Trouble

The Weekly Standard is at it again. It seems as if this bastion of American conservatism also happens to publish a plethora of writers with an innate ability to blow things ridiculously out of proportion, especially when it comes to the left. For a clear example, let's take a look at Fred Barnes' article, due to hit newsstands on the 29th, examining the troubles that lie ahead for President-elect Obama in the coming months.

The Little President That Couldn't?

In the article, Mr. Barnes outlines five obstacles to a smooth and successful early Obama presidency (I give him the benefit of the doubt here; in all honesty, it feels like Barnes is stretching for the last two points). To summarize: Obama promised transparency that he can't give; Obama's white house "czars" and his cabinet secretaries will inevitably clash; Congressional Democrats are not Obama's lapdogs; Congressional Democrats are much more eager to pursue the supposedly monolithic "liberal agenda" than Obama; and Obama's links to Illinois politics may damage him.

I mean no offense to Mr. Barnes or the Weekly Standard when I say that the last point is not even worth discussing. If certain elements within our free press will attack or question Mr. Obama's integrity, there is no way that I, a mere blogger, can dissuade them. However, I think that most of us can agree that the likelihood of a real and substantive link between Obama and the corruption of Governor Blagojevich is very unlikely and does not merit my time at this juncture.

Mr. Barnes does bring up a couple of worthwhile issues. With regards to the promise of transparency that Obama made prior to his election, it is certainly true that he won't be able to live up to it entirely. But there is absolutely no reason why, in this time of technological fluidity and expanding connection, the President of the United States couldn't devise and/or wield a system to make his less critical, less security-related decisions public and transparent. It is true that the story-hungry media will hound him regardless of his efforts but Mr. Barnes should acknowledge that this is the media's problem, and not necessarily Mr. Obama's.

In reference to the issue of conflict within the administration, it is my belief that Obama will be an intelligent and effective mediator, using his "czars" as Washington point men and assigning actual administrative, policy, and departmental management to the Cabinet secretaries. To say that there will be conflict between the two camps is to say that politics is a competitive process. Sure, alright, but this is nothing new. No go, Mr. Barnes; the system, especially under Obama's collegial style, should work out just fine.

Finally, with his wishful prediction that the Democratic Party will tear itself apart (again), Mr. Barnes reveals himself, at least in this case, as a partisan agent, rather than an objective journalist. Who is Mr. Barnes to say what the American people did and did not vote for? If they elected majorities in both Congressional chambers and sent a fairly liberal Democratic Senator to the White House, who is to say that a round of liberal initiatives aren't in order? Regardless, an independent legislature is a sign of a healthy democracy. You didn't see much dissension from the Republican Congress during the Bush years and we can all see where that got us. A moderate, intellectual pragmatist in the White House and a progressive Congress is a far cry from the failure that was a staunchly anti-intellectual Bush administration coupled with a reactionary and subservient Congress (read: 2001-2006 or disaster after disaster).

Even if all goes according to plan, the next eight years will be difficult; they will be straining to our social fabric and painful to our pockets. But face it, Mr. Barnes: you want to prove what cannot be proven, that Obama will do either harm or do nothing. Have faith, sir, that the American people who you, along with your fellow conservative "journalists", so vocally apotheosized in the hope of garnering votes for McCain, made the right decision for the next four years. With all due respect, who's the elitist now?

---

I'm not sure how likely it is that something truly post-worthy will catch our attention before Christmas so, in case you don't hear from us, poLOLitics would like to wish all of our readers the best in this holiday season. May your children prosper, your fruit ripen, your pockets bulge...and all that jazz. Happy holidays!

Kevin A. Guerrero
Rod Blagojevich has the day off.

Lol....just...Lol

Hey gang, apologies for not posting much lately. Kevin and I have just returned to the States and haven't had much of a chance to come up with lol-worthy stuff. However, I have been reading the news lately and came across two great videos of people getting absolutely owned on T.V. The first is of course Bill O'Rofl debating the law with a lawyer. (You guessed it...he's not a lawyer.) 

The second video is former Assistant Secretary of DefenseFrank Gaffney, who is a really kewl dewd, getting owned by none other than Chris Matthews. I don't feel like sharing my opinion or breaking down the rest of the video, as it just gets me far too depressed. Enjoy.

Lots more poLOLitics to come in the near future!

Prop 8 aka Prop Hate, lolz

Marc Shaiman, the composer of "Hairspray," has recently made a very popular mini-musical about the controversial gay-marriage ban that was passed in the state of California. It was titled Proposition Eight, and has been oh-so-cleverly renamed "Proposition Hate" by the left. The relatively short 3 and 1/2 minute video is not only hilarious but also a surprisingly accurate depiction of the debate that is going on in the U.S right now, as to whether or not the State should honor gay marriage. While getting my daily dose of conservative news, I came across this article by conservative journalist, Dennis Prager:

A Response to Marc Shaiman's Musical Against Prop 8

Mr. Prager's article is well...stupid. For such a well educated guy (apparently he's a professor at the American Jewish University) he has a really crummy argument.

Shaiman puts hateful words in the mouths of the religious proponents of the man-woman definition of marriage: “It’s time to spread some hate and put it in the constitution.” But no one put hate in the constitution. The only words Proposition 8 added to the California Constitution were: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” What is hateful about that?

Well, to answer your question Dennis: first of all, the state is defining the parameters of a union between two people by Biblical standards. Right off the bat, that is wrong and oppressive. Secondly, the law is repealing the right of gay people to get married in the state of California. This not only more rigidly defines marriage unnecessarily, but it also outlaws gay marriage. Mr. Prager attempts to make the half-baked argument that the state of California is not oppressing anyone, they're simply restructuring the definition of marriage to suit the opinion of their constituents. Unfortunately, this opinion actively oppresses a certain part of the community. Essentially, when it comes down to it, he's essentially splitting hairs. 'We don't hate gays, we just don't like the act of homosexuality.' 'We're not uncomfortable with the idea of gays, but we are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality being introduced as acceptable in the classroom.' Grow up Mr. Prager. You're an adult and a pretty well-educated one, at that. Don't you see what you're doing? The distinctions you draw are negligible and fail to see the core of the issue. Defining marriage as 'only between one man and one woman' IS the same as passing a 'gays are not allowed to get married' law. Claiming that there is a fundamental difference between the two is the same as viewing a "Whites only water fountain" and a "No blacks allowed water fountain" as two completely different entities. Get a grip man.

The only good news to come out of this article is that Mr. Prager is the first time winner of the much coveted lol-scale rating of:

Rush LMAOgh

One of the most disgusting human beings in the media and political punditry business today, Rush LMAOgh is most famous for his radio talkshow, The Rush LMAOgh Show, where he regularly offends racial minorities, women and gay people. He is famous for coining intelligent phrases on his show, including "Femi-Nazis" and "ChopaDicKoffoMe." (Referring to transgender people.) This award is specially reserved for people who are close-minded, prone to bigotry and just generally assholes.

Congratulations to Dennis Prager! Kevin and I invite you to comment on our thoughts, and tell us where we're wrong (or right!)

Moderation

In the recent turbulent history of the GOP, there have emerged several competing threads. One of these was advocated a few weeks ago when an anonymous senator told the Politico, "I don’t think we [the GOP] have learned much from the election in terms of what people want to see.” The anonymous senator further said that the Republicans needed someone who could “speak from the center” and wanted it known that “Sarah Palin is not the voice of [the Republican] party.”

From the objective point of view of someone observing the events, this analysis seems quite accurate. And as a Florida-bred boy, I was very surprised to learn that these anonymous words came out of Senator Mel Martinez's mouth. Of course, Martinez, known from Pensacola to Key West as a staunch Bush footsoldier and a very right-leaning conservative, only expressed this yearning for moderation and *gasp* rationality after he'd announced he will not seek reelection in 2010. So the sane wing of the GOP has gained one convert, if a bit late. Luckily, Erick Erickson, managing editor at RedState, a far-right blog, provides us with the opposite perspective:

A Different Bush

The funniest thing about wise Mr. Erickson's perspective is that it holds to the conventional wisdom of the Bush years without acknowledging any flaws with itself. Well, maybe this, in and of itself, is not quite so amusing. Seemingly, this view holds Iraq as a success, Katrina as an innocent stumble, and our tattered global image, merely a byproduct of the liberal international media. This is not only a dangerous or ignorant view. It is a sinister one. Because for people with any rationality, any decency, it is impossible, deplorable to overlook what has happened in this country over the past eight years.

But, despite the sobering influence that writers like Erickson have had in the past, and by mere virtue of this article's laughable intent, I award Erick Erickson, managing editor at RedState, the:

Sean Hilarity

Sean Hilarity has been blessing the airwaves of American punditry since 1989, where he had his first radio talk show at UC Santa Barbara. He co-hosts a show on (of all places) FoxXx N3wz called Hilarity and Colmes which regularly features Sean spewing misleading rhetoric, patriotic overkill, and irrationality which Alan Colmes counters by consistently being Sean Hilarity's bitch. (Edit: We posit that, while Alan Colmes left the show recently, he remains Sean Hilarity's bitch in private life.)

For thinking for a second that the dangerous path we've been going down is the right one, for claiming that this is not the time for moderation and reconciliation (not to mention, solidarity in the face of economic hardships), and, perhaps worst of all, for not accepting that Sarah Palin, for the love of God, will not be the figurehead for a new, reinvigorated Republican party, but merely the embattled leader of an embattled opposition, mired by their prejudices and divisions; for all these reasons, Erick Erickson embodies so much of what Sean Hilarity's all about. And furthermore...wait, who won in November? Barack Obama. So hopefully, for the time being, people like Erick Erickson won't matter much at all.

Olmert Speaks

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in response to the violence perpetrated against Palestinians by Israeli settlers in Hebron last week, claimed that the actions of the rioting settlers constituted a "pogrom", a Yiddish term for an organized massacre that has historically referred to such actions against Jewry. The riots in Hebron, which surprisingly left no fatalities and only three seriously wounded, were provoked by some Israeli settlers who refused to leave a house they had been occupying for months before given a court order to vacate; a Palestinian man brought the case before the authorities, proving that the property was his. The attacks, by settlers, on innocent and wholly uninvolved Palestinian civilians followed, causing widespread outrage in the Muslim world, as well as firm disapproval from the usually pro-Israeli West. The statement is a positive step forward, bringing some objective and rational positions to the front on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Ehud Olmert (and, perhaps more importantly, whoever eventually takes his place) need to take more of these pragmatic steps in the future; the Israeli leadership, for the sake of survival and stability, must seek ways to incorporate a comprehensive, humane, and just solution to the Palestinian question. And this is definitely a positive step, in that the Israeli state isn't apologizing or legitimizing their citizens' outrageously illegal actions outside of the internationally accepted parameters for their state. Yet, we must be wary of allowing a reactionary or extremist attitude to yet again invade the rhetoric and action of the Israeli government in response to future offensives. These, which are almost certainly going to happen, must underscore the importance of ending the situation peacefully and pervasively, not trigger a reaction that is, at best, ineffective, and at worst, extremely counterproductive and increasingly dangerous.

But I digress. Coming soon will be a much more lol-worthy post. Feed on this for a while.

Planned Parenthood's "Gift of Death"

According to a recent Washington Time's editorial piece, this year for the holiday season Planned Parenthood will be giving away the 'gift of death.' The gruesome gift comes in the form of a sinister $25 voucher that can be applied to medical examinations, insurance copays and medication. According to the Washington Times, these vouchers are nothing more than a nefarious plot on the part of the evil Planned Parenthood to provide "economic incentive to choose death rather than to choose life."

The piece goes on to provide insightful and eye-opening information on the issue of women's health:

Women do not need Planned Parenthood for their basic health care. And the vouchers are not lifesaving, they are political instruments of the pro-choice movement. More importantly, contraception and abortion are not forms of "health care": They are lifestyle choices with life-altering consequences.

Apparently contraception (E.g - A condom) that may prevent sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies is not a form of health care. Neither is an abortion in the case of an unwanted or accidental pregnancy. Thanks for clearing that one up Washington Times.

The article ends with this condemnation:

Shame on Planned Parenthood for granting death certificates. The organization fails to grasp the meaning of life, let alone the spirit of the holiday season.

It is with great disgust and with a little bit of sad amusement that I announce the first ever winner of poLOLitics' highest ranking award, the:

Ann LOLter

Arguably one of the most disgusting and bigoted people in the mainstream media today, Ann LOLter has the distinguished honor of holding poLOLitics' highest lol-scale rating. The Ann LOLter is reserved for those very special instances where someone displays a complete lack of understanding of reality and is in fact just downright appalling. Some of Ann LOLter's greatest hits include: "I think our motto should be, post-9-11: raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences." And who could forget: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

Congratulations to the Washington Times for progressing sexist and anti-civil rights doctrines! May they continue to so bravely protect the holiday spirit!

Pregame

Just a very interesting article I stumbled upon...an interesting view on where the left is, where it seems to be headed, and whether the trend is constructive or damaging.

The New New Left?

We're working on a couple things that will be actual, substantial and - gasp - possibly LOLworthy; we'll probably be posting these sometime tonight. If you happen to wander by and are intrigued by what you read, spread it to your friends; talk about it and leave some raucous comments. It'll be fun, I promise.



Black Hole Caww has the day off.

Bill KristLOL Is At It Again!!

Conservative pundit and editor of The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol, has recently published an article that is well...hilarious. He portends that not only has the Bush administration made the world a much safer place and that the 'war on terror' has been handled well, but anyone who has any hand in doing so should be given the Medal of Freedom. (More on the Bush Administration's failed policy in Kevin's latest post before this one.)

Bill Kristol: "Before He Goes"

A few key excerpts:

"Bush should consider pardoning--and should at least be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points."

"The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it."

For his intelligence and amazing patriotism, Bill Kristol receives his own personal rank on the poLOLitics LOLscale:

Bill KristLOL

Known for his douchebaggery and inane commentary on FoXx N3wz, The Weekly Standard, and the New York Times, Bill KristLOL has been making bold and idiotic statements since he entered this life, 55 long years ago. Most famously, Bill KristLOL, an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq, predicted in 2003 that the Iraq war would cost 'no more than $200 billion' (It costs nearly $1 trillion so far.) And in March 2005, two years after the U.S began the Iraq war: 'We'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction.' John Stewart of the Daily Show, hit the nail on the head when, in January 2008, he asked: "Oh Bill Kristol, are you ever right?" So far, not once.

Congratulations to Bill KristLOL on earning his first poLOLitics award! You'll notice that I haven't really provided any detailed commentary on the article. There is a reason for that. I'd like to write less initially, and see what you guys think. That way we can foster more of a friendly back and forth. Think that Billy didn't deserve the award? Am I being unfair? Share your thoughts in a comment below!

Post-Bush...or Not?

Going in to this long awaited post-Bush era, I, like many others, were most of all relieved to realize that, beginning January 2009, America would have an intelligent, competent, and invigorating figure in the White House and NOT George W. Bush (or one of his acolytes). Imagine how surprised I was to learn from Jules Crittenden of the Weekly Standard that Obama, in fact, would be much obliged to continue Bush's policies with regards to - of all policy areas - the Middle East. According to Jules, Obama should not only count the fruits of Bush's labours among his blessings, he should adopt many of what Crittenden considers to be his best works: among these are the cheerful affair in Iraq, the deplorable tolerance of torture, the blind trust of Gen. Petraeus, etc, ad nauseum.

As the transition progresses and Barack Obama's inauguration draws closer, it's a good moment to mull the gifts George W. Bush has left for the incoming president. Bush has made the world a better place, and if Obama wants to do the same, he will take the good things Bush has done and move forward with them.
-Jules Crittenden, Weekly Standard

A Time for Thanksgiving In my humble opinion, this is an act of self-conscious desperation on the part of a dispirited neoconservative. The optimism and clarity that laces the article's tone is rendered meaningless by the mere degree of impossibility. Sure, Obama is going to have to toe a more moderate road than he, perhaps, would like. But his administration will enter with an (almost) overwhelming majority in the Congress and a public that is willing to accept less than 100% success, as long as there is perceived progress and improvement from Bush's golden years. Clearly, the last thing the President-elect will want to do, from a political standpoint, is emulate the most consistently unpopular president, whether domestically or internationally, in the history of the States. And, from a pragmatic point of view, it's a good thing because, quite frankly, it would be a horrible path for this country's leadership to follow. Not only have the Bush policies directly aided and abetted the current market crisis, they have destabilized the Middle East and played a part in legitimizing the allure of fundamentalism (from a cultural standpoint) to the hearts in minds of countless Muslims (from a psychological standpoint)in a vital strategic pressure point (from a geopolitical standpoint). A short tally will conclude that economically, culturally, psychologically, and geopolitically, George W. Bush has diminished the American state in hard power, soft economic clout, diplomatic influence, not to mention basic respect. Would anyone like to claim that the world, or any part of it, views as a more positive influence than we were eight years ago (besides the terrorist organizations that have made it clear that Bush-style policies benefit them driectly)? And further, would anyone like to stand up, in front of these facts, these proven and accepted observations, and boldly claim that no, clearly not: Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and co. have left Obama with a good hand, "the world a better place"? Whosoever would take that challenge on is either a master of manipulation or dangerously ill-informed, in my humble opinion, if not both.

*Note: I do apologise for the lack of "LOL" in recent posts, but there have been so many important opinions we've needed to comment on that time for "LMAO" has been tight. I assure you, either Louis or I will address this dreadful drought of "ROFL" in the coming days. Thanks for reading!

If You're Reading This...You're Awesome!!!

If you're reading this.... you're awesome! And every single person you know could be awesome too! If you've visited here and you've enjoyed what you've read, tell your friends! Tell your parents! Call your cousins! Write a letter to your ex and tell them about how cool poLOLitics is. Put it in your facebook status, write letters to your local government official letting them know how cool this site is. The possibilities are endless. The only thing cooler than letting other people know about poLOLitics, is reading poLOLitics yourself and sharing your thoughts with us. Got something to say? Post it in a comment. Or email me. Or write a sort of passive aggressive facebook note about it, that is clearly referencing me, but don't tag me in it. Any of these options work. poLOLitics is looking to grow, and we can only grow by building a discourse with each other and sharing ideas.

If you have any suggestions, comments, critiques, hilarious stories about the time you went out and got drunk with an elected official, or questions, feel free to comment here or write me an email at lmelendez89@gmail.com

More Than Change

More than change, more than new blood in Washington, what this country needs is a realignment. A political paradigm shift has been impending for decades; presently, a debate is brewing over whether Barack Obama's electoral victory constitutes its timely arrival. Here's an insightful view on the situation:

The Realignment Opportunity

As renowned liberal political scholar Paul Starr argues in this article, I think that Obama and the congressional Democrats that will surely march to his drum come the new session must (I emphasize, not should, but must) aggressively pursue their reform programs. Needless to say, not all of you are as happy about this conclusion as I; the Obamacrats in power and we, the American people, will hear a lot of cynical criticism and panicked outrage from the conservative pockets in the media. We will have to face the spectre of a temporarily reinvigorated Republican contingent; they will seize the opportunity of "vast", "big government", and "redistributionist" policy programmes in a bid for viability merely months after the American people stripped them of any they had left. Still, the American people must be vigilant. While the Republican arguments are scripted, political ploys of any opposition, we must take the new Democratic policies for what they are and, just as we must insist on accountable improvement, we have the responsibility to give credit where credit is due. I ask all of my more conservative friends and fellow Americans: even if you don't agree with some of the fundamentals that govern this new liberalism, observe and think about the effects it will have/is having on our economy, on our infrastructure, on our society. Allow the programmes to achieve some change before trashing them as bureaucratic failures. Let's be open-minded with the next four years, at least. Let's see if the Obamacrats and, more so, we as a nation, can't come out this sluggish post-Bush morass better than we went into it. We owe ourselves that much, this American thinks.

In The Spirit of Thanksgiving...

Its that time of year again. Everyone grab your carving knives, turkey basters and warm up the apple pie - its Thanksgiving! (Well, not for Kevin and me; we're in England, where apparently they don't care about pilgrims or Native Americans.) And what better time to criticize liberals, global warming, environmentalists, animal rights activists and the 'Anti-Thanksgiving' among us? (Yes, there are apparently, according to Mr. Robbins, people out there who are ardently against Thanksgiving.) Mr. James S. Robbins, a contributing editor to the lovely National Review, believes that Thanksgiving "is to do that which is unsustainable."

Here's the full article. Its absolutely stuffed with idiocy! (Oh, I crack myself up.)

Mr. Robbins goes on to say:

"The hard-core anti-Thanksgiving movement has traditionally been centered around the Native American cause, whence came the term “Thanks-taking.” Animal-rights and vegan groups have traditionally criticized the annual “Turkey genocide.” Now the themes of the ecology movement is creeping into the festivities. They don’t want to see the holiday abolished, just layered with new meaning. Thanksgiving, they assert, is a time for both gratitude and responsibility. “The more you eat,” the Post cautions, “the larger your carbon footprint.” And the larger your waistline, but that cogent argument hasn't proved a deterrent either."

A few important questions:

1) There's a hard-core anti-thanksgiving movement?

2) Since when is considering Thanksgiving a time for 'both gratitude and responsibility' a bad thing? Is Thanksgiving not THE time of the year to realize and give thanks for our privilege? I cannot think of a better time of year for gratitude or responsibility. According to Mr. Robbins though, "Thanksgiving is not about reducing your carbon footprint, it’s about making your real footprint deeper." I mean...really? I understand that an important element to Thanksgiving is the large feast that ensues, but isn't the entire holiday supposed to be in the idea that we realize that many people aren't as well off? Its not about making your carbon footprint deeper, its about recognizing the fact that you even have a carbon footprint to begin with, and the privilege that comes with it. I would love to give this guy one of our lol-scale awards, but I think he's too much of an idiot even for that. Please feel free to share your thoughts and tell me if I've gotten this all wrong. Anyway, happy thanksgiving!!! I think Kevin and I will order some take out.

Turkey-Killers for Palin '12?

There aren't many things that could make Sarah Palin look worse. After the Katie Couric trainwreck, the Africa-is-a-country incident, and the overwhelmingly negative opinions of her espoused by most of the mainstream media, Sarah Palin should be dead in the water. Yet, two weeks after the election, she remains at the heart of one of the most surreal and, frankly, frightening factions within the ailing Republican party. Here she is in her home state of Alaska conducting one of the most...interesting...interviews I've ever seen:

Happy Thanksgiving!

On a different note, I can't help but notice that more and more people are starting to visit our lovely corner of the internets...at least "more" when compared to "none". If you're here and you have anything to say, don't hesitate to leave a comment; if you have no feelings whatsoever, you are, in fact, a robot. (Don't be afraid to post the occasional penis joke...but seriously...)

Oh..Hi...George

While traveling through the tubes of the internet I stumbled across this video and decided it was worth sharing. Its actually pretty unbelievable. I watched it twice, just to make sure it was real, and sadly, it is. Its only a minute long, so I wont bother wasting any more time with a description.

The first winner of the entry-level poLOLitics lol-rating, president George W. Bush:

Oh...Hi...George

This video is awarded a:

Bill O'Rofl

A self described 'political traditionalist,' Bill O'Rofl was born in 1949, hosting one of his first shows on WNEP-TV in Scranton, Pennsylvania. He has been an asshole ever since. Bill O'Rofl's popular cable news show, the O'Reilly Factor, airs daily on FoXx N3wz and is full of the usual xenophobia, overt racism and sexism that is expected of any 'traditionalist' pundit. He is however, considered our lowest rating on the lol-scale because lets face it...the guy is a joke.


After watching this video, I wasn't sure at first if I should laugh or cry. But after some serious thought, I decided it was time to laugh. He really does look like 'the most unpopular kid in highschool.' All he needed was a piece of toilet paper stuck to his shoe and it would've been perfect. Also, notice how he has perfected the stare-down-at-my-shoes awkward conversation tactic.

P.S - Wtf Rick Sanchez two days in a row. Seriously, a complete coincidence.

This Just In: America Has a Muslim President (And that's a sin against the lord!)

Pastor Mark Hollick, of Spirit One Christian Center in Wichita, Kansas, believes that Americans need to wake up and realize that we have a Muslim president! And that's...forbidden by god!!!! He defends his claim in the link provided below, getting owned by, of all people, Rick Sanchez.

Mark Hollick and The "One Way Wall"


This post is also the first of a very important series brought to you by poLOLitics! We will be starting our very own poLoLitics rating scale, to help you understand whether or not you should be laughing at certain things in the media. Today's video has earned the modest rating of:

Sean Hilarity

Sean Hilarity has been blessing the airwaves of American punditry since 1989, where he had his first radio talk show at UC Santa Barbara. He co-hosts a show on (of all places) FoxXx N3wz called Hilarity and Colmes which regularly features Sean spewing misleading rhetoric, patriotic overkill, and irrationality which Alan Colmes counters by consistently being Sean Hilarity's bitch.

With his steadfast commitment to irrationality and his audacious just-below-the-surface racism, the Pastor brings to mind the almost awesome commitment that Sean Hilarity has to being a giant douche. Congratz Pastor Hollick, you're our first winner!!

Wake-Up Call

A few particularly interesting articles on the Al Franken's challenge to Sen. Norm Coleman in Minnesota (in which a recount is possible, if not likely), the strength of President-elect Obama's transition thus far, and the possibility of a Republican resurgence in 2010. Can anyone guess which of these three stories was written by Karl "Prince-of-Darkness" Rove before even opening the links? If you can't, this might not be the blog for you. Happy ides of November!

The Beginning

Franken-Coleman Deathmatch!1!
Don't Call It A Comeback!

First Post!!?11!11!1!

Welcome to poLOLitics! Probably the soon-to-be most amazing political blog to ever happen. Second only to Chuck Norris' political blog and Ted Nugent's columns at Human Events. I decided to start this blog after I realized that I spent enough time thinking and paying attention to politics that I was becoming as Sarah Palin so eloquently put it, "one of those bloggers in their parents' basement just talking garbage." Except this garbage is going to be dumpster-dived nuggets of political gold. In the weeks to come, I hope to develop a forum based around political discourse, both inane and serious, welcoming everyone from any political affiliation. (Except socialists - they hate America.) Make sure to tell your friends, your parents, and write your Congress person about poLOLitics.blogspot.com and feel free to email me about anything at all at lmelendez89@gmail.com