Archive for denise odie joseph II

DENISE ODIE JOSEPH II YOUR LIBERAL NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF THEIR HEARTS

Posted in BIGOTRY, CONSERVATIVE FEAR, CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY, CONSERVATIVE IGNORANCE, CONSERVATIVE SEX SCANDAL, DENISE ODIE JOSEPH II, DINESH D'SOUZA, SARAH BLOCH OPINIONS with tags , , , , , , , , on 19/10/2012 by sarahbloch

First Andrew Breitbart just drops dead and now this Dinesh D’Souza epic fail? Now the Right has made a martyr of Breitbart but with D’Souza not so much. The Sadow wrote a great post anchoring Dinesh D’Souza to his own Jovian level of hypocrisy and now it’s time for me to do the same with what many would have liked to think was the victim of this whole “scandal” Denise Odie Joseph II.

I wanted to compare this whole mess like a massive Hollywood breakup but an election didn’t turn and the ideological future of the nation didn’t change because Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston broke up. Denise Odie Joseph II was a conservative groupie who blogged on the fringe of the Conservative movement. From reading some of her posts I’ve gathered that she didn’t really care for the Washington Post and she’s voting for Romney because he husband told her to. Maybe her husband should have told her not to fuck other people less than a year into their marriage–that might have at least delayed D’Souza’s biblical crash and burn at the hands of some of his former colleagues.

That last bit is what I’m savoring the most. It wasn’t the Huffington Post or MSNC that brought down D’Souza it was his own scorned pals in the Conservative Christian apologetics movement that took him to task. D’Souza even made the desperate comment that he didn’t know, as a Christian, that he didn’t realize that being engaged before you were divorced was a real no no. Okay, either ‘Souza is just not willing to play by any rules that keeps him from his weet piece of ass or he is simply stupid. The latter makes more sense after watching his film Obama 2016 the former makes more sense if you listen to much of the hateful rhetoric he’s spewed over the last two decades.

Back to the very married and very skinny and likely very flexible [and not only in her morality] Ms Joseph II. The real victim in all of this is Dixie Brubaker, not D’Souza or Joseph, or even conservatism which gets another load of jizz in the eye because they have once again forgotten their leaders are human and have human desires. Even Joseph’s own blog was called, “I, Denise, Lust After . . .” and, of course it has been scrubbed from the outer integument of the Internet. Or maybe it imploded from its own hypocrisy? The Living may never know the answer to that one. Joseph’s opinions were little more than a set up to get closer to her ultimate target Dinesh D’Souza, but they also are so deeply hypocritical in the light of the affair that the only way to them justice is to post a bit of it and let you the reader reflect.

And because the societies their liberal ideas create are so incredibly, diversely stupendously fantastic, Type II Liberals are forced to pay $30,000.00+ a year to get their kids a basic K-12 education while demeaning Republican tax structured communities as racist, exclusionary, and backwards, ignorant to the fact that these communities take for granted resources and services Liberal ones can’t even imagine. Type II masochists, for all their learnin’, have no idea that public school requires tuition–in the form of their tax dollars–paid to that great behemoth of efficiency, The Department of Education. They have no idea that when they are forced to send their kids to private school because of the sorry and dangerous state of public education in their Liberal Meccas, they are not being honored but insulted and robbed in broad daylight. Apparently, highly concentrated populations of juvenile Trayvons in Trayvon-dominant schools aren’t considered acceptable company for Type II Liberal kids, though their plights make excellent dinner party conversation.

Sadly enough, Type II Liberals do precious little to hide their raging masochism and their penchant for setting up situations of suffering is painfully transparent. After spending all that money to ensure that their kids don’t eat lunch next to Trayvons in Trayvon-dominant schools, these very sames proudly and righteously brag about the significant (like 30 total) percentage of richly-and-incurably-wronged-racially-diverse-prize-pig-kids-from-the-ghetto, a.k.a Trayvons, their private school enrolls. (Libs love hyphenated identities.) Of course, these are the banner kids of banner progenitors who have been cheated by society in every conceivable way, shape and de jure and de facto form. When Trayvon comes to the party alone, Type IIs are happy, but when he brings his neighbor-hood of friends in hoodies…

Somehow, when The Annual Fund (oooh, doesn’t that sound fancy) time comes around each year, Type II parents, usually so proud of their 30 imported hyphenated-identitied kids, become downright p-i-s-s-e-d about forking over several thousand more in “gifts” which, by the way, pay the tuition of the 30 imported hyphenated-identitied kids. Type IIs however, are quickly soothed when the school prints their name as donors in some concert program or parent newsletter or cafeteria menu or something. Upon seeing the several different categories of donors listed and endowed with the competitive spirit that fuels their successful and lucrative careers, said Type IIs even silently vow to donate more next year since So and So’s Type II parents cannot possibly be listed as “Generous Donors” while they are only noted for their “support.”

Yes, Type IIs are suckers for punishment.

Finally, there is the third class of Liberals, none other than Type III. While I think Type Is are more likely than not afflicted with some form of mental illness, I do have some respect for those who walk their talk, whatever I may think of their talk. Type IIs are pathetic but in a way, and for whatever sick reason, are generous donors to that bottomless pit charity called the entitlement state. It is for the third class of Liberals that I reserve the most disdain. Maybe it’s because I rub their elbows daily—physically–as they walk home from their bureaucratic jobs and because I listen to them honk their tiny electric car horns at each other like the caring, compassionate, barbarians they really are. The kind caring kind who kindly care about every last species of tree frog on the face of the planet but who could live in the apartment next door and for their entire life, never deign to send as much as a lukewarm glance in your direction. I’m serious folks, if not for the bill collector, you could seriously DIE in your DC apartment and NEVER EVER be found.

Type IIIs, due to limited earning potentials, gravitate to Liberalism out of envy and narcissism. They know they can never afford multiple German imports so they zealously propel their clown cars up and down the road to Whole Foods, all the while secretly grudging the good fortune of their Type II brother. Soon, Type III thinks, his precious President O’s policies will cut brother down to size and force him to drive the expensive enough, but inevitably less-expensive than the 7 Series BMW, state-mandated vehicle. Type III women can find no man to marry them and know that even if they somehow did, their Type III household combined income could barely accommodate one child much less multiple children in Liberal $30,000.00 per annum land. Is it surprising then that those with Type III pathology become the most adamant birth control and abortion advocates?

As an aside, I think it is interesting how Obama pays the aforementioned 30,000+ to send his kids to school while doing his best to tax and policy-to-death other high-earners out of the ability to do the same for their kids. I guess if he ever becomes a victim of his own policies, he can simply write a book or make a speech demonizing the ‘rich’ and poof, he’s got more money than he can spend, with or without taxes. No need to worry about Sasha and Malia ever bringing home a Trayvon from a DC public school. Why in the world doesn’t he send his kids to public school with the richly-wronged people he supposedly adores and respects? Send his kids to school with integral members of his base? And just in case you were wondering, Type III men, troubled products of divorce and other progressive-society maladies, have no interest in buying cows when they can milk a different but equally unpleasant cow for free every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night.

In short, Type IIIs are young, educated beyond their means, and firmly entrenched in their Northern Virginia condos, clinging to their tax bracket like the rest of us cling to our liberty. Simply put, these Liberals can’t afford hypocrisy and so take up the banner of Liberalism in the pursuit of an achievable status distinction. The ideology itself is a status symbol. Their psychological need for Liberalism is as great as the Welfare Mom’s physical one.

So which type of Liberal do you love to hate? Regardless of your preference, the following story has something for you.

Ms Joseph your liberal neighbors, all three types love you now. The only thing left to find out is if Dinesh D’Souza has binders full of women or just this one in a hotel room that he kept in a a keycard sleeve.

Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

Sarah Bloch, D.S.V.J., J.F., O.Q.H [Jur.]
Amici Bax Demvolu Comnu
Politics & Culture Wars Managing Editor
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
58 Low Lux Negro 2 AS

THE FALL OF DINESH D’SOUZA

Posted in 2012 US ELECTION, CONSERVATIVE FEAR, CONSERVATIVE HYPOCRISY, CONSERVATIVE IGNORANCE, CONSERVATIVE NEWS, CONSERVATIVE SEX SCANDAL, COUNTER-THEOCRACY, DENISE ODIE JOSEPH II, DINESH D'SOUZA, FEARSPEAK, GLBTQ RIGHTS, GOP MELTDOWN, HOMOPHOBIA, HOW HELL WORKS, IN HINDSIGHT, JOURNALISM, JUSTICE, NEWSBUSTERS, OFFICE OF THE TORTURER GENERAL, POLITICS, PRESIDENT OBAMA, SEX, TEA PARTY, THE AMERICAN TALIBAN, THE CANCER OF HATE, THE IGNORANT TENTH, THE MATING HABITS OF CONSERVATIVES, THEOCRACY, WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THIS SHIT UP, WORLD NET DAILY, ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE with tags , , , , on 19/10/2012 by Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.]

I’ve been watching carefully the descent of Dinesh D’Souza from the lofty pantheon of conservative punditry and Fundamentalist Christianism based political power based on his power to agitate the conservative base especially in regard to President Barack Obama. In a recent article written by Warren Cole Smith in The World Magazine, a news sheet with a considerably right wing and Christian bent, D’Souza is said to have been seen in the company of one Denise Odie Joseph II at the ironically named Truth for a New Generation Conference at the First Baptist Church North in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Smith reports that named sources informed him that D’Souza told them that Ms Joseph, who is known now to also be married, was his fiancee. Another source told the World magazine reporter that it appeared that D’Souza and Joseph checked in to the same hotel room. This is a serious crisis for a noted evangelical speaker at a conference for evangelicals dealing with issues such as, “The impact of the gay agenda on America,” “Homeschooling: It’s not about schooling,” and “Is the Bible intolerant?”

Dinesh D’souza upon learning of the article being posted at World magazine’s website became at first, I imagine, became quite fearful for his position in the inner sanctum of conservative politics and Christianist opinion. Of course, as the presenter for Obama 2016 D’Souza was a favorite of religious conservatives who hate President Obama. D’Souza was also the President of King’s College in New York a position that only served to embellish his conservative bona fides. Today, D’Souza is out at King’s College and scrambling to explain what exactly happened in Spartanburg, South Carolina.

Why is Obama on the social issues — and I’m thinking here of abortion, I’m thinking here of gay marriage — why is Obama so aggressive in attacking the traditional values agenda? I think the reason for it is because when Obama thinks about colonialism, about the British and the French who went abroad to conquer other countries, or earlier the Spanish and the Portuguese, I come from a part of India that was a Portuguese colony at one time, I think for Obama colonialism is identified not just with the soldiers but also with the missionaries. Remember it’s the missionaries that went alongside the conquerors, the conquistadors, came to the Americas and worked on converting the Indians and later missionaries went to China, India and Japan. So I think this is the problem, Obama doesn’t like traditional Christianity because he identifies it with colonialism. Obama’s own Christianity is more of a Third World liberation theology, a very different kind of Jeremiah Wright type philosophy, summarized in the idea that America is the rogue nation in the world.–Dinesh D’Souza in a conference call with Rick Scarborough’s 40 Days to Save America.

The assumed fear, now fully realized as the sunlight of public knowledge exposed D’Souza’s hypocrisy, soon gave way to anger. This man decided that to come out swinging against his enemies, this time all on the Right, was the only course of action to save him from being thrown onto the ash heap of conservative punditry. He told the story that he and Joseph stayed in separate rooms initially, but then when it became clear that the hotel was fully booked he changed his story and said they shared a room but no sex took place. This is neither here nor there to me because the sex isn’t what’s important here in the final analysis.

D’Souza was a noted apologist; he was on the front lines for Christianists in their perceived war against atheism, all religions other than Christianity as they see it, and the notion of a homosexual agenda. This left the man with only one remaining course of action and that was confession. As a man who referred to himself as a Roman Catholic after his years as an undergraduate at Dartmouth College, D’Souza was especially keen on the rules regarding adultery and marriage. Divorcing his wife of twenty years would have been a scandal in itself for a Catholic apoligist, but D’Souza burned that bridge when he crossed the road into fundamentalist, yet nondenominational, Christianity in the late 1990s. To this writer it appears this coincides with the time that D’Souza began to have problems within his marriage–or read more clearly that he decided he wanted to have relationships with women that were not his wife.

Now I’m not the sort of guy that would restrict Mr D’Souza’s clear constitutional right to pursue happiness as long as that pursuit breaks no laws. Oh, wait, that’s not actually in the Constitution it’s in the Declaration of Independence. Mea culpa. D’Souza’s own words point to an arrogance that relies on the people who actually believe in conservative values than those values themselves. It seems that once a person becomes famous in the conservative realm all the same foibles of reality tend to strike them just as much as they do those who espouse liberal political ideals. I want to make a point about late in life conversions as well before I finish this up. What appears to many to be a revelation from some divine power is coming to be understood as nothing more that swapping one set of restrictive rules for another. Newt Gingrich, twice divorced, converted to Roman Catholicism to give his third marriage an air of greater respectability as well as open a new door to national politics within the GOP. Gingrich may or may not be the smartest guy who calls himself a Conservative but he’s no different from Eliot Spitzer, or any other politician that wanted to have sex with someone other than their spouse. The only difference is that most liberal pols aren’t constantly hammering their opposition with calls that they are immoral because of what they do in bed.


In Hindsight

A number of things could, and in my opinion should, have brought down Dinesh D’Souza. His support of torture of detainees, his anti-gay bigotry or his clear hatred for the President of the United States just to name a few. What really brings him down isn’t simply that he wanted a new partner, or even that he pushed back against the Conservative press and blogosphere to try to maintain his lofty status. What brings Dinesh D’Souza down are his own words:

“If you read John Milton’s Paradise Lost, you discover that the book is populated with heroes and villains. The heroes, of course, are God, Jesus, and the good angels, man is sort of in the middle, and then you have the bad guys: Satan and his legion of deputy devils. Critics have noted that the action in the book always intensifies when the devils come into the picture, and Satan himself is an irresistibly attractive character. God is changeless; he always takes the same position and says the same things. But Satan is incredibly creative. Every time he is thwarted, he comes up with a new scheme or a new project. He is, from a literary perspective, a very rich and adaptive character.

Years ago, the suspicion began to arise that Satan was actually Milton’s hero. As one critic put it, “Milton is of the devil’s party without even knowing it.” Look at Satan’s reason for rebelling against God. It’s not that he doesn’t recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It’s just that he doesn’t want to play by anybody else’s rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan’s motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as Christopher Hitchens.”–Dinesh D’Souza in an interview by Marcia Segelstein, Salvo magazine, Salvo 7, Winter 2008

And if that doesn’t frost you enough:

“If you really look at the motivations of contemporary atheists, you’ll find that they don’t even really reject Christian theology. It’s not as if the atheist objects to the resurrection or the parting of the sea; rather, it is Christian morality to which atheists object, particularly Christian moral prohibitions in the area of sex. The atheist looks at all of Christianity’s “thou shalt nots”—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, “If these things are really bad, then I’m a bad guy. But I’m not a bad guy; I’m a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light.”

How does one do that? One way is liberal Christianity—you simply reinterpret Christian teachings as if they don’t really mean what they say. The better way, of course, is to ask where morality comes from. Well, it comes from one of two places. It either comes from ourselves—these are the rules that we make up as we go along—or it comes from some transcendent source. To get rid of God, then, is to remove the shadow of moral judgment. This doesn’t mean that you completely eliminate morality, but it does mean that you reduce morality to a tool that human societies construct for their own advantages. It means that morality can change, and that old rules can be set aside. You can see why this would be a very attractive proposition for the guy who wants to live his life unmolested by the injunctions and prohibitions of Christian morality.”–Ibid.

Pax Terra!

Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.]
Managing Editor—Research
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
58 Low Lux Negro 2 AS

%d bloggers like this: