Flagged as ‘Fishy!’ by the White House


With a blog entry on the official White House blog, the health care fascists have been given marching orders to report those of us who question the president’s plan to reform health care as “fishy.”

Marcon Phillips writes in a post titled, “Facts Are Stubborn Things:”

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

While we decidedly are not fishy (we shower, after all), getting flagged by the White House is something we should be proud of.

So I whipped up some quick badges for folks to use on their blogs, Web sites, e-mails, social networks, etc. to brag about how “fishy” we really are.

Take ’em. Use ’em. Heck, even report them to the White House.

There’s five sizes for your malodorous pleasure:

468 x 60:

fishy banner

300 x 250:

fishy square

180 x 120:

fishy big badge

180 x 60:

fishy small badge

125 x 125:

fishy square


New ‘flag me’ badges with fishy links

The White House, realizing the whole flag@whitehouse.gov scheme was fishy in its own right, has shut it down. So the stuff below is now irrelevant.

At the suggestion of a reader, I tweaked the badges to create “flag me as fishy to the White House” badges.

Just link the images to send an e-mail to the White House. I do it using JavaScript, like this:

That will put “This is fishy” in the subject of the e-mail and the Web address of the page on which the badge appears in the body of the e-mail!

You can try it out by clicking on the badge in my sidebar on the upper right of this page.

Of course, you can edit the code to make it say whatever you like, and you’ll want to edit the location of the badge to wherever you put it on your sever.

Why do this? To bombard the flag@whitehouse.gov e-mail address and whatever Obama lackeys who read the mail with messages. It’s ridiculous that the administration would even suggest such a thing. On the off chance the messages will actually get read, why not send them “rumors and chain letters” that actually have some hint of truth?

What, you want all of them?

Fine, here you go:

box_zipDownload a zip file of all 5 here.

And for added fun, here’s an image for use as a Twitter profile pic:

fishy twitter badge

Are there any sizes we still need? Let me know!

3 thoughts on “Flagged as ‘Fishy!’ by the White House”

  1. While I appreciate the chutzpah, people should not ignore the gravity of the situation. The White House is not just another left wing website. Obama spokesman Mister Gibbs has said that “nobody is collecting names,” but he also made clear that the WH is “required by law” to keep all correspondence. http://tiny.cc/cwS2j What a convenient law if you happen to be collecting names and don’t really have to tell anyone that you are doing so.

    People should read Byron York: “Obama’s dissident database could be secret — and permanent” at The Washington Examiner. http://tiny.cc/grVPX

    When Hitler first started his takeover of Germany, people didn’t take him seriously. They thought he was a joke. Even today, a lot of folks make fun of Ahmadinejad, but he won’t be so amusing when he has a nuke.

    I’m not trying to tell anyone how to respond to the situation, but rather trying to warn people not to take it as joke because in the long run it’s not funny At All.

  2. Paranoia Strikes Deep In The Heartland . . . as Brooooce (or was it G S-H?) would sing. Now, if you were planning to covertly collect names and thus implement packdrill, would you go out of your way to flag the archive? Ooohhhh, naughty, yes, of course, to be sneaky subtle? Or perhaps just to make sure accusations don’t fly uncontradicted, a? Perspective always depends on prejudices. Pardon my ignorance, but doesn’t every archive cut both ways, and serve to protect (from a genuine conspiracy to pervert) as well as present a risk of perversion of governance? Damn, it’s those pesky intrusive regulations again. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Hey, ho. One day we will all be free. And dead.

Don't just sit there, say something!