From the Mt. Vernon, Texas News...

Forwarded by reader Simi L. I don't know if this is for real, but...I really don't care. By the way, put down your drink and swallow before reading this...

WHOREHOUSE SUES LOCAL CHURCH OVER LIGHTNING STRIKE!

Diamond D's brothel began construction on an expansion of their building to increase their ever-growing business. In response, the local Baptist Church started a campaign to block the business from expanding – with morning, afternoon, and evening prayer sessions at their church.

Work on Diamond D's progressed right up until the week before the grand reopening when lightning struck the whorehouse and burned it to the ground!

After the cat-house was burned to the ground by the lightning strike, the church folks were rather smug in their outlook, bragging about "the power of prayer."

But late last week 'Big Jugs' Jill Diamond, the owner/madam, sued the church, the preacher and the entire congregation on the grounds that the church ... "was ultimately responsible for the demise of her building and her business -- either through direct or indirect divine actions or means."

In its reply to the court, the church vehemently and voraciously denied any and all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise.

The crusty old judge read through the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's reply, and at the opening hearing he commented, "I don't know how the hell I'm going to decide this case, but it appears from the paperwork, that we now have a whorehouse owner who staunchly believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that thinks it's all bullshit."

Why Are People Surprised By This?

Last evening, the Daily Caller released the video below of Barack Obama addressing a mostly-black audience in 2007.  In the video he lavishly praises the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and speaks with a recognizably “black”accent (still with the rest of his superb speaking voice, including his trademark calmness, authority, and tonality).  The reaction of most pundits seems to be surprise, but I can't figure out why.

In the campaign of 2008 (less than a year after this speech), he very publicly denounced Jeremiah Wright and quit attending Trinity church, as Wright's radical leftist views were obviously not going to help Obama get elected.  At the time, that seemed like a rather obvious hypocritical move designed to help Obama's image. 

I don't think it's surprising at all that Obama would have a very different message for an audience that was likely to think quite highly of the radical Reverend Wright.  Nor do I find it surprising that Obama adopted the accent of his heritage when speaking to that same group.  Both of these behaviors are standard fare for any politician, though most wouldn't be able to pull them off as smoothly as Obama did.  You have to give him credit for the skills he has as a politician, even if you don't like the man.

I think all that's really going on here is in the Internet age these time-honored behaviors of politicians are much more likely to be revealed.  In an era when practically everyone carries a video camera on their person (in their phone), and when anybody can post a video to YouTube for all to see, it's nearly impossible for any politician to keep such shenanigans confidential.

The speech is instructive to watch for at least one reason: it transforms into absolute certainty our suspicion of Obama's hypocrisy in denouncing Reverend Wright in 2008...

Obama, in His Own Words...

Remember this when you vote in November...

Tell Me More...

Amongst a collection of posters on the recent Chick-fil-A brouhaha that my mom sent me was this gem:

Lamestream Media Hypocrisy...

This time from the lamestream leader (the New York Times), nicely caught and laid out by Mollie Hemingway...

Corporate Cronyism...

Note the little Ds (for Democrats) and Rs (for Republicans).  See a trend?  As always, click to enlarge...

Paid Protesters?

Check out what the Power Line guys found...

Gray Lady Hypocrisy...

Via reader Cliff F.:

New York Times editors, as cited in James Taranto's Best of the Web Today column at WSJ.com, Nov. 29:

"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."—New York Times, on the Climategate emails, Nov. 20, 2009.

"The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. . . . The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match."—New York Times, on the WikiLeaks documents, Nov. 29, 2010.

The original Best of the Web Today article.

It's been over 20 years since I last read the New York Times regularly.  This is a good example of why.