Barack Hussein Obama is not my President. Barack Hussein Obama is not your President. He’s not anybody’s friggin’ President, yet. He will be, however, on January 20, and you’d best learn to deal with that. No, the courts aren’t going to invalidate his election because his middle name is Hussein. No, they’re not going to invalidate his election because he only blasted a short form birth certificate across the Internet rather than a copy of the original one. No, they’re not going to invalidate his election because he’s a secret Muslim. No, they’re not … well, just, no.

Most importantly, if President Obama ends up doing anything dreadful in office that would properly warrant impeachment (and no, I’m not predicting that he will), the answer is no, the American people won’t give a tinker’s damn about it. They’ll be so sick and tired of hearing you whine about phony, irrelevant stuff in the past that they’ll be all too eager to assume that whatever Republicans are legitimately talking about 2, 4 or 6 years down the road must be phony and irrelevant, as well, even if it’s not. So just shut up already. Let the left have their goofy conspiracy theories. There’s no need for us to compete with them on that front.

Festivus is just around the corner but no one seems to care. Oh well. I skipped it last year, and may end up celebrating alone this year, but if I do, oh well.

This one is for all the programmers who replaced all those annoying “Press 1 for billing questions, press 2 if your panties are in a wad” voice menu systems with the even more annoying retarded cyborgs we have to deal with now. Call me old-school, but I have better things to do than to have some retarded cyborg try to strike up a conversation with me as though it were a person. Did you really think we wouldn’t know the difference? Or that maybe, just maybe, some of us would rather press keys to indicate our selection rather than rely on some computer to automatically subscribe us to the Fruit of the Month Club because our 3-year old made some random noise in the background?

Seriously, non-people. If the whole point of your retarded cyborgs was to get us all to love those old voice mail menu systems we used to hate, their mission has succeeded. Please “terminate” them post haste, and I promise not to start bitching about those old key-entry menus again. [ObDisclaimer: I never promised not to cheat, mind you, only not to complain.]

Add Jerry Moonbeam to the list of California fruits and nuts who think the Constitution is unconstitutional. Between this and Lisa Madigan, can just anybody be Attorney General?

UPDATE: Good Lord, the brief is even goofier than I thought. Rather than taking the dubious but not necessarily frivolous position that Prop 8 is a “revision” rather than “amendment,” Mr. Moonbeam is arguing that on matters he really, really cares about, the Constitution can’t be amended (or, presumably, revised) at all.

Today, Allah proved his own existence by citing a Price is Right contestant who got two prices right to the dollar in a single game. In an eerie coincidence, I uncovered proof on the same day that there’s a devil, too. As long-term readers are aware, I ditched the Left Coast in February of 2006, but my old house didn’t actually sell until 6/6/06. On the day we signed the contract a month earlier, the sales price was within $700 of Zillow’s “zestimate,” which actually exceed the price by about $5,000 on the day that it closed. Yet today I learned that Zillow refuses to acknowledge that transaction when calculating its infamous zestimate, a decision it zexplains zuccinctly zo:

This tranzaction was not uzed in computing the Zestimate for this houze due to anomaliez we detected with this tranzaction. Theze anomaliez can include unuzual document or tranzaction types, zales between pozzibly related partiez, unuzually high or low tranzaction prices, other data irregularitiez that might indicate the trazsaction is not a full-value, armz-length tranzaction, or the fact that the zale closed on the date that the Antichrizt arrived. Either zat or 5 days after he arrived, we don’t know. ZOMG! We’re so confuzed! But what’s puzzling us is the nature of his game.

I report, you decide.

Get your copy of Stephen Halbrook’s The Founders’ Second Amendment today.

When I was a kid, I remember vividly how Soviet dictator Yuri Andropov swiftly came to power and dropped off. More recently, the whole Internet got taken in by some crook named … you guessed it … Michael Crook. Around the same time, some joker named Partee got busted for selling drugs. Now, Uncle links to a story about a convicted sex offender named Pheuk Kue, and the biggest scam of all consists of some joker named Bernard Madoff, who made off with tens of billions of other people’s money.

Some may write this all off as coincidence, but not me. Call me a bigot, but if I meet some well-mannered, nicely-dressed lady with a professional demeanor named Sally Cutchernutsoff, I’m not sticking around to find out what her intentions are.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, across the pond, French First Hotbabe Carla Bruni-Sarkozy has hired an attorney named Gesche Le Fur to prevent distribution of her nude photo (NSFW, unless you work at Playboy) from 1993.

Snopes is famous for its tendency to brand as “false” any “myth” with political implications adverse to Democrats, as long as they can find at least one person on the Internet who gets at least one minor detail wrong. Examples:

• No Snopes entry exists to confirm the true rumor that Al Gore falsely claimed to have taken initiative in creating the Internet, which in fact was created while Al Gore was in jr. high. However, a Snopes entry does exist to helpfully debunk the myth that he falsely claimed to invented it.
• No Snopes entry exists to confirm the true rumor that Geraldo Rivera was known as “Jerry Riviera” in his youth but changed his name to Geraldo Rivera to appeal to Hispanics. However, a Snopes entry does exist to helpfully debunk the rumor that his original name was “Rivers” rather than “Riviera,” and to debunk the allegedly existent rumor that Riv(i)era had no Hispanic heritage at all.
• No Snopes entry exists to confirm the true rumor that Annie Jacobsen had a disturbing flight in 2004 on which she believes she witnessed a terrorist dry run, a number of questions from which remain unanswered. However, a Snopes entry does exist to helpfully debunk the myth that Ms. Jacobsen’s concerns were “proven” to the satisfaction of everyone.
• No Snopes entry exists to confirm the true rumor that the Obama campaign employed at least one, and possibly two, former Fannie Mae executives as chief economic advisers. However, a Snopes entry does exist to helpfully debunk the rumor that he employed three.
• No Snopes entry exists to confirm or deny any of the specific allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who probably have more firsthand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding John Kerry’s service than either of the Mikkelsons do. However, a Snopes entry does exist to helpfully debunk all rumors that there is anything “fishy” about any of the medals in question.
• Too many other examples to count.

Each of the above examples offers a story with aspects of truth, and other minor details that either false or, in Jacobsen’s case, undetermined. This didn’t prevent the Snopemeisters from dropping F-bombs on almost all of these purported “myths,” which they branded not as “undetermined,” “partially true” or “not quite,” but simply as “false.”

In other cases, Snopes bends over backwards to uphold blatantly false rumors helpful to their cause. For example, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, race-baiters falsely accused a racist Associated Press of having described white looters as having “found” their loot while accusing an innocent black finder of “looting” his. In reality, one photographer affiliated with the A.P. had truthfully documented one incident where an individual had in fact looted a store, while another photographer affiliated with AFP (which, contrary to the race-baiters who sparked this rumor, stands for Agence France-Presse, not “Associated F***ing Press”) had truthfully described a different incident in which a group of people didn’t enter a store at all but found some food items floating in the street. So how did Snopes save this grossly false rumor and brand it anyway as true? Easy: reword the false rumor to make it merely disingenuous rather than technically false: “Photograph captions describe a black man “looting” and a white couple “finding” supplies in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.” Which makes it every bit as true as “newspapers describe white man as saving lives and black man as ending them,” provided you can find at least one article in the world about a paramedic who happens to be white and one about a murderer who happens to be black. Similarly, when an obviously phony “How to be a Good Wife” hit the net, Snopes discovered “fake but accurate” and labeled the story “undetermined” rather than “false” because one of its three supposed sources really did write other stuff that Snopes finds offensive. More recently, during the past campaign season, Snopes somehow managed to rationalize that Obama’s profession of “my Muslim faith” was false, as he had obviously misspoken, but McCain’s definition of the “middle class” as including everyone earning up to $5 million was true, even though he was even more obviously joking.

Today’s entry on Obama bumper sticker layoff continues their disingenuous trend by discussing a rumor that is almost certainly 100% false, but omitting the usual “status” heading to identify it as such. You have to read the entire entry from top to bottom to figure out that this rumor is false, and even then, you’re left wondering whether it really is false, or if some employer somewhere really did send out the memo in question, and they just haven’t figured out who. By that reasoning, no rumor could ever be described as “false.” No matter how many obviously false documents one may uncover, one could never be 100% certain that another, reliable document is floating out there, somewhere. For all we know, maybe Al Gore really did falsely claim to have personally “invented” the Internet, just not in that particular Wolf Blitzer interview everybody quotes. Or maybe in that very interview, during the commercial break while the mic was off, he turned to Wolf and said “Yeah, I created the Internet. In fact, I personally invented it! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Don’t ask me about that on the air, though; the American people may not be ready for it.” Can anyone really be sure that this didn’t happen? Even if it didn’t, it’s no further than the truth from the notion that the obviously forged “How to be a Good Wife” is a fake-but-accurate compilation of stuff one of its three purported sources was supposedly peddling at the time.

Both from tonight’s SNL intro.

“Elizabeth Dole” (Casey Wilson), to Rod Blagojevich (Jason Sudeikis):

And let me add something. In my opinion, you are a disgrace to the State of Illinois…. Well, maybe not to Illinois, but you know what I’m sayin’. If you were the governor of any other state, you would be a disgrace to that state.

“Chris Dodd” (Darrell Hammond, channeling Michael Barone):

Governor, let me ask you, are you retarded?

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, who is Canadian, says it’s un-American to oppose a bill to bail out three large companies which, by some bizarre coincidence, all happen to be headquartered in her state. Meanwhile, Instapundit misses an opportunity to say “they told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected….”

TGirsch observes that I have a nasty habit of spreading liberalism everywhere I go.