Know thy enema: is oprah the anti-christ?

Uh-oh.

If this isn't a black-op campaign tactic by the diabolical Clinton forces, the religious right is now identifying Oprah Winfrey -- Barack Obama's super-starriest supporter -- as The Anti-Christ!

Yes. that Anti-Christ -- The Dark One, the Worthless Shepherd, the Little Horn, the Abomination, the Brug-o-later of the Diabolical Trinity; the upcoming, earthly Messianic pre-cursor-in-chief.

How could that be, you ask?

It's her collaboration with the bestselling, Vancouver guru, Eckhart Tolle™ whose sugar-coated spiritual books she's helped put into the platinumospere. The two teach an on-line class called A New Earth on his gentle New Age teachings so innocuous that even Sean Hannity says he's taking it.
(photo: Oprah, Auntie Christ?)

Maybe Sean would be a little more careful if he knew: It's a "Doctrine of Devils!

Longtime listener Sparky, who says she had the Mark of the Beast lasered last year along with a few other little things, sent us this email warning that's been flitting around the bat-o-sphere: 

Oprah needs to be stopped!
Please go to www.youtube.com. When you are in YouTube, type in Oprahand Eckhart. When the list comes up, watch "Oprah’s Beliefs,"  "Love To Confuse and Fog The Brain." Also see "The Church Of Oprah Exposed!" Actually there is a long list of garbage that Christian’s need to see. To be fore warned is to be four armed!
My question is, ‘Is this the beginning of the Antichrist?’ Who better to lead the way but the most popular woman in the world? Oprah’s shows are broadcast world wide! Everyone around the world has the opportunity to see this trash! I have no idea how you go about stopping this. But I do think we need to forward this over & over to everyone we know! Perhaps we can start with a boycott of Oprah! What if we take away some of her power? What if people stop listening to her?
I think it is time that Christians take a stand here! Oprah’s little Book Club has gone way to far this time, as far as I am concerned!  I don’t even care who knows that I started this.  My name is Anita Manis & I proudly take a stand against this garbage! Would you like to join me?  If so, please pass this along to everyone you know!

But the Book of Revelations, as we remember (we were very high when we read it) identified the Counterfeit of the True Christ as male, Jewish, and born overseas. 

God. Maybe Oprah is a man! Maybe she's a really a Jewish guy born in Bermuda.

There was wide speculation after the 2004 election among those who don't even believe in this shit that President Bush was The Beast. But that's dissipated now that he's as managed to screw up everything he's touched. Male or female, Jew, Gentile, or whatever, the AC will be insanely popular, and very, very good at what he does, which is to rule the world until Jesus comes to snatch it back. That leaves out Bush, a fuck-up running poll numbers that would've made James Buchanan feel beloved.

After Prince Harry turned out to have not inherited the Windsor chin (or lack thereof) there was a strong case put forth that it was him who was Him. But that dissipated after those photos from Afghansitan revealed he isn't even circumcised. Could a red-headed, uncut Episcopal be the Diabolical Stud Muffin? That was probably just wishful thinking by disgruntled Anglophiles anxious to take back the Empire.

No one has said this, but we just had the frightening thought that maybe it's Sean Hannity! Could it be he with his pouty little choir-boy lips, glib homilies and flat Irish ass is  actually about to take over the world?

If you think about it, (and we're sure you are) there's no one standing in his way except Rush Limbaugh.

Comments

[Duffman]

Simply impossible! Oprah is a saviour of many and should Sen Obama win [praying to 'O' that doesn't happen ;)], she will be largely credited. She is an icon of immense stature and DON'T YOU F***** FORGET IT!

[PugetSound]

Plus, Obama has this going for him.
Bill Clinton brings up the sniper story, why?

"From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** Now Bill “misspoke” -- twice: Stumping in Indiana yesterday, Bill Clinton resurrected the Bosnia sniper fire story, per NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli. “[T]here was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated, and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995,” he said. “Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up.” He went on to say, “I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you would’ve thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too.” He said something similar at a later stop. How many things were wrong in his remarks? She didn’t just once misspeak -- at 11:00 pm -- about the Bosnia story; she did it numerous times, and not just at night. The trip, moreover, took place in ’96, not ’95. And Hillary wasn’t the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit a combat zone; Pat Nixon went to Saigon in 1969, as Politico’s Ben Smith reminds us. What was Bill thinking? Bill may be one of those pols who believe you confront a negative, instead of ignoring it. And if you show that you don't believe a negative, then folks won't hold it against you as much -- at least those are the lessons Bill learned in '92 and '98, right? "

[Duffman]

To Mrs Clinton's credit, I believe she told him to STFU !

[Duffman]

btw: nice ankles ther sparks ;)

[elisloew]

gosh..that's funny..know thy enema.... real funny.. ...hilarious

[sparky]

Hey Bla'M..my tatoos are nobody's bizness but my own.

[chucks]

Dang Sparkles
I always thought of you as a warm, caring and sharing kinda lady.

(have a great, sunny day)

[elisloew]

Jesus Christ is coming back. Laugh at your own peril.

[Sarah]

According to the Word of God, even Blatherwath is The Antichrist.

The struggle of the people of God against Antichrist has always been and will always be a present struggle. The call to oppose Antichrist must always be given in the present imperative. Whether in the future the church's children (your children and my children) are able to withstand the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, depends, to a great degree, on the success of the battle we wage against his spirit today.

The second beast is working; his labor is under way. We are not referring to specific persons, or particular institutions and churches. We are referring to the spirit of our age that rejects God and God's Word, and promotes with all of its power, MAN. The purpose of education today is man's welfare; the purpose of science is man's pleasure; the goal of entertainment is the good life for man. Hedonism says it all. The world is crowded with Antichrists presently. No, look not only on the horizon for Antichrist. Look about you. Oppose him today.

[joanie hussein for obama]

And here I thought the antichrist was John (bomb-bomb Iran) McCain grilling meat for his angelic minions in mainstream media.

Isn't the antichrist supposed to be a like-able f-up with a temper? And his guiding spirit is Charlie Black?

Talk about smoke and fire...heh-heh.

[sarge]

Ah, Blatheology!

[joanie hussein for obama]

I'm listening to Ring of Fire and it is getting harder and harder to listen to Bobby Kennedy. I love him but he's got to shorten his introductions to people! He doesn't have to go on and on. He cannot do it.

Let people talk, Bobby!

BTW, Chalmers Johnson and Robert Reich today. We liberals love to be informed...

[PugetSound]

School is in Joanie.
Informed or misled?
Typical phonies. Just like the proponents of Carbon Offsets that fly in the private jets. F'n hypocrites.

My favorite phony, is poor RFK Jr.
King of the NIMBY's.
Windfarms are good for everyone except when it infringes on his 'views.' The proposal to put the windfarm out by the Kennedy Compound was effectively killed by the Kennedy's (and Romney). Don't believe me, just ask the folks at Greenpeace.

Here

Schools out Joanie. Keep working on it and one day you'll get out of elementary school.

[nevets]

"If you think about it, (and we're sure you are) there's no one standing in his way except Rush Limbaugh."

I don't know about anyone else, but by the time I got to this part the only thing I was thinking about is why is B'lam checking out how flat Hannity's ass is.

[nevets]

Duff, you got it right about Bill

Bill Clinton was the featured speaker of the rally but avoided commenting on Obama's remarks. When asked about it afterward, he said simply, "I agree with what Hillary said."

[PugetSound]

So how did Bill Clinton go from being the best politician of our lifetime to having such a freakin tin ear?
Maybe, just maybe, as Dennis Miller puts it the Clinton's don't have the media 'spell checking' for 'em anymore.

[KS]

The real anti-Christ is George Soros. He has it in for the economy of the United States. He would like nothing better to see Socialism - that will deplete our economy and Universal Health Care take hold in the USA.

If socialism is so great (which it really is not for innovative societies), why are a number of European Countries going back to becoming less socialistic and more capitalistic ? Also, why did the USSR go tits up in the late 80's ? Some things to ponder for critical thinkers.

[PugetSound]

KS
Then I guess we won't have Joanie weighing in on this...

[joanie hussein for obama]

You must be lonely tonight, putsie.

Klueless, what's your evidence that Soros is a socialist and wants to destroy the economy?

I'm curious.

[RedmondDem]

KS, you think European countries don't believe in socialism, as you call it? Health care for all, and a few of the countries offer free college education.

I googled "European Social Programs" and I found a survey that had been taken of countries of the world and this is a quote I found interesting:

"Of the 124 nations included in this survey, all of the top 12 social leaders for the world are located in Europe. Favorable rates of national and regional economic growth and high levels of political participation, combined with Europe's history of continually protected individual freedoms, have resulted in Northern and Western European countries consistently emerging at or near the top of the list of nations with the "most adequate levels of social provision. Controlled fertility, low rates of infant mortality, high lifed expectations and literacy patterns have also added to the region's favorable social rating."

Funny thing, a populace that is well educated and not burdened with overwhelming health costs make for a productive society.

Hell no, we sure don't want that to happen here!!

[joanie to ano]

Thanks, Reddan. Not to mention that the European Union's economy is robust and thriving. They are much, much older societies with fewer natural resources and yet they are outpacing us by a country mile.

Of course, they are not paying to be the police force for the world. They can put their money back into infrastructure, schools, health care and other nonessentials(??) like those.

Oh, aren't we smart? We just get brighter and brighter by the minute.

Only in America ...

[KS]

"What's your evidence that Soros is a socialist and wants to destroy the economy?"

You choose to be gullible and ideological if you believe all of the progressive blogs/articles that hail him and you evidently believe any conservative take on him is evil and misleading. Do you think a progressive would call him a socialist ? That stuff you spew about McCain reads like it came straight off of Media Matters.

Nice try, Joanie baloney.

[KS]

"Of the 124 nations included in this survey, all of the top 12 social leaders for the world are located in Europe. Favorable rates of national and regional economic growth and high levels of political participation, combined with Europe's history of continually protected individual freedoms, have resulted in Northern and Western European countries consistently emerging at or near the top of the list of nations with the "most adequate levels of social provision."

You are forgetting one major thing - there is a significant difference between countries with a population of 6-10 million vs. this country with a population of 300 million, which is the case of the most successful governments in Europe. Denmark was ranked as collectively the happiest country (on ABC's 20/20), even through there is more of a Socialist form of government that works well for that particular country, but its like comparing apples vs. oranges if anyone wants to compare us vs. Denmark. America is probably 25% +/- socialist (a ballpark guess), from the current tax system.

A large population with a seemingly oppressive bureaucracy like here would respond less favorably to a predominantly socialist government than smaller European nations with significantly less bureaucracy.

The problem I have with Universal healthcare is 1) the cost to taxpayers and 2) the lack of efficiency of a program of this size that is managed by the government. How can we possibly pay for this and throw in Medicaid without significantly decreasing our lifestyles for the average American ? So far, no one has addressed this and I'm not holding my breath.

[PugetSound]

Hey KS
Very good stuff, as usual.
We'll pause as the Great Skeddadler prepares to pull the Tukwilla Two-step out of town.
When her Media Matters talking points fail, all Joanie can do is duck and cover. Buh-byyyyyyyy!

[sparky]

Well PutS, so much for "reflecting upon the frailties of the human condition."

[PugetSound]

Sparky

I think your point has merit.
Joanie is approaching the cracking point.

[sparky]

..and you are being deliberately obtuse.
Nevermind.

[daycalled X]

Puget is hard up--which usually means the prostitutes won't have him.

[daycalled X]

He is doing the Syphilis Shuffle

[joanie hussein for obama]

A large population with a seemingly oppressive bureaucracy like here would respond less favorably to a predominantly socialist government than smaller European nations with significantly less bureaucracy.

Greater population . . . greater burden...greater tax base...greater bureaucracy.

Apples and oranges? How about simply different scale?

Now, answer the question, genius. What's your evidence that Soros is a socialist?

You're still clueless, Klueless.

[PugetSound]

Interesting article from Salon.
Why are Obama's supporters so anti-female?

Duffman's Hope

[PugetSound]

My favorite paragraph from the article that highlights the unease:

"That does not mean that all privileged white male Democrats (Obama-cans) are sexist, anymore than it would be true to suggest that all working-class white Democrats (the segment of the party that is breaking for Clinton) are racist. But a lightly disguised uneasiness with female power, as well as the "we love women, just not that woman" rhetoric will be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to the reception of the feminist movement. It's the movement of which Clinton has become emblematic -– not because it was her bailiwick, but because she has been exactly the kind of woman that feminism made room for: ambitious, ball-busting, high-earning, untrained in the finer arts of hair care, and unwilling to play dumber (or nicer) than she is."

Sooooo, to some extent are the Democratic primary voters for Obama uneasy with a strong woman OR is it that the primary voters for Clinton are uneasy with an African American?

Wonder how much of that will play out in the general election. Doesn't really have to be much to make a big difference.

[Duffman]

Here’s To You, PUTS

Thanks. The thrust of that article reveals what I think will be in the minds of the super delegates. Sen Obama went a long way in helping out Mrs Clinton this past week with his gaffe speal in S.F. That has and will hurt him. Folks are now digging in more than ever to try to find out what makes this guy tick, and it just goes to show that he has not been vetted even close to enough. I'm feeling more confident than ever.

[sparky]

If that were true, then why do so many women like Elizabeth Edwards, Theresa Heinz Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Darcy Burner? The most mean-spirited comments on this blog about those women have come from the men here.

Puts, the women's movement was all about having a choice and a voice, not specific characteristics or trying to be like a man. My guess is the author of that article is not old enough to remember that discussion in the 70's.

Until we can say no to a woman running for any office because of her beliefs, opinions, qualifications, communication abilities and style instead of her gender--the idea that I have to vote for a woman every time just because she is a woman-- the feminist movement still has a lot of work to do.

[PugetSound]

Sparky
I think that is part of the article.

The subtitle to the article By Rebecca Traister:
"Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary."

Just looks to be an interesting dynamic going on within the ranks.

Duffman,
I like the pic.

[PugetSound]

More hope for Duffman on why Clinton is more competitive against McCain
This Article from the American Thinker is based off Rasmusen polls.

"The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.

It is worth noting that many of Rasmussen's state surveys were conducted before the collapse in Obama's national numbers this week. Rasmussen now shows Clinton 1% ahead of Obama in the Democratic race, after being 10% behind Obama a week ago, after her Bosnia lie became the story of the prior week. Obama led McCain by 1% five days ago, and now trails by 8%. That is equivalent to a shift of 5 million votes from Democrat to Republican (a ten million vote margin shift), in part to be sure attributable to Obama's well-publicized statement on rural voters at a San Francisco fundraiser.

Obama's Electoral College problem is that his strongest states, where he runs better than Clinton, are states where the Democrats are still likely to lose, though maybe a bit less decisively with Obama at the top of the ticket. These states include deep South states with high African American percentages of the population: Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and some central and western states with very few black voters: Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Alaska, and the Dakotas. Losing a state by 10% rather than 20% still collects zero Electoral College votes. On the other hand, Obama is running ahead of Clinton in some states the Democrats have been winning regularly of late: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, and Maryland, which adds no Electoral College votes to the Party's count. In general, Obama is running better among white voters in states with few black voters, and worse than Clinton among white voters in states with higher percentages of blacks.

The sociologists can opine on what that means, but the Electoral College math shows this: the most competitive of the large swing states -- Ohio (4% margin for Bush in 2000, 2% for Bush in 2004), Michigan (5% Gore win in 2000, 3% Kerry win in 2004), Pennsylvania (5% Gore win in 2000, 2% Kerry win in 2004), and Florida (tie in 2000, 5% Bush win in 2004) -- are all states where Clinton is more competitive with McCain than Obama is with McCain at the moment (though Rasmussen has Obama a bit closer in Florida, differing from all other surveys of that state).

Clinton's long-shot bid for the nomination depends on convincing superdelegates that she can win in November and Obama cannot. If McCain wins by 8% , it will not matter who his opponent is -- he will likely win all the close states. But if we get another 3% or narrower popular vote contest, then Clinton has an argument based on her strength in the competitive Electoral College states, versus Obama's relative strength in non-competitive states.

It is a long way ‘til November, and the Arizona Senator could be hurt if the economic downturn is deeper and longer than most economists expect it to be, or if the Iraq situation starts to unravel again. The Democrats are likely to have a large money advantage in the fall campaign. But they may also have a candidate tied to Reverend Jeremiah Wright ,and his anti-American rants, and a candidate and his wife who can't seem to escape appearing to be condescending to those not of their social/economic/educational class.

None of this will matter to those on the left, or to young people who are buying Obama's content-free but well delivered messages on hope and change. But to many Americans in the "flyover zone" who do not live for politics, but still vote every four years, John McCain may appear to be more tested, and a safer choice in troubled times than his young, and untested opponent. At least that is what the polls now show."

[Central Concern]

McCain is testy, not tested as he was in 2000 when the Cheney/Bush machine did him in. He had his chance and blew it. To say he's ahead now in April is a lot like predicting what will happen to a brush fire after 5 mins--6 months is an eternity in politics. Rev Wright is not running for prez as you guys hope for, any more than Hagge is so why should they matter?

[sparky]

Then why does the Rasmussen poll in Montana show this?

General Election, 4/6. Likely voters. MoE 4.5%

John McCain 48%
Barack Obama 43%

John McCain 56%
Hillary Clinton 36%

[sparky]

Then why does the Rasmussen poll in Montana show this?

General Election, 4/6. Likely voters. MoE 4.5%

John McCain 48%
Barack Obama 43%

John McCain 56%
Hillary Clinton 36%

[PugetSound]

It IS early.

This article isn't based on 'a poll' rather it is a number of polls in some of the most important states. But lets cede Montana to Barrack. He still shows up poorly against McCain.
I thought the article was interesting but as it states what we know in April will be different than in November.
But if you are a Super Delegate, wouldn't that give you pause? I'm just asking.

[sparky]

From what I am reading, no it wouldn't. Yours is the only article I have heard of that says Hillary would do better against McCain..everything else I see is saying the opposite. Her favorable/unfavorable numbers are getting farther apart. Bill is doing her damage as long as he keeps trying to "explain" things.
Each day, another superdelegate is coming out for Obama. I have read that they are not happy about her insistence at having Michigan votes count after saying she would not be on the ballot, then doing so. Of course you "win" when yours is the only name on the list.

The Obama camp does not expect to win in Pennsylvania, and even if she does win in that state, she has to do it by overwhelmingly huge numbers, or it doesn't make much difference. She is making disasterus decisions, including tossing back that shot to show she was a redneck at heart, and trying to pass Obama off as elite, when she is the one who listed 100+ million this year on her tax forms.

[PugetSound]

Good points, but what States will Obama win that the Dems aren't going to win already?

[joanie hussein for obama]

Nice of you to do putsie's thinking for him, Sparky.

As Central Concern says, the race is a long way off. It is the race between Obama and Clinton that is currently hot. McCriminal is getting a pass. When one of them is the nominee, we'll go after McCain.

Until then, it is nonsense to be guessing by looking at a poll.

[sparky]

I just think the idea of counting on the electoral college to elect Hillary is wishful thinking. Hillary won those states in the primary, not the general. If Obama wins the nomination, why would anyone think he would not take states like California?

[KS]

Barry Obama has some splaining to do - if he actually gets the nomination. One thing that Hillary C. (who I'd never vote for) has done is to help get the news media to start to vet Sen. Obama, who has still not been sufficiently vetted yet & with all due respect, his message is quite vacuous. He has recently suffered hoof and mouth disease, but fortunately - Billary has also made significant gaffes, so he probably back in to the nomination.

Barry O. is the darling of the news media and if he gets the nomination, they will immediately try and build him up again for the general and trumpet the coming of the Obama-nation - Progressive's delight - and for many others an acceleration of the national nightmare. Ciao.

[PugetSound]

Sparky
Good points, but I was thinking more along the lines of Pennsylvania. Lots of electoral votes.
We'll see how Obama does against McCain there.
But lets look at California, McCain is going to do well among Hispanics. His views on immigration will play well with many of them. But Obama will still probably carry California.
I was struck by what Rasmussen -who is no party hack- said about McCain having a solid 260 Electoral Votes and needing only ten more.
As KS states, we'll see how the vetting of Obama continues to go.

Polls are just snapshots of where we are at a given point in time. If polls were of no value than I doubt politicians would waste money on them. Obviously THEY think it is important and base a lot of time and energy on poll results.

[KS]

PS - I am surprised that Rasmussen credits McCain with 260 electoral votes, but the election is still almost 7 months off. It's pretty apparent that McCain runs stronger than any other Republican - because of his centrist leanings. Democrats probably like working with him better than most Republicans do. That's why I think he is the best candidate for now- given the mood of this country.

The Republicans brought alot of this on themselves by not selecting him in 2000 and were duped by Bush, who is now a clear and present danger in his remaining time. The stupid party (Republicans) still has a fighting chance thanks to the irresponsible party (Democrats), who has produced two candidates with hoof and mouth disease that has slipped out, despite their protection by MSNBC, CNN and the rest of news media, with the exception being talk radio, who hasn't been too kind to McCain either because he refuses to tow the party line.

[J.Hova]

Americans sound so bitter.

[PugetSound]

KS - I am in agreement with much of what you just wrote.
Is it possible that the Dems could actually lose this election? Yep.
And that tells me something else. What makes one think that -given all the advantages that the Dems have going in to the 2008 election- they would be able to run the country any better than W?
Obama and Hillary both tout their records as healers and not dividers. Lets see those two 'Physicians' heal the rift between their campaigns.
Clearly Hillary is sandbagging Obama in an effort to show him unelectable among the Super Delegates for 2008. And -barring that- for 2012. If Obama is nominated and loses in 2008, Hillary can point to it in the run for 2012.

The funniest thing is to hear those on the left now start to get it about the Clintons. The lies, etc.
People on the right have had Clinton Fatigue for years.

[john paul albania]

its obama is an atichrist