Friday, April 15, 2011

Blogger Just Slapped TMR With A Warning Label (When It's The Safe Bets Who Are Dangerous)

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

Yes, yes, yes - I'm going to get to the cult article (I've been meeting with my "presidential advisors" over chicken wings) - but I have to deal with this issue:

First, Jon Meacham is a chump, so who gives a fuck what he thinks ("I don't know about you but, after 200 years, I'm willing to roll the dice on a Prussian takeover")? Has this man been paying attention to what's been happening in this country? The whole point of the Tea Party is that we've been getting too far away from what the Founders intended, not that we need to find new ways to stretch the distance further.

Even worse, though, is Hot Air's Allahpundit agreeing with him. Allah says:
I agree with him about the natural-born requirement, incidentally: It’s one of the most antiquated and unnecessary parts of the Constitution, especially in light of the original intent he describes.
To which I say, after 200 years, FUCK THE ORIGINAL INTENT HE DESCRIBES! He's a chump! Here's a simple fucking concept I'm describing - this is "our" country - and one of the checks in place to make sure that's so is the president must be a born-and-raised American.

I've pointed out before that it was living in France that sparked my conservatism. Listening to the frogs discuss the United States, and knowing they didn't understand the first thing about it, could only have happened because I did understand it - inside and out - the vitals of this country being in the marrow of my bones. Whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, if there's one thing the other citizens of this country see, it's the threat of someone in the highest office in the land who can't say that - and these putzs want to make it possible for the situation to be worse? (Isn't it bad enough "The Situation" has a shot under the present arrangement?) These people talk madness.

I was just reading The New York Times's article on our local internet brain trust and - while I know they're all fine individuals - I'm sorry but they're elites and (like many others who rule the roost of blogging) are not the kind of thinkers I want to see making the big decisions for the rest of us, because - honestly - they're NOT the rest of us! They're every Human Resources Dept. I've ever had to engage with and, frankly, I feel like I'm surrounded by too many so-called "smart" people who get The Big Questions dead wrong. (For instance, Ann Althouse voted for Barack Obama and Glenn Reynolds supported Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. 'Nuff said.) Now, I guess, I'll have to add Allahpundit to the list as well.

And that's a shame, because it's a pathetically lonnng fucking list already.


  1. "Some readers of this blog have contacted Google because they believe this blog's content is objectionable."
    So embrace the new Content Warning. The truth is now objectionable content, in today's society!

  2. Unbelievable: both the blogger warning, and the smug bastard in the video.
    There is a sort of game of chicken these guys play behind the security of their circumstances in which they seem to dare one another to promote putting the US under something like a Castro regime. They keep getting closer and closer, and so far they are still smiling and joking. No one has blinked. When they find themselves on the bad end of the boot, then they might drop that facade and admit it was all for show, so they could feel superior and be accepted by their equally pompous obnoxious friends. Not to mention the government money which trickles down to that bunch in one form or another.

  3. Dude, you know I love ya, but of course the content is "objectionable" --that as a euphemism for "For Grownups." The site is definitely NSFW, and R-rated. You could be writing about food w/ the same level of nudity and four-letter words and you'd get the Warning too.

    You're not stumbling around blithely or blindly, you know exactly what you're doing and you do it pretty well.

    Also, I'm all for undoing the native-born requirement clause in the Constitution. It's undemocratic and xenophobic. Americans should be able to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason -- I'm also against term limits under the same logic

  4. As a would-be card carrying "nativist," I think we can at least be grateful for the acknowledgement that the change in immigration law back in the heady days of the 1960's was a deliberate move to radically change the make-up and nature of the country. What he fails to mention is that this opens America not to distant aristocrats, but the influence of a handful of international media moguls because democracy has become vulnerable (a creature of) media manipulation.