Head for the Bunkers -- We're Under Secular Attack!
In today's Talking Points Memo, (Judicial Coup d'Etat) Bill O'Reilly alerts us to "the most important story the U.S. has seen in decades," right behind "the War on Terror." And what is this really, really important story? Rogue atheistic judges.
Ah, but Bill, a survey of Alabamians (remember, this is a State building we're talking about, and so States Rights trump national Gallup Polls, right?) found that the majority of those polled did not approve of Roy Moore sneakily installing his own personal monument in the judicial building one night. So, maybe the will of the people WAS done.
And I'm not sure really I understand Bill's point -- it seems to be that secular judges who hook up with the ACLU to stomp on the will of the people are bad, but that Christian judges who use grandstanding stunts to stomp on the will of the people are good. Or am I reading him wrong?
Oh, and speaking of using religion for self-serving ends, back to Bill:
Oh, right, Bill's has a book coming out! Since nobody has sued him about it, it clean slipped my mind and I bought Al Franken's instead. Anyway, in MY book (which will be forthcoming as soon as Bill sues me), I will present rock-solid proof that the Founding Fathers, while firmly holding that there was a God which created us with certain "unalienable rights," didn't ever say that this was the God of Moses, Jacob, and Isaac, or the God of Roy Moore. Also, they didn't want any particular religion incorporated into policy matters, and they believed strongly that "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''
Yeah, those federal judges are going to hell, all because they didn't heed a Gallop poll. We can only pray for their souls.
Bill also provides a few other instances of high-handed judges, and they are, strangely enough, "liberal" judges. No examples of imperious, know-it-alls who thumb their noses at the will of the people by, say, writing in state supreme court legal documents that homosexuality alone "is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children."
Now for the attack alert:
Last time, I thought they were doing it through the vast NY Times organization, with its secular, liberal agenda dedicated to changing the country by writing unkind things about Bill O'Reilly in their book reviews.
You know, what with all these potential coup d'etats, traitorous publishers always bringing up the date that the President declared an end to hostilities in Iraq, and liberal comic books, I just don't have time to worry about the economy and the loss of jobs and things like that anymore. So, I must thank Bill (and Ann and their cohorts) for looking out for me. Say, that would be a good book title -- I think I'll copyright it!
Search no more!
We've got your nude Ann Coulter photo right here!
Conservatives Call On Incredible Hulk to Cure Economy
In today column (Superheroes for saving Saddam?) by Brent Bozell, President of "Media Research Center, a Townhall.com group" (an organization apparently dedicated to searching web message boards for signs of liberal insurrection), Brent laments that:
It was only a matter of time, I suppose. Comic-book superheroes have gone into the liberal political indoctrination business.
Well, I have a 1978 comic book entitled "Mickey Mouse and Goofy Explore Energy Conservation," which proves that comic books have been doing liberal political indoctrination for quite some time, but let's hear Brent's specific gripes:
Brent goes on to explain the parallels between the comic book and the Iraq invasion ("Where do you get off questioning me? ... It's unbecoming to question your president during times of international unrest"), and how Superman can't decide what he should do, until finally he vows, "I will know the truth, and I will not feel ashamed or be called un-American for demanding it." But the comic ends happily, when Superman wakes up and it was all a bad dream.
Anyway, Brent did extensive research by reading a comic book geek message board, and reports:
And if ten-year old Johnny is complaining about didacticism in his comic books, then the conservative establishment should take action, because this is serious stuff, dammit!
Brent then clarifies what Johnny and the other ten-year-old online comicbook fans don't want in their reading material:
I agree that "The Adventures of Super Cyrus Vance and Ultra-Madeleine Albright" would probably not make a great comic book. I recommend that Marvel discontinue this title from futher consideration. And that's the bottom line we can take from Brent's piece of media research: that liberals should keep their politics out of comic books, because people turn to the comics for escapist fun, not for reminders of how, in real life, things are often complicated and nuanced, and require grown-up skills such as diplomacy, patience, tact, restraint, and "playing well with others" in order to achieve lasting results. Just give us more outrageous super powers!
Okay, message taken, Brent. Even though comic book writers, even liberal ones, are free to put whatever they want in their stories (what with that First Amendment and all), I'm sure comic book publishers will appreciate your extensive message board research into what comic readers want.
But then Brent concludes his column by informing us that:
And somehow, we're not in the real world anymore, Toto. Wow, "real world people want a strong defense by action heroes"! I'd point out just how silly, misguided, and just plain scary this last paragraph is, but I think Super President's lawsuit against George Bush for infringing on his whole "Super Hero/U.S. President" trademark says it much better than I can, so I'm going to bed.
But be sure to stay tuned for tomorrow's exciting superhero chapter, in which we reveal the secret identity of Bruce Wayne-ish reclusive billionaire, Richard Mellon Scaife. Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel!