Complete Idiots Guide to Obama’s Socialism, originally uploaded by malagent.
Most likely this book will not show up in any bookstores near you. But you can get The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Communism. Aside from the murdering millions part, Obama’s brand of socialism is not much different.
Part of Malagent’s NObama ‘08 Campaign. Don’t forget to Digg this image!
Feel free to steal this image and put it wherever you want to. All I ask is that you don’t change it. If you want something different then make your own like I did!
Undoubtedly, some Obama supporters, Democrats, and/or Liberals will call me a Fascist for making this. Well I have a suggestion: Rather than simply slinging the word fascist at anyone who is openly conservative, how about actually debating the issues? Why not try and convince me to support Obama? Or perhaps tell me where I’m wrong?
I know, I know - the gratuitous labeling of those who disagree as "fascist" or "NEOCON" is much easier than debating issues. But why not give it a try sometime?
There is no way around it - I’ve just had it with Obamania!
I can’t stand it anymore and I feel that I absolutely must do something, anything within the bounds of reason and the law to stop the Obamassiah.
The Flickr group NObama ‘08 is already started, so join and add you pics.
Continue reading ‘Malagent’s Official “NObama” Campaign Begins’
In a demonstration of “Change We Can Believe In” - B. Hussein Obama’s campaign plane has reappeared with the American flag replaced by the “O” Mark. If it’s not good enough for his lapel or “O Force One” then I doubt that its good enough for Air Force One if he were to somehow manage to get elected.
Continue reading ‘Obama Ditches US Flag in Favor of Obama “O” on Jet’
Washington DC, July 23, 2008 - The Free Enterprise Action Fund (Ticker: FEAOX) submitted the following letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requesting the SEC to warn publicly-owned companies against making false and misleading statements concerning global warming:
Continue reading ‘Global Warming: SEC asked to warn companies against making false and misleading claims’
The myth of a worldwide consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming takes another hit as the American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, reverses its position on climate change and starts a public debate on the topic.[1][2][3]
There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.[1]
There isa also the recent petition signed by 31,000 scientists.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.[4]
Of course the United Nations & the media are still busy blaming Global Warming on hamburgers.[5] And trying to scare us with threats of global warming kidney stones.[6][7][8][9]
- http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
- http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes…
- http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps…
- http://www.oism.org/pproject/
- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Earth/Burgers_blame…
- http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/…
- http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/M_edicare_54/…
- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383456,00.html
- http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200807161740.htm
Like so many others I like to go out to the movies on occasion. I really like the drive-in theater, but those are just about extinct. Certainly not one anywhere near where I live. So I’m limited to going to the standard indoor theater with teenagers making lots of noise and unknown substances sticking to my shoes. In this case, Dickinson Theatres[1].
In a rare moment of aligned schedules my wife and I decided to go to the movies and see Hancock[2]. The first shock came with the $7.50 ticket price, we were up to $15 before even getting inside. Oh well, move on to the concession stand. For me going to the movies without getting popcorn is just wrong, and popcorn necessitates a drink - so we spend another ten bucks on a bucket of cold soggy popcorn and a watered down drink.
Considering we were already seven minutes late, I expected the previews to be nearing completion and the “Feature Presentation” to be starting soon. No such luck, the previews had not even started yet. We were presented with about fifteen minutes of ScreenVision[3], which is basically a bunch of advertisements thinly veiled as some sort of entertaining preshow. Our tickets were for the 7:10pm showing of Hancock and it’s now about 7:30pm when the host of ScreenVision thanks us for watching (like we had a choice) and announces that we will now have a few words from our sponsors before the coming attractions and then the feature presentation. Continue reading ‘Malagent’s trip to the movie theater’
Words of wisdom passed along to me from Texas Fred:
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
1. Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him ‘Why do you carry a 45?’
The Ranger responded, ‘Because they don’t make a 46.’
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. ‘Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?‘
‘No Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.’
8. Beware the man who only has one gun. HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!
But wait, there’s more!
I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did.
She said ‘Well I certainly hope it isn’t loaded!‘
To which I said, ‘of course it is loaded, can’t work without bullets!‘
She then asked, ‘Are you that afraid of some one evil coming into your house?‘
My reply was, ‘No not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.‘
To which I’ll add, having a gun in the house that isn’t loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.
I’m a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please pass this around.
I’ve been carrying a weapon for many years - It’s certainly solved more problems than it has created!
Insurance rates are now among the long list of things that we can blame on Global Warming.
Costs for homeowner insurance along the East and Gulf coasts have risen 20% to 100% since 2004, says the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group. In the three years through 2006, says the institute, property and casualty insurers registered record profits, topping out at $65.8 billion in 2006. (Despite severe U.S. weather that has caused about $8.9 billion in insured property losses to date this year, it’s too early to forecast 2008 profits.)
Helping to drive these developments is a little-known tool of the insurance world: Computerized catastrophe modeling. Crafted by several independent firms and used by most insurers, so-called cat models rely on complex data to estimate probable losses from hurricanes.
But regulators and other critics contend that the latest cat models — which include assumptions about various climate changes — are triggering higher insurance rates.
From WSJ, July 1, 2008; Page A1
Say what?