Featured Post

It seems Pope Francis needs to brush up on his Tertullian!

It has been reported (in The ChristLast Media, I must note) that the current Pope does not like the phrase "lead us not into temptation...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Saturday, June 09, 2012

You have two choices: Either Benito's a low-grade moron...

...or, he's a Leninist-Leninist dictator wannabe without the stones to start shooting people.

Personally, I think he's both. And he's got the goofiest pair of ears in creation.

From ABC via Yahoo! News:


Above: Benito Hussein Insaner dons military garb to show how tough he is and reassure his victims...er, fellow countrymen.

Thursday, June 07, 2012

Either Dumbo The Presiphant* just outed his wife or he's an even bigger dope than I thought.

Was our first sodomite clown presiphant* trying to amuse his sodomite audience or was he coyly implying he and Myhell are really, really, really "down" with their particular agenda of perversion? ["He" does seem to pander to all sorts of perverts, doesn't he?] 

All the chatter about this kerfuffle is curiously hetero-centric. Couldn't he have been quipping about our first "gay" [She never seems to be happy when I see her though.] First Lady enjoying a little non-Euclidean action on the side? Maybe she's tired of the "zebra" [Thanks to Chris Rock for that elegant neologism.] and wanted to try America's third-whitest dyke, Ellen DeGenerate.

If all he did was joke about his wife's aversion to fellatio, he's just an asshole.

From the New York Daily News:

President's possibly risqué comment about wife's pushups provokes laughter at fundraiser


President Obama is chasing green, but his humor may be turning blue.

A comment by the commander-in-chief about his wife's exercise routine sent snickers through a crowd of Hollywood's gay and lesbian elite who gathered at an LGBT Leadership Council gala in Beverly Hills on Wednesday for a fund-raiser.

After being introduced by emcee Ellen DeGeneres, Obama called the comedian "a great friend who accepts a little bit of teasing about Michelle beating her in pushups" when the First Lady appeared on her show, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"I think she claims Michelle didn't go all the way down," Obama quipped.

Here's the video from Youtube. [Did Obama Make Blowjob Joke At California Fundraiser "Michelle Doesn't Go All The Way Down"]
 Decide for yourselves if, as the White [Racist.] House and the AmericaLast media contend, he was merely joking about his wife's strong arms or if he implied something else.

The audience, which included cast members from "Glee," “Modern Family’s” Jesse Tyler Ferguson and Cher, reportedly giggled before breaking out in naughty laughter.

"That's what I heard," the President added, after pausing, according to a report published by Politico. He later noted the First Lady outdoes him in pushups as well.

Though Obama reportedly seemed caught off guard by the crowd's reaction to his comment, at least some interpreted it as bawdy.

"He told a very suggestive joke about his wife," Fox News commentator Todd Starnes wrote on Facebook.

Wednesday's gala and a $25,000-per-person dinner at the home of “Glee” co-creator Ryan Murphy that followed were expected to raise $3 million for the President's reelection, Variety reported.

Obama started his day Thursday with another fund-raiser — his 153rd since launching his reelection bid last year, according to Politico.

"It must be tough being President when there are so many parties to attend," Matt Connelly, a Republican National Committee spokesman told a Southern California wire service.

 More from the UK's Daily Mail:

Barack Obama makes possible oral sex reference about First Lady


Did President Barack Obama make a rude joke about his wife Michelle and oral sex at a Beverly Hills fundraiser for the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Leadership Council?
Talking to some 600 supporters at the event on Wednesday night, Obama referred to Ellen DeGeneres, the stand-up comedian and television host and a lesbian.

'I want to thank my wonderful friend who accepts a little bit of teasing about Michelle beating her in push-ups but I think she claims Michelle didn't go all the way down,' he said. The crowd erupted into what the Los Angeles Times described as 'bawdy laughter'.
In the pool report of the event, Todd Gillman of the Dallas Morning News, wrote that this was a line that Obama 'let hang, naughtily, provoking laughter from the crowd'.

It remained unclear, however, whether Obama uttered a deliberate double entendre about his wife having oral sex with a lesbian or whether he simply stumbled into using a phrase that was misinterpreted.

The LA Times plumped for the latter interpretation, reporting that 'the president seemed briefly caught off-stride when the audience interpreted as off-colour a joke he made about a push-up competition between DeGeneres and his wife, initiated by the talk show host in February'.

After the bawdy laughter, the newspaper continued: 'Obama kept a straight face. "That's what I heard," he added. "I just want to set the record straight. Michelle outdoes me in push-ups as well. You shouldn't feel bad."'

Political reporters immediately picked up on the obscene reference. 

'I hope @MichelleObama yells at @BarackObama tonight. Or at least withholds pushups,' twteeted Meredith Shiner, a reporter for Roll Call.

Obama was very much amongst friends at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel event, part of a two-day fundraising swing through California and Nevada during which he is expected to raise more than $15 million for his re-election bid...

* An Asian presiphant of course. An African presiphant would be racist.

If it lies like a commie, steals like a commie, and kills like a commie, it's a duck.

But nobody cares, which means if the AmericaLast media covers it up, it doesn't exist.

From National Review Online:

O’s Third-Party History

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

 Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.

The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties.
Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.

Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”

We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Is Roger Ebert a moron or is he part of the War Against Catholics?

A review of For Greater Glory

by Roger Ebert

La Ebert seems to be hung up on the notion of all those millions of 1920's Mexican Buddhists the film makers ignored because of bigotry...

In the years 1926 through 1929, Mexico fought a war over the freedom of Roman Catholics to worship. As a result of the Mexican Revolution, the constitution of 1917 stripped great power from the church, along with half of its enormous land holdings. But it was not until the regime of President Plutarco Elias Calles, who began to strictly enforce the constitution, that an uprising ensued. Supporters of the Catholic Church, who called themselves Cristeros, began a campaign against federal troops and had surprising success after they hired Gen. Enrique Gorostieta Velarde to lead their forces.

An atheist and a hero of the revolution, Gorostieta signed on for the cash and because he supported the principle of religious freedom. In the context of a new English-language epic called "For Greater Glory," that principle apparently applies only to Catholics. No other religion is ever mentioned. [The truth is only the Catholic Church can and will stand up to the power-mad. The bad guys don't go after "protestants" or Shintoists for a reason. - F.G.] The war took heavy casualties on both sides, and the United States played a behind-the-scenes role in protecting the interests of U.S. oil companies whose concessions controlled much of Mexico's oil.

This war has all the elements to make it well-known, but I confess I'd never heard of it. A close Mexican-American friend, well-informed in Mexican history, told me she never has, either. Is it in the usual history books? You'll learn a lot about it in "For Greater Glory," the most expensive film ever made in Mexico, an ambitious production with a cast filled with stars.

It is well-made, yes, but has such pro-Catholic tunnel vision I began to question its view of events. One important subplot involves a 12-year-old boy choosing to die for his faith. Of course the federal troops who shot him were monsters, but the film seems to approve of his decision and includes him approvingly in a long list of Cristeros who have achieved sainthood or beatification after their deaths in the war.

The central figure is Gorostieta, played by Andy Garcia with impressive strength and presence. He values his own leadership expertise, defends the fact that he is serving because of the money, and indeed is a brilliant general. There's an effective sequence where he warns a jealous Cristeros leader he is probably leading his men into an ambush. The man won't listen. Gorostieta lets him go, and then leads his own troops up behind the ambushing federales, who are exactly where he predicted they would be.

President Calles (Ruben Blades), who can't believe the Cristeros can possibly be successful, pursues the war beyond what seems to be all common sense. It's one thing to enforce legal restraints on the Catholic Church and another — a riskier one — to order such extremes as sending all the bishops and foreign-born clergy out of the country and authorizing the murder of priests in their own churches. In an early sequence, Peter O'Toole plays a 77-year-old priest killed by the federales, and it is Jose, the altar boy who sees him die, who later becomes the martyr.

So dedicated are Jose and a young friend to the Cristeros cause that they ride out on horseback and find the secret camp of Gen. Gorostieta. He rejects them as soldiers and puts them to work caring for horses. But his love for the boy grows so much that he regards him as a son, and indeed the boy only dies because he is on a mission for Gorostieta. The general surely deserves some of the blame for putting a child in a hazardous position.

"For Greater Glory" is the kind of long, expensive epic not much made any more. It bears the hallmarks of being a labor of love. I suspect it's too long for some audiences. It is also very heavy on battle scenes, in which the Cristeros seem to have uncannily good aim. But in its use of locations and sets, it's an impressive achievement by director Dean Wright, whose credits include some of the effects on the "Lord of the Rings" films. If it had not hewed so singlemindedly to the Catholic view and included all religions under the banner of religious liberty, I believe it would have been more effective. If your religion doesn't respect the rights of other religions, it is lacking something.

MLB umpires continue to run amok.

Thank goodness baseball died decades ago...

From AP via Washington's other newspaper:

Earn the privilege?: Yankees C Russell Martin says ump Laz Diaz punished him for arguing

Yankees catcher Russell Martin says home plate umpire Laz Diaz decided on an unusual way to punish him for arguing balls and strikes.

Martin says Diaz wouldn’t allow him to throw new baseballs back to his pitchers after fouls during New York’s 6-5 win over the Los Angeles Angels on Wednesday night.
Martin and Diaz got into it early in the game, and Martin says Diaz “was punishing me” by making all of the throws himself. Martin prefers to make the throws to keep his arm loose for base-stealers.

Martin says Diaz told him that throwing the balls was “a privilege I had to earn.”

Martin was mystified by Diaz’s treatment. He is a three-time All-Star selection and a Gold Glove winner with the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2007.

Diaz was unavailable for comment because Martin spoke nearly an hour after the game.



This one has the potential to be epically dumbass!


From IMDB:

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, discovers vampires are planning to take over the United States. He makes it his mission to eliminate them. 

I can smell it from here... 

Today is the anniversary of one day among many when better men than you spilled their blood so you could be free to sell your freedom to commie killers and thieves.




Today is the anniversary of D-Day...

From Life.com via Yahoo! News:

Rare color photos mark D-Day anniversary 

 Click here to see the full collection at LIFE.com








Today is the anniversary of D-Day...

From Roto-Reuters via Yahoo! News:
Tiny remnants of war found in Omaha Beach sand

When Texas geologist Earle McBride visited Omaha Beach in Normandy, France, in 1988, four decades after D-Day, the visible remnants of the Allied Forces' invasion there had long ago vanished.

But he and a colleague would later discover the history of the June 6, 1944, invasion of Normandy's beaches - which marked a turning point in World War Two - lingered in the sand in the form of tiny pieces of shrapnel only visible under a microscope.

It wasn't a discovery that McBride and colleague Dane Picard of Utah set out to make during their tourist visit to Omaha Beach, where U.S. forces suffered their greatest casualties in the assault against heavily fortified German defenses.
"We didn't think about, ‘Hey, there should be shrapnel here?'" said McBride, 80, a professor emeritus at the University of Texas who retired in 2005 but still goes to his office five hours a day to study rocks.

But the geologists did what long ago became their habit when they visit a beach anywhere in the world: they put a bit of sand in a plastic bag and took it home.
McBride didn't fully analyze the sample for more than two decades. Finally, in retirement, he made a slide of the sand by using blue-dyed epoxy to bind the grains together.

On a recent day in his tiny office at the Austin university where he taught for 46 years, McBride showed a visitor what he found. Under a microscope, rounded grains - quartz, feldspar, clam and oyster shells - were visible, along with jagged-edged grains.

"You see how angular that grain is?" he asked. "It's an anomaly - if it had the same origin and history, it should have been well-rounded, too."

A different light source on the microscope revealed that the jagged-edged grains had a metallic sheen and a rust-colored coating, and when McBride held a magnet to some of the sand, the angular grains proved to be magnetic.

McBride suspected the jagged grains were shrapnel, and he used a scanning electron microscope to verify his hunch. It showed the grains were iron with a bit of oxygen from rust.

He also found the sand included small spherical iron and glass beads, which he and Picard believe were formed by munitions explosions in the air and sand.
"It's a detective story," McBride said. "Sand has an exciting history."

He said it's not surprising that shrapnel was left on the beach. Rather the surprise is that it remained there decades later, long after the wrecked ships, tanks and aircraft were gone.

But the shrapnel won't be in the sand forever, he and Picard wrote in Earth Magazine last year.

"The combination of chemical corrosion and abrasion will likely destroy the grains in a century or so, leaving only the memorials and people's memories to recall the extent of devastation suffered by those directly engaged in World War II," they wrote.

The research by McBride and Picard - a professor emeritus at the University of Utah - was published in the September 2011 edition of The Sedimentary Record, a scholarly journal.

"It was a great approach," said Xavier Janson, a research scientist at the University of Texas and an editor of the Record. "It was using a geological tool that you usually use to understand where sand grains come from, but instead, it was used to understand what happened on this beach."

For McBride, the discovery is an example of why he still finds passion in his lifelong work studying sedimentary rocks, the ones most commonly found on the earth's surface.

The latest project on his desk is a 450-million-year-old rock from Utah roughly the size of a softball; he's trying to reconstruct the history of how it formed and where its grains originated.

The earth is old, McBride said, and "all I can do is work on one little chunk of the history of sandstones. As we say, so many rocks, so little time."

The voters of the Wisconsin SSR box the ears of The Community Organizer From The High-Yellow Lagoon. [No mean feat, that.]

Even Cheeseland, which is home to some of the most virulent forms of American communism, voted for the reality seated deep in their empty wallets.

The votes are counted in the Wisconsin recall election, and Scott Walker will remain as governor in a victory big enough to avoid a recount. So did 10 major media outlets react to Walker's big win?
National Constitution Center via Yahoo! News 
In a victory seen by Republicans as a mandate of a political agenda that included sharp cuts to public sector union rights, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Tuesday became the first governor in US history to win a recall election.
 - Christian Science Monitor via Yahoo! News
President Obama wasn’t on the ballot on Wisconsin, but Gov. Scott Walker’s decisive victory in last night’s gubernatorial recall is a stinging blow to his re-election prospects.
 - National Journal via Yahoo! News

Scott Walker's Wisconsin recall victory: 4 lessons

 Wisconsin's Republican governor gets to keep his job, delivering a big blow to organized labor. Still, Democrats may have won a big consolation prize -The Week via Yahoo! News


My personal favorite is this bucket of bilgewater from some totalitarian of the middle called Walter Shapiro at Yahoo! News, who also flings his poop for the New Republic:

 The Wisconsin governor survived the recall, but he could have avoided it altogether by trusting voters with the truth.
 In this throw-a-chair era of political combat, it was inevitable that the recall election results from Wisconsin would be misinterpreted. Flush with vindication over having survived the over-hyped recall challenge, Republican Gov. Scott Walker declared, “Tonight, we tell Wisconsin, we tell our country, and we tell people around the globe that voters really do want leaders who stand up and make tough decisions.”

Walker, who won his rematch with Tom Barrett, the Democratic mayor of Milwaukee, by a larger margin than in 2010, is entitled to assume that yak herders in Mongolia—like everyone around the globe—cheered the results from Waukesha. The governor is even free to believe that facing down the public-sector unions in Wisconsin is courageous leadership on par with Abraham Lincoln preserving the Union. But what is flat-out wrong was Walker’s claim that voters crave leaders who make “tough decisions” the way that he did.

During Walker’s initial race for governor two years ago, Wisconsin voters knew that he was a fiscal and social conservative enraged by government spending plans like building a high-speed rail connection between Milwaukee and Madison. So no one should have been surprised when, shortly after taking office last year, Walker ripped up the tracks on the high-speed rail plan, spurning $810 million in federal funds. That is what political leadership should be—presenting your vision to the voters and, if elected, trying to enact it.

In contrast, Walker kept under wraps during his first gubernatorial race his driving dream of drastically curtailing the collective bargaining rights of public employees. This stealth campaigning was probably smart politics. Wisconsin, after all, is the state that pioneered public-sector unionism. But by not running on this issue, Walker deliberately deprived himself of an electoral mandate.

That hush-hush strategy partly explains the seismic shock that hit Wisconsin when Walker, a month after taking office, revealed the full extent of his anti-union agenda. At a dinner for his Cabinet in February 2011, the night before he unveiled his legislation (Act 10) to roll back union bargaining rights, Walker compared himself to Ronald Reagan standing up to the air-traffic controllers in 1981. The freshly minted governor said, “This is our time to change the course of history.”

What Walker missed with his bend-history rhetoric was that Reagan broke the air traffic controllers union in response to an illegal strike. This is what presidents and leaders do—react to unexpected crises in a way that reflects their already articulated governing philosophy.

But in Wisconsin, there was no public employee strike, just the budgetary shortfall that afflicted most states in this stagnant economy. Without a crisis, Walker went beyond his electoral mandate in an effort to neuter the unions. Act 10 was an act of preventive war, a surprise invasion into a political area that many voters had assumed was off limits.

[Related: Barrett slapped by supporter after conceding race]

Walker’s unquestioned triumph Tuesday in beating back the unions and the Democrats may vault him onto Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential list. But in truth, there is little honor for Walker in being only the third governor face a recall election—and the first to survive one—since the Progressives came up with this drastic remedy for bad governance more than a century ago. For all Walker’s glib talk about leadership, a politician is doing things wrong when he becomes so polarizing a figure that he has to spend nearly $50 million to avoid being booted out of office after just 19 months.

Walker’s hubristic overreach brings to mind Rahm Emanuel’s assertion, during the 2008 transition period after President Barack Obama’s election, “No crisis should go to waste.” Just after being named Obama’s White House chief of staff, Emanuel told a conference, “This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.” As a result, Obama’s much-needed 2009 short-term stimulus plan (remember: the economy barely had a heartbeat) was larded with long-term projects like high-speed rail and revamping the nation’s electrical grid.

Upon taking office, of course, Obama had to go beyond the limited economic jump-start plan that he articulated during his campaign. The world changed on September 15, 2008, with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. During the remaining six weeks of the presidential race, neither Obama nor John McCain grasped that this Wall Street financial crisis would produce the worst sustained economic downturn since the Depression. This is why endlessly parsing campaign position papers is folly. Every presidency is shaped by unforeseen events and unimagined crises.

As we wait for the Supreme Court to rule later this month on the constitutionality of health care reform, Obama’s signature legislative achievement, it is worth pondering whether a more incremental approach by the president would have made more political sense. Throughout the 2008 campaign, Obama, to his credit, made clear to the voters that revamping the health care system would be a major priority. 
 But in his public rhetoric, Obama never said a federal mandate would be at the center of his health-care plan. During the Democratic presidential primaries, Obama even attacked Hillary Clinton for championing a legal requirement that every American have health insurance. (Needless to say, Obama’s turnabout is more than matched by Romney’s amnesiac approach to the health care mandate that he enacted as Massachusetts governor.)

My point is not to create a false equivalence between Obama and Walker, who spurned traditional norms of governing as soon as he took office in Wisconsin. But it is telling that two of the most unpopular aspects of the Obama presidency (the overreach of the stimulus package and the health care mandate) went far beyond his 2008 campaign oratory.

The secret to political leadership—whether as a governor or in the Oval Office—is to trust the voters with the truth. That way an electoral mandate can mean something beyond an opportunity to assert power for the sake of asserting power. If Wisconsin can provide a lasting lesson in the dangers of political overreach, then maybe the partisan excess of the third recall election in American history was not entirely wasted.


Murderous Cannibalistic Canadian Sodomite Porn Star Update

Let this horror show serve as a warning to all the soccer moms who think the S&M "mommy porn" of Fifty Shades of Grey is merely titillating and innocent fun between consenting "adults".

From AP via Yahoo! News:

Canadian body parts suspect arrested in Berlin


 From the Vancouver Sun via Yahoo! Canada News:

Body parts delivered to schools


 From The Atlantic Wire via Yahoo! News:

More Body Parts Mailed in Canada, Including a Fake One



The Mel Crapper, Jr. of Political "Science"...

...or, "Pay no attention to the man behind the polls."

In case you don't know, Mel Kuiper, Jr. is ESPN's NFL "draft expert". He created the position out of thin air and became rich without knowing a single thing about anything except self promotion.

G. "Wizz" Terry Madonna has done the exact same thing with political polling. 

From TPM:

Pennsylvania Poll: Obama Leads Romney By 12

 Once upon a time, kiddies, Unoriginal G. was a knownothing PoliSci prof at a D- II public university in Amishland. He used the serf kids in his classes to do polls and convinced one of the local yokel TV stations to put him and his polls on the air. Of course, he was labeled an "expert" so the peons would think ol' G. was chock full of gravitas.

After a couple of years of this nonsense, the Wizz was hired by Franklin & Marshall College, an elitist D-III institution in Lancaster, PA. [Rich kids without the grades to get into Ivy League schools go there.] Along with a bump in pay, G. got himself a whole bunch of establishment street cred and now you'd think he was the only person in the Commonwealth who knows anything about politics.

At least that is what the chattering classes want you to think.

As Rick Santorum reminded us a couple of months ago, G. is nothing but a failed local Democrass pol. [He couldn't even win the one Lancaster County Commissioner seat guaranteed to go to the top Democrass vote-getter.]

So the next time you see a F&M poll announcing the primacy of crony communism in our Commonwealth, remember that little Terry just made it all up so he could pretend to be a big shot.

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.


Blog Archive