The eyes are the window to the soul…
“To thee I do commend my watchful soul,
Ere I let fall the windows of mine eyes.”William Shakespeare, “King Richard III” Act V, Sc.3, Line 117
The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
UPDATE: BEWARE THE OBAMA ‘EVIL EYE’
UPDATE:
I Took The Red Pill 
Are they now?
Sweet, now I know what the soul of a crazy person looks like.
By the way, neat job acting all holy about the media being SO MEAN to poor Sarah Palin, then you go ahead and attack Obama’s wife. Who, you know, didn’t run for anything. You’re the hero, Red. That’s you. You’re the big hero.
Jax,
My “attack” on Obama’s wife consists of a picture which says a thousand words.
Letterman’s attack on Palin consisted of calling her “slutty” and jokingly suggesting that her daughter would have sex with A-Rod and Spitzer.
If you think my “attack” is equivalent, you’re off your rocker. An equivalent attack would be to call Michelle Obama “slutty” and suggest that Sasha or Malia would have sex with A-Rod and Spitzer.
Posting a true, undoctored picture is not even close to that.
But keep rolling with your liberal moral equivalency fantasies.
It’s a bad photograph, Red. They get taken all the time. There are a bunch of Sarah Palin; for example this one.
And just to point out, you’re the one making moral equivalencies. You’re saying, hey, it’s not as bad for me to post a bad photograph of Michelle Obama and impugn her character as it was for David Letterman to make off-color jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughters.
One, what he does doesn’t make what you do OK.
Two, Letterman, as in poor taste as the jokes may have been, was very clearly telling jokes, something he does every night to everyone under the sun. You’re serious. You genuinely think Michelle Obama is a bad person, and hey, here’s a photograph to prove it.
Three, Michelle Obama does not set policy, nor is she running for anything, so you pretty much just took a swipe at a wife and mother because you don’t like her very much.
Oh, and in case you don’t think Michelle Obama took her lumps during the campaign, just like Sarah Palin will have to do, take a look at this little gem.
Nice, huh? Took me about five seconds to find that on Google, and trust me, that’s not the harshest one. I picked that one because it comes to us courtesy of the Landover Baptist Church. Note the title of the thread.
But yeah, Red, you’re probably right. The country would be a whole lot better off if pastors were allowed to just preach this kind of thing from the pulpit.
OK, I’m going to take my lumps on this one in advance…. the Landover Baptist Church is fictional. The rest of my post holds true, though.
I’m genuinely happy to be wrong on that one. There was some scary stuff in that thread. It’s all out there for real, though, Red, and you know it. Don’t make me go looking for it… just the .05 seconds I spent looking for the first thing really sucked.
I have no problem with that picture of Sarah. None whatsoever.
Todd Palin does not set policy, nor is he running for anything, so SNL took more than just “a swipe” at a husband and father, because they don’t like Sarah Palin very much.
The utter irony here is that the site you cited (“Landover Baptist Church”) is not just fictional… it is clearly created by leftists to falsely and gleefully slam Christians on the right!
You can’t just get away with the “fake but accurate” Dan Rather style by saying the Church is fictional but the rest of your post (including the Michelle Obama Monkey picture) holds true. Sure, someone created that picture, but it certainly appears that it was created by someone on the left, not the right.
Now here is another interesting thing about your reaction to the picture in my post. There are TWO women, not just one, featured prominently in that picture. It’s interesting that you only take note of one of them. In my opinion, that picture tells a story of a thousand words about both women.
Do you know who Carla Bruni-Sarkozy was looking at?
Oh, I don’t know… God?
So, again, I’ll ask you: Saturday Night Live and David Letterman making jokes justifies your posting a picture where Michelle Obama looks angry and forbidding, thus allowing you to say that that is the sum of her character. It makes what you are doing the correct and moral thing to do. Yes? I say no, but then, I don’t justify my actions by pointing at the other side and saying, “B-b-but they did it first!”
Also, you completely missed the point of that sketch, and that’s pretty interesting. The sketch was a joke about how, in the absence of proof of wrongdoing, people make accusations about which they can say, “Well, there’s no proof it DIDN’T happen!” You believe that Obama was born in Kenya. When pointed at the small mountain of proof that this is, in fact, baloney, you demand FURTHER proof which, if it were given to you, you would immediately start trying to discredit.
You find the accusation that Todd Palin sleeps with his daughters incredibly distasteful, yet I bet you’d be pretty hard pressed to come up with proof that it 100%, not-a-shade-of-doubt, ISN’T true. I find it pretty distasteful that you continue to accuse our President of being an underhanded, lying traitor, but it’s not going to stop you from doing it tomorrow.
As for the picture and the site… oh, Red. Don’t force me to go to Stormfront, man. Come on. I’ll start copy/pasting stuff on here that will end you and me up on the FBI watchlist. I think you’re virulently anti-Democrat, but I genuinely think you’re not a racist, and I’ll dredge up stuff that will make your blood run cold. I mean, do you want to START with the rape and murder of the two little girls? How long do you think it would take me to find a thread on that? Five minutes? Six?
And come on. That’s a goofy picture of Palin. She’s got crazy eyes. If I pasted that picture to some posterboard and started walking around a Palin rally with it, you’d think I was making fun of her. And you’d be right.
No cigar. But the person Carla was looking at has been referred to by some in the media as “sort of God“.
Yeah, THAT was the point of my post. Well done, sir.
The original post above consists of three things:
1) An undoctored picture
2) A quote from William Shakespeare
3) A quote from the Bible
You find that highly offensive. But let’s turn it around and see if that’s really offensive. I challenge you to reciprocate in kind. Pick any undoctored picture of Sarah or Todd Palin you want, then combine it with any Shakespeare quote and any Bible quote you want.
Are you sure about that?
Good grief Jax who ever you are….
you need a medication re-evaluation.
I suggest you make an appointment with your therapist stat
Jax,
I addressed the “setting policy” issue in an earlier comment. As for “running”, she may not have been running herself, but she clearly chose to be a very active and public participant in the Presidential race, having the Audacity to lecture others about character…
And in response to her attacks on Bush regarding Iraq:
Really? And yet, that site doesn’t slam Christians at all. It merely repeats what they say. You think that’s a slam?
Who is the woman with Michelle Obama in the photo? Who took the photo, at what event?
Ed,
If you took the time to read the previous comments, you would know that the woman with Michelle Obama is Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. See if you can figure out the event. It’s not hard if you try.
One of the key signs of snark for the sake of snark is the “in” bit of claiming to know more than others.
If you don’t know where it is, could you say so?
Ed Darrell Says: One of the key signs of snark for the sake of snark is the “in” bit of claiming to know more than others.
If you don’t know where it is, could you say so?
—
Ed, you should really branch out of your MSM cocoon from time to time and seek the information available to you when questions arise. There’s a big bold world out there, and if you try, you’ll find that using your own thought process and judgement to analyze information has its own reward.
ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, LAT, TIME magazine, New Yorker, Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, DailyKooks and every other far left hate machine in America routinely photoshop pictures of politicians on the right as evil people.
Do Jax and Ed go around pounding their verbal fist at those sites?
Jax? Care to point out far left blogs where you whine and complain at the injustice of leftist haters posting pics you don’t like of people on the right? Ed?
The hypocrisy of the holier than thou commenters on the left here is precious. Like Gollum still crying out fro the ring, they’re blinded to its disasterous consequences.
ITTRP, you hit back at Saint Michelle, the same woman who traffics Chicago Southside poor in buses away from her hospital emergency rooms, dumping patients at other hospitals. Mmmhmmm, lets go grab us some of that Chicago Thug Healthcare.
This angry look of hers in this single picture is not new. I’ve seen it before and we’ve all heard her words. She grew up in a bitter, angry environment of Jessie “Race Extortionist” Jackson. She then attended a hate fest holy hell church of racism every sunday.
It is no surprise in this picture it captures her thoughts. She detest whites and still blames America for her success(lol, the irony). Far from practicing forgiveness, she practices hatred. After 20yrs of racist hatred under Reverend “G_d Damn America” who attacked Hillary Clinton for being white in Chicago, and being a child to godfather Jessie, it is no wonder she appears this way. The older you get, your face puts on whats in the heart. Always constipated with envy, venom and hatred? It starts to show around the eyes, the forehead and the temples, the brooding looks after 20-30 years.
Good picture. It is worth a thousand words easily. It paints the picture of a bitter women, obsessed with hatred of the caucasion race, who she feels has harmed her people. She is locked in the past. The lables of hatred passed off by people like Jessie and Al Sharpton in her young life reverberate through her very being, pulsating through her veins.
Yet, in the opportunities she and Obama had in Chicago, they screwed over the very brothers and sisters they were supposed to be helping and protecting. Shoddy healthcare and shoddy public housing treated their own people like dirt, but they got their payola in the end both in cash and in ultimate political porn glory.
Now, that hatred has entered the Whitehouse and threatens to tear our nation down piece by piece into another mediocre socialist state.
Only the blind could not and cannot still see this coming.
MatrixWatcher,
Thank you for your comment.
I added a link for those who don’t know Michelle Obama’s past.
sccituate_tgr,
Hear, hear!
Thank you for your comment.
Ed,
I’ll even help get you started…
Michelle Obama is the wife of ________.
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is the wife of ________.
These two women were photgraphed together, seated next to someone in a military uniform.
Is it really that difficult for you to figure out that if these two wives were together, it was likely at an event when the husbands were together, and speaking to an audience that includes members of the military?
Is it really that difficult for you to figure out where this picture was taken?
If so, let me know and I’ll give you some more clues.
This is not just “a bad photo” taken at a moment when Michelle Obama was yawning, sneezing, or in an otherwise moment of physical discomfort. This is a moment capturing the utter disdain this woman has for the person sitting next to her.
That in and of itself speaks volumes about the president’s wife. She does not know who Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is (other than the fact that she’s the wife of another world leader); however, she obviously does not like her, and I think that it’s a miracle that this photo ever made it to the light of day.
Speaking of which, was this photo from an international website, because there is NO way that it would have been used on an American MSM one.
I need a bunch more clues.
Does your mother know you’re so rude? Do you know where the event occurred, or are you as clueless as you appear? Can you possibly be more rude about a simple question? Should we assume you’re as clueless about the event as you appear, or should we assume that your views of the event are completely colored by your bias against simple statements of fact?
Was the photo taken by a news agency? Can you identify it? Since your practice seems to be to throw silly ideas around without citation, and since you obviously purloined the photo, should we assume the same degree of larceny in all of your quotes?
Oh, gee, I have a lot of questions. But you know? I figured out the answers long ago. We’re just waiting for you to stop twisting in the wind and get off your martyr stick and look at things seriously. I’d like the answers, but they’ll help you more than they help me.
Actually, photo selection is the key to the soul. If one does a Google search for photos of these two women together, one finds hundreds of photos of the two showing obvious affection and respect for each other, for their nations, for their husbands — two beautiful women who are conscious of their informal but important leadership roles, representing their nations well.
You picked the one photo that isn’t wholly flattering.
What sort of sour soul does that?
Mr Ed just continue to talk drivel. As for Jax, continue to lick the feet of your Mistress. Your “sweetie” is what she is. a cheap affirmative action “partner”. Why has she been dis barred? And Mr Barry too? Answer those questions….
You bought a sham now live with it
Carla looks like an angel. Michelle, looks like one of the female devils, in the demonic movie, The Devils Advocate, with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves.
John Beam Said:
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
You are correct that the American MSM would not allow such a picture to see the light of day.
If that link later goes dead, I have archived it here.
And here’s a word-count of Barack Hussein Obama’s speech.
By the way, I am by no means the only blogger to post this picture.
A very quick search surfaced these, among others:
Tammy Bruce (and you can’t say that she and I see eye-to-eye on everything!)
Audacity Of Hypocrisy
It’s interesting that Michelle Malkin used a cropped version of this picture, cropped to only show Michelle’s face, in a post about Michelle Obama today.
How did Sarah Palin end up in this thread?
And why do you bother to respond to a bunch of obvious trolls?
Caption for the photo at the top:
“I have to suffer through all this BS about dead white boys, and then they sit me next to a good-looking white bitch”.
Did the photo appear in any European MSM?
Did the photo appear in any MSM, anywhere?
Ed is the poster child of “There are none so blind as those who will not see”. I debated in high school and college and ran across these no-talent style debaters who merely questioned everything but never make a real argument. They are people who aren’t interested in learning anything or occasionally challenging their own beliefs – they think that winning means merely cudgeling the opposition with endless, inane questions until their opponents get exasperated – and that makes them claim victory. You will notice that the majority of Ed’s posts are questions and not statements…
Hmmm, sounds like a description of most of the left in this country at the moment. I wouldn’t mind so much if they were at least honest with themselves (and therefore us) that they will do anything thing to win, including lying, misrepresenting, attacking the person of any and all that stand up to them instead of engaging in actual debate, ie, a fruitful discussion whose point is to reveal a truth, not an agenda. Instead, they lie to themselves by believing they already have reached the “correct” decision and now must enforce it on us for our own good. Hubris. With any luck at all, they will have an epiphany about their wrong-headedness before it all comes crashing down, since pride goeth before a fall…
Mortis,
Thank you for your comment.
That is exactly what they are doing with the lies, misrepresentations, and attacking the person of any and all that stand up to them regarding Anthropogenic (Man-made) Global Warming. They are not interested in the truth. They are interested in a Socialist agenda and will tell any lie necessary in order to achieve that agenda. They do indeed lie to themselves by believing they already have reached the “correct” decision and now must enforce it on us for our own good. Truth tellers be damned!
Questions neither you nor the blog’s editor can answer, sadly. I debated in high school, at championship levels in college, and coached teams to the NDT. I was a cross-x champ. Questions, as you can see above, can be devastating. It appears the photo at the beginning of this thread is an outlier (perhaps “outliar” would be more accurate) that caught an odd look from Mrs. Obama. There are literally hundreds of other photos that show a warm, respectful and friendly relationship between the two women, accompanied by a hundred news articles saying that’s the case.
ITTRP claimed that this photo did not appear in U.S. papers due to some conspiracy. I asked where the photo appeared — and there is no answer.
While ITTRP claims concern about lies and misrepresentations, he does not hesitate to post a photo with an inflammatory and false claim, implicit though it may be, and then defend his misrepresentations despite a complete lack of supporting evidence.
In debate one should learn to weigh sources for accuracy and substance. When one finds evidence contrary to one’s views, one should be able to adjust one’s views to reflect the new evidence. In debate we run into many people who speak only those things that reinforce their biases. It can make for an entertaining round, but it rarely wins, and it’s ugly as hell in serious policy discussions.
I took the Red Pill owes an apology to Michelle Obama. I’ll wager we won’t see it.
The only person who has used the word “conspiracy” in this thread is you, Ed.
As for a media bias in favor of both of the Obamas, that has been well documented by many other sources, including both Republican and Democratic sources.
The original post above consists of three things:
1) An undoctored picture
2) A quote from William Shakespeare
3) A quote from the Bible
Where is the “inflammatory and false claim”?
And the picture is not an “outlier”. There are others, like when she was talking about how “mean” America is, and how she was proud of America for the first time in her adult life, and only because her husband would be the Democratic Party nominee.
I don’t owe an apology to Michelle Obama. She owes an apology to “We the People” of the United States of America.
Oh, but I just put a name on it. Here’s the discussion of conspiracy:
And here:
Perhaps you need to check with the people who wrote those posts.
I’m from Missouri, and you’re stuck in far northern Saskatchewan. Show me the photos from the “mean” speech.
And justify your selecting one odd photo instead of the thousand others. We learn more into your soul from your crabbed photo selection of an obscure photo that no mainstream media thought to run (that you can show, despite your snark about U.S. media alone not running it), than we learn from the photo.
It’s your gross errors by omission that tell the story. Why not pick a random 25 photos of Michelle Obama from that event — let’s see what they look like, and what story they tell.
So, you have Obama talking about looking out for each other — preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which you apparently disdain (we learn more about you as we go) — and a bunch of conservative commentaters trying to spin that into Marxism.
We Christians have been accused of being Marxist for generations now. The charge is as odd, bizarre, inaccurate and offensive now as it always has been.
Who is your savior, Ebenezer Scrooge before the visitations? I can hear you now: “The poor? Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?”
Most Americans agree that we have a duty to build a society that gives opportunity to everyone, especially the poor, as Ronald Reagan acknowledged.
The Soviet Union died on December 31, 1991. Got a newspaper?
Your “defense” of your bad taste gets more and more bizarre.
Ed,
Obama is not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Obama is preaching the “Social[ist] Gospel“.
Read all the links there (including “Obama vs. Jesus“) and educate yourself. I also ask you personally, On What Does Your Salvation Depend?
Obama’s only experience as a “Christian” has been the 20+ years he spent learning racist, marxist “Black Liberation Theology” from “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright.
You ask:
My savior, my redeemer, is the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God the Father raised from the dead. Jesus is Lord.
Read the Gospels and educate yourself. You are attacking basic Christian theology. It’s offensive. It’s worse that you don’t recognize it.
Ed,
Your unsubstantiated attack is weak and offensive.
Please explain to everyone reading here, using Bible passages, how I am supposedly “attacking basic Christian theology”.
Now you’re opposed to liberation theology again? What, you don’t like Jesus at all, especially “the truth shall make you free?”
Do you have a clue what you’re talking about? Liberation theology generally emphasizes democracy. I feared you were a totalitarian fascist, and you’re not quelling my fears. What is it about Oscar Romero you don’t like? You prefer totalitarianism? You prefer using guns instead of votes? You really love communism, but only if it’s the totalitarian kind?
Mean, crabby and muddled. Maybe you should join a church and study the Gospels.
“Black Liberation Theology” is a not really a theology based on “liberation”, it is based on “revenge”. If it was a theology based on “liberation”, they would put their focus on Jesus Christ:
Now, connect the dots…
Since Jesus is the truth, i.e. “Jesus” = “the truth”, then we can replace the words “the truth” with the word “Jesus”, and we get:
Now THAT is “Liberation Theology”! And it is for people of all skin colors!
“Black Liberation Theology” is nothing more than the thoughts of Malcolm X and Saul Alinsky wrapped together in a Christian Façade.
I say again that “Black Liberation Theology” is a not really a theology based on “liberation”, it is based on “revenge”. Believers of this so-called “theology” do not follow Jesus Christ and do not believe in foregiveness. They believe in revenge. They want to take every crime that was ever comitted against people with dark skin, and now commit those crimes against people with light skin. They want to give habeas corpus rights to Islamic terrorists and take habeas corpus rights away from white Christians.
If Barack Hussein Obama is a Christian, why can’t he confess with his mouth the three simple words?
Jesus is LORD!
“Liberation Theology” as taught by “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, has everything to do with socialism and nothing to do with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Our Founders believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, not socialism.
As an America-loving Christian, would you name your children after a Marxist revolutionary and a comprehensive treatise on the contents of Islam?
I would think not.
But you know who did?
A man who attended the same “church” that Obama attended for over 20 years, and succeeded Obama when Obama relinquished his Illinois Senate seat.
Who is that? His name is Kwame Raoul.
But pay no attention to Obama’s church being friendly to Marxism and Islam.
“Liberation Theology” is Marxist. Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.
And back to the relationship between the media and the Obamas…
Twitter quip of the morning from Lindsay Janeway:
Communist Goals 1963:
#27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”