Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
—well, I’m weak:
America’s future has become an Orwellian nightmare of ultra-liberalism. Beginning with the Gore Presidency, the government has become increasingly dominated by liberal extremists. In 2004, Muslim terrorists stopped viewing the weakened American government as a threat; instead they set their sites on their true enemies, vocal American conservatives. Terrorist assassins have thinned the ranks of the vocal Right. The few conservatives that survived attempts on their lives have been forced underground by the oppressive “Coulter Laws” of 2007. In order to further their cause, they have joined forces and formed a powerful covert conservative organization called “The Freedom of Information League”, aka F.O.I.L.
The New York City faction of F.O.I.L. is lead by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, each uniquely endowed with special abilities devised by a biomechanical engineer affectionately named “Oscar”. F.O.I.L. is soon to be joined by a young man named Reagan McGee. Reagan was born on September 11th, 2001. Reagan has grown to manhood in an ultra-liberal educational system: being told, not asked, what to think. With personal determination, which alienates him from his contemporaries, he has chosen the path less traveled…the path to the Right.
Two decades of negotiation with the U.N., and America’s administration of 2021 (President Chelsea Clinton and Vice President Michael Moore), has culminated in a truce with fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, or so America is told. The honorable ambassador from Afghanistan has come to NYC to address the U.N., his name is Usama Bin Laden.
Although, Ambassador Bin Laden has announced that he will publicly apologize for the “misunderstanding” of the events of 9/11. In actuality, he intends on detonating a tactical nuke that is contained in his private diplomatic briefcase. It is a race against the clock to save NYC from a nuclear holocaust and the world from liberal domination. Only with F.O.I.L.’s help, can “Liberality For All” once again become “Liberty For All!”
—via Fanboy Rampage, which I have got to start reading more often. Original’s over here, at Byrne Robotics. But seriously, folks: Mike Mackey’s dream is to publish “the world’s first conservative comic.” Will no one help him buck the liberal media to realize it?
I don’t mean to insult Gore or those that voted for him (although that is an unfortunate result of the series), In my storyline, he is only one of many more liberals follow him. (think more John Kerry here)
Do you really believe that if UBL were to make an appeal to the U.N. promising an end to world terrorism, That Kofi would not leap at the offer? (At any costs.)
But I think you make my point. Yes, the republicans are in power, but had to fight against the overwhelming mainstream liberal media to do it, and still the Republicans won; this proves a strong conservative base in America. So by now you would think some one would have at least recognized the interest in a book with an extremely conservative message.
Commenting is closed for this article.
Want... to parody...
Can't... make any more... absurd...
[falls over]
I'm really amused by the idea of "an ultra-liberal educational system: being told, not asked, what to think" -- how exactly do you run a school system where you ask every student what they want to be taught? "Johnny? What is 2+2?" "Five." "Well, OK, if you say so."
Most striking is that what it sounds like he would prefer describes the ultimate conservative nightmare of "political correctness."
That is not "extremely conservative." It is "extremely retarded."
I think you're misunderestimating the potential, here. I get this picture in my head of G. Gordon Liddy in yellow-and-blue spandex, hood down around his shoulders, a brewski in one hand, sneering around a seegar as he says, "Kid, I'm the BEST there is at what I do. The TRICK--is not to MIND it," well, I start giggling uncontrollably.
This thing would move serious product. But maybe a name change? Hannityfriends? —Maybe not.
Kip -
Not sure if this was your intent, but
your comment made me imagine Liddy
playing the Comedian from "Watchmen".
Urgh. This Mackey character reminds me
of a comment my eldest brother (who's
lived in Ohio) said about such people:
"What can you expect from someone who
thinks 'Easy Rider' had a happy ending?"
RE: Glenns Comment: "I'm really amused by the idea of an ultra-liberal educational system"
I am wondering if Glenn has attended college? If you go to pretty much any college these day and take any class considered to be "the arts" you will understand what an liberal educational system is.
RE: how exactly do you run a school system where you ask every student what they want to be taught? "Johnny? What is 2+2?" "Five."
The problem is that when Johnny answers 5, a good teach tells him he is wrong. The ultra-lib teacher is afraid to correct him, because his failure my scar his self image.. then they give him half credit for being creative.
RE: This thing would move serious product. But maybe a name change?
If you see the graphics of the Title you will understand how the name is perfect for the series.
Take the phrase “Liberty For All” (colored red, white and blue) and force in the word “ali” (screened with U.N. colors & symbol). The prophet Ali is a central player in the Islamic religion. In the alternate reality of “Liberality for All” the U.N. believes UBL when he tells them a peace has been reached with Islamic terrorists. So the merger of the words “Liberty For All” and “ali” worked to form LiberALIty For All”. Which becomes the state of being in the comics series; its government, run by Orwellian liberals, have turned the message of “Liberty For All” into “Liberality for All”
Whoa.
Where to begin?
Well, my son (turns eight in April) is
currently in school - public elementary
school in Oakland CA, which (in Mackey's
book) is belly of the liberal beast.
If the question is 2+2 and he answers
5, he will MOST CERTAINLY be corrected,
first by his teacher, then his fathers.
The idea of 'ultra-lib' teachers who don't
teach or correct behavior is cherished by
certain rightists in this country - where
they get the data from, I have no idea.
(Exegesis: they cherish the urban legend of such teachers, similarly to Reagan's famed 'welfare
queen' buying Cadillacs with food stamps. They bitterly resist the notion that such teachers are as mythical).
Also, Ali is only a 'central player' in
Shi'ite Islam. Sunni Muslims have a very
low opinion of him. Further, 'UN colors'
means blue - on the UN flag, on UN helmets
and berets, etc. So it'd be tricky to
delineate using standard four color processing-
maybe dark blue for 'American' and sky blue
for 'UN'? And yes, I am mocking you.
But it's obvious to the halt, the lame and the blind that Liberality For All is a hamfisted swipe at the dreaded, despised 'liberals' who
foster all misery in the world, and has, at bottom, nothing to do with a Muslim who died over 1300 years ago.
The biggest problem I have with the education system is the fact that it is not, in fact, neutral and unbiased as it pusports to be. I understand the point of not wanting to impress the kids with a particular belief or worldview or anything, but that's really impossible. The standard excludes any God, gods, supernatural, etc. but in so doing assumes a system of belief known as secular humanism. I'm not going into what I think of that system, but it is every bit as much a religious stance as Christianity, for instance. Christianity says "there is a God" and then elaborates on how things work in accordance, humanism says "there is no God" and then elaborates on how things work in accordance. The thing is that I don't think the schools admit that this system of belief is, in fact, a system of belief.
In this sense, I think there is some basis to his ultra-lib vision of schools.
The tendency of some people to describe what public schools teach as 'secular humanism', e.g., a belief system equivalent to a religion, has long concerned me.
My son learns all sorts of things in school (first grade) that are part of this belief system. E.g., that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Believing that is not equivalent to religion, in my opinion. Believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth would be, because there is no objective evidence that that happens. I've described the difference to some people as follows: if the beliefs are falsifiable, it's science, if they're not, it's religion. That's why scientific theories keep changing; new evidence falsifies old models, and new theories are needed. People who do not understand or do not accept the scientific worldview perceive this as a failing of science, when it is it's greatest strength. If science functioned like religion, we'd still be using Aristotelian cosmology - hard to send a probe to Mars that way.
Again - 'secular humanism' is a system of belief, but one based on evidence and reason. That makes it a very different animal from religion.