Biology Students Inheret Atheism from the Father of Lies

•December 12, 2008 • Leave a Comment

In public schools across the country, biology classes are leading innocent students astray from the Word of the Lord. Absurd claims are made that confuse children about God’s Word, causing them to sin through atheism, drugs and fornication. It’s possible that the teachers aren’t to blame, having themselves been ensnared by a fiendish idea masquerading as science. We all know the name of the 19th century scientist behind all this: Gregor Mendel. His atheistic theory of Genetics is poisoning the youth of today against God’s Truth.

Mendelists claim that everyone’s “genetic traits” are “inherited” from their parents. Oh yeah? Then how do they explain that sometimes children have different eye color than their parents? They cannot. Only God can be the source of this. You see, the Geneticists try to teach this theory in science class, despite having no irrefutable evidence. You know what that sounds like? Religion! They want our children to join their atheist religion. But Geneticism is a false religion. And I have the proof:

You see, back in the Bible days, Abraham’s grandson Jacob was trying to cheat his father-in-law out of sheep since his father-in-law made him work for seven years in the field to marry his daughter Rachel, but on the wedding night his father-in-law sent in Rachel’s sister Leah, who was wearing a veil at the time, so Jacob actually got married to Leah and had to work in the field for seven more years to marry Rachel for real. Jacob made a deal with his father-in-law to work as his shepherd and, as payment, requested all the speckled sheep that were born. Since speckled sheep are rare, Jacob’s father-in-law agreed. So, whenever the sheep were mating, Jacob would put a speckled stick in front of the female sheep so the offspring would turn out speckled. In this manner, Jacob cheated his father-in-law out of sheep just as he cheated Jacob out of work by tricking him into actually marrying the sister of the girl he intended to marry.

As you can plainly see, this proves that what a female looks at during conception is what leads to physical traits in offspring. It has been empirically proven in the Bible. I urge any of you who are members of school boards to bring this issue forth. We must not lose our children to the evils of Mendelism.


Barack Obama Wants to Have Sex with Your Kindergartner: A Few Ideas for McCain Attack Ads

•September 15, 2008 • 4 Comments

John McCain is a maverick. How do I know this? I’ve heard it repeated in the news several times which makes it essentially true. In fact, he is so much of a maverick that he is willing to completely reject his former ideals of political integrity in the hope of winning the presidency, driving the straight talk express straight off the tracks and into an orphanage, killing several poor, sick children. This explains some of the recent false claims that McCain’s campaign has been making; it turns out that Barack Obama doesn’t want to teach kindergartners about sex, nor does his tax plan involve raising taxes on the middle class. While these claims are completely unfounded, they make for good commercials. I’d like, now, to submit to John McCain a few ideas for slightly untrue political ads:

  • Barack Obama sacrifices babies to the ancient near eastern god Ba’al.
  • Barack Obama is in favor of sex with kindergartners.
  • Barack Obama was one of the 9/11 hijackers.
  • Barack Obama will raise your taxes to infinity dollars a year.
  • Barack Obama called your mother a “pig in lipstick”.
  • Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein because of his admiration for Sadaam Hussein.
  • Barack Obama thinks the Beatles sucked.
  • Barack Obama advised Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor (last month).
  • Barack Obama is secretly Jewish and, by extention, killed Jesus.
  • Barack Obama is a bad tipper.
  • Barack Obama hates baseball and apple pie.
  • Barack Obama is actually a puppet created by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop and is voiced by Frank Oz.
  • Barack Obama lacks integrity.
  • Barack Obama supports teaching geocentrism in school.
  • Barack Obama may, if elected, devour your soul.
  • Barack Obama wants to make Esperanto the official language of the US.
  • Barack Obama screams like a girl whenever he sees a spider.
  • Barack Obama is an avid admirer of Adolf Hitler and owns the world’s largest collection of nazi parephrenalia.
  • Barack Obama plans on repealing the 13th amendment in order to bring back slavery.
  • Barack Obama wears frilly, pink underwear.
  • Barack Obama was predicted to be the antichrist in the Book of Revelation.
  • Barack Obama is actually two midgets in a suit and is thus ineligable for the presidency.
  • Barack Obama, in a scientific experiment crossing basic ethical boundaries, created an inhuman monster that is currently on the loose in Des Moines, Iowa.
  • Barack Obama once played hookey in the sixth grade.
  • Barack Obama dislikes kittens.
  • Barack Obama is a grand wizard in the KKK.
  • Barack Obama refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin because his favorite country is Bolivia.
  • Barack Obama is 3500 year old Egyptian mummy that was brought back to life by an ancient curse, meaning he is not a natural born citizen.
  • Barack Obama knocks over your trash cans at night.

Alright, McCain, the ball’s in your court.

What’s in a name? that which we call a presidential candidate…

•June 29, 2008 • 1 Comment

By now, many months into the presidential campaigns, we know the basic policies of the two major contenders fairly well. We have been shown policies, stances, voting records and even tax returns. Yet, there is something even more substantial that the public should be looking at than petty platforms; that is, names. More specifically, the name of one of the candidates which brings forth feelings of visceral hatred and disgust: McCain.

Yes, McCain. Just the name itself elicits thoughts of the hated Irish; thoughts of dirty, unwashed micks drunkenly stumbling though our streets while violently swinging their rosaries; thoughts of those useless immigrants crowding our cities, eating our food and getting into fights while shouting Papist nonsense about the Virgin Mary. Some may say that dwelling on the name McCain is not sound political argument, but instead of using logic think about this: John McCain may be a secret member of the Irish Republican Army who is attempting to get back at America for supporting Britain. Presidential candidate John McCain could be a dirty drunken Irish terrorist. Sound reasoning isn’t so important now that you’re gripped by illogical fear and distrust, is it? That is why, come November, you should not base your vote on the issues, but rather on irrational and animalistic aversion to the names the candidates were born with.

An Open Letter to the Baby Spiders Living in My Room

•June 27, 2008 • 2 Comments

Dear baby spiders,

It appears as though the several dozen of you have decided to take up residence within the confines of my room. Now, I understand, spiders, that you need a place to live. Very well, but be it known that I wish for you to vacate the premises effective immediately. You see, your very presence in my room, the chamber of my nightly repose, is disconcerting.

It’s not that I have anything against spiders. In fact, earlier today I chanced upon several spiders outdoors and their presence did not bother me in the least. The important difference is, dear spiders, that your kin dwell outside where they belong. In the same fashion, a squirrel running around in my backyard would be infinitely less troubling than one scurrying around on my bedsheets. But unlike squirrels, my dear infantile arachnids, you are nearly undetectable and are of a sizable number. I know you’re there, just not where and in what quantities. This leaves me feeling disquieted while I sit in my room. Are any of you in my bed? Will you crawl on me while I sleep? I can never be sure. As such, I am unsettled.

This is why I cannot have you making residence of my room. I know you don’t understand the concept of ownership. I know you don’t speak English. I imagine you do not have internet access or read my blog. Nevertheless, I am decreeing that you must vacate my room forthwith. My feelings of vague disquietude outweigh your needs; after all, I am bigger than you.

Now get the hell out of my room.

Thank you for your time

Avine Discrimination from on High

•June 25, 2008 • 1 Comment

It can be said that the raven is among my favorite birds. These large, crow-like fowls, in addition to looking good in black, are said to be quite intelligent. Nineteenth century American naturalist E. A. Poe has even commented on their limited command of the English language. They are an extraordinary species.

That is why when earlier today, while reading Leviticus, I was shocked to find this passage:

‘These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.’ [Leviticus 11:13-19 (New American Standard Bible)]

Now, I can understand owls being on this list. I don’t trust anything that can turn it’s head backwards. The girl in The Exorcist did that, proving that owls are demoniacally possessed. But calling ravens abhorrent?! I take issue with that, Jehovah. Is this because the raven that Noah sent from the ark never came back? Because if it is, that’s very immature of You. Be the bigger man, God, and remove ravens from Your list of abhorrent birds.

Also, don’t think I don’t see Your thinly veiled attack on the United States when You say that eagles are abhorrent, YHWH. How unpatriotic of You! You’d better clean up your act, Mister, unless You want to see us printing “In Brahma We Trust” on our money.

Obama on the Bible: “I hate it” (paraphrased)

•June 24, 2008 • 9 Comments

Evangelical leader James Dobson slammed Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on some of his recent words on the interpretation of the Bible. Obama asked:

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?

Dobson fired back against such radical rhetoric, noting:

I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology.

That’s right, James Dobson. The Bible teaches that we must not cook a calf in it’s mother’s milk and that we need to stone homosexuals to death. What kind of sick perversion is Obama trying to get away with by saying that these ancient precepts are less important than the words of Jesus? I mean, Christ’s words are pretty important in Christianity, but the whole “let he who is without sin…” thing doesn’t really fit with the laws of the Pentateuch. Because of this, it’s best to just stick to the traditional understanding of the Bible, as Dobson urges.

Just look at homosexuality. The condemnation of homosexuality as an abomination is part of the traditional understanding of the Bible. Are we just going to throw that out the window and let the gays marry? That would completely destroy the institution of marriage. If the government recognizes marriages between couples of the same gender, how will Christian couples be able to stay together? They won’t. Obama knows this and he is trying to exploit the weakness. After all, he wants to destroy our country. Why else would he not wear a flag pin? He realizes that if we allow homosexuals to marry, God will be angry and send more hurricanes and terrorists. Perhaps he is even the Antichrist [although I cannot verify this, an email I received did insinuate it]. We cannot let Obama destroy America with his interpretation of the Bible that James Dobson sees as non-traditional. We need to stick to the traditional understanding. After all, the fact that it’s traditional proves that it’s true.

So, How About That Latest Supreme Court Decision?

•June 13, 2008 • 1 Comment

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution applies to prisoners being held without charge at Guantanamo Bay. Here is what dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia had to say:

The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the commander in chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. […] The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.

Prediction: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will become a fanatical anti-government terrorist with goal of making the nation regret the court majority’s decision in this case.