Chuck Norris Dildo Update

Every now and then I like to check in with Chuck Norris to see whether he's still a dildo.

CULTURE WARS

President Bill Clinton vs. Gov. Scott Walker and me

Exclusive: Chuck Norris warns of left agenda to sweep country with recall elections

Published: 1 day ago

by Chuck Norris

Yup! Still a dildo!
 A dildo with an incredibly over-inflated sense of self-importance.

Wisconsin Democrats, Washington elite and insiders, and liberal special interests have joined together to fight for the recall of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin in Tuesday’s election. But last Friday, when I saw them also send in the big guns, former President Bill Clinton himself, against Gov. Walker, I knew I had to enter the ring, too.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Bill Clinton, two-term President of the United States of America, balanced out by Beardy McPunchandkick.
You really think you're the Republican equivalent of Bill Clinton? One of the most successful presidents of the latter half of the 20th Century vs the star of the worst post-Small Wonder television show of the 1990's, that seems like parity to you, does it? 

Gov. Scott Walker is not a RINO, or “Republican in name only.” He walks his conservative talk. He refuses special interests.

  

Totally NOT a special interest group!

Gov. Walker is standing against the assault on conservative values, which includes helping people bear their own responsibilities. 

If  he's helping them bear their own responsibilities, then they really aren't bearing their own, um responsibilities, right? Or is that part of the "assault" against which he is standing? Is he against helping people bear their own responsibility? Your ghost-writer could not have been less clear.

But there’s a bigger reason that Pres. Clinton came out to Wisconsin to engage in the battle to recall Gov. Walker: Democrats, liberals and progressives like him know that as Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, so possibly goes the nation in November. 

Possibly? As Wisconsin goes, so POSSIBLY goes the Nation? What a bold prediction!

 Walker’s recall is not just about Wisconsin; it is about national reform. It’s about living within our means. It’s about taking back our republic.

It's about fucking over teachers. And cops. And firefighters. . .

In the short 18 months that Gov. Walker has held his gubernatorial position, his bold reforms have helped eliminate Wisconsin’s $3.6 billion deficit without raising taxes, lower property taxes for median-valued homes and create more than 23,000 jobs since January 2011. 

Wow, 23,000 jobs! Or as Bloomberg puts it:

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which churns out reams of national and state employment data every month, has shown Wisconsin losing 33,900 jobs in 2011. The numbers, which aren’t adjusted for season variation, were among the worst of any other state. The state also ranked 42nd out of 50 states in economic health in 2011, according to the Bloomberg Economic Evaluation of States. 

But when you've been kicked in the head as often as Chuck Norris,  33,000 jobs lost and 23,000 gained probably seem to add up to the same thing.

 

On an un-related subject, while reading Chuck Norris's cretinous column on Wing Nut Daily, I kept seeing this ad, warning of four things which are "Destroying Men!"

I don't know what the other three are, but if they're as frightening as Tiffanie here, I'll take my chances!

Chuck Norris is not good at linking to things.

Or, I should say, whoever writes this claptrap to which Chuck Norris affixes his name is not good at linking to things.

Case in point: Chuck's most recent steaming pile of words for the American Family Association.

Chuck Norris: U.S. Dept. of Defense and their war on religion, Part I

In which Chuck purports to link to a "dozen-plus examples reported by the FRC, Rep. Forbes office, and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted, or outright obliterated"

Let's check a few of Chuck's references:

The Pentagon releases new regulations, forcing chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections (September 2011).

Which sounds super-scary, except that it links to a Washington Post article headlined:

Gay weddings can be performed by military chaplains, Pentagon says

 

Yes, it says "CAN," not "MUST."  Well, maybe Chuck skipped the headline. Let's see what the actual body of the article says about chaplains being forced to perform same-sex weddings against their will:

The Pentagon will permit military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage as long as such ceremonies are not prohibited in the states where they reside, it said Friday.

Defense Department guidance issued to military chaplains said they may participate in ceremonies on or off military bases in states that recognize gay unions. Chaplains are not required to officiate at same-sex weddings if doing so is counter to their religious or personal beliefs, the guidance said.

 [emphasis added by me]

The article explicitly says the opposite of what Chuck is saying. And this is the article to which Chuck links to bolster his point.

Here's another example:

The Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches, and followers of Native American faiths" (November 2011). 

Okay, so spending money to accomodate "Earth-based" religions is an example of religious freedom being obliterated? Even if, by "religious freedom" you mean "religious freedom of right-wing Christians," which you probably do, this is still way off the mark.  And the article to which you link contradicts your claim in a couple of ways. First with this quote about religious freedom not exactly being limited or "quarantined" or whatever:

This is not about religious tolerance — a phrase Duncan, a Christian, rejects as implying that the majority religion is simply putting up with the minority. He calls it a 1st Amendment issue. If the military is to defend the Constitution, it should also be upholding its guarantee of religious freedom. "We think we are setting the standard," Duncan says.

And second, with this picture of the new structure which really looks nothing like Stonehenge:


Cadets gather for the dedication ceremony of the Air Force Academy's Cadet Chapel Falcon Circle worship center this spring. The center serves cadets whose religions fall under the broad category of Earth-based. (Jerilee Bennett / The Gazette)


Chuck's next reference reads:

• Air Force officials strip religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory" (September 2011).  

Which actually links to nothing.
 Then this:

Department of Veterans Affairs censors references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery (June 2011). 

which links to an article headlined:

Houston Veterans Claim Censorship of Prayers, Including Ban on 'God' and 'Jesus'

but includes this little paragraph:

The Department of Veterans Affairs said in a statement that it "respects every veteran and their family's right to burial service that honors their faith tradition." The department employs nearly 1,000 chaplains who preside over religious burials, according to the statement.

[emphasis added]

And this:

Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate has passed the $662 billion 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy" (December 2011). 

Hmm, so they forgot to include a clause likening consensual same-sex relations with dog-raping? Now that's an infringement! How exactly does this trample on anyone's freedom? Chuck doesn't bother to explain.

Chuck Norris Dildo Update

Every now and then, I like to check in with Chuck Norris and see if he's still a dildo.

---

---

Obama's 7 'Creator' omissions, Part 2 


Well, he's still writing for WorldNetDaily, that's a pretty strong indication of dildosity. But let's see what he's on about now.

Last week, I detailed seven occasions in the past few months at which President Obama omitted the words "by their Creator" from direct quotes of the Declaration of Independence

Chuck has a lot of free time, apparently.

I finished the article asking readers, "To you, is omitting 'endowed by their Creator' from direct quotes of the Declaration in several speeches a permissible benign act of the president of the United States?" 

Only if you're sane!

 Those words might seem justifiable to some, but it alarms me when omissions are exclusively divine and so easily exit and are excused by the U.S. supreme leader.                                    

Yes but on the other hand turnip matchbook cul de sac. Oh, we're not just tossing together random words?

Even at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where both the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were debated and drafted, divine omissions seem to be en vogue.

Recently, my pastor and the chaplain of my organizations, Todd DuBord, was on a tour of Independence Hall. . . When the National Park Service guide leading their group blurted out five unbelievable lies and distortions about our founders' religious beliefs and history, with school-aged children present as well in the room. 

 You know, I doubt very much that tour guides at Independence Hall just go around blurting out controversial statements about religion, but what the hell, I'll play along. What were these lies of which you speak?

"We have no record that George Washington ever attended church." 

Okay. I'll give you that one. If the tour guide did say that, then that is, maybe not a lie, but untrue. Washington was certainly not a devout man, but  he was known to occasionally attend services.
According to VirginiaPlaces.org,

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later. 

So, that's one point for Norris. Next "lie?"

While the NPS guide physically hunched over, mimicked and mocked one carrying and swinging an oversized Bible in his hand, he said to the crowd: "Even if I said the founders were Christians, how could we really know? Just because people carry a big ol' Bible in their hand, they can still be atheists!" 

Again I very much doubt that an official National Parks Service tour guide was openly mocking Christians, but let's say he was. Is there anything he said here that isn't true? Do you really think that in the 18th Century, an atheist might not have felt compelled to pretend to be a religious person? If all of one's neighbors were say, Anglicans, might not a non-believer decide that to make his life easier he would present himself as a Christian?  So, I'm sorry, Chuck, but I can't give you the point on that one. Next?

"Most of these men owned slaves. How could good Christians do that?" 

I think most of them did. Certainly Washington did. So did Jefferson. And slavery doesn't really seem to mesh well with a religion founded on things like "love your neighbor as yourself," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Sorry, Chuck. No point.

"We know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist." 

Hmm, you think that's a lie? Because I can thinbk of at least one guy who would disagree with you. Oh, gosh, what was his name. . .oh, right! Ben Franklin!

. . . the Arguments of the Deists which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much Stronger than the Refutations. In short I soon became a thorough Deist.(from Franklin's Autobiography)

You're not doing to well here Chuckles. What else you got?

"We don't really know for sure about their religion. It's open for interpretation. You'll have to do your own study on that." 

That's it? That's your whole list of Lies and Distortions?" You've got one thing in there, one thing that isn't true. And it's really more of an exaggeration than a lie. But that's enough to get you in a lather of righteous outrage?

How Much Lower Can This Little Prick Possibly Go?

How is it that James O'Keefe is allowed to walk our streets freely without being subject to multiple crotch-punchings everywhere he lays down his slimy trail?
I mean, it's not like you'd do any time.

"Your honor, the defendant is charged with assault and battery.
"Oh? What did he do?"
"He punched James O'Keefe in the weiner."
"Hmm, James O'Keefe, James O'Keefe. . . oh, the cum-stain on Satan's tighty-whities? That James O'Keefe? Case Dismissed! I'm recommending you for a commendation, son!"

Okay, I don't know how the judge turned into the defendant's commanding officer, but you get the idea.

Fake pimp from ACORN videos tries to 'punk' CNN correspondent

Lusby, Maryland (CNN) -- A conservative activist known for making undercover videos plotted to embarrass a CNN correspondent by recording a meeting on hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure" and making sexually suggestive comments, e-mails and a planning document show. [sic]

I don't know what a "Planning document show" is, but apparently he was making it.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting,

Okay, stop. Stop it right there, CNN. That was not an undercover video "sting." That was a fraudulent, dishonest, libelous smear job. You'd think now that this little shit-smear has gone after one of your own reporters, you could drop the bullshit "objectivity" and call a spade a spade.

James O'Keefe, best known for hitting the community organizing group ACORN with an undercover video sting, hoped to get CNN Investigative Correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat filled with sexually explicit props and then record the session, those documents show.

What was the point? Who knows? I guess if he could get a video clip of a reporter near some "sexually explicit props," he could run to FOX, show some deceptively-edited clips and claim that CNN can not be trusted because one of their reporters enjoys sex? Or something? I don't know what the point was, but I'm sure it was some sort of deceitful bullshit.

Apparently, a large part of the plan involved having James O'Keefe


Seduce CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau.

Once again, the foolproof plan involved having this guy:


Seduce this CNN reporter:

How could this possibly not work?

CNN has gotten ahold of a 13-page ridiculous plan for what O'Keefe calls his "CNN Caper"


.cnnFBRecBtn { width: 336px; float: right; margin: 10px 0pt; clear: both; }.cnnFBRecBtnBot { width: 420px; margin: 30px 0pt 15px 186px; }.cnn_strycntntlft { clear: both; }

'Punking' CNN

The following highlights the relevant portions of a 13-page document obtained by CNN outlining a plan to 'punk' CNN. Click through the pages to see more.

And it just goes on like that. You can see the whole thing here: CNN

And if you see James O'Keefe, go ahead and punch him right in the crotch. No jury would convict you.

Chuck Norris Dildo Update

Let's check in with Chuck Norris and see if he's still a dildo.

---

---

White House vs. Boy Scouts, Part 1

Well, he's still writing for WingNut daily, so he's probably still a dildo, but let's check his column just in case

(Editor's note: This is Part 1 of a three-part series on the White House and the Boy Scouts. In Parts 2 and 3, Norris will not only give further proof concerning how the Obama administration is creating an arm's-length relationship with the BSA, but show how President Obama's advocacy of the BSA compares to the past 100 years of U.S. presidents.)

because, you know, who cares about healthcare or Afghanistan, the true measure of a chief executive is his relations with the Boy Scouts of America!

Over the past months, a widely circulated e-mail has reported that President Obama is not signing Eagle Scout certificates, which only 4 to 5 percent of Boy Scouts attain. Categorically, Internet watchdog sites like Snopes.com and TruthOrFiction.com have classified the claims as "hogwash." But I have found a steady stream of White House whitewashing when it comes to the Boy Scouts of America.

Snopes and TruthOrFiction have labeled this claim hogwash, but that doesn't fit with my central thesis, so they can be dismissed out of hand.

"No Eagle recognition letters have been received this year from the president," said Richard Meyers, who attained his Eagle rank in 1957 during the Eisenhower presidency and is now assistant scoutmaster for troop 162 in Arlington County, Va.

And if you are the Assistant Scoutmaster for Troop 162, you know everything that has happened throughout the entire BSA organization this year. Nothing happens without the okay of assistant scoutmaster for troop 162!

So why the tardiness? The BSA says the primary reason was due to an administrative delay authorizing the president's signature – something they say occurs every time there's a change in the presidency.

Okay, that clears it up. If you're a normal person. I'm going to go ahead and guess, though that it doesn't clear things up for Chuck.

Fascinating how I don't recall any "administrative delay" with the host of presidential signatures on a wide variety of issues and legislation from Obamacare, further stem-cell research, additional federal liberties for abortions or increasing the U.S. debt to bailout banks, the car industry, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, etc.

Yes, because the presidential signature on major legislation is exactly the same as signing certificates proving that Jimmy put up with inappropriate contact from scoutmaster bob all the way through high school. Also, the banks were bailed out during the Bush Administration, and abortion has been legal in this country since 1973, but whatever.

Obama became the honorary president of the BSA way back on March 3, 2009 – an event that was done almost completely in secret in the Oval Office. Since President William Howard Taft in 1910, U.S. presidents have proudly fulfilled the position of honorary president of the BSA. But neither the honor nor event was highlighted in any official White House communication. Nothing said at the March 3 White House briefing. Nothing noted anywhere on the White House official website.

Gosh, why would Obama soft-pedal his association with the Boy Scouts? Well, I think I'll let you answer this one yourself, Chuck.

To be frank, I think Obama's delay in signing Eagle Scout certificates has more to do with White House political correctness and establishing an arm's-length relationship with the BSA than it has to do with any simple "administrative delay," especially when a series of lawsuits have been levied against the BSA because of its stand against atheists, agnostics and homosexuals.

Oh, right. Maybe he wasn't real super-proud to be the honorary president of an organization with an official policy of homophobia and religious intolerance.

No Gays Allowed!

On the other hand, on that single day of March 3, 2009, the White House considered all the rest of the following events as newsworthy enough to post on its official website: . . . "Remarks of the president to commemorate the 160th anniversary of the Department of Interior."
Yet, not a peep mentioned about the president's acceptance of BSA's honorary presidency. Could it be the 160th anniversary of the Department of Interior ranked of higher importance than Obama's acceptance of the BSA's position in its 100th year of celebration?

How could a major Department of the Federal Government be more important than a bunch of boys in neckercheifs going camping?

For years, I've signed and sent out hundreds of Eagle Scout recognition letters. And I've personally known a host of Boy Scouts, Eagle Scouts and other Boy Scout leadership.

Okay, that's creepy. What the hell are you doing hanging out with Boy Scouts? And if you're signing these letters, I could see where the President wouldn't want to put himself on the level of a washed-up B-movie actor who's taken a bunch of blows to the head.

Chuck Norris Dildo Update

Is Chuck Norris still a dildo?

Let's check in and see!

---

---

What if Mother Mary had Obamacare?

Yeah, I'd have to say that Chuck Norris is still a dildo!

For one thing, the byline states that this column is a "WorldNetDaily EXCLUSIVE!"

But do a quick Yahoo! search, and this turns up:

Chuck Norris : What if Mother Mary Had Obamacare? - Townhall.com

What if Mother Mary Had Obamacare? - HUMAN EVENTS

What if Mother Mary had Obamacare? - Yes Weekly

So, this claptrap is published on at least 3 other BS sites.

But anyway, do tell, Chuck. What if Mother Mary had "Obamacare?"

For one thing, she might have given birth in a maternity ward instead of a filthy stable.

Lastly, as we sit on the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary were covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor uninsured teenaged woman were provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy?

Really? You seriously think that the Angel Gabriel would appear to Mary, tell her that she is going to bear the Savior of all mankind, and Mary would have just said "oh, fuck this, I'm getting me one of them free guv'mint abortions!" Is that what you think? Really?

Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind, if only they too would have been as progressive as Washington's wise men and women!

Okay, how about this? We make a rule that no one is allowed to get an abortion if she is a virgin? And has been visited by an angel. And the angel told her that the baby she would have was the son of God. Then no abortion! How would that be?

Imagine all the Great souls. . . Did you know Sadam Hussein's mother was considering having an abortion? And some zealot talked her out of it? (or so I've heard) Why do people always make these arguments about aborting the next Beethoven or the next Ghandi or whatever? What if she aborts the next Jeffery Dahmer? Or the next Billy Joel?

And, most of all, Washington needs to run our government as Thomas Jefferson outlined, when he wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

And then he fucked his slaves.
And by the way, wouldn't expanding healthcare be an example of the care of human life and happiness? Or are we only counting un-born Americans? Because once they're born, it's apparently OK to send them off to be killed in some god-forsaken desert for no earthly good goddamned reason.

One last "thought" from Chuck:

The big question and bottom line, as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, asked, is: "Why should people of conscience be forced to participate in any aspect of abortion?"

Gee, I don't know, why are people of conscience forced to fund an illegal, immoral, and ill-advised war in a country that had fuck-all to do with 9/11?
Why are people who are opposed to the death penalty required to have their tax dollars pay for the lethal drugs injected into the condemned? It's called living in a society, dimwit. Once the majority has decided what it believes to be in the best interests of the society, we are all compelled to go along. And we are free to complain and we are free to influence public opinion, and change minds, and we are free to support opposing candidates to try and change the direction of the society, but we don't get to just decline to participate. This is how societies work. Try and keep up.

Glenn Beck is Not a Douche

A douche serves a useful purpose
and poses no real danger to anyone.























Beck, on the other hand, is more like a Giant dildo.





















A dildo this size:
It serves no useful purpose,
If you did try to make use of it, you'd only end up harming yourself,
And if someone saw it in your home, you'd be embarrassed.

Chuck Norris Dildo Update.

As of 11:45 pm on March 14, 2009, Yes. Chuck Norris is still a dildo.