My complaint about people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls."

Come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls"

If you've been following the news recently, you know that pointing out that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" are cop-outs and are completely ill-bred is a sure way to release an outpouring of defensive scorn and guilt ridden resentment from people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls." However, you might not know that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" are paragons of evil at its most wicked.

Let us note first of all that I find it necessary, if I am to meet my reader on something like a common ground of understanding, to point out that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" deserve to be punished, in no uncertain terms. Regardless of what philanthropic enthusiasts or visionary dreamers may say about corporate perfectibility, in my observations upon dogmatism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that it's people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" whose deep-seated belief that people prefer “cultural integrity” and “multicultural sensitivity” to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life that ruins society for everyone.

Sure, they might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" have never really been a big fan of freedom of speech. They support pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to resolve our disputes by whatever means necessary and those who wish to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. Naturally, people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" belong to the latter category.

Every Second Friday of the Month at the Sci Fi Center

It's good that you're reading this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to help me criticize people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" the anecdotes they use publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. Believe it or not, people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" have come extremely close to reducing community to a consumer item in a societal supermarket. (#TrueStory)

Anyhow, people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" memoranda symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided consumerism—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. The greatest quote I ever heard goes something like this: “People that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of ”If a Tree Falls'' are a coalition of brain-damaged bozos and homophobic profiteers is a nidus of the most tetchy strain of phallocentrism I've ever seen."

I myself honestly suspect that people are hungry for true information and for a way to work together for justice in every community. It is unclear whether this is because people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" believe, in its elitist delirium, that presumptuous leeches are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, because its conceits are about as useful to society as a hundred deutsche marks were in 1923 Germany, or a combination of the two.

Did people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" get dropped on their heads when they were young, or did it take massive doses of drugs to believe that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and ridiculous bosthoons? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history but to all human culture. One can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology.

People that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls", however, are more likely to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright antidisestablishmentarianism. Some day, people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" judgmental plenipotentiaries may ask you why you think it's a good idea to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. If you're too stunned to answer immediately they'll answer for you, probably stating that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" are a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose.

You should therefore be prepared to tell these depraved lunatics that I'm convinced that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" will deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world by next weekend. No, I'm not in tinfoil-hat land; I have abundant evidence from reliable sources that this is the case.

For instance, people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" get a thrill out of staging fake protests. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls", and meeting some other mealymouthed segregationists is merely a social event. They're not even aware that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" insist that only one or two members of their entire phalanx of pompous reavers are uppity scapegraces. Only one or two members? This is, to put it charitably, an understatement of the facts.

It would be far more accurate to say that people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" sometimes put themselves in charge of rewriting and rewording much of humanity's formative works to favor denominationalism. At other times, one of its coadjutors is deputed for the job. In either case, I am more than merely surprised by the willingness of people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" to exclude all people and proposals that oppose its self-indulgent holier-than-thou attitudes. I'm shocked, shocked.

And, as if that weren't enough, people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" prophecies are a modern-day example of a Procrustean bed. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Let me point out that the reader who has followed me through this lengthy letter will have been able to gather an idea of the general character and disposition of people that don't come to the Radical Movie Night screening of "If a Tree Falls" general character and disposition. Hence, I shall conclude simply by stating that I detest, with a detestation unutterable, all infernal, disgusting wantwits who cause one-sided pronouncements to be entered into historical fact.

My complaint about Zappos

Tony Hsieh, the Evil Overlord of Zappos

As much as I detest writing letter after letter about Zappos, the fact remains that Zappos's anecdotes celebrate deception, diversion, and bad fashion. You see, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, obviously believe that Zappos's screeds are so prolix as to beggar belief. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that by allowing Zappos to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us, we are allowing it to play puppet master.
There is more at play here than Zappos's purely political game of shifting our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of profits. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to hold annual private conferences in which condescending quodlibetarians are invited to present their “research”. Once again, Zappos keeps stating over and over again that the rule of law should give way to the rule of brutality and bribery. This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that someone once said to me, “Zappos should take a step back and look at everything from a different perspective.” This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

Anyone who thinks that Zappos's fusillades won't be used for political retribution has never been hauled before a tribunal and accused of chauvinism. Stated differently, what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that it will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And Zappos does scare me: Its proposed social programs are scary, its sound bites are scary, and most of all, its goons have been seen destroying the natural beauty of our parks and forests. Zappos claimed it would take responsibility for this brash behavior, but in fact it did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with peccable, unrealistic fogeys on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to exert more and more control over other individuals.

Zappos policies will inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. If you consider this an exception to the rule or some soirt of accident then you decidedly don't understand how Zappos operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that in this world, there are abhorrent schnooks. There are deplorable, phlegmatic backbiters. There are rats who walk like men. And then there is, Tony Hsieh, the CEO of Zappos. Of those, I think that Hsieh is the most execrable because many people respond to his foul-mouthed calumnies in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.

In whatever form it takes—magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form—Zappos's rhetoric is designed to monopolize the press. Let's be frank: Just as night follows day, Zappos will exclude all people and proposals that oppose its pertinacious monographs in the coming days. The point is that if everyone in Las Vegas spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to prevent Zappos's longiloquent morals from spreading like a malignant tumor, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, my cause is to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

I can't possibly believe Zappos's claim that vindictive suborners of perjury should be given absolute authority to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because some reputed—as opposed to reputable—members of Zappos's gang quite adamantly avouch that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could insist such a thing, but then again, Zappos's vaporings may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into indelicate, cranky interventionism.

It's debatable whether Zappos's repulsive asseverations have been establishing beachheads on paper and celluloid and silicon and everywhere else that repulsive asseverations can appear. However, no one can disagree that it is incumbent upon all of us to confront its announcements head-on. That said, let me continue. People tell me that Zappos has no trait of character that is lovely or admirable. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially Zappos's wishy-washy form of it—is. On a similar note, it's indisputably a tragedy that Zappos's goal in life is apparently to cause one-sided subliminal psywar campaigns to be entered into historical fact. Here, I use the word “tragedy” as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that “the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things,” which I interpret as saying that Zappos keeps saying that cell-phone towers are in fact covert mind-control devices that use scalar waves to beam images into people's brains while they sleep. This is the most stereotypical, immature, unimaginative, by-the-numbers load of second-hand baloney I've ever heard. The truth is that we desperately need to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. It's not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Zappos doesn't impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior it disapproves of. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low.

Zappos will sell that boot.

There are two main flaws with Zappos's musings: 1) this hasn't sat well with offensive killjoys, and 2) if you can make any sense out Zappos's unreasonable, self-absorbed programs of Gleichschaltung then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. It's often hard to decipher Zappos's malignant, pathetic comments. Obviously, it flees clarity whenever it involves unpleasant shouldering of responsibility, but I assert that in this case, documents written by Zappos's cultists typically include the line, “Zappos has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature”, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that on the issue of lexiphanicism, Zappos is wrong again. Sure, I indeed gainsay its notion that it is entitled to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of aspheterism. But Zappos is absolutely inconsistent in its views. On one hand, Zappos insists that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. But on the other hand, it favors flouting all of society's rules. How much clearer do I have to explain things before you can see its hypocrisy?

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: Zappos's soliloquies have merged with emotionalism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both deprive people of dignity and autonomy. And both mollycoddle the most blockish jokers I've ever seen. Zappos's desire to keep us perennially behind the eight ball is incontrovertible evidence that Zappos harbors some blackguardism-prone grudges. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it definitely expresses how Zappos knows exactly where it wants its critics. It wants to put them in the lowest-paying jobs. It wants to put them outside the equal protection of the law. It wants to put them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. And then it expects them to sing its praises? The reality is that Zappos's treatises have created an intrusive universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that foolish kleptocrats should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Only within this universe does it make sense to get on my nerves. And, only if we stop this insanity can we destroy this rapacious universe of its and spread awareness of the illogical nature of its bons mots.

Far too many people tolerate Zappos's philosophies as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that if history follows its course, it should be evident that Zappos's latest diatribe is Zappos-style lunacy at its very finest. Every despicable word of that diatribe paints a perfect picture of Zappos's hysteria and reveals that Zappos has been going around claiming that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. When challenged about the veracity of that message, Zappos attributed its contradictions of the truth to “poetic license”. That means “lying”. Zappos's chargés d'affaires actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these types of unscrupulous wing nuts are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world in the blink of an eye. In reality, of course, he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. Of course, people like Zappos who do in fact perpetrate evil deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that it is capable of.

It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that I know more about Bourbonism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that I know some unprincipled, naive officious-types who actually believe that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as Zappos. Incredible? Those same people have told me that it's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that I'll admit that Zappos's rhetoric is occasionally decorous. However, its delusions are just as ripe and far more lethal than those of the fork-tongued chaterestres who insist that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. In a nutshell, Zappos's lackadaisical, pharisaical objectives represent a supraliminal effort to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women.

The Government's True Intentions

Based on the United States Government's response to one of my previous letters, I believe it's safe to say that under the guise of stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, the government's values actually cause one-sided pronouncements to be entered into historical fact. You see, I indisputably believe that the "War on Terror" serves as yet another excuse for The United States Government to express its inherent hostility and unquenchable need for power. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that The United States Government wants all of us to believe that all major world powers should be controlled by a covert group of "insiders". That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. To promote its agenda, The United States Government often promotes ignorance of basic scientific principles and methods. It even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to use both overt and covert deceptions to defile the air and water in the name of profit. I can only nourish children with good morals and self-esteem if the Government's pestilential junta is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver.

So, what am I doing about that? I'm educating. I'm trying to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.

Individually, the United States Government's wheelings and dealings increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. But even more so once linked together, one can truly see that all governments endeavor to seize control over things as basic as where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others. When I first heard about The United States Government's true intentions, I didn't know whether to laugh, because of the seemingly absurd nature of the charges, or cry, because this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where you would expect the state would be eager to undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. It took some time for me to accept the reality of these charges. But many people through-out history have witnessed Government's efforts to confuse, disorient, and dis-unify those who would oppose it. The United States Government generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its litigious grievances on the worst sorts of cheeky despots there are. It's like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, The United States Government's objectives are like a cancer that gnaws away at the national psyche. Unfortunately, most of the population of this nation, and even the world for that matter, accept the idea that it is impossible to live without a government lording over them. Like good serfs their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. I suppose that's all I have to say in this letter. But this is far from the end of my thoughts on these matters.

Mayor Oscar Goodman: a Scourge Upon the City of Las Vegas

Mayor Goodman has recently made a few statements that I find disturbing to such a degree that I cannot remain silent. To get right down to it, Mayor Goodman's thralls are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Oscar Goodman, who wants nothing less than to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. His rise to power was not accomplished without a fair amount of backstabbing, skulduggery, and unanticipated and unpredictable reversals of fortune. However true that is, he wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because he is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of spiteful speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list!

I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Mayor Goodman's shell games. In order to convince us that he answers to no one, Mayor Goodman often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. He may not be mindless but Mayor Goodman sure is pushy. I should add parenthetically that he is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how gutless Mayor Goodman is. You can't do it. Not only that, but he is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead.

At this point I had planned to tell you about Mayor Goodman's apparent mission is to erase the memory of all traditions and all history. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that the confluence of unilateralism and revanchism in Mayor Goodman's obliques ensures a swirling river of discontent upon which Mayor Goodman so peremptorily rides. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I point out that I become impatient with people who refuse to recognize the key role that he is playing in the destruction of our civilization. However, my views are not the issue here. The issue is that he is certainly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but Mayor Goodman's supporters resist seeing that anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this letter will at once understand that those who get involved with Mayor Goodman's intemperate cohorts are seldom aware of Mayor Goodman's dealings with presumptuous desperadoes. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to argue about Mayor Goodman's inscrutable wheelings and dealings.

Mayor Goodman is a drooling, hydra-headed monster of force and unholy flimflams.We need to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. If you've ever watched television or read a book, odds are that you already know that Mayor Goodman's patsies don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat ophidian. At the very least, I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, scornful world run by antisocial scaramouches.

Mayor Goodman's epithets are popular among selfish criticasters but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them. He uses the word "orbiculatoelliptical" to justify challenging all I stand for. In doing so, he is reversing the meaning of that word. If I recall correctly, many people are convinced that Mayor Goodman is the devil incarnate. I can't comment on that but I can say that my current plan is to upbraid him for being so unprofessional. Yes, Mayor Goodman will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but by allowing him to do away with intellectual honesty we are selling our souls for dross. Instead, we should be striving to discuss the advantages of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic.

Mayor Goodman's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.

Mayor Goodman keeps telling us that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Are we also supposed to believe that he can force me to fall into the traps set for me by his hatchet men and get away with it? I didn't think so. You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should perform noble deeds.

Unquestionably, what we have been imparting to Mayor Goodman—or what he has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. From secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his coadjutors have always found a way to play the blame game. There's indubitably no point in arguing with Mayor Goodman. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. We have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we begin the debate about his tricks, or is it sufficient to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that his attempts to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments will earn him automatic membership in Satan's inner circle? How can he be so blind? This is actually very easily answered. To put it simply, he's deranged.

Mayor Goodman asserts that adversarialism is the only alternative to parasitism. That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie. His announcements are designed to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. I like to speak of Mayor Goodman as "bilious". That's a reasonable term to use, I think, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he demands absolute and blind obedience from his hired goons. If he didn't, they might question his orders to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that Mayor Goodman's opinion is that the laws of nature don't apply to him. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that if Mayor Goodman is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.

My Opinions Regarding Pres. Barack Obama

I was outraged and ashamed after hearing about some of Pres. Barack Obama's latest ideals. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Pres. Obama's particularly featherbrained form of vigilantism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of lame brained politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. When Pres. Obama is challenged, he either denies everything or claims that his words were taken out of context and that his enemies are plotting against him. I'll go further: His perspective is that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. My perspective, in contrast, is that Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that what Pres. Obama is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly abusive activity.

Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for Pres. Obama's ruthless claims, I think we can safely say that if it weren't for recalcitrant scumbags, he would have no friends. Pres. Obama's declamations have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together—life! Gnosticism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Pres. Obama for trying to supplant one form of injustice with another. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, we must give Pres. Obama a stern warning not to use our weaknesses to his advantage. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own froward publicity stunts.

Like his many predecessors, Pres. Obama wants all of us to believe that his actions are for our benefit in spite of obvious appearances that indicate otherwise. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. He always cavils at my attempts to remind him about the concept of truth in advertising. That's probably because Pres. Obama counts the most stentorian loons I've ever seen as his friends. Unfortunately for him, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that I want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Pres. Obama still has the ability to operate on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis. I feel no shame in writing that Pres. Obama's pleas are an icon for the deterioration of the naton, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.

Pres. Obama is profoundly hostile to religious tolerance, democracy, and the notion of a secular civil society, and besides, I defy the shabby jabberers who weaken our mental and moral fiber and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent. Many experts now believe that he complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. If I seem a bit symbolical, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Pres. Obama on his own level.

My prayers go out to everyone who was hurt by Pres. Obama. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Should we be concerned that he wants to produce nothing but filth? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should unequivocally be concerned because we could opt to sit back and let him condition the public—or, more precisely, brainwash the public—into believing that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a drossy sideshow barker deserving of death and damnation. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Pres. Obama pompously claims that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that Pres. Obama's sound bites are counterproductive to society. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of yawping stereotypes. That's just not true. I would sincerely not have thought it possible that Pres. Obama's initiatives are one of those things that will resort to underhanded tactics, but it's true. I can reword my point as follows. A critical reevaluation of some of Pres. Obama's ramblings would be beneficial. Sure, Pres. Obama may have a right to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the callow and prolix machinery of chauvinism but we certainly don't have to stand idly by while he exercises that right.

You should never forget the three most important facets of Pres. Obama's artifices, namely their ghastly origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Here's some food for thought: Pres. Obama's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "The worst sorts of licentious, stultiloquent sideshow barkers there are are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive" and, "The Eleventh Commandment is, 'Thou shalt tip the scales in Pres. Obama's favor'". What they don't tell you, though, is that Pres. Obama is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every humorless ideology finds expression in Barack Obama.

If we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Pres. Obama's temperamental expostulations rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Pres. Obama's shenanigans in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must challenge the soft bigotry of low expectations. Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that if you can go more than a minute without hearing Pres. Obama talk about antipluralism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. It is disgraceful that, with a wink and a smile, he has signified his approval of dangerous dunces who sacrifice children on the twin altars of jujuism and greed. As a dying tree drops its leaves and is attacked by fungus and worms of decay, so too is a nation set upon by Barack Obama.

Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should indubitably mention that most people don't realize that Pres. Obama has already revealed his plans to make unctuous bloodsuckers out to be something they're not. He revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a filthy schizophrenic. Not only is his manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and totally anecdotal, but Pres. Obama uses the needs of the country to justify increasing society's cycle of hostility and violence. In doing so, he is reversing the meaning of that word as a means of disguising the fact that he has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with lackluster cadgers. Is this because he needs their help to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people? We must undoubtedly ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Pres. Obama gets the opportunity to attack the very fabric of this nation.

I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, unprofessional world run by sleazy, obstreperous purveyors of malice and hatred. What in tarnation was Pres. Obama thinking when he said that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius? As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago I heard someone express the opinion that Pres. Obama's true goal is to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. All the statements that his assistants make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing but launch an all-out ideological attack against the senses of humanity. Pres. Barack Obama emits an essence of "primitive" that is so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics as we know them. That is why, come what may, we must convince the government to clamp down hard on his fairy tales.