Skip to main content

Perhaps the craziest of all Obama conspiracy theories

I've read and heard about some pretty crazy conspiracy theories centering around President Barack Obama. The one I just read about may be the craziest. Alright, so perhaps it places second behind the theory that Obama was born from a man.

On October 11th of this year, the Republican caucus, led by majority leader Chip Rogers, held a closed-door meeting at the Georgia state Capitol. At one point during the four-hour meeting, local conservative activist Field Searcy made the following comments regarding President Obama and liberal organizations:

"They do that [use mind-control techniques] by a process known as the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation during the Cold War as a mind-control technique. It's also known as 'consensive process.' But basically the goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome while keeping the illusion of being open to public input."

Yes, 39% of whites were mind-controlled by President Obama to vote for him, while the rest somehow weren't effected. A smaller percentage of young voters cast their ballots in favor of Obama this year than in 2008, as some were able to rid themselves of the spell then Senator Obama had placed them under. I'm now being mind-controlled by the president to stop writing this blog, for he doesn't want word to spread. I will then eat dinner, brush my teeth, shower, and watch football, for that is what the evil lord Barack Obama has controlled me to do. Whether or not I'm able to break free of these controls at any point in my future is beyond anyone's knowledge at this point, besides the president that is.

::snaps out of it::

Okay, what happened? Where was I? What was I even doing? Hmm... That's right - sometime's I wish President Obama could mind-control people like Chip Rogers and Field Searcy, so they weren't able to spout such nonsense. But then again, that'd leave me with less to write about and less of which to poke fun. So, nevermind, Mr. President. Let's permit the likes of Mr. Rogers, Mr. Searcy, and company to spread the good word of idiocy.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/georgia-senate-gets-52-minute-briefing-united-nations-takeover

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"