Which one of the above images is the real Google? For that matter are both of the above images real Google photo schemes for different audiences?Alright next question, is there a message in the way the characters are being aligned?
Which assemblage is sexual and which one is not?
The reason sexual entendre keeps popping up in this blog is because this blog is not the one having his 8 year old wife dress up sexually constantly in public showing skin in a pimp effort to gain passage of stimulus packages of various sorts.
This blog didn't put in sexual things into the stimulus deals.
This blog also did not as his first action pass sodomite, amazonian and transsexual executive orders.
Think of that, the first major thing Birdie Obama did was sexual, the second things dealt with sexual diseases and sexually made babies and his continuous purpose has been to pimp his 8 year old mental development wife.
So which of the Google above artwork is real giving a sexual message, or, perhaps are both of them dealing in sexually overt messages, attempting to use children's characters to sexualize the millions of them who saw the above Google ad.
Who was it but Jocelyn Elders and Hillary Clinton who led the sexualization of children in producing masturbation and homosexual source literature from their benefactors to sexualize our children.
Who was it but John Kerry's daughter who announced at the Democratic National Convention, that it was not a woman's choice, but a child's choice.
Who has it been who has been backing Democrats putting out this recruitment literature.
.........and if it has been put out, called legal, then for those purposes why is Google not just placing overt ads advocating what Barack Obama has been a part of.
Why is Barack Obama hiding his bi sexual nature in not being allowed to grieve over his dead sexual associate in Donald Young of Chicago who was murdered.
In the above top figures, could a Google G, just as easily be an adult cat in a hat, looking in psychological terms at the lamp of his appendage while in a bathtub type situation with a little fish he is playing on the hook in a big O coming.
Could the yellow O which if one studies it more closely, be more the center of a spread, literally in what that term means in appearing to be the orchid of desire in appearance.
The blue fish G, why is it in the coy position of looking more like a 6 in seeing something naughty.
The Grinch L, why is this a Michelle Obama green color she is in perpetually, looking like a smug voyeur looking on.
And who but the E on the end, a 9 position, presenting themselves perfectly for the pelvic thrust of the blue 6 fish.
The first above series of characters is what came out of Google artwork and was splashed all across the world today, but was it's image Obama sexually covert in the daughter Kerry sexualization of children or was it overt as dumping books into children's schools?
The second series is a manipulation to reveal a typical more overt character set in the fish in the lamp knowingly placed where there is not a doubt, nor a conversation that a young person might have as the top one leans to.
The coy presentation of the O to it is sodomite and the yellow O is the dyke and lipstick lesbian adult situation.
The blue G with it's tail tickling to the adult Grinch who now has it's hand where it is covering modestly is burlesque.
The final spread eagle E is typical of the raunchiest of porn, if it was intended as such.
This blog does not work for Google propaganda which promotes certain blogs and content to censoring other pro Obama policy comment.
This blog does not visit south Asia where it seemed during the Tsunami that so many producers and reporters seemed right at home in that pedophile capital of the world exploiting children.
For a very long time during the mid 80's onward if anyone asked a travel agent about south Asia they would be alerting the agent they were there to molest children. It was common knowledge and so much so that the child molesters had to "feature the area as a vacation spot" to get people there for cover for what they were doing.
This blog is not accusing Google of anything. It is asking though why if cheating on your wife, being sodomite, amazonian, wearing women's clothes if you are male to vice versa, to the sexualization of world children using cartoon story books as, "Heather has two Mommies", then why would Google have to hide or be ashamed of putting up artwork using Dr. Seuss which sexual psychologists could very well look at as child recruitment in placing into their minds sexual poses they would be find if being molested.
Compare that to the adult nature second one which in Al Franken leftist nature "comedy" would be aimed at adults.
What is innocence now? Is the world so sexualized that it sees sex everywhere or has the world been so desensitized that when red lights should be going off in protecting their children, they don't recognize the covert messages because they have been molested for years with the same Playboy poses leading them to the current raunch of the internet beaver and woodrow, body part humans.
It all spells Google. It all spells Obama. It all spells sexualization. All utilizing the same letters. One illegal in attempting to be made legal perversity and the other perversity already legal by Obama standards.
Yet what is the message being sent in hours of drawings, meetings with Googles leaders in board rooms as they back, promote and incorporate Obama sexual policy into the world.
What is really going on?
agtG 341
