This Lady is Just Freakin' Nuts -- Part Two

Here is the scene I imagine playing out in the mind of Sher Zieve:

Scene: The Oval Office.

President Obama is kneeling on his prayer rug, stroking his Hitler mustache and reading Mao's Little Red Book. Suddenly, a fiendish idea occurs to him. He jumps up and presses the intercom button.

Obama

Miss Johnson? Send in my henchmen!

Ms Johnson (off screen)
Right away, mein fuhrer!

Several Jack-booted thugs in ACORN shirts enter.

Henchman #1

You wanted to see us, Dear Leader?

Obama
Yes, I just had a great idea. I'm going to eliminate my enemies!

Henchman # 2
But Sir, it's just that that seems almost too evil, even for us!

Obama
How dare you question the great emperor? Have this man taken out and beaten with Korans!

Henchman # 3
Right away, your excellency!

Henchman # 1
So, your majesty, how will we be eliminating the target? Gunfire? Explosion? Putin-poison?

Obama
No, I mean really eliminate the enemy! Eliminate him from the Internet!
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!



Henchman #1
But your highness, it's it's. . . impossible!

Obama
Nothing is impossible with the help of my friends in the left-wing media!

Henchman #3
So, your excellency, whom shall we eliminate?
Bill O'Reilly has shown a distinct lack of faith in you!

Obama
No, I need a much bigger target!

Henchman # 1
Rush Limbaugh?

Obama
Too obvious! I was thinking the target should be a loony toons blogger no one has ever heard of!

Henchman #1
Surely not. . .

Obama
YES! I say we eliminate Sher Zieve!

All henchmen gasp in unison

Obama
Bring me my villain hat!

Obama begins typing on his desktop computer

Obama

Let's see, it says here that she has over a million "entries" on Google and Yahoo! Well, I'll just click here, and enter my secret new-world-order code word, and. . .
Aha! Now she has a mere 8000 entries! Victory is mine!

Henchman # 2
But, Excellency, she hasn't been eliminated. Her internet presence has just been reduced somewhat! She has not been silenced!

Obama
How the hell did you get back in here? Guards! Take this man to the death panel!

Okay, Now This lady Is Just Freakin' Nuts!

Sher Zieve

On having one’s name deleted from the internet by Obama & co

These days, it isn't difficult to ascertain when you are on the Obama Enemies List.

Okay, one sentence in and we already have paranoia and delusions of grandeur. (as if the president of the US is aware of the existence of a Sher Zieve!)

Leftist bloggers will increase and become even more inarticulate (if that's even possible) in their attacks on you when you begin disseminating too much truth, when your columns hit too close to home for a general comfort.

(as Tintin point out at "Sadly, No," she accuses Leftist bloggers of being inarticulate in a sentence that, I think, would only make sense if translated back into the original Croatian.)

One way to deal with the is to "eliminate" the voices of those who oppose the tyrant. Sadly, such is my case.

Um, I'm not sure what is exactly being "dealt with: here. Even assuming that she meant "this instead of "the," her previous sentences dealt with being on the imaginary enemies list, so it should follow that the "way to deal with the" would be a solution to her imaginary problem, not Obama's imaginary solution to some imaginary problem he might have with her.

But anyway. . .

And such strongly seems to be the case of the techniques now utilized by the two major Internet search engines — Google and Yahoo. It appears that when they are told by The Obama to delete an opposer's name from their files, like Pharaoh Seti I is said to have deleted Moses' name from everything in the Egyptian New Kingdom, my name has now almost been completely deleted from Google and Yahoo is following close behind the leftist leader. Are plans to eradicate other truth-tellers on the way?

Jeez, can't the loonies at "Renew America" afford to hire an editor? The syntax is appalling!
But, I guess that's not the point. The point is that this woman has had her name completely deleted from Google!

This has been occurring steadily over the past 2-3 years. I have gone from over 1.5Million entries on each search site to — now — under 8,000 entries on Google and about 22K on Yahoo.

Eight Thousand "entries" on Google! That's exactly the same as having been completely deleted!

Although, when I typed her name into Google just now, I got 18,000 results which, I'm pretty sure, is not fewer than 8,000. But math was never my strong suit.

sher zieve

Advanced search

About 18,000 results (0.33 seconds)

Oddly, the biggest drop came when I wrote about the Obama vacations and then, most recently, his turning Arizona over to the corrupt UN for "human rights violations"

Hmm, that is odd that interest in you declined when you wrote about a complete non-story and a complete bullshit lie that never happened. Hmmm. . . . strange.

The reason I'm writing this has nothing to do with either self-pity or self-aggrandizement. . . I am writing it to let you know the depths to which this administration — and all Marxists — will stoop to silence their critics.

Okay, let me stop you right there. What is it with you rightie wingnuts always claiming that someone is trying to silence you? When students dug up Sarah Palin's list of diva demands, she claimed they were trying to silence her. When people complained that Dr. Laura should probably not cavalierly toss about the N-word, she complained that her enemies were trying to silence her. Where does this crap come from?

Let me tell you a story.



This is Barry Bonds.

For several years, Barry Bonds was the best hitter in baseball. Naturally, fans of opposing teams disliked him mightily for the damage he inflicted upon their pitching staffs. So, in every ballpark outside of San Francisco, Bonds was booed mercilessly. He was booed when his name was announced, he was booed when he came to the plate, he was booed constantly. And when the rumors of steroid use began to surface, fans would mock him by chanting "ster-oids, ster-oids" in between boos.
Now did Bonds claim that his opponents' fans were trying to take away his right to play baseball? Did he quit playing? No. He sucked it up, shrugged it off, and went about his business sending baseballs soaring into the bleachers. Do you know why? Because he's a grownup. And grownups can deal with criticism. Especially grownups who choose to be in the public eye, to voice controversial viewpoints, and/or hold elected office.

Do you want to know what it looks like when someone's enemies try to silence them?
Rent the movie "Shut Up And Sing."

The Dixie Chicks got death threats over singer Natalie Maine's comment about GW Bush. Credible threats. Credible enough for law enforcement to be involved. They would have had every right to complain about their enemies trying to silence them. They would have had every right to quit, to blame their critics, and go into hiding. Did they? No. They went about their business like grownups. So suck it up, Dr. Laura. Grow a pair of ovaries, Sarah Palin. You're going to be criticized, get the fuck over it. That's part of public life. Don't be babies!


But I digress. Where were we? Oh, yes. Some nutty lady on "Renew America" has paranoid delusions about Obama's ability to remove her from the Google.

I consider being counted in Obama's "opposition list of undesirables and enemies" to be a distinct badge of honor. The "deletion" also tells me strongly and firmly that my continuing attempts to get the truth about The Obama and his anti-God and anti-human policies out to the public is working — and evidently working too well for our Dictator-in-Chief.

Someone get this lady a dictionary and show her what "Dictator" means. Here's a hint, it doesn't mean someone whose agenda can be thwarted by the threat of a filibuster.

So, seriously, you think Obama and his minions are deleting you from the internet? Really? How does that work, deleting something or someone. Because I know a lot of celebrities would like to delete real and/or fake nude photos from the internet. (That's right, browsers, I said NUDE! PHOTOS! of CELEBRITIES!)

I have an idea for how this scene would play out, but it will have to wait until my next post.
. . .To Be Continued. . .

Only At "Renew America"

The internet freakshow known as "Renew America" has come up a couple times before (here and here) so I should know better than to even look at it, but it's like a car crash, I can't look away.

Michael Bresciani

Rev. Michael Bresciani is a Christian author and a columnist for several online sites and magazines. His articles are now read in every country in the world.

Really? You have readers in Moldavia? Lot of people reading your stuff in Palau? You getting pretty popular in Tuvalu, are ya?

The PC wars of 2010 and beyond

-- spiritual wickedness in high places

Okay, I'm just going to skip over the fact that "PC" or "political correctness" is not a real thing. It's just a term invented by people who resent the fact that it's no longer so acceptable to mock minorities or make crude come-ons to female co-workers.

( I don't know why that's so big, I've tried to make it normal-sized, but no luck)

Let's just plow ahead with this.

How we love to say that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor she awakened a sleeping giant. We hate to hear that when the giant went back to sleep a generation of progressive liberalism snuck into the textbooks, the minds and, now; very deeply into the hearts of our young

When did the "giant" go back to sleep? Seems like since Pearl Harbor, the giant has been stomping around in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and the Persian Gulf, all before 9/11.

For almost an entire generation we have thrust a two pronged socialistic pitch fork at the minds of our youth.

Wow, that's about the craziest thing I've ever heard. Who the hell is thrusting what at whom, now?

One prong is marked 'disdain of nationalism' or national pride from which patriotism is fed but not born. The other prong is marked rejection of all orthodox religion but mostly the Judeo Christian heritage, from which America's patriotism was indeed born; altered textbooks notwithstanding.

Why do these psycho-right-wing Christians always say "Judeo-Christian" as if they have some respect for Judaism or affection for its practitioners? I don't know if they think it makes them sound less chauvinistic, like "we don't think Christianity is the only acceptable faith, we also like the Jews (although they're going straight to hell!)"
And by "altered textbooks" do you mean textbooks that paint a more historically accurate portrait of the founding fathers and their religious beliefs? Yeah, I think that's what you mean.

One of the latest skirmishes in the PC Wars has been the removal of the Focus on the Family ad from the online pages of the NCAA. The ad starts with the caption "Celebrate Family — Celebrate Life," is simple and beautiful and explains the desire of a father to see his son choose a right path in life. The ad says, "All I want for my son is for him to grow up knowing how to do the right thing."

And by do the right thing, I mean hate the homos and subjugate his wife.

Jemu Green, the president of Women's Media Center told Fox's Bill O'Reilly that it wasn't a bad ad but it served to lure people to the Focus on the Family site which she described as "intolerant, divisive, and homophobic, anti choice and anti women."

Also, she described water as being "wet" and rocks as being "hard, and sometimes pointy."

A visit to the Focus on the Family site will quickly dispel
all the heightened rhetoric of Ms. Green,

Okay, let's test that theory. I'm going to go visit that site and see what's what. If I'm not back in twenty minutes, send a rescue party.


Wow, here's the first thing I found under the heading "homosexuality and gender"

We affirm God’s design for the two sexes – male and female – and believe that each is a glorious gift from God. Our sexuality is meant to be offered back to Him.

AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Our sexuality is to be offered back to God???????
I can't think of any way that sentence could not be skin-crawlingly creepy!

Love is not enough to justify a relationship. A married man can fall deeply in love with a woman other than his wife; that will never sanctify adultery. Likewise love between two men or women cannot justify a homosexual relationship.

Okay, intolerant, check! Homophobic, check!

Here's an excerpt from an article about Obama nominee Harold Koh:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said Koh is yet another Obama nominee who should be stopped at the door.
"He has advocated strongly for the ratification of the pro-abortion international 'women's rights' treaty," she said. "People need to get on the phone and urge their senators to vote, 'No' on Koh's confirmation."

Wow! When you actually put the phrase "women's rights" in quotes, as if such rights were fictional, I think it's safe to check off "anti women." And obviously anti-choice.

So, this guy's full of shit about Focus on the Family, but let's see where he's going with this.

A visit to the Focus on the Family site will quickly dispel all the heightened rhetoric of Ms. Green, but even that is not the point. The real question is whether the 14th amendment is enough for the homosexuals and whether the first amendment is still enough for people of faith. You remember, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Okay, that could not be less relevant. If the NCAA finds your group offensive and doesn't wish to run your ad, that has nothing to do with Congress making laws about religion. You have the freedom to exercise whatever religious beliefs you want, but the NCAA has the right to say "no thank you, that's not for us."

Worthy of note was Dennis Miller's response to Jemu's agitated response to the questions O'Reilly posed. Miller said who could have guessed that "Big Brother would appear in the guise of the selectively righteous sistah."

Dennis Miller has never been worthy of note. But this is especially ridiculous. Ms Green is not a government agent. She can not spy on you and has no control over your life. So there really is no similarity between her and Orwell's "Big Brother." And tossing in the gratuitous "sistah?" That's just being offensive for offensiveness' sake.

But let's get back to America and her PC wars; first by taking a hard look at a word that is inappropriate, poorly defined, and overused but has gained a lot of mileage of late and thereby has hurt many people. The word is the noun homophobia and its divisive little cousin the adjective, homophobic. The most basic definition of homophobia is that it is an irrational fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. In over forty years of discussion with Christians about homosexuals I have never met one single person who said they were afraid of homosexuals.

Seriously? You can't swing a dead cat at most churches without hitting someone who is afraid that the gay people will recruit their children! They're afraid to let gay couples adopt in a lot of states because they are afraid that gay folks will molest or otherwise harm children.

Of course they're afraid of homosexuals! Don't be stupid!

It is there in God's word that they find many warnings that when individuals or nations begin to allow unbridled licentious behavior that God will intervene with appropriate responses. The rest of the world looks at the same thing but only as a problem (issue, in modern vernacular) not as a promise. They look on the daily reports of abused children, sexual indulgence, profanity, serial murders, rape and crime in general but somehow miss the connection between their own allowances and their present troubles. They not only could care less for the warnings but many would argue to the death that they were never warned at all.

That may be the most despicable thing anyone has written about anything. Tolerance of the gay people leads to serial murders, child abuse, rape, and crime in general? Oh, no, you're not afraid of gay people at all! You know, they used to balme society's ills on witches, or vampires, or Jews, you'd think we'd have outgrown this type of idiotic scapegoating by now.

And the best part is, that you're blaming God for all this. You're saying that if a society tolerates the gay people, God will respond with serial killers, rapists and child abusers. God. God will do this. God gets mad about the gay people, so he has children get abused? That seems fair. What kind of psycho God do you believe in?

I have both studied and directly encountered witch crafters, cult leaders and atheists in my time.

Really? Witch crafters? Do you mean witches? You've actually met witches?

There are far few witches and warlocks than people who are willing to swallow everything that the PC pushers have to offer at the moment.

Really? I have the final score as zero to zero. You know, because both groups are made-up.

Anyway, there's a lot of crazy that I skipped over, you can read his whole article here if you're interested. But the main point of his essay is this: We're not homophobic, because we aren't afraid of homosexuals. We just hate them. Only at "Renew America" is this considered a legitimate defense against the charge of homophobia.

Only At "Renew America!"

Lisa Fabrizio

Lisa Fabrizio took the time to write a column stating basically, "I'm not a racist, I hate the homos way more than the ethnics!"
Only at "Renew America" would this be considered a legitimate defense.

Here's what she had to say for herself:

Last week, former president Jimmy Carter, sounding much like a man desperate to reclaim his relevance in a world that's passed him by, told NBC News: "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."

Ok, good. You made it through the first sentence without saying anything stupid, offensive or demonstrably untrue. Keep going!

Now, putting aside the fact that he, a very white man, was on the receiving end of much intensely demonstrated animosity during his days in office, since when, you ask, is Jimmy Carter an expert on U.S. racial relations?

The fact that a lot of jerks hated him should be set aside as irrelevant. But not before being prominently mentioned!

And by the way, I'll wager Jimmy Carter has forgotten more about U.S. racial relations than your dumb ass will ever know.

But cut him some slack. After all, he did unite the country in a way not seen in decades; after only four years, almost all of America joined together in sending him on his failed quest to become our greatest ex-president.

Yes, almost all of America. If by almost all, you mean 50.75% of the popular vote. OK, technically, 59% voted for candidates other than Jimmy Carter. 50.75% went to Reagan, 6.61% went to John Anderson, 41% went to Jimmy Carter, with the remainder going to various fringe candidates. (SOURCE) So, yeah almost 6 out of 10 Americans who showed up to vote (and turnout was under 60%) voted against Carter. If my math is right, (and that's always possible) that adds up to a whopping 35% of the American voting-eligible public who joined together to send Jimmy Carter packing. So, um, yeah. . . good point.

But are Carter and those of his ilk correct? Are conservatives bigoted louts or are they truly colorblind? In a way liberals are right; about this conservative anyway. Colors and the noxious movements they often represent do affect me in many ways, most of them bad. And maybe I'm not alone in detesting these oft beribboned symbols of latent hippydom which hurt my brain as well as my eyes

You know, I never saw the point of putting ribbons on one's car, but now, I think I'm going to cover my car, and everyone else's I can find, in ribbons, ribbons ribbons!!! Just to hurt Lisa Fabrizio's so-called "brain!"

Among those hues that particularly rankle are:

Purple, pink or whatever this week's badge of homosexual self-esteem might be.

And there it is. People different from me have no Goddamn right to have self esteem!

Is there anything worse than not only having to witness attempts at the perverse gay and lesbian assembly to subvert our culture to theirs, but then to have these forays labeled as examples of 'gay pride'?

Yes, having to listen to homophobic cretins like you, for one. Also listening to you try to use big words. The word "subvert" means to undermine or overthrow. You can not subvert TO anything. One could subvert our culture, theoretically, but not TO another culture. It's just grammatically impossible.I think maybe you mean "subjugate"? At any rate, it's just pathetic that nincompoops like you have this irrational fear that "the gays!" are going to somehow take over and, what, force breeders to learn showtunes and decorate tastefully?

As if the embrace of rampant, unbridled and unnatural sex is good for our nation; so good in fact, that it must be taught to our children as an acceptable and even desirable 'alternative lifestyle.'

I don't know what's more pathetic, you obvious envy of the wild, unrestrained sex that you imagine the gay people having, or your paranoid delusion that children will be taught to desire gaiety!But go on, what other colors do you hate?

Yellow, as in journalism. Probably nothing has more hastened the advent of our present mess as the corruption of the great majority of our media into shills for the socialist agenda.

That is so absurd as to barely merit comment.
But, yes. Obviously the mainstream media is the propoganda arm of the politburo. That's why I can't open a paper, turn on the radio, or watch a Sunday Morning news show without running into.
George Will.
or Pat Buchannan.
or Charles Krauthammer.
or Jonah Goldberg.
or Bill O'Reilly.
or Sean Hannity.
or Joe Scarborough.
or Rush Limbaugh.
or Glenn Beck.
or William Bennet.
or David Brooks.
or Thomas Friedman. Well, you get the idea. And if it's Sunday morning, they're probably interviewing Newt Gingrich or Dick Cheney.
So, yeah. obviously total pinkos.

Any other colors bother you?

Green, as in the Earth-first, humans-last movement; one of the most insidious examples of the use of yellow journalism of our time. As outlined above, eager graduates of journalism school learn not to report the news, but to make it, by propping up the pseudo-science of like-minded liberals who prey on the fears of gullible Americans.

Right, the pseudo-science of EVERY LIVING NOBEL-PRIZE WINNING SCIENTIST who signed the "open letter to humanity" warning about global warming, needs to be propped up by pinko journalists. That's what's going on.

Which brings us to the hue that causes the most bile to rise in conservative craws: red. We conservatives pride ourselves on our steadfast determination to keep, or conserve, that which we hold dear, namely our system of a constitutional republic; one that has served our nation well for over 200 years. Yet liberals are, in many ways, even more stubborn in the opposite direction: they seek to embrace systems of governance that have time and again proved to be murderous regimes and/or outright failures; communism and socialism.

That is just not true, but I don't have the energy to go on with this argument.

And the fact that we have in the White House a black man who is a champion of nearly all of the above is irrelevant. Conservatives have felt the same way about Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or anyone else that favors the red
without the white and blue.

So, I get it. You're not a racist. You would equally despise any white man who didn't have sufficient hatred for gay people, or contempt for the environment, or who wants to use the government to help people. Well, I apologize, you clearly are no racist! You're just an awful, angry, bitter, delusional, paranoid, nasty little person. But not a racist.

How to be a Ludicrous, Preposterous Nut-Job.

It's easy! Just follow the example of Chuck Baldwin!

Chuck Baldwin

First, Begin with a manifestly, patently false premise:

Why are internment camps being built?

Perfect! Now use the worst evidence possible to back up this claim.

Just a few weeks ago, I was aboard a cross-country flight when the passenger I was sitting next to (a total stranger) asked me to take a look out the window. He asked, "Do those look like internment camps to you?"

Nice! The "guy I sat next to on a plane" method, a classic! This technique is often used by global-warming deniers by adding the phrase "and he was a scientist!" but works equally well for backing up any absurd theory.

We were flying over Colorado, over extreme wilderness terrain, and, yes, right in the middle of nowhere, the buildings and surrounding features that I saw sure looked like internment camps to me.

One time I was on a plane and the guy next to me said "hey, doesn't that fluffy cloud look like a rabbit?' So I looked and OH MY GOD!!! GIANT FLYING RABBITS!!!!

Of course, flying at over 30,000 feet in the sky makes it difficult for any kind of detailed analysis to take place; that is for sure.

Now that's a rookie mistake. If you're going to get anywhere in the world of wingnuttery, you can never admit that your "evidence" might be at all flawed.

Then, a friend recently brought this URL to my attention:

http://www.nationalguard.com/careers/mos/description.php?mos_code=31E

This is an advertisement by the National Guard promoting the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) of "Internment/Resettlement Specialist." Question: why does the National Guard need to recruit Internment/Resettlement Specialists? What do they know that we should know?

Well done. You can pretty much take for granted that your readership won't take the time to stop and think about the fact that National Guard units are deployed in two war zones and that capturing and transporting prisoners is a regular feature of warfare. Remember, if they're reading your posts, you can't possibly underestimate their critical-thinking skills.

Furthermore, I have had military personnel tell me that many of the US military bases that have been recently "closed" are also being prepared as large-scale "holding areas."

Obviously, the question that begs to be asked is, "Who is the US government planning to intern and resettle?"

Anonymous military personnel, eh? Way to be as vague as possible. Just forget that if these "military personel" exist outside of your imagination, and if they were telling you the truth that the obvious answer would be, um, "the guys from Gitmo, which is scheduled to close by year's end." Just leave the question un-answered and let the reader fill in the blanks with his own paranoid fantasies.

Then, of course, there are those who continue to deny that these internment camps exist at all. But then, were there not thousands of Germans who denied the existence of concentration camps during World War II?

Good! Nazi references are always effective. If you can work Stalin in too, your argument becomes even stronger.
You could also bring the argument closer to home by referring to another American scandal. Something like: "And aren't there millions of Americans who deny the existence of the aliens held in Area 51?" Or "Hey, millions of people insist on denying the existence of Sasquatch, yet there he is in those beef jerky commercials!" Thus, anything that large numbers of people deny is shown to be inescapably true.

Remember, If you state something as an undeniable fact, it becomes true!
Like this:

That our federal government is building large numbers of "holding areas" or internment camps seems to be an established fact. The only questions that remain are "Why?" and "For whom?"

Now the "fact" is only "established" by some guy on a plane, an ad for the National Guard, and the denials of the sane, but now that you have declared it to be an established fact, you may proceed as if it actually were. This is one of the primary rules of nutjobbery, any wild speculatory accusation which is presented as fact shall be treated as immutable truth.

At this point, the imagination can take us anywhere, (I think it already has) but it is not a little disconcerting when the same federal government that is building these internment camps begins categorizing Christians, conservatives, people who support the Second Amendment, people who oppose abortion and homosexual marriage, people who oppose the North American Union and the New World Order, people who oppose the United Nations and illegal immigration, and people who voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin (referring to yourself in the third person? why not! Professional athletes do it, and no one ever calls them douchebags)
as "extremists," or "potential dangerous militia members."

In fact, an argument could be made that by today's politically correct definition, America's Founding Fathers would be categorized as "paranoid," "extremists," or "potential dangerous militia members."

Of course, the founding fathers did raise an army, go to war with the established government, and declare themselves to be a sovereign, independent nation, so I could see where someone might mistake them for potentially dangerous militia members.

But no wingnut posting can be complete without attacking someone's patriotism. It doesn't have to be a specific person, it can be a group of people, or theoretical people, or whatever.

I would even go so far as to question the patriotism of anyone todaythat is not a little paranoid.

Perfect!

Now for the crowning achievement in wingnut douchebaggery, try believing shit you read on the internet:

The Internet is abuzz with news about the construction of internment camps all across America. . . all anyone need do to begin a serious investigation of the subject of internment camps is Google the phrase "FEMA Camps."

Now you've got 'em, 'cause If you have to accept that things you read on the internet might not be true, then you'd have to think that maybe there aren't hundreds of single women in your area who want to meet YOU and are totally not prostitutes at all.

So, if you follow these simple guidelines, you'll have an internet post that no one could help but believe. Let's see how our example worked out for Chuck Baldwin. Here's what he had to say:

I have had numerous readers contact me, saying that they have personally witnessed the transportation of construction materials used for internment camps

Damn, Chuck! You've got these stooges so shook up that seeing a cement truck drive by looks like proof that the gulags are being built.
Now, beginning wingnuts probably can't expect to get that kind of result right away, but if you keep at it, one day you may find your work gracing the pages of Renew America

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.

(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

---

Oh, they have standards? Really? That must be new.