Originally posted by magnix
View Post
He will jump into bed with our enemies by his own admission.
Other then that nothing will change.
-
He will raise taxes on those that he thinks are rich and give it to those he thinks are poor along with an unchecked dem congress.
He will jump into bed with our enemies by his own admission.
Other then that nothing will change.The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of Government -
The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity-Sandra Bernhard issues 'gang rape' warning to Sarah P
Sandra Bernhard issues 'gang rape' warning to Sarah Palin
Sandra Bernhard issued a blistering warning to Sarah Palin during a performance of her new one-woman show.
The Republican V.P. nom would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers" if she enters Manhattan, Bernhard said. Palin is said to be making a campaign stop in New York next week.
"[The gang rape comment] is part of a much larger, nuanced, and yes, provocative (that's what I do) piece from my show about racism, freedom, women's rights and the extreme views of Governor Sarah Palin, a woman who doesn't believe that other women should have the right to choose," Bernhard told the Daily News today.
"Women deserve better," she continued. "I certainly wish Governor Palin no harm. I'd just like her to explain to me how she can hold such outrageous views - and then go back to Alaska."
The controversial comedian targets Palin as part of her "Without You I'm Nothing" stage show this month at Washington, D.C.'s Theater J.
"Now you've got Uncle women like Sarah Palin who jumps in this s*** and points her fingers at other women," Bernhard says, before launching into the several minutes' long diatribe against Palin, calling her a "turncoat b***".
"Call the s*** in and tell them what I said tonight," she says, to laughs and cheers from the audience.
Bernhard isn't the only celeb to speak out against Palin. Pamela Anderson, Lindsay Lohan, Matt Damon and Pink have all expressed their disdain for the Alaskan Governor.
Damon called her candidacy "a really scary thing," telling CBS News, "I think the pick was made for political purposes, but in terms of governance it's a disaster."
Editorial from The Occidental Observer:
I suppose we could all just write off Sandra Bernhard as a nut case and leave it at that. But the thing is that her rant against Christianity and her threatened gang-rape of Sarah Palin occurred at Theater J—J as in Jewish.
Theater J is a project of the Jewish Community Center of Washington. http://washingtondcjcc.org/center-for-arts/theater-j/ At the bottom of the homepage there is the stamp of the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington DC. You can click on tabs for Jewish Living which direct you to material on classes and retreats. Another tab brings you to information on programs for infants, toddlers and school-age children. About what you would expect at a Jewish community center.
But then there’s the video (posted at the Jewish Community Center website) of Bernhard saying about Sarah Palin, “Don’t you f**king reference the Old Testament, *****. You stay with your goyish, crappy, shiksa-funky [or is it "shiksa-f**king"?] bull****. Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you *****. Because we have left it open to interpretation. It is no longer taken literally. You ***** …”
So the moral high ground comes from having the correct interpretation of the Bible? I thought that was the sort of thing that people like Palin are accused of. How very quaint coming from this super edgy and ultra-chic Jewish-lesbian radical.
This sort of invective ruins careers if one substitutes, say, anti-black invective for Bernhard's anti-goy rant. Heard from Michael Richards lately? Bernhard can refer to the New Testament as “goyish, crappy, shiksa-funky bull****” and it’s a great career move. She gets rave reviews in the mainstream media, including the Washington Post. The audience can be heard laughing and clapping appreciatively in the background while she says it, and Ari Roth, the artistic director, informs us that there are standing ovations after every performance.
Roth’s defense of the indefensible is a masterpiece of double-think: “There is a message of hope and ecumenical tolerance at the heart of what we’re trying to achieve here. Even in Sandra’s show. It’s complicated. It isn’t hate ful [sic]. There’s hope for all of us.”
Yeah, it’s complicated. Love is hate. Up is down. Black is white. Orwell would love it. You can just see the ecumenical tolerance and love in her face in this photo taken during her performance. Feel the love.
The first take-home message, then, is that Jews don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. In an era when talking disparagingly about other groups is a sure way to career oblivion, it’s still possible for a Jewish performer to denigrate the goyim and the Christian religion and to advocate physical violence and sexual degradation against someone merely because they believe what most white people believe. And she can do it at a Jewish community center.
Whites should think about what this really implies about America of the future when whites are a minority and Jews remain as a hostile elite. Kevin MacDonald reminds us what happens when a hostile Jewish elite rules over a society that they loathe, in this case the Jewish Communists who acted as mass murderers of Christians during a period when Jews were a hostile elite in the Soviet Union.: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf Professor Kevin MacDonald
Department of Psychology CSU-Long Beach Review of The Jewish Century (Hardcover) by Yuri Slezkine http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Century.../dp/0691119953 .
"The situation prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American Communists and their sympathizers assumed power. The “red diaper babies” came from Jewish families which “around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.” Indeed, hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews ... has been the Jewish norm throughout history—much commented on, from Tacitus to the present.
It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union.... These [white Christians] now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections.
Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” ... In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture [held by the Jewish elite in the USSR] is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen."---Professor Kevin MacDonald
Sandra Bernhard is Exhibit A for this type of contemporary American Jew. And the target of her wrath is Sarah Palin, the personification of red-state America.
One can imagine the horror that would greet someone who made analogous comments about Judaism or the Holocaust. We doubt that people like Ari Roth would attempt to find nuances and subtleties in such art. There would be no talk of artistic license. No attempts to find deep meanings of tolerance and hope despite the surface message of hatred and the facial expressions of seething rage and sneering contempt.
The second take-home message is that this sort of hostility to whites and to Christianity is a mainstream Jewish phenomenon. Whatever else one might say about Bernhard, she is part of a very large and vibrant Jewish subculture in America and throughout the West. In this case, it is performed by a Jewish comedienne at a Jewish community center, with an appreciative audience, many of whom are doubtless Jewish. And this is no insular culture far removed from the American mainstream. Rather, her work is reviewed respectfully and even enthusiastically in the prestigious media.
The hostility of the mainstream Jewish community, and especially the organized Jewish community, to white Europeans and the culture of the West can be seen across the entire Jewish political spectrum, from leftists like Sandra Bernhard to the neoconservative right.
The neocons do not express their contempt with the apoplectic rage of Sandra Bernhard — at least in public. But it's there nonetheless. As Jacob Heilbrunn notes, the neocons had "a lifelong antipathy toward the patrician class." The result, as Norman Podhoretz phrased it, was to proclaim a war against the “WASP patriciate.”
And, like Sandra Bernhard, the neocons aren't very fond of Middle America either. But of course, they aren't in competition with Middle America in their crusade to dominate American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.
This anti-white hostility affects a wide range of phenomena, from Jewish involvement in the media—as exemplified by Bernhard, to Jewish involvement in immigration policy.
But it goes even beyond that. Bernhard is quite frank about being a lesbian and typically draws a large number of the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender crowd to her performances. The audience laughing about “big black brothers” gang-raping a female Republican vice-presidential candidate and trashing the New Testament is part and parcel of the culture of the left. It is the sort of humor that would work well among professors at elite universities or op-ed writers at the New York Times.
This culture of the left therefore includes a lot of non-Jews. Destroying this culture is an enormously uphill battle. It is a culture that is now decades old and entrenched in all the elite power centers of society. The task will not be easy. But, considering what happened in the Soviet Union when a hostile Jewish elite obtained political power and was unleashed on the people and culture they hated, there is an obvious moral imperative in doing so.
Sandra Bernhard is performing at Theater J for three weeks. The show opened Tuesday. We went to see her last night. She was reviewed in the Post by Peter Marks this morning.
The theater was pretty full. For a Thursday night, this portends strong financial results for the theater.
The audience was mixed. Regular Theater J theater-goers, and visible members of the city’s most visible gay community. The audience was almost all white (of the 200+ in the audience, I would be surprised if there were ten African Americans). As to religious affiliation, I of course cannot tell, but I would assume that the vast majorities of the Jews and the Christians in the audience were not religious in any normal sense. That is just an assumption.
There are some things about Bernhard that you have to admire. She has indefatigable amounts of energy (her only shared trait with Sarah Palin, perhaps), she has a powerful and not unpleasant singing voice, and she certainly knows how to work an audience.
Her faults vastly outnumber her assets. In terms of insulting others, she makes Don Rickles seem absolutely tame. She turns her most venomous venom on Sarah Palin and therefore on all Republicans, but she also rants about Jews, Christians, African Americans, and everyone else.
Now, I am not a fan of bad language. I just don’t think it is necessary. I certainly can express my feelings without reverting to language that will make some people cringe. But bad language in talking about Sarah Palin, Orthodox Jews, right wing Christians is Sandra Bernhard’s m.o., and audiences love it. Yet bad language is not enough for Bernhard (a lot of comedians use bad language); she needs to have routines that themselves shock by virtue of content, more than they shock by language. The language becomes only one ingredient in this awful mix. Talking about what she would do to Palin if she had a chance would (in most countries) have her jailed or stoned, but here, audiences love it.
So, I can’t fully blame Bernhard although she has been taking advantage of it for decades. I have to blame most of all the audiences for permitting this sort of disgusting dialogue to be repeated again and again and again.
Is Bernhard funny? Sometimes, yes, she is, and sometimes she is funniest when she is being the nastiest. But what trumps what? Do you avoid the humor so as not to encourage hate, or do you ignore the hate because funny is all important. There is no question as to how I would like to see this resolved.
And I should make it clear that, with regard to her opinions in the most general aspects, I agree with her. I don’t like the position of the Republicans, I don’t like bad actors hiding under the guise of religious orders. If I were a Republican, or if I were of a mind to think that you can’t make fun of religion, I would be apoplectic now, I believe.
And if Bernhard weren’t Jewish, and was a Christian or a Moslem who made fun of Democrats and Jews, I (along with all those laughers in the audience) would be up in arms.
I mentioned the very few African Americans. How did they take the show? Bernhard sings in “blackvoice” (my phrase). She makes fun of black divas. (Yes, she idolizes Nina Simone and some others, but even there it is with a tinge of mocking.) So, I conclude that the show is not only politically incorrect, it is also racist. And it is very anti-religious (although Bernhard apparently hob nobs with Chabad and keeps a kosher home).
By any objective the show is disgusting. Which leads me to the next question. Why does Theater J allow this type of show on its stage? I know, the standard answer is because it wants to be on the edge, wants to provoke. But this show is not an edgy show. An edge is just that, an edge, on the cusp, a little over the top. That is not Sandra Bernhard.
So, where is the Theater J staff and council? Where is the DCJCC administration? Isn’t it clear that, as a Jewish insitution, which this theater purports to be, it must maintain some standards? And doesn’t the JCC itself have to have some limits to the tripe it allows on its stage?
Comment
-
why can't Oblabbamama produce a valid birth certificate to a judge without being sued?
all other americans can produce one when needed, why not him?
How is it possible that one person can be born in three different hospitals?
while reps are supposed to remain faithful to the reps lie and dems shall always remain true to the dems lie...then people can't figure out why so many are so fed up with the two party system!Comment
-
HI Bandit.
Here read this:
I'm not sure if the case has been rule on yet, very interesting. If what is written there is true, I do not believe Barack Obama is eleigible to be President, and in fact since he lied on his registration for office probably should be impeached from his Senate seat.
It really goes to show you the length John McCain has gone not to personally attack Obama, he truly has gone above the call of duty there.
Still I'm voting for Barr.May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.Comment
-
HI Bandit.
Here read this:
I'm not sure if the case has been rule on yet, very interesting. If what is written there is true, I do not believe Barack Obama is eleigible to be President, and in fact since he lied on his registration for office probably should be impeached from his Senate seat.
It really goes to show you the length John McCain has gone not to personally attack Obama, he truly has gone above the call of duty there.
Still I'm voting for Barr.May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.Comment
-
Wow. I just read all of that.Originally posted by JRScott View PostHI Bandit.
Here read this:
I'm not sure if the case has been rule on yet, very interesting. If what is written there is true, I do not believe Barack Obama is eleigible to be President, and in fact since he lied on his registration for office probably should be impeached from his Senate seat.
It really goes to show you the length John McCain has gone not to personally attack Obama, he truly has gone above the call of duty there.
Still I'm voting for Barr.
Hey JRScott,
I am at awe that mcCain has not talked about this more. iT is just very simple though, a person cannot be born at three different hospitals & at one point he gave up his citizenship. LOL!
I agree he needs to be removed from the senate & thrown into jail if this is all true.
I am voting for Bob Barr as well, and that was pretty easy to decide after all the other two clowns have disparged on us. In fact I am going out this upcoming week and voting early. He is the only man who ackowledges the government has too much power and that power needs to be returned to the citizens. The fact that Barr acknowledges that the problems are coming from congress itself, speaks volumes to me
Comment
-
That is because they really believe & are taught from childhood that they are above all others as gods chosen people. They can pretty much take the 613 carnal rules, the zionist balogny, the palin gang rape and stick it because there is nothing that makes them better people for it.Originally posted by BankruptPinoy View Post
Man, talk about bias and respector of persons- they take both cakes.
AND to think I used to like Sandra Bernhard. ack!Comment
-
If he is so ordered (don't hold your breath on this wingnut lawsuit by Berg), he can and will produce a legal birthOriginally posted by Bandit View Post
certificate from the State of Hawaii. End of Case. As usual you start with a false assumption and build
your argument around it, just like this silly lawsuit (which will be dismissed after the election know matter who wins.)
For the wingnut conspiracy theorists who think his certificate of birth is forged, here are some photos. It's been
confirmed as valid and sent by the Hawaii Dept. of Health. Look closely now...
And his birth published in a local newspaper August 13, 1961 - files received directly from the hospital in 1961
and published as public records. Available on microfiche in Honolulu:
It is truly amazing that Barack's mother would create a false birth record somehow, requiring the conspiracy of the doctors,I’ve talked to the Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser.
In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records.
At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper
to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser
routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement
that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records - we
know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision
for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the
time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth
certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician
records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife.
Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate.
I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the
first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.
Next, the announcement is from Sunday, August 13th and Obama was born on Friday, August 4th.
Hospitals usually don’t take birth certificate information the first couple days to avoid changes.
So it was likely filled out on the 4th or so, as hospital stays were usually 3 - 5 days at the time.
Lastly, having worked in a newborn nursery in college, hospitals don’t ask for documentation.
If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement.
In Honolulu at the time, paid birth announcements weren’t in vogue. Frequently families would post
one year announcements that included pictures from the party, etc. I haven’t checked to see if
that exists.
hospital, nurses, local newspapers, and Hawaii Dept of Health to fake his birth in Hawaii in 1961. Did all these people and
institutions know he would the first 50% black Presidential candidate in 2008 and create this giant coverup days after his
birth in 1961? Wow, last story that crazy was about this baby born Bethlehem a couple thousand years ago.
This birth nonsense has been beaten to death - but the right-wingers are getting desperate as they fall behind in the
polls, and are bringing back all this old crap from last summer just before the election.Last edited by WhatMoney; 10-22-2008, 07:01 PM.“When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” — Sinclair LewisComment
-
OMG!! Bandit - you were right. My apologies for ever doubting your unbiased news sources. I have just found the real Barack Obama birth certificate. He was a little plump one, but man what nice teeth for a newborn.
Of course this was from the whitecivilrights.com website run by David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
Well, that's just a coincidence I'm sure...“When fascism comes to America, it’ll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” — Sinclair LewisComment
-
That has nothing to do with the fact that he still has not produced a valid birth certificate to the judges.Originally posted by WhatMoney View PostComment
-
I dont give two cents about the right wingers conspiracy any more than I care about the left wingers conspiracy crap.Originally posted by WhatMoney View Post
so why is it so hard for him to present it to the judge if it is true? That is the question.
You dont know if his mom created a false birth certificate any more than you know for a fact what hospital. You also dont know if it was forged and until a judge says so, then it aint so.
Seeing that this is the first time I have heard about it, it does not suprise me that Obama has more issues that just can't stay buried. For something that has been beaten to death, it is alive and well because it is obviously not quite dead yet.
...and I am not holding my breath either way.Comment
-
I'm sorry but in the court case filed there are 3 separate points any of which would disqualify him as president.
In the first point it contends he was not born in Honolulu. It states in fact based upon testimony from his grandmother, and two other relatives that he was born in Kenya. To date though he posted a copy on his website, he has allowed no media to actually examine the original document, nor has he allowed a hospital or the State of Hawaii to release that.
His father claims he has Kenyan citizenship, which is only true if he was born in Kenya. If he was born in Kenya based upon the laws at the time of his birth he would not be a United States Citizen.
On the second point even if you assume he was born in Hawaii it contends that due to the laws in force at the time when his mother moved to Indonesia and renounced her United States Citizenship when Obama was very young that due to the laws at the time Obama himself lost his citizenship when he was adopted by her Indonesian husband. Obama himself claims Indonesian citizenship. He could have regained United States citizenship had he taken the oath of allegiance before the age of 18. There is no record of him taking such an oath or of his mother taking one when she moved back to Hawaii as she divorced her Indonesian Husband.
The third point though is possibly a minor technicality. Obama has used growing up and even as a young adult up to three different aliases, all variations of his name and with different last names from time to time. He failed to report these aliases on his registry for office when running for the Illinois State Senate and for the United States Senate and also for the Office of President. Since he failed to do so and thus allow scrutiny of his other aliases he should be disqualified.
Now as I said I don't think the court has issued a ruling in that case. The sad part is if the court were to find any of these three points to be valid, then Barack Obama would not be able to take the oval office even if he was elected. I think that is a severe injustice to the American people. Barack Obama could clarify the situation by allowing the State of Hawaii to release his Birth Certificate so that members of the media could examine it rather than a copy on the internet (photoshop is far to easy for the gifted). In the end he probably will be forced to do so anyway.
I do think there will be lawsuits much like there was in 2000 after the election.
If McCain wins, Robert Barr is likely to contest the State of Texas election all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court since both the D and the R held their conventions and chose their candidates after the Texas deadline which means neither should have been on the Texas ballot. What this would mean is that no one would win the electoral college. Then the election would be thrown into the Congress. Do not assume Obama would win in such a case as the majority winner has not always been chosen by Congress in such circumstances. It is also possible they could have a separate case asking each candidate to prove they are eligible to take the office, if Obama then failed to do so (though I'm not saying necessarily he can't prove it) it would mean a race in the Congress between Barr and McCain.
If Obama wins, again either Barr or McCain could challenge his eligibility to be President. Barr would again probably challenge Texas. If Obama failed to prove that he was elegible to be President then it would again throw the election into the Congress. If the only choices the congress had was between Barr and McCain in such a case, I think Barr would become President as McCain is not well liked in the House.
Note that if the cases are settled after the electoral college votes then as I said above it is possible if Obama is found ineligible that Robert Barr could become the next President. If the cases are settled before the electoral college votes and if Obama was found ineligible then most likely John McCain would become the next President because half the states do not require the electors to vote for the winner of their popular votes and if Obama were removed they'd probably move to number 2 and vote for him which would be John McCain in almost all instances.
It would really be to Obama's advantage to have the State of Hawaii release his Birth Certificate to the media. It would help nullify any potential cases if it exist. Would further remove from the American people's mind any doubts about him. Which since it would be fully to his advantage, why hasn't he? Only he can really answer that.
It is also possible that like John Kerry that Barr and McCain would not file suits if Obama won. There is no doubt due to irregularities in 2004 in Ohio that Kerry would have been well within his rights to have contested Ohio, but he chose not to do so, only he knows why.May 31st, 2007: Petition Filed by my lawyer
July 2nd, 2007: 341 Meeting Held
September 4th, 2007: Discharged and Closed.Comment
-
Exactly. It goes way farther than just the tampered with birth certificate. There are two other discrepancy that just don't jive making it a valid case that will disqualify him as president.
In 1981 he had citizenship in another country (kenya & indonesia) as well & did not use a US passport. YOu are not allowed to have all these citizenships everywhere & be president too.
Of course the doubletalker will throw his own mother under the bus just like he did his pastor and anyone else standing in his way for power...always throwing someone under the bus should be the mans motto for his campaign.
mcCain is a no brainer in that he does not have all his faculties upstairs, so what is Zobamas excuse?Comment
-
That would be awesome to get Barr as president, rid of this two party ONLY nonsense system once & for allIf Obama wins, again either Barr or McCain could challenge his eligibility to be President. Barr would again probably challenge Texas. If Obama failed to prove that he was elegible to be President then it would again throw the election into the Congress. If the only choices the congress had was between Barr and McCain in such a case, I think Barr would become President as McCain is not well liked in the House.
& polls show Palin is making MrCain campaign worse by the minute.Comment
-
The good thing for Republicans (which I am not) is that when you have a party (Dems) controlling all three chambers (which I don't necessarily think is a good thing) the blame falls squarely on the Dem's shoulders. It makes for a relatively easy election in 2012. Provided Palin is not on the ticket.
Republicans truly never were happy with McCain because he has not clung closely to their platform over the years. Republicans will do much better to (no offense here please) quit whining and spreading stories and come back in 2012 with a real conservative and a true Ronald Regan leader. (I might even vote for that)
Just my $ .02Filed!!04/23/2008[X] 341 5/27/2008[X]
Converted to asset case 5/26/2008 [X]
DISCHARGE 08/12/2008[X]
Converted to NO Asset case 12/15/2008[X]
Closed 12/16/2008 [X]:yahoo::yahoo::yahoo:Comment
Comment