CHAIRMAN POWELL: Good afternoon. Four nights ago, the virginal peoples of our great puritan country endured a grievously lewd assault, perpetrated against them by the liberal television network CBS. Indeed, as America's grand annual orgy of comically stylized brutality – "The Super Bowl" – paused for its traditional intermission spectacle of meticulously choreographed vacuousness, millions suffered the innocence-shattering trauma of viewing... a titty! Specifically, the foul pierced mammary of Janet Jackson, a broad who looks suspiciously colored considering she's the sister of the world's most famous porcelain-skinned boy humper.

Now some people say it wasn't that big of a deal. They say it was no different from seeing the breast of a lady monkey without hair. But speaking as a high yellow fellow who owes his job to crony nepotism, I think I know better than them when I say that just because normal children may only sexualize ivory white teats, doesn't mean a set of jugs darker than Wesley Snipes isn't also worthy of offense! That is why today, after having been overwhelmed by disgusted emails from closeted white Drudge Report readers, I am compelled to issue strict new guidelines for defining broadcast obscenity. (Applause.)

Get the GODLY New Book!

2004 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OBSCENITY STANDARDS:
Using the standards set forth by the US Supreme Court in deciding "Miller vs. California" as a starting point, all broadcast content – whether video, audio, or textual in nature – shall henceforth be defined as "obscene" and just plain "absolutely intolerable!" should any of the following conditions be met:

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that said content, taken as a whole, fails to sufficiently glorify extreme violence, the slaughter of Christ-hating Arab women and children, and/or the carpet-bombing of impoverished Middle Eastern villages.

2. Whether the broadcast triggers in Americans of all ages and genders any uncomfortable and/or traumatizing recollections of the sickeningly perverse anatomy which taunts them daily from their very own bathroom mirrors.

3. More specifically, whether the broadcast depicts or describes, in a patently unambiguous fashion, the existence of human nipples upon the chests of arguably human persons whom do not possess a human penis and human testicles.

4. Whether the work causes or instills, in a wholly involuntary manner, the blood-rushing engorging of the hirsute groinal members and/or tissues encompassing or surrounding the penoidal gland or organ of persons whom do not possess the aforementioned non-existent human nipples.

5. Notwithstanding the preceding, whether the work might induce in the viewer a physiological state that is defined by a reduced receptiveness to the messages of zillion-dollar marketing campaigns for prescription boner medication.

6. And finally – and most importantly – whether the work lacks serious neoconservative, constructionist, reactionary, puritanical, quasi-fascist merit, and as such, has failed to earn the Rev. Pat Robertson's 700 Club Blue Ribbon of Libidinal Nullification, thereby automatically being complicit in the aiding and abetting of terrorism.

Thank you. And God Bless America.

	» E-MAIL THIS PAGE TO A FELLOW REPUBLICAN «
Printing Help