The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, world-o-crap.com (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Friday, January 21, 2011

January 9, 2006 by s.z.


WorldAmericaNetDaily, Renewed


Last week we paid tribute to the great conservative site "Human Events Online."  Today, in the interest of fairness, we will give some time to the competition, and will examine a sampler of their commentary.  (Note: Do not take this ride if you are pregnant, have a heart condition, or are allergic to wingnuts.  And, if any of your team are killed or captured, the Scott McClellan will disavow all knowledge of everything that's happened in the past 5 years.)

First, representing WorldNetDaily, will be Rev. Jerry Falwell, with "Finally – a church for Howard Stern."
Tonight on NBC will debut the much-publicized series "The Book of Daniel."
Actually, it debuted on Friday.  Some people watched it, and some people didn't  -- and the world is still standing.  This is not what Don Wildmon led me to believe would happen. 

Anyway, Rev. Jerry's premise is that the church portrayed in the commercials for "The Book of Daniel" (the Episcopalian church) is so full of sinners (a pot dealer, a "martini guzzler," a homosexual, an adulterer) that Howard Stern might feel comfortable in it. (Rev. Jerry considers that a BAD thing, apparently not being acquainted with Jesus's church).

And now even "E.R." is belittling people of faith, which proves that there's some giant Hollywood conspiracy to make people like Rev. Jerry look like hypocritical idiots, or something.
This week on NBC's "E.R.," the character of Dr. Kovac, who is described as a "Christian," abandons his pro-life principles and assists a 15-year-old girl (a rape victim from a Christian home) in having an abortion.
"Is it a sin?" the young girl pensively asks the doctor prior to the procedure.

"It's just a medical way of giving God a second chance to reconsider," the doctor replies.
 
 
[...]
These depictions of "Christians" are wholly dishonest.
I guarantee that if you walk into any hospital in this nation, you will discover a handful of Christian doctors and nurses and staffers who productively live out their faith on a daily basis.
These Christian doctors and nurses tell 15-year-old rape victims that they have to bear their babies or go to hell.  That's what real Christians do.   We should make TV shows about them, because that will make people respect Christians.

Now, back to the evils of "The Book of Daniel."
Series creator Jack Kenny describes himself as a "recovering Catholic" whose gay partner is Episcopalian.

If the shoe were on the other foot and he was a recovering homosexual (as millions of Americans are), Mr. Kenny wouldn't be given the time of day by the networks.
I'm not saying that Hollywood needs to have Billy Graham or James Dobson starring in a new sitcom. But I do wish the movers and shakers in Tinseltown would take a moment to consider how unfair this plot against Christians has become.
Did Rev. Jerry just out Billy Graham and James Dobson as recovering homosexuasl???

Anyway, in regard to those millions of recovering homosexuals, I think that what Rev. Jerry meant to say is that a few Americans (such as Rev. Lonnie Latham) have recovered from homosexuality millions of times, and yet the networks won't give them the time of day (or a blowjob) -- and it doesn't seem fair, since their stories would be at least as salacious as "The Book of Daniel."

And hey, if anyone is planning on making a sitcom about the Dobson family (maybe called "Leave it to Siggie"), I'd like to submit a spec script.  I'd do it for the Christians.


Next, from Team RenewAmerica, we have young John Plecnik, a 22-year-old law student at Duke University who was "homeschooled from cradle to college." 
(Yes, Nathan Tabor writes for Human Events Online, but he also runs TheConservative Voicewhich is like the Special Olympics for wingnut columnists.  TheConservativeVoice features young John's work.  So, it's a conservative circle jerk -- not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Who is Nathan Tabor?
We answered that on Friday.
In his home state of North Carolina, Nathan is known as a self-made, small businessman who ran for congress.
I believe that even in NC, Nathan is known as a wingnut (but I will defer to the North Carolinians out there). 

But hey, how can Nathan possibly be called a "self-made, small businessman"?  He was given a VP position in the family business founded his brother, the doctor.  Nathan's personal net worth has been estimated at between $1 million and $5.1 million.

John, honey, I know that Nathan says that he's a small businessman, but I don't think that even he claims to be "self-made."  I expect better from somebody who was homeschooled from cradle to college.
In an eight-way primary—one of the most expensive in American history—Nathan raised over $850,000 and received over 7,500 votes.
Well, per Open SecretsNathan raised about $276,000 from individuals and PACs.  And he "raised" $482,000 of his own money for his campaign.  That makes him quite the fundraiser!

In any case, if we use Nathan's figures, it cost him about $113 a vote -- is that considered good in political circles?
Great reputation? Yes.
Yes, he is known as one of our country's finest wingnuts.
Right for Senate? Yes.
Some Senate, sure.  Maybe the Senate of Mrs. Johnson's fourth grade class. 
But who is Nathan Tabor? Nathan is a Christian. Nathan is a conservative. And Nathan is a loving father and family man.

He’s lived the American dream. And Nathan is fighting to ensure the same is possible for his daughter, and yours.
Forget about my daughter (she's on her own); I want Nathan to fight to get me the same American dream he's lived.  You know, the one where your mother makes your brother give you a job in his food supplement business -- and before you're 30, you're a millionaire with plenty of time on your hands to run wingnut sites and run for various offices! 

If he will promise to get something comperable for me, then I will consider voting for him (sorry, Yosef), if I ever end up living in Kernersville.


Now, with a rebuttal to the RenewAmerica position, here's WND's Pat Boone (you remember him).
Pat's column, "Dave Letterman: 'Why,' you ask?", is about how David Letterman was mean to Bill O'Reilly, discourtously dismissing his stories of War on Christmas atrocities (those poor, poor napkins!); Dave even went to so far as to demand of Bill, "Why don't you ask why we were in Iraq in the first place?"  
Pat takes it upon himself to answer that question.

No, wait, instead he takes it upon himself to tell Dave why we're in Iraq. (I guess not even Pat knows why Bill doesn't question some stuff).

Here's the gist of Pat's response:
Okay: 9-11. 
Plus, Saddam undoubtedly had WMDs until we called "Olly olly oxen free" --"any playground kid who ever played 'hide and seek'" could tell you that.  (Where are the WMDs now?  Ask those playground kids -- they probably ate them or something.) 

Also, Saddam's people surely had contact with Osama's folks at some point in time (our government just doesn't have "courtroom-type incontrovertible evidence" to that effect, which is why they merely insinuate that Saddam was involved with 9/11 instead of flatly announcing it).  And when deciding to go to war, you don't need courtroom-type evidence -- vague suspicion is good enough.

But even more importantly, we're in Iraq because we're Americans, and we're afraid of snakes. 
But, to answer Dave's question, which Bill wasn't given the chance to do: WE'RE IN IRAQ BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS, DAVE! That's what Americans do – we not only take whatever action we need to take to protect our own citizens, we also come to the aid of the oppressed, the victims, the desolate and devastated.
Even if they want us to get the hell out of their country.
When will the liberals among us, the knee-jerk civil libertarians who yell bloody murder at the very thought the government may be quietly wire tapping where and when they feel the need to – for our protection – wake up to the fact that criminals and sworn enemies use our liberties, our democratic structure and strictures against us?
In time of war, citizens in a democracy voluntarily suspend some of their privileges and unite against the enemy, sacrificing, for a while, so that we can protect the structure and hopefully get back to our full freedoms again.
I see a picture of a neighborhood, on a nice cul de sac, happy and contented. One day a nest of rattlesnakes is discovered in one neighbor's backyard. Several neighbors insist on going in together and wiping out the nest, before the snakes inevitably slither into the other yards. In this instance, which is most important? Is it privacy or wiping out the snakes, before every home is afflicted and people unnecessarily die?
Maybe my understanding of Constitution is a little shaky, but does it offer snakes the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?  Does it stipulate that no warrants shall issued against snakes but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?  
If not, I don't see the point of Pat's analogy. (Unless he's claiming that if he discovers any snakes in the neighborhood, that gives him and some of his buddies the right to break into your house and secretly videotape you making love to your wife.)
Why are we in Iraq, Dave?
BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS – AND AMERICANS KILL SNAKES BEFORE THEY KILL US!
So, yeah, in order to protect ourselves from being killed by rattlesnakes, we go out and stomp on some pesky king snakes.  That's the American way.

Renew America will now have two minutes to respond.  Take it away, Christian Hartsock! (That's his actual name.  Really!)  
It would not be unsafe to say that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the strongest defenders of the free world; a national security hero in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy.
No, it would not. 
And most importantly, like Reagan, Nixon and McCarthy, Bush has been the subject of the burning, fuming, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of spastic, sputtering liberals — so much that history is already being rewritten to blacken his name.
Yeah, it's the damned liberals' fault that history might not give Bush his deserved recognition, he might not be judged to be as intellectually vapid as Reagan, as vindictive as Nixon, and as big a demagogue as McCarthy. 
And as Ann Coulter said in August 2000: "The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals." Well he has not demonstrated this hatred, nor any particular frustration with liberals for a long time. In fact, as they have slandered, smeared and maligned him, Bush has been cordial towards them. Almost embarrassingly cordial. This is because our president is Winston Churchill when it comes to terrorists but Neville Chamberlain when it comes to liberals
But as we know from other wingnut columnists, liberals are traitors who are in cahoots with the terrorists (in fact, in the next paragraph, Christian himself will call such Democrats as Murtha, Dean, and Kerry "traitors")  So, Bush is totally like Neville Chamberlain. 

I guess it's impeachment time!
There are tragically few Republicans who would even go so far as to call the Democratic Party what it is: a party of liars (Clinton), adulterers (Clinton), murderers (Kennedy), Klansmen (Byrd), and outright traitors (Murtha, Dean and Kerry). Their party has stood for surrendering to terrorists (Murtha), not avenging terrorist attacks (Barbara Lee), ignoring terrorist attacks on Americans (Clinton), ignoring Soviet infiltration (Roosevelt), and keeping the two equally greatest evils America is guilty of legal: abortion and slavery. Instead, Bush has returned liberals' fiendishly hateful rhetoric against him with the same painful-to-watch obsequiousness that blacks in requisitely subservient roles demonstrated to the white bourgeoisie in pre-1960s Hollywood films.
That's some good stuff, Christian, but unfortunately you are out of time.  So, I guess we'll have to leave on that inspiring portrait of Bush as a "Stepin Fetchit" character. 

Okay, kids, here's a bonus -- the first sentence from Kevin Fobbs' column, "The culture war begins during your child's school day."  If you can diagram it, you are excused from having to read any more of Kevin's work.  (If it makes sense to you, please seek immediate medical attention.)
The new year brings a new round of assaults upon our nation's families who are sitting in their homes — possibly quite unaware that the very framework that our Constitutional framers crafted together is being splintered apart by a movement that has undertaken an almost unholy war against every possible touchstone that reflects our values in the public place, in the courthouse, in the legislature, but more importantly, in the classrooms that dot the landscape of our nation's neighborhoods. 
And that concludes today's exploration of our noble wingnut heritage.  And that's why we read WorldNetDaily and Renew America and mock their columnists, Dave -- BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS!

12:00:08 AM   

No comments:

Post a Comment