Banania Tumbles Downhill

WND's billboard campaign for birthers

Tue, 19 May 2009 08:27:59 -0400

Your chance to ask: Where’s the birth certificate?

Basically they’re gonna blow up the birth certificate bumper sticker into a billboard. (See mock-up by clicking here.)

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

sou cansei de ser sexy

Mon, 18 May 2009 08:21:48 -0400

And you should be, too.

http://www.imeem.com/“>http://www.imeem.com/embedsearch/E6E6E6/” border=”0” />

“>Move - CSS

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

Mother Lover

Sun, 10 May 2009 20:43:52 -0400

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

Handsome Asian American Guys - a blog for the rest of us!

Sun, 10 May 2009 16:06:45 -0400

http://handsomeasianamericanguys.blogspot.com/

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

日曜日の社会事業学校

Sun, 03 May 2009 17:06:23 -0400

今日は、初めて社会事業学校に日曜日シフト勤務で働いている。グリニッチヴィレッジ史跡保存社会の毎年恒例サイトツアーだ。僕は受付係だので、日曜日でも扉の開いている日此処に座らなくてなれませ〜ん！（僕は其処迄最高殊勲選手だろうか。）ツアーしている人皆はお金持ちの白人だし、ツアーの後でがっかりした顔がある。やっぱり雨が降る日曜日でNYUビルの早いツアーはがっかりされるイベントだと思わない？後で６０町で家庭教師セッションがある。行きたくねぇ〜よ！豚インフルはドコ？—症状のふりをしていいの？—罰が当たるかな？（気にする可きかな？）仕事が終わる時迄未だ一時半間だよ。助けてチョウダイ。

Posted via email from 社会事業の片想い | Comment »

So Deborah Padgett recommended to me some Hunter S Thompson re: the Derby

Sun, 03 May 2009 16:21:04 -0400

And it was a really fun read!

I’m sure many have read it, but if you haven’t, click here to read “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved” on WordPress.

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

How does one even reply to Pat Boone?

Sun, 03 May 2009 10:52:27 -0400

After reading Pat Boone’s commentary on WorldNetDaily today, Are We Blind, Nuts, or Just Stupid?, I don’t think there’s anything I can say, but to reprint the whole thing. Note that the following article is in no way owned by me - Pat Boone and WorldNetDaily hold all rights to it, but this is the Internet and fair use is nebulous. If, however, you are a concerned copyright holder, please email me and I’ll take down whatever percentage you want me to without contest.

There is an Orwellian aspect to the state of the American union today.

In George Orwell’s chilling, foreboding account of a future society, in which a Big Brother government controls literally everything, ordinary individuals and families live in a regimented, classless, colorless world, afraid or unable to question, much less dissent.

Currently, since the Obama administration took office, we’re living literally in future shock. Wild, huge decisions have been taken so swiftly. With no warning or permission from the people who elected him, the fledgling president has committed the American taxpayer to trillions of dollars of debt, in programs and investments, bailouts and takeovers, and left us stunned and strangely numb, as if we’ve been drugged.

The sheer enormity and scale of these moves has been so audacious as to seem nightmarish, fictional. A nation built on a solid foundation of fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, unlimited opportunity and representative government, in which the power flows to the head from the people, finds its situation suddenly switched – the power flowing only in reverse from the head to the dumbstruck, powerless people. And most seem unable to comprehend what’s happening to them.

It’s like what happens when a polished magician casts his spell over a throng. While he charms and distracts with entertaining patter, the audience fails to notice what his hands are doing. And while they look in one direction, he is producing a startling miracle in another, eliciting wonder and appreciation. But that’s “magic.” When it’s your life savings, your job, your hopes and freedoms disappearing, it’s neither fun nor entertaining.

Let’s make it simple. Let’s bring this unconstitutional nightmare down to a one family scenario, OK?

Tomorrow morning, while you’re pouring your Cheerios, a strange Hispanic man comes up through your basement door, with his wife and a couple kids, and he explains they broke the window into your basement – and have moved in. He asks, “What’s for breakfast?” And when you ask him angrily what gave him the idea he could do that, he tells you he just wants to share in the American Dream, like you do.

While you’re sputtering about that, realizing he’s an illegal alien, he tells you he wants your car to take his kids to enroll in the local grade school! And also to drive his wife to a local hospital, because she’s soon to give birth to a new citizen. He has no money, but he’s perfectly willing to do whatever job you create for him.

While your own family shrinks back in disbelief, you call the police. They tell you the new government has approved the resident status of millions of illegal “immigrants,” and that you’d best do what they ask.

Just at that juncture, a man calls from the bank to tell you your account is overdrawn by $30 million, due to huge notes signed for you by President Barack Obama, who claims you gave him power of attorney to do that. “Not to worry,” the banker assures you. “You can pay it down in annual increments over the next four years, and if you run short of actual cash, the U.S. Treasury is printing up lots of paper money, and they’ll send you piles of that. We’ll accept that here at the state-owned bank, along with the title to your house and any other assets you may have.”

You call a lawyer, but he’s just shut down his practice. He tells you the law he learned in school has been junked, along with the Constitution it was based on. The country is now governed – and soon totally owned – by officials who have merged the United States into a New World Order, aligned with the European Union and its ideas of morality, law and economy. It’s about to be announced that Mexico, the U.S. and Canada are now one happy entity called New America.

In short order, you find that your job is gone; the business is shut down. But you and your equally distraught, dazed neighbors are informed that you’ll be housed, fed, clothed and cared for by your benevolent government, which now runs everything. The all-powerful NEA has already indoctrinated your kids with the new “world think,” and they seem puzzled that you’re not happy with these great new developments.

“Dad,” they say, “it’s all good! There’s nothing to worry about now. All we really need is provided by President Obama, and all Americans have exactly the same things. The churches are all closed, and the preachers are going to jail for ‘hate speech,’ so we have our Sundays free to do what we want. The teachers give all us kids condoms, and if somebody still gets pregnant, we just get an abortion slip from the principal and go to the Obama Family Planning Center next to the school!

“The Muslim teachers tell us that we’ll all be living under what they call ‘Shariah something,’ some other rules, but as long as we do what we’re told, we’ll all get along fine. So, please, Dad, stop crying. … The president has thought of everything. It’s all good!”

In a few more days, sedated with National Health Care tranquilizers, you start riding your bicycle anywhere you still want to go. Though President Obama promised to develop new alternative energy, no transit known to man can run on wind or solar or industrial rubber bands, and, of course, the Pelosi/Reed Congress nixes nuclear. So the United States swaps with China, Americans riding bicycles while the Chinese drive hybrid automobiles, alternating gasoline (at $10 Worldollars a gallon) with advanced technology batteries.

The “news” media continually broadcasts the president’s reports on how well things are going. There is almost total peace worldwide, since all military has been brought under United Nations control, and resistance is a death sentence. There’s growing pressure to adopt Islam as the world religion, and our new president appears to think this would be a “unifying force.” How practical! A one-world government, religion, economy and military!

Do you get it now? This Orwellian scenario is where we’re headed – as that old Bible on your shelf has foretold for 2,000 years. Blow the dust off and read it.

We’re all in it. And the last chapters of the last book, Revelation, tell us how it all turns out.

Done? I’m sure you’re equally confused as I am (“What part of Revelation talks about Sharia, again?”). Wow.

You know, there’s a Simpons episode where Lisa talks about Ned Flanders’ house’s having a creepy, Pat-Boone-ish quality. I always wondered how she meant that from the Pat Boone from the video below.

Guess I get it now.

Ain’t that a shame?

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

関係というものはパーティーじゃないかも...

Sun, 03 May 2009 01:04:58 -0400

今夜はダービーパーティーに行った。皆はケンタッキー州の愛してる人なので、本当に楽しかった！それでも、その途中で、パーティーホストのテレビスクリーンでちょっと汚れたと、テレビが高いので、皆が滅茶苦茶で心配しちゃった。本当にバカな出来事だったよね！皆が五月蝿い時、彼氏の泰君（たいらぁ）の行いは本当に馬鹿になった。（いつもそうじゃない？）怒ったし、彼が殺しかったよ！（いつもそういう気持ちでありそうね？）今日、１１時半から６時半迄仕事があるので、寝たくなっているし、本当に良くない出来事であった。

このブログを書きながら、泰君が大切にごめんなさいと云っちゃった。彼氏はいつもそういうもんじゃない？一心で殺したくなる時大目で「ごめんネェ」と云い、何でも良くなる。人生は如し　（＞＿＜）

Posted via email from 社会事業の片想い | Comment »

I was published in WorldNetDaily!

Sat, 02 May 2009 13:01:59 -0400

DREAMS DO COME TRUE.

Click here.

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

David Limbaugh replied to my email!

Fri, 01 May 2009 09:40:29 -0400

David Limbaugh, or one of his staff, ladies and gentleman:

————— Forwarded message —————
From: david@davidlimbaugh.com <david@davidlimbaugh.com>
Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 at 09:35
Subject: Re: In re: Gay Tail Wagging Hetero Dog article
To: Phil Ingram <*******@gmail.com>

Dear Phil: I am actually shocked, and gratified to receive your note. Yours is the first indication of disapproval I’ve seen from the left. I thought my column merely noted that no leftists had objected to it, not that none disapprove, though I have to admit that’s a fair inference and probably one I generally make myself. So it’s good to know there are fair-minded guys out there like you and I will consider your constructive criticism. Even if you are correct that the Christian right has brought the marriage issue into the forefront, I would not apologize for that, but consider it a good thing — then again, I may be missing your meaning. Thanks for your note and your quite respectful tone, which also surprised me (a generalized feeling based on an abundance of experience, LOL). Best, David

On May 1, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Phil Ingram wrote:

Mr. Limbaugh,

It’s unfair for you to make straw men out of the entire secular left, as you did in your commentary today. After all, as a queer man, I was deeply offended by Perez Hilton’s actions. His question was patently unfair, and the way in which he handled the answer was hypocritical. He’s a shallow, bitter man, hurt by the fact that a woman prettier than he is holds a differing religious belief.

I’m deeply offended by his actions because I’m on the secular left. I believe that every person has an inviolable right to his or her religious beliefs and standards - no matter how I or anyone else feel about those beliefs. Miss California was completely within her rights to explain her religious beliefs about marriage (which, no matter what anyone says, is a religious institution). The secular leftists I know are actively working against the crusade-convert mentality that dominated Perez Hilton’s response to the answer given at the pageant.

So, kindly keep in mind that it’s not “no one” on the “secular left” who thinks that Perez Hilton was completely out-of-line: My most leftist friends and I all agree on this. However, I would like to point out, with all respect, that it’s the right’s cultural warriors who have made marriage such a critically important part of American public life (one only needs to look at the debate surrounding welfare “reform” in the 1990’s to see proof of this). Misguided gay people and their allies think marriage is a human right because the religious right has made marriage the only legitimate form of relationship. If we were all committed to expanding liberty (of all religions, and of all people), then petty yet deeply disturbing arguments such as the one between Ms Prejean and the self-appointed Queen of All Media, wouldn’t even be an issue.

I enjoy your commentary a lot - it’s definitely more motivating than coffee first thing in the morning! However, keep in mind that generalizations aren’t helpful to your and my common cause of wanting people to be able to exercise and profess their religious beliefs however they choose in line with the Constitution of the United States.

Yours,

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

In re: Gay Tail Wagging Hetero Dog article

Fri, 01 May 2009 08:49:28 -0400

Mr. Limbaugh,

It’s unfair for you to make straw men out of the entire secular left, as you did in your commentary today. After all, as a queer man, I was deeply offended by Perez Hilton’s actions. His question was patently unfair, and the way in which he handled the answer was hypocritical. He’s a shallow, bitter man, hurt by the fact that a woman prettier than he is holds a differing religious belief.

I’m deeply offended by his actions because I’m on the secular left. I believe that every person has an inviolable right to his or her religious beliefs and standards - no matter how I or anyone else feel about those beliefs. Miss California was completely within her rights to explain her religious beliefs about marriage (which, no matter what anyone says, is a religious institution). The secular leftists I know are actively working against the crusade-convert mentality that dominated Perez Hilton’s response to the answer given at the pageant.

So, kindly keep in mind that it’s not “no one” on the “secular left” who thinks that Perez Hilton was completely out-of-line: My most leftist friends and I all agree on this. However, I would like to point out, with all respect, that it’s the right’s cultural warriors who have made marriage such a critically important part of American public life (one only needs to look at the debate surrounding welfare “reform” in the 1990’s to see proof of this). Misguided gay people and their allies think marriage is a human right because the religious right has made marriage the only legitimate form of relationship. If we were all committed to expanding liberty (of all religions, and of all people), then petty yet deeply disturbing arguments such as the one between Ms Prejean and the self-appointed Queen of All Media, wouldn’t even be an issue.

I enjoy your commentary a lot - it’s definitely more motivating than coffee first thing in the morning! However, keep in mind that generalizations aren’t helpful to your and my common cause of wanting people to be able to exercise and profess their religious beliefs however they choose in line with the Constitution of the United States.

Yours,

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

この夏のプラン！

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:21:03 -0400

ジャクソンファスト君と僕はこの夏のためのプランが出来た。五月から八月迄、僕らはブログを書こう。練習したい外国語で毎日の出来事を説明しよう。僕フィルは日本語で書いて、ジャッ君（じゃっくん）はフランス語でブログを書こう。このブログを書くこと楽しみにしてる！お読みになってくれてありがとうございま〜す！m（＿　＿）ｍ

Posted via email from 社会事業の片想い | Comment »

Erik Rush uses the word "scrotolingus".

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:18:43 -0400

There are no words.

Click.

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

Now, Obama...really....

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:08:38 -0400

When WorldNetDaily is running commentaries asking you to prosecute torture and calling Iraq a “war crime”….

How do you continue not to do what’s right?

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

New BoA English Music Video

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:35:31 -0400

BoA - I Did It For Love

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

A musing on the "Founding Fathers"

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:59:34 -0400

Each day as I read WorldNetDaily or listen to whichever conservative
pundit is getting airtime disproportionate to his or her biomatter’s
worth, I always come across the same arguments being made about the
nature of the 1787 Constitution and the intentions of the “Founders”
who wrote it.

It makes me wonder - who are the Founders and what was their
intention, and why would these things make conservatives so angry?
Think about the Preamble to the 1787 Constitution - the specific list
of reasons for which We the People did ordain and establish this
Constitution:

- to form a more perfect union,
- establish justice,
- ensure domestic tranquility,
- provide for the common defense,
- promote the general welfare, and
- secure the blessings of liberty (for this generation and the ones
thereafter).

Some of these provide reasons that were historically very salient to
those who had sent delegates to amend the Articles of Confederation in
the first place.

A more perfect union: The several states had no reason to coordinate
with each other, and each state was so emboldened by its new found
sense of postcolonial sovereignty that coordination within the union
produced by the Congress of the Articles was impossible. This Congress
required unanimous votes to do literally anything. This was bad news
for all of the reasons that follow in the Preamble of 1787.

Provision for the common defense: The new countries’ league under the
Articles’ legal theory and implementation was very vulnerable. The
national army that had served all the colonies during the Revolution
was severely underfunded, and Congress was powerless to raise money to
support it. More importantly, each state in the Confederation had the
right to conclude treaties with other nations; so, the sovereignty of
individual states made it impossible to have a single foreign policy
for the whole of the Confederation. With the British still heavily
occupying forts they had agreed to relinquish, the French and Spanish
looking to continue their colonization of the Americas on the skeleton
of British North American colonies, and several persistent problems
holding lands from their native owners, this was a severe problem. In
fact, US military historians would find it hard to argue that forming
a better federal government with the ability to tax to support the
army wasn’t a (if not the) main reason for the Constitutional
Convention.

Of course the rest are, by measure, related to the goals and problems
mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs. However, it bares
mentioning that ensuring domestic tranquility, establishing justice,
promoting the general welfare, and securing liberty’s “blessings” are
given equal space to these other issues as reasons to establish the
new republic. So what does that mean?

Establishing justice: While the typical states’ rights arguer feels
that the 14th Amendment was abused by the legal doctrines that would
come out of its “equal protection” clause, this seems spurious at
best. It’s clear that under the states’-rights-first model of the
Articles, there wasn’t “justice” if a new document was needed to
establsih it. The varying legal systems, the unfair ability of small
states to derail national interests, the inability of Congress to make
uniform (therefore, fair) binding laws for all of We the People no
matter which state We were in - all of these come to mind. All of
these things were changed in law by 1787, but we’re still fighting
about the intentions of the Founders when it came to the rights of
states and whether or not “justice” can be unequally distributed or
differently defined within the laws of the US.

Ensuring domestic tranquility: How does this not suggest that perhaps
the Congress is meant to establish laws and the federal bureaucracy
enforce laws whose chief goal is citizen control and mediating
interstate conflicts?

Promote the general welfare: Though “welfare” didn’t have the same
connotation or policy meaning two centuries ago, it did mean pretty
specifically wellbeing. Note it’s “promote” the “general” welfare.
That means helping everyone to be, generally speaking, OK. There’s
really no reasonable small-government-to-hell-with-the-poor way to
read that clause.

Securing the blessings of liberty: One of Glenn Beck’s biggest rants
is that the government is supposed to preserve liberty by standing out
of people’s way - he hates the idea of equality of outcomes in
addition to the equality of opportunity. While it’s often impossible
to imagine what the hell Beck’s talking about, it should be noted that
the government isn’t charged with securing “liberty” as just some
abstract notion of 0 governmental tolerance, but in fact liberty’s
blessings. I.e., the good things about liberty and the good things
that it brings. One might consider the freedom of speech and assembly.
One might need to rethink considering income disparity, ruthless
commerce, uncontrollable/unpreventable gun violence, institutionalized
poverty, the expansion of executive powers, refusal to fund the
government as part of your patriotic duty to it….

The Preamble spells out what we’re supposed to be working toward at
the level of the federal government, and the Constitution enumerates
and secures all “Necessary and Proper” powers to the Congress to
achieve these ends. So what gives? Why aren’t we working toward most
of these ends without a huge conservative backlash?

Because the Constitution, to them, is a fixed, literal document that
says everything it needs to. Except where in sticky situations it
seems like their assumptions are wrong. Then we should turn away from
the perfect, never-changing Constitution to the writings of four or
five people who would make Ron Paul blush, the principal among them
being Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas
Paine. While these men’s soundbytes have made for great cinema and 8th
grade plays for history classes, it’d be interesting for me if we
could hear from other people. I just don’t believe that
strict-constructionist voices were the majority. Why?

Because George Washington authorized the creation of the Federal
Reserve’s grandfather. Because John Marshall made up sweeping new
judicial powers kinda sorta out of wholecloth. Because John Adams was
president numero 2. Because Jefferson bought Louisiana and fought the
Barbary pirates openly acknowledging that he could find no real
constitutional authorization for what he was doing other than the
national interest in his doing so. Because by 1857 Mormons were
forbidden by the federal government to exercise their religion the way
they saw fit. Because when tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion
happened, big dogs like George Washington put them on ice. How can you
look at that history and say our predecessors were no-tax-levying,
small-government, anti-financial-establishment,
pro-free-to-do-whatever-you-like-for-God types whose vision has been
squashed by a pervasive anti-liberty establishment headed up by evil
writers such as yours truly?

So to hell with the narrow (and in Jefferson’s case, hypocritical)
railings of the few conservative wretches Chuck Norris is always
clamoring for us to keep listening to. Those people were clearly on
the fringe of their own times; why should I accept their advice about
the world we live in now, wherein industrialization and other
developments have made the model they couldn’t even impose when it was
brand new completely impractical and demonstrably devastating?

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

Feeling low on xenophobic rants?

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:57:46 -0400

Then click here to read Vox Day’s latest: “America is not geography”.

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

Homeland Security warns of dangers from hate groups

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:07:13 -0400

————— Forwarded message —————
From: Southern Poverty Law Center
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:01:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Homeland Security warns of dangers from hate groups
To: pringram@gmail.com

Southern Poverty Law Center

Homeland Security warns of dangers from hate groups

April 16, 2009

Dear Friend,

As you may recall, we’ve recently documented 926 hate groups operating
in the U.S. These organizations are being fueled by immigration fears,
the faltering economy and the racist backlash to the election of
President Obama.

Now, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has just issued a new
alert warning of the dangers posed by these hate groups. It says that
“white supremacist lone wolves” and “small terrorist cells embracing
violent rightwing extremist ideology” are currently the most
significant domestic terrorism threat.

With your help, we’re fighting these groups every day by tracking and
exposing their activities. We’re also training law enforcement
officers and making sure they have the latest and best intelligence on
these dangerous extremists.

And we’ve warned the Pentagon about extremists who have infiltrated
the armed services. No one, of course, can forget the deadly toll of
the Oklahoma City bombing by Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh.

Please help us continue our critical work and counter this mounting
threat by sending a special gift today. We’ll keep you posted on
further developments. And remember to stand strong against hate
whenever and wherever you see it.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/mBQhA0RqkBu0FgJ0HGds0Fw

Sincerely,
Morris Dees
Founder

P.S. You can get more information - and see my appearance this week on
the CBS Early Show - here.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/mBQhA0RqkBu0FgJ0HGdt0Fx

You can donate to the Southern Poverty Law Center online.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/mBQhA0RqkBu0FgJ0HGds0Fw

We welcome your feedback.
Contact us online.
http://newsletter.splcenter.org/cgi-bin4/DM/y/mBQhA0RqkBu0FgJ0HGdu0Fy
Or by mail:
Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington Ave.
Montgomery, AL 36104
If you no longer wish to receive e-mails from us, please send an
e-mail to:unsub_center-ctg0aib6yaaegr6a3lrzfje6pkwxajiq@newsletter.splcenter.org

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

I agree, Texas.

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:58:00 -0400

Texas’ governor is looking to reassert his state’s sovereignty.

He wants to scrap unfunded mandates as part of this. One of the most pernicious and recent unfunded mandates? Texas’ former governor, President George W. Bush’s, No Child Left Behind. Eh?

Other unfunded mandates?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) (Democratic Congress, Republican president, no veto)
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act (1984) (Democrat Congress, Republican president, no veto)
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986) (Democrat Congress, Republican president, no veto)
The Clean Air Act (first in 1955, most recently in 2003) (Republican presidents, various Congresses)
The Clean Water Act (1972) (Democratic Congress overrode veto of Republican president, but later amendments signed into law by Reagan)

What is it with Republican presidents and unfunded mandates?! Why don’t they care about states’ rights???

Oh, right… Unfunded mandates keep the federal deficit down while address major, constituency-busting problems like education, equal access, road deaths, and the environment. So, while Democrats are likely to sign into law stimulus packages or programs that address problems and offer a way to pay for them, Republicans are more likely only to sign bills that address major, federal or hot-button problems by making them the problems of the several states.

So, please, Texas governor, let’s get rid of unfunded mandates and the people who shove them down your throats - Republican presidents.

Or you can just secede. Do we really want you guys anyway?

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »

Happy T-Day!

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:26:57 -0400

It’s tax day! You know what that means!

TEA PARTIES!

Hopefully lots of good news to come…

Posted via email from banania’s posterous | Comment »