Amendmeant

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) went on the offensive at a Massachusetts town hall meeting a few days ago, attacking conservatives for their constitutional right to compare everything they disagree with to Nazi Germany.

The more Obama changes, the more he remains a Nazi-Socialist-Fascist Kenyan.

“On what planet do you spend most of your time?” Frank (obviously racist toward aliens) sputtered in response to Rachel Brown of the LaRouche Youth Movement. This after she smartly compared “Obama’s push for health-care reform to the policies of Nazi Germany while holding up a pamphlet depicting the president with a Hitler mustache.”

It’s a common liberal tactic: deny the classic, time-honored, 1st Amendment-humping right to evoke Hitler when logic just doesn’t cut the mustard (gas).

Meanwhile, Frank is acting downright fascist in his attempt to ethically cleanse dissenting opinions just because they’re outrageously hyperbolic, childishly disruptive, or based entirely on Glenn Beck quotes.

And how convenient is it that Frank happens to be Jewish, making it nearly impossible to attack him for his comments? Like Obama, Frank needs to provide proof that he is legit. I’d suggest finding a doctor to check to see if his “hedge” has been trimmed, but good luck finding an impartial doctor (i.e. non-Jewish).

Speaking of doctoring, I leave you with a quote from my source article – one that damns Frank most of all. You just have to be smart enough to read between the lines:

“Stand… with… the President… to look like Hitler and… increase health care to the Nazis.”

Interpreting news and events the way they were meant to be interpreted: with reckless subjectivity.

—

Fact: Billboards are the #1 source of news for Floridians

While reading over the news with a fine-truth comb, I came across an atheistic manifesto of billboardian proportions in Florida. The billboard reads:

“Being a good person doesn’t require God. Don’t believe in God? You’re NOT alone!”

At first I was horrified. How dare those yet-to-believers promote their beliefs about how they don’t have any? I agreed with everything the protesters are saying, including these perfectly sensible arguments from the article:

-    The idea that non-believers can be good people discriminates against Christians.
-    African-Americans live in the area.
-    A shop owned by a born again Christian is nearby.
-    Kids kill each other and use drugs, so who (sic) else are they going to believe in?

Fine arguments, all. And in no way did I see any sort of hypocrisy in us Christians crying for tolerance while attempting to ban an atheist billboard. In fact, I’m pretty sure “hypocrisy” is just some oral test doctors have to pass before they’re allowed to fiddle around inside your torso.

You see, I saw the sign for what it really is, and until people really open up their eyes and see the sign, they won’t understand that it’s not offensive, just poorly written.

What the billboard means to say is that “being a good person doesn’t require JUST God”, but also Jesus. Then, after asking if the reader doubts the reality of God, it strongly declares that, whether you like it or not, “You’re not alone!” The billboard isn’t referring to small enclaves of like-minded atheists that live in places like Canada and Sweden, but to the fact that God is real (or maybe that aliens exist).

So thank you atheists; I’m glad to see you’re finally coming around. The only crime here is a dearth of good copywriting (or is it “well copywriting?”). A skill I’ll gladly provide next time you atheists want to concede defeat to Christianity. You know how to reach me.

When Amendments were first ratified, everyone knew exactly how to interpret their meaning. Then Americans got stupid (it’s mostly Jimmy Carter’s fault). It’s time to reeducate America on what the Amendments meant to say.

—

Let’s face it, there’s no way a militia could defeat the entire US Military, rendering the 2nd Amendment as useless as waterboarding Aquaman (which is still only half as useless as Aquaman himself). We have to realize that our Founding Fathers wrote in a different time than ours, without the ability to foresee the existence of weapons like Atom Bombs, lasers, and Richard Simmons.

Aquaman's trident couldn't even put onedent in the military.

We have to take the intent of the 2nd Amendment into consideration, and that intent was to ensure a small to medium sized group of average citizens could compete with the US Military in the numbers and power of their armament.

Constitutionalists will argue that grenades and heat-seeking missiles can hardly be considered “arms” in the traditional sense, but come on people: it’s all about the intent of the amendment, not the literal meaning. Most politicians don’t seem to get this simple truth, which makes them even more useless than Aquaman (but still worth waterboarding).