ago – even your own base sees right through it.

You truly are the worst president in US history, Øbama. I hope that, in November, you’re sent off to bask in your glory on your own dime

-Pateratic

A quick question…

17 September 2012

Let’s get out of here, Jesse! They’re onto us!

Are “Reverends” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton still members of the democratic party? I mean, each portrays himself as some sort of Christian preacher, don’t they? Yes, yes – there’s that nagging detail that no-one has ever once been able to tell me where their churches are, or what their denominations are, but they are Christians, aren’t they? And the democrats did deny God three times during their convention, didn’t they? And they did boo God heartily after the chair ignored the, at best, deadlock and added mention of God back in, didn’t they? (Honestly, it sounded more like a majority against adding mention of God back onto their platform, but I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt. Because that’s precisely what we stupid American conservatives always seem to do…) In the face of that, how can any Christian espouse the tenets of the democratic party?! I mean, and remain faithful tho their God?

Or are their ministries simply the means  to avoid paying taxes as these race-baiting welfare pimps bilk their adherents out of millions by promulgating racism and reverse discrimination?

-Pateratic

Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion, and the “religion of peace”

17 September 2012

You’ll accept our peace if we have to beat it into you!

I know I’ve been silent for months. My self-imposed hiatus had more to do with my absolute disgust with the political and economic situations in the US and my absolute disdain for the players – I simply couldn’t give voice to what I was feeling: our media – our traitorous media, as a whole, needs to be purged. The Democratic party – the traitorous democratic party needs to seek its roots (not the ones in Soviet Russia; the other ones). But an article I read this morning – a simple report – needs comment.  Why? Because I don’t get it. Really, I don’t. Every day I see disgraceful affronts to the Christian faith. There are letters of protest, email petitions, and speeches from the pulpit from the Christians. Yes, the Christians get angry, but no one is harmed, no one dies. More importantly, those responsible are left to create their perversions against the Christians unabated. For the most part, their protests are ignored or mocked by the media and society as a whole. They’re a buncha holy rollers – hahhaha! Lookit the Bible thumpers – snort!

Why is this suddenly bothering me now? We’ve known this disparity, both in religious demeanor and in society’s response, for a long time. Why now? Well, someone created a film which painted the founder of “the religion of peace” in a, shall we say, less than favorable light. The response is as it always is with these “peaceful” practitioners of islam. All hell breaks loose. US embassies in muslim countries are sacked outright – attacks on US soil – and US citizens are murdered by the proponents of this “religion of peace”.

The US response? Apologies all around, and the purported creator of the film is arrested to determine if publishing of his film somehow broke the law. Some contrived issue with probation for some previous conviction that would have made publication of this film a crime – not the content, mind you, but that the responsible individual would have used electronic means to publish it. My, my, my – how hokey do they get? And how absolutely stupid do they take us for?! Had this been a you-tube of this person breaking their neck doing parkour stunts, or bashing Christians, or some other practice viewed as so pedestrian by our government and our society, do you think there would have been a second look? Do you think a posse of sheriffs would have been sent out to bring him in for some contrived violation of parole? Not likely: it was the content that has driven his insurrection; not some trumped up violation of conditions of parole.

And am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy? The glaring double standard? Where is the alleged artist who created “Piss Christ”? Was s/he dragged in to languish in a cell somewhere while they trumped up charges to demonstrate that the making of his/her “art” was somehow illegal? Did Øbama or his administration offer any apologies to the mass of offended Christians? No, of course not. No need to pander to the Christians – particularly when you’ve duped the majority of them into believing that taking ones wealth at the point of a gun and giving it to someone else (who may be a slothful generational thief) is a manifestation of Jesus’ call to charitable giving. No need to pander to Christians because they do not believe in demonstrating their angst over your actions using your still-warm corpse.

Washinton DC: Any interpretation of “making no law respecting the establishment of religion” and “equality of each citizen under the law” makes what you’ve done in this case shameful, illegal, and entirely too telling of your motivation.

-Pateratic