Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“The biggest voter suppression mechanism in American politics is Hillary Clinton’s personality”

To know her is to loathe her.

For the entire 40 years of Hillary Clinton’s public life, one thing has been consistent: The less people see of her, the more popular she is.

The Deplorables of Arkansas in the late ’70s, were not thrilled by the snooty feminist from Chicago who refused to take her husband’s name—so she was hidden at the Rose Law Firm where money could be funneled to the Clintons through her supposed legal prowess (a continuing theme).

Before Obamacare became an epithet, the term “HillaryCare” was used to stop the Clinton socialized medicine plan of the 1990s. And if you think that Hillary’s involvement in it didn’t have as much to do with popular rejection of it as its content did, then you weren’t there.

Sure, she won in New York after the Republicans went through a candidate shuffle when Giuliani declined to run (due to personal issues that seem tame today)—but hey, that was New York.

Hillary was the inevitable president in 2008—until people had to contemplate four years of the screech that Rush Limbaugh wickedly said reminded men of their ex-wives, over the dulcet tones of Barack Obama.

And so it goes. When Hillary is in the background, her popularity rises. When she is front and center, it goes down.

Hillary Clinton is right, however, when she says: “I take responsibility for all my decisions, but that’s not why I lost.”

That is correct. You lost because of who you are, not what you did.

Such a nasty woman. If Trump only ever said one perfectly true thing in his entire life, that’s it.



The truth about Titiana.

Last April, I decided to set up a satirical account on Twitter under the guise of radical intersectionalist poet Titania McGrath. She’s a po-faced young activist who, in spite of her immense privilege, is convinced that she is oppressed. She’s not a direct parody of an existing individual, but anyone who regularly reads opinion columns in the Guardian will be familiar with the type. Given that such individuals are seemingly impervious to reason, and would rather cry ‘bigot’ than engage in serious debate, satire seemed to be the only option.

The obsession with victimhood from predominantly bourgeois political commentators is something I have always found inherently funny. It’s a phenomenon that has been amplified to a great extent by social media. This extremely vocal minority of activists enjoy pontificating to the masses from their online lectern, berating those who fall short of their moral expectations, and endlessly trawling through old tweets in the hope of discovering a misjudged phrase or sentiment that could justify a campaign of public shaming. In their eyes, there is no possibility of redemption. The most vicious remarks you’ll find on social media come from the racist far right and woke intersectionalists. They are two heads of the same chimera.

That last is the first of several dubious assertions in the article; this one I won’t address, having no experience myself with any “racist far right” social-media commentary.

American physicist Steven Weinberg famously remarked that ‘with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion’. It makes sense, then, to think of the social-justice movement as a kind of cult. Its members are generally decent people with good intentions. They have an unshakeable certainty that their worldview is correct. They feel the need to proselytise and convert as many of the fallen as possible. And even though they are capable of the most horrendous dehumanising behaviour, they think they are the good guys.

Wrong. “Decent people with good intentions” don’t indulge in “unshakeable certainty that their worldview is correct”; they try to nurture in themselves a modicum of humility, tolerance, and broad-mindedness instead. Nor do they propose to coerce people who don’t share their views into either converting or submitting. They don’t work to instate their dominance by force of law, at the muzzle of the government gun, or denounce all who disagree in the vilest, most threatening terms. They damned sure don’t menace dissenters with direct threats of violence and murder; terrorize their enemies’ spouses and children in their very homes by kicking in their door at 2 AM, or disrupt their lives with screaming, days-long protests on their lawns and porches; contact their employers hoping to wreck their livelihoods; or physically gang-assault them with bike locks and/or other weapons, then run away like the cowards that they are.

The Woke admittedly are delusional enough to believe they are the good guys. But they are very much the opposite—and that definitionally precludes them from being “decent people,” or anything even close.

The problem is compounded because identitarians on both the right and the left typically believe themselves to be the underdogs, and are fuelled by a sense of grievance. In spite of the fact that we have a right-wing government,

Uh huh. Right.

we should be in no doubt that woke politics is culturally dominant. I have previously argued that the notion of political correctness – a broadly agreed social contract that recognises that overt racism, sexism and homophobia are uncivil – is a laudable concept.

Which concept was commonplace among truly decent people long before the term “woke” came along.

Woke ideology has little to do with political correctness.

Sorry, wrong again. Woke ideology has way more than just “little” to do with PC. It’s an extension of it, political correctness spun out to its logical conclusion—the distilled, uncut form of it. The Pure and Blushful Hippocrene, one might say.

But enough picking on the guy. Doyle’s Titiana creation was as timely as it was brilliant, a perfectly conceived and executed trolling. He dropped a barbed hook into some truliy fetid waters, and my hat is off to him for throwing that line out there.




Since she entered Congress earlier this year, freshman Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar has consistently made news with her anti-Semitism, which may yet force the Democratic Party into a corner. Less noticed—and apparently even less troubling to her party—is the hostility Omar shows in public statements about her adopted country. Omar was born in Somalia, which she fled with her family at age nine, during the country’s civil war. She spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya until the United States rescued her and her family in 1995. It’s not surprising that she has made her remarkable experience a centerpiece of her political campaigns and public life.

What is surprising is the extent to which her narrative consists of complaints about the intolerance, racism, inequity, and filth that she found when she came to the United States, and since. Gratitude, for the country and the people who saved and welcomed her family, is largely absent from her telling. Interviewedon the popular Pod Save America podcast, Omar explained that when her family was preparing for resettlement in America, they watched orientation videos “about the life that they are to expect once they arrive here…happy families, and dinner tables where there is an abundance of food, images of happy young children running off to their school buses…images of a country where people are happy and leading a life that is prosperous. You are really looking forward to life as you see it on that screen.”

Life in American was not like the images she saw in the welcome video, Omar insists. “When we landed,” she recalls, “I saw panhandlers on the side of the streets, there being trash everywhere, and graffiti on the side of the walls.” Omar asked her father why America fell so short of what she had been promised, and he told her to “hold on, we will get to our America.” Omar has still not arrived in the America she was promised, though she has now been elected to Congress. We continue to disappoint her. “The current reality that people live in…an America where you can’t access the justice system equally because you are born with a different race, or a different gender, or are born into a different class, that isn’t the America that I heard about, that isn’t the America that I watched.”

Omar told a similar story to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, saying that she noticed “a disconnect between the ideals of America and the actual reality.” This is a constant theme. She did not expect, she has said, to “go to school with kids who were worried about food as much as I was worried about it in a refugee camp.”

America is not only as deprived as an East African refugee camp, the country is also filled with people who don’t recognize how lucky they are to admit people like Ilhan Omar. Unlike our violent and unpredictable natives, including the notorious “ISIS bride,” whom Omar makes a point of noting is “not an immigrant, but an American born to a family of diplomats,” immigrants like her “went through years of vetting and went through the process of becoming citizens. I mean we have been fingerprinted, tested, more than any American has ever been who’s born in this country.” Like many on the left, Omar believes that America’s purpose is to admit immigrants and make them feel welcome. To the extent that Americans “make room” for the next wave of immigrants, they fulfill the American dream; to the extent that they fail to be welcoming, they betray it.

Yeah, well, fuck her, and the horse she rode in on too. She doesn’t belong here, she has no right to be here, she is a destructive and malign influence. Her obnoxious lack of any sense of humility or gratitude over the gift she was given when she was allowed to immigrate here from the squalid hellhole of her birth is the topper, the icing on the cake. She ought to be sent right the fuck back where she came from, soonest. Failing that, she is hereby cordially invited to kiss my lily-white American ass for all eternity, plus two days.

Doubling down on ingrate update! Okay, so even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

On Friday, controversial Democratic Congresswoman Ihlan Omar blamed the media for distorting her remarks about former President Barack Obama.

“Exhibit A of how reporters distort words. I’m an Obama fan! I was saying how [President] Trump is different from Obama, and why we should focus on policy not politics,”  she tweeted.

Earlier today, Politico reported Omar said this:

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.

“We can’t be only upset with Trump…His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,” Omar says. “And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.

The content of Omar’s Soundcloud clip does not vary dramatically from Politico’s reporting.

Umm, actually, sounds more to me like you were saying that Obama was similar to Trump, not different, you lying bint. But maybe certain words have different meanings in Mogadishu than they do here. Walsh runs down the new Democrat-Socialist Victim’s Poker pecking order:

The capitulation of the Democrat transient majority — thanks, Paul Ryan! — to a minority of three radical females (Omar, Tlaib, and AOC)  is a weather vane indicting the direction the Democrat wind is blowing. I am in concordance with my friend and colleague Roger Simon in his assessment of the political situation. The instant capitulation of Pelosi and the rapid rewriting of a resolution meant to deplore anti-Semitisim — that is, Jew hatred — into a generic condemnation of all forms of “bigotry” tells you who has the power now. It’s not Pelosi and her sidekick, Steny Hoyer, but the young turkettes. In the hierarchy of crackpot Leftist intersectionality, it’s now clear that Muslim trumps black; black trumps woman; female trumps male; and all of the above trump white males, especially Christian males. And everybody hates the Jews.

The Alt-Righters can be as paranoid and conspiracy-minded as they like about Dem Joooz, but I’ll take eleventy million of them over one Muslim-terrorist-loving infiltrator of Omar’s ilk every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.


The powerlust is strong with this one

Well, that sure didn’t take long.

What a difference a day makes.

Hillary Clinton made headlines Monday when she told a local New York news channel that she would not runfor president in 2020.

“I’m not running, but I’m going to keep on working and speaking and standing up for what I believe,” the former presidential nominee told News 12 Westchester. She insisted that she would remain relevant and has no plans of “going anywhere.”

But late Tuesday, Maggie Haberman, a political reporter for the New York Times, tweeted that she spoke with a person close to the former secretary of state. The unnamed source said Clinton was not trying to “be emphatic and close the door on running” with the comment and was apparently “surprised” at the reaction.

“The person also says [Clinton] is extremely unlikely to run, but that she remains bothered that she’s expected to close the door on it when, say, John Kerry isn’t. She has told her team she is waiting at least to see the Mueller report,” Haberman tweeted.

Yeah, I can see that mattering to her quite a lot. For one thing, if the Koup Klux Klowns can’t pull something at least resembling a win out of the flaming dumpster against all odds, then what hope does she have? Plus, there’s still the small related matter of her, Obama’s, and their Deep State unindicted co-conspirators’ sedition possibly being brought fully to light as an unintended consequence of the Mueller shitshow, and of something resembling justice being visited upon at least some of them in consequence. She’ll definitely want to weigh the odds of being manacled and frogmarched off of a campaign-stop stage to begin a long term of Rockin’ Orange in her 2020 deliberations.

I’m sure Trump would greatly enjoy whipping her doddering, gin-soaked ass a second time—he’s Tweeted to that effect, I believe—and should I manage to not croak or go senile by then, I’ll get a lot of laughs out of making further sport of the shambolic old trainwreck myself. But seriously, folks: isn’t about time for the Clintons to just go away?

How can you tell she’s lying update! Hey, didn’t a bunch of people lecture the hell out of Trump that it was critically crucially vitally crucially critical that he unequivocally pledge to accept the results of the election, no matter how fraudulent or rigged it may have been, at a debate somewhere? Or did I just dream it?

“I was the first person who ran for president without the protection of the Voting Rights Act, and I will tell you, it makes a really big difference. And it doesn’t just make a difference in Alabama and Georgia; it made a difference in Wisconsin, where the best studies that have been done said somewhere between 40 [thousand] and 80,000 people were turned away from the polls because of the color of their skin, because of their age, because of whatever excuse could be made up to stop a fellow American citizen from voting.”
— Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, at the annual “Bloody Sunday” commemorative service, Selma, Ala., March 3, 2019

“Just think about it: Between 2012, the prior presidential election where we still had the Voting Rights Act, and 2016, when my name was on the ballot, there were fewer voters registered in Georgia than there had been those prior four years.”

Astoundingly, the WaPo’s Fact Checker checked, and the fact is every word of that was a lie. Including “and” and “the.”

Wisconsin was not one of the states covered by Section 4 (the only part of the VRA that was struck down—M) when the court ruled in 2013, so, right off the bat, Clinton’s claim that this “made a difference in Wisconsin” is unfounded. Georgia was covered by Section 4, but Clinton’s claim that total voter registration declined in that state from 2012 to 2016 is false; it increased.

At the high end of the scale, the UW-Madison study estimates that 23,252 voters were “deterred” by the voter ID requirement. That’s just a hair above Trump’s 22,748 margin in the state. Mayer and DeCrescenzo did not ask survey respondents whom they would have voted for because their research was funded by the office of the Dane County clerk. In any case, Clinton said 40,000, not 23,000.

Where does Clinton get the 80,000 figure for the high end of her estimate?

She made it up, natch. Because that’s what she does. Because she’s an inveterate, congenital liar. At this point, she’s probably gotten herself on the outside of enough high-proof popskull over the years that she doesn’t even know whether her statements are true or not; she needs them to be true, they make her feel better, so they’re true to her. Ed Morrissey points out another problem with Her Herness’s increasingly pathetic, self-serving rationalizations:

But what about the “best studies” that showed voter-ID deterring up to 80,000 Wisconsin voters? That claim was based on a study done in two counties with a sample of fewer than 300 voters. The study’s authors warned readers not to extrapolate their findings statewide, but that fell on deaf ears. It also ignores an inconvenient fact for Hillary, which is that she didn’t generate much enthusiasm among African-American voters anywhere, in states with or without voter-ID laws.

Nor was this phenomenon limited to black voters. Four months ago, I noted in a column at The Week that Donald Trump didn’t win the blue-wall states as much as Hillary lost them. This wasn’t a voter-ID issue — it was a candidate-ID issue.

Oh, voters ID’d her all right—as a vile, powermad, dishonest, narcissistic hack with nothing but contempt for the “little people” she fraudulently claims to care so very deeply about. Despite the orchestrated “outrage” over it, Trump was no more than perfectly honest and accurate when he said she was “such a nasty woman.” Ace blasts away at another problem, with another set of loathsome phonies:

And yet a certain breed of “True Conservative” still thinks this creature was an upstanding and honest candidate for President who should have been elected rather than the Drumpfenkonig.

If you’re feeling as if you might need a shower after getting all grubby from this immersion in sleaze, well, I sympathize. But I gotta also say I’m happy that Hillary!™ has apparently decided to ditch those boring, unflattering Soviet-style pantsuits and tunics of hers in favor of an attractive new look for Failed Campaign 2020 that better suits her personality and style, as you can see from this pic of Her Herness on a recent likker-store run:


That’s the stuff, Hills! Nice dress, and I’m digging the gauntlets too. You never looked better, like real Presidential material. No, really—you go, girl.


The notorious RBG

She’s dead, Jim.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will miss a second week of oral arguments as she continues to recover from cancer surgery she underwent last month, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Friday.

But Ginsburg’s recovery is on track, there is no evidence of remaining cancer in her body and no further treatment is planned. 

Glad her treatment was so successful. The nice thing is, said treatment seems to have had a salubrious effect on her physical appearance too:


Once those scars on her neck heal up, RBG is gonna be quite the looker, ain’t she?

(Via Bill)



First, the video:

Then, the stunning, mortifying admission: I agree one hundred percent with Ace on the central issue here. Which ain’t what you might think it is.

A twitter account with the suspiciously on-the-nose name “QAnon1776” — way to hit every single fringe/conservative meme there! — was suddenly birthed and was soon suddenly deleted. During its brief life, however, it managed to “break” the news that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex once did a Breakfast Club dance in “high school.”

They say “high school” despite the fact that she is wearing a “BOSTON UNIVERSITY” t-shirt, and the “BOSTON UNIVERSITY” name is emblazoned exactly where your eyes are glued — it’s a tight shirt, and in that shirt, she has a nice rack.

So it’s kind of hard to imagine what this “QAnon” devotee was looking at instead of “BOSTON UNIVERSITY.”

Block-letter words and big meaty tits — how do they work?

In any event, no named “conservatives” apart from “QAnon1776,” who I hear is close personal friends with “GunTotingCommieHunter69” as well as “MakeBitchesMakeSammitches4Ever” as well as “MAGAInsertRacialSlurHereKiller,” commented on the video, apart from the usual Twitter Cucks spending all night and morning Virtue Signalling that they did not see why anyone would think this was embarrassing.

I would have linked it myself except for the fact that it shows Ocasio-Cortez in a more appealing and more juglightful light than I’m used to seeing her, and I reasoned that her big jugs and frisky attitude and also her big jugs would tend to make people like her more.

Until this video I thought she was plain. She looked like she was turning into una abeula rather early –lotta lines in that face for a 29 year old — with a face that looked like a Peasant Sandal to which had been appended Cookie Monster googly eyes.

But here? Lots of energy. And a tight shirt with big jugs.

A butterface, sure. But you know what? As the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior said, “I can’t fuck a face. Oh wait I can. But still– dem jugs doh.”

Okay, the full disclosure: I always have thought her kinda cute. Dumb as a box of hair, yeah, and absolutely deplorable when it comes to her muttonheaded political beliefs. But still: cute, just cute as all hell. No way around it. For whatever that amounts to.

Ace does get one bit wrong, though, about the vid tending to make people like her more. Not so for me; as long as she retains her ambition to steal what little is left of my freedom and have the government run my life for me, she’s my enemy. Period fucking dot. And no matter how jug-a-licious she is—and damn, she sure is—I wouldn’t trust her any further than I could throw one of her $5,000 dollar designer shoes. Lefthanded, in a stiff headwind.


The price of her soul

Moochelle unmasked, back in 2008.

Barack Obama, I argued, evinces a preternatural sangfroid, for he is in America but not of it, a Third World anthropologist profiling Americans. But his wife’s anger at America will out, for it is a profound rage amplified by guilt.

Mrs Obama averred that she could not recall the contents of the thesis she composed in 1985, but that cannot be quite true, for it is a poignant cry from the heart. It explains her controversial outburst during the campaign to the effect that she felt proud of her country for the first time in her adult life in 2008, after “feeling so alone” in her “frustration” and “disappointment” at America.

Princeton both humiliated her and corrupted her, Michelle Vaughn Robinson complains in an undergraduate prose that is all the more touching for its clumsiness. By condescending to the young black woman from a Chicago working-class family, the liberal university made Michelle feel like an outsider. Worse, by giving her a ticket to financial success, Princeton caused her to feel that she was selling out to the institutions she most despised.

The thesis is poorly written—barely literate, in truth—incoherent, and, as Spengler says, brimming over with anger and self-loathing. The ugly chip on her shoulder against Whitey burdens every awkward paragraph—a crippling resentment she’s just smart enough to be aware of but not smart enough to overcome, and actually prefers to indulge anyway. This is one seriously conflicted, screwed-up female here.

Black students who reject white society, she concluded, understand the desperation of the black lower class, and therefore feel hopeless, whereas assimilated blacks ignore this desperation and therefore are more cheerful. It is hard not to admire the young black woman whose indignation over the predicament of the black lower class bursts out of the bland style of academic sociology, and who throws the condescension of her white liberal professors back in their faces. But that is not what afflicted the future Michelle Obama.

To the young Michelle’s sense of hopelessness about the prospects for the black lower class, Princeton added something even worse, namely guilt over “striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates – acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation”. Despite her black separatist sympathies, Michelle Vaughn Robinson succumbed to the temptations of which she wrote in her thesis and got a law degree from Harvard, earning around $400,000 a year in salary and corporate director fees by 2005.

Her “hopelessness”, “frustration” and “disappointment” remain, exacerbated by guilt over her own success. That is not speculation, but a precis of her own account. One might speculate that the guilt became all the more poignant to the extent her success was unearned. Michelle Obama’s employer, The University of Chicago Hospitals, paid her $121,910, a reasonable sum for the skill level evident in her thesis, but raised this to $316,952 shortly after her husband was elected US senator.

And this straight-up bribe of a salary was compensation for a job so vital, so meaningful and important to the function of the hospital, that when she and her husband moved to the White House they didn’t even bother to replace her. Nice “work” if you can get it.

These internal conflicts help explain Michelle Obama’s erratic behavior. Despite her own financial success, Michelle Obama continues to preach austerity and self-sacrifice to others. Speaking before a working-class audience in Ohio on February 29, she urged her listeners to eschew corporate law or hedge-fund management, which was odd, because most of them did not have a high-school diploma, let alone a university degree:

We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond…many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management [quoted by Byron York in The National Review Online].

But she did not leave corporate America. She did leave the corporate law firm that hired her out of Harvard Law School, but there is no reason to believe that idealism drove that decision. The major law firms make partners out of a fifth of their new hires, who slave for years for the opportunity. Michelle Obama was not partner material for a top firm. She took more than a year to pass the Illinois Bar Examination, a substandard result, and – as her thesis makes clear – lacked the command of written English required for legal success. Her skills were better suited to the hospital position she eventually filled. Not only did she sell out, but she sold out for mediocre results.

Understandable. She’s a damned mediocrity herself, as is her deplorable husband. The Presidency is probably hers for the taking in 2020; all she has to do is decide she wants it, then reach out her hand to seize it. Then we’ll have eight years of her complaining miserably about how awful being Prez-Mo-Dent is, and a best-selling book about her term in office.


“I wasn’t 100 percent sober…”

No, I should say you weren’t. That much is obvious enough.

Blame it on the alcohol.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg blames falling asleep at this year’s State of the Union address on not being “100 percent sober.”

“The audience, for the most part, is awake because they are bobbing up and down and we sit there, stone faced,” Ginsburg said Thursday during an event hosted by The Smithsonian Associates in Washington, D.C., according to CNN.

She continued, “But we’re not, at least I was not, 100 percent sober.”

She was drunk as a boiled owl—blackout drunk, no less—not decades ago, at a long-since-forgotten teenage party, but as an adult, a Justice of the highest court in the land, during the performance of one of her solemn if admittedly peripheral duties. Any Republican even halfway serious about fighting shitlib fire with fire and beating their asses like a big bass drum would be screaming loud and long about the absolute imperative necessity of impeaching her and getting her alkie ass off the court.

And then she repeated the disgraceful performance five years later, too. Now, I personally am inclined to be forgiving of such a lapse myself, but then again I ain’t a liberal, either. Obviously, the woman has a problem—one that clearly indicates she lacks the judicial temperament required to be on the USSC. So here’s the deal, libtards: either shut your fat yaps about Kavanaugh’s teenage peccadilloes, or send Rummie Baked Ginsot’s ass packing, toot damned sweet. Thank you.

Slap back update! That’s how you do it.

President Trump hinted Tuesday at a rally in Mississippi that Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., could have a drinking habit.

“Patrick Leahy — oh he’s never had a drink in his life,” Trump sarcastically said at the campaign-style rally. “Check it out. Look (online) under ‘Patrick Leahy slash drink.’”

Trump, who does not drink, seems to be flipping the script on Democrats who have thoroughly questioned the drinking habits of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh when he was a teenager.

“‘How dare you have a beer when you’re in high school?’” Trump said in a mocking tone toward the Democrats who questioned Kavanaugh.

And the NeverTrumpTards still can’t figure out why we love the guy. They oughta lay off of whining about Trump and get busy taking notes instead.


A female cuck?

You don’t concede the Left’s premises. Not ever, not even once, not for any reason.

Speaking of silly women inviting snakes into the fold, let’s address a recent essay published by National Review, titled “Conservatives Are Wrong to Dismiss Feminism.” It is written by one Sarah Quinlan, a woman who, we are told is a “front-page contributor to RedState.” This is intended as a credential, when in fact, it is rather more like calling someone a former lead engineer for the Hindenburg. But one supposes it was the best the likes of Ms. Quinlan could do under the circumstances.

One of Quinlan’s unlisted associations, however, is her sometime affiliation with one of the sadder outings in NeverTrump history, the so-called Buckley Club, an infected little pimple of an organization that knew so little of its namesake that it once mistook one of Buckley’s favorite phrases—“immanentizing the eschaton”—for a conspiracy theorist slogan.

Holt goes on to dismantle Quinlan’s convoluted mess of an argument pretty thoroughly, culminating in this stinging closer:

I’m sure she’ll get around to making a mockery of her other conservative principles in time, but we needn’t waste any more exertion waiting on her to do it.

At best, Quinlan’s piece is a vapid extended emotivist wail in search of a shoulder and a pint of vanilla ice cream to dash itself against. At worst, it is a hostile ultimatum that the Right must trade Trump for Teen Vogue, and transform William F. Buckley into William F. Becky-with-the-good-hair so that it can attract the votes of women whose character validates the assumptions of every misogynist who ever lived. Either way, it deserves to be rejected in the strongest possible terms.

And so, I will do just that. Conservatism needs feminism like National Review needed Sarah Quinlan’s byline: only as a tool for suicide. NRO’s brand needs to be hospitalized and any dangerous objects need to be taken away from the editors after this. As for True Conservatism (™), after the publication of this article, it will need a rape kit, which, unlike the thousands that Quinlan complains remain untouched, we have been obliged to process.

Ouch. Better put some ice on that, sweetie.



Hey, remember when Trump was patently unqualified to be President because he was a mere celebrity, a near-lifelike TV character with no political experience, no knowledge of how the DC game is played?

Yeah, well. About that.

Elizabeth Warren can’t be happy about Oprah considering a run. Big Chief Running Mouth is shrill and annoying, and you get the idea that she’s always on the verge of telling you to use your inside voice. Oprah is calm and soothing and offers mindless insights about how you have to be the very best you you can be, and how you always have to stand in your own truth. The rabble-rousing squaw wants to get people riled up and on the warpath. But Winfrey wants to calm them down, to make them relax, to allow them not to think, and to be swept away in the feel-good vibes. She wants to be the Oprah-oid of the masses.

Warren wants to keep resisting. Oprah’s secret is her unspoken promise of a return to normalcy, of calm and quiet. But, of course, that’s a lie. Oprah will be an activist liberal and will put a bull’s eye on those of us who refuse to fawn and applaud.

Oprah superficially seems to love everybody. She’s all feelings and hugs, but a TV show isn’t the campaign trail, and since the liberal media no longer has a monopoly of coverage, she won’t get to write the script. The truth will come out. Oprah already has her own deplorable problem – there’s an interview with her suggesting a good chunk of non-liberal Americans are racist and need to die. These people are apparently not the very best yous they can be, and must therefore be purged.

Oprah checks all the liberal boxes. She believes in science, meaning she thinks both heat waves and cold fronts prove global warming, that you can change your gender by wanting to, that vaccines are a conspiracy, and that Dr. Oz’s magic fungus extract will cleanse your body of negative waves, thereby allowing you to be the very best you you can be.

You know she’s going to hate guns in the hands of anyone but her private security force. You know that she believes in perpetual conflict over race, gender, and all the other touchstones of liberal hate-mongering. You know that a Winfrey administration would be filled with the same band of punks and hacks who brought us ISIS, North Korean nukes, and who abandoned the Iranian freedom fighters just before shipping their oppressors pallets of 100 dollar bills.

All of which underscores not just Oprah’s primary obstacle, but the Democrat Socialist Party’s as well. If their desperation was a tsunami approaching the West Coast, people as far east as, say, Missouri would be well advised to pack up and flee. And if futility was a snowstorm, we’d all be until June digging out from under it.


Drunk, bitter, personally-unpleasant, critically-ill harpy still whining about having her empty head handed to her

In other words, just another day in this sad bitter Harridan Nixon’s drunk and unfulfilling life.

As with Obama: how can we miss you if you won’t go away?

Elsewhere, Ace apologizes for and appropriately condemns all the unseemly Right Wing Violence™ of late:

You can find my condemnation of Greg Gianforte’s bodyslam right next to CNN’s condemnation of the professor charged with three accounts of attacking peaceful Trump supporters — with a bike lock. Which is a heavy metal improvised weapon.

Note the three attacks hit the victim in the neck or head — which is the target point which could kill someone with a steel bludgeon — and also note that it does not appear to be the cops or the media which ferreted out this guy’s identity, but 4chan.

Apparently the media couldn’t give any fucks about it, and still doesn’t.

You can also find my scathing rebuke of violence by the right next to CNN’s denunciations of the mob attackers at Middlebury College, at least one of whom participated in an attack on a woman causing her enough injury to need a neck brace.

Oh, and you can also find my denunciation in the same common repository in which CNN scolds Middlebury for promising to punish the violent felons, but then not really punishing them at all.

Still wondering why so many of us on our side were enthused by Gianforte’s brilliant and heartwarming smackdown of one of you shitweasels, are ya? Well, just carry on as usual and there’ll surely be lots more opportunities for you to get things figured out.

Like I said earlier: we’re fed up. You libtard propagandists don’t have to respect that, I guess. But you damned sure better wake up to it, at least. For your own sorry sakes.


Palin right again

Has this stupid, God-bothering snowbilly ever been wrong, really? About anything? And have the smug “liberals” attacking her as some kind of deranged ignoramus ever been right?

This running joke about Ms. Palin – who went on to become a Fox News commentator, star of her own brief reality show, and well-paid Obama scold on behalf of the tea party – came to mind when she went on Facebook to comment on the crisis in Ukraine:

“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska,” she wrote. “I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as ‘an extremely far-fetched scenario’ by the ‘high-brow’ Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this ‘stupid’ ‘insipid woman’ predicted back in 2008: ‘After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.’”

Then she went on Fox News to elaborate.

“Back in 2008, I accurately predicted the possibility of Putin feeling emboldened to invade Ukraine because I could see what kind of leader Barack Obama would be,” she said. “The bullies of the world are always emboldened by indecision and moral equivalence. We can expect more of this sort of thing in a world where America is gutting its military and ‘leading from behind.'”

As I said the other day, there’s not one damned thing any American president, including both the gutless fraud we have squatting in the White House now and Fantasy President Palin, can or will do about anything Putin decides to undertake in Ukraine, up to and including giving every defenseless civilian an atomic wedgie before having them all beheaded with a garden trowel. But as with her Death Panels formulation and much else, Palin sees things a lot more clearly than any self-enamored supergenius like Obama ever will.


Message to the drooling savages of the “religion of peace”: kiss my ass forever

pResident Gutless Pussy hits the reset button:

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)

But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now?

It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists.

Why on earth would he do that? He doesn’t like America any more than they do; in every way that really matters, he’s on their side, not ours.

Update! Time to reset:

Appearing with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House Rose Garden, Obama said: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, but there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal attacks.”

Wrong, boy-o: there is a justification. It’s the Muslim ideology-masquerading-as-religion, and it has justifications aplenty for slaughtering the infidel. Deny it if you wish, but all you have to do to find them is read the Koran, their filthy, sick little murder book.

Updated update! As usual, Steyn hits it on the head:

The disgraceful statements of the US Embassy in Cairo (before the mob attacked) on the very anniversary of September 11th make Ezra’s point explicitly. And it’s pitiful to see at home the same cocky swaggering secular triumphalists who reserve the right to jeer gleefully at Mitt’s “magic underwear” and sneer at the Catholic clergy as career pederasts turn on a dime and argue that Islam should be uniquely deserving of “respect”.

The mob of “Islamic rage boys” gets mad about all kinds of stuff – cartoons, dogs, teddy bears. You can never make a long enough list to satisfy them. So you might as well tell them you’re not going to start.

Or get the surrendering over with already, which seems to be the path we’re actually on here. The real irony, as always, is that the usual crowd of oh-so-valiant Hollywood idiots who speak so loudly and strongly to defend their right to make movies offensive to Christians (often with absolutely no point or motivation other than just that) will raise absolutely no objection to the Muslim preference for violent suppression of any criticism whatsoever of their disgusting ideology–thereby telling us all we need to know about the depth and quality of Lefty “courage.”

Update to the updated update! McCarthy, crystal clear and five by five:

The coordinated violence against American installations in the Middle East on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 was caused by one thing: Islamic supremacism. Contrary to the knowing lies government officials and opinion elites have been feeding the American people for 20 years, Islamic supremacism is not the fringe ideology of the terrorists; it is the predominant Islam of the Middle East. By margins of upwards of 2 to 1, the United States and the West are despised in countries like Egypt and Libya. As I point out in my just-released book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, when given the chance, Egyptians elected Islamic supremacists by a 4-to-1 margin. The only surprise in the voting was not the weakness of secular democrats — that they are a non-factor, even though American politicians continue to depict them as emblematic of the Muslim Middle East, was a given. The surprise was that the Muslim Brotherhood, which has reaffirmed its goal of a global caliphate ruled by sharia, is not quite devout enough for about a quarter of Egyptians, who voted for the even more extreme “Salafist” parties.

Under sharia, as construed by Islamic supremacists (i.e., at least two-thirds of Middle East Muslims), any negative criticism of Islam or its prophet, no matter how trifling, is deemed to be blasphemy and warrants violent reprisals — including death. These Muslims — hundreds of millions of them — consider this to be a divine ordinance and thus to be imposed on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Understand that Islam, particularly as Islamic supremacists interpret it, is not merely a religion; it is a totalitarian ideology that has some spiritual principles, which make up a small subset of the belief system. Blasphemy is not applied only to the spiritual principles — say, to the oneness of Allah, and the like. The speech prohibition applies across the board to all Islamic doctrine. You’ve got a problem with a woman’s court testimony being worth only half of a man’s? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with needing four male witnesses to prove rape? Blasphemy! You’ve got a problem with the death penalty for homosexuals? With stoning for adulterers? With scourging for the consumption of alcohol? Blasphemy, blasphemy, blasphemy!

That’s what causes the rioting and murder. The “blasphemers” are only a pretext. What causes this is the indoctrination of Muslim populations in an evil ideology that justifies savagery over nonsense. That’s the proximate cause. If you want to look at a material cause beyond the proximate cause, the place to start would be American officials like the ones Daniel cites with seeming approval: David Petraeus, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — and I’d add Lindsey Graham to the list. They are the officials who condemned Terry Jones’s exercise of free speech — book burning — because, as Daniel gently puts it, they were “worried it would lead to Muslim violence against Americans.” That is shameful. What “leads to Muslim violence” is the toxic combination of Islamic teaching that violence is the appropriate response to even minor insults and the dhimmified superpower’s acquiescence in this barbarism.

No, we’re not at war with Islam, as appeasers in more than just the Obama regime have gone to great and disgraceful pains to point out again and again. But we ought to be forever on our guard against it; we ought to be exposing it for what it truly is, and fully prepared when the neverending conflict between liberty and pseudo-religious tyranny inevitably flares up into open hostilities and combat…as sooner or later, it always will. Defending it? Advocating for its supposed “right” to foment violence against us? Hell fucking no.

But, y’know, here we are.

Updates, forsooth! A powerful question that ought to have all of us hanging our heads in shame, especially so long after the 9/11 atrocities:

In Egypt, some of the protesters scaled the embassy walls, went into a courtyard, and took down the American flag. They tried (and failed) to burn it, then tore it up, and then put up a black Islamic flag.

My immediate question is this: Why did the first terrorist to touch our flag not have his head blown off? Or perhaps: Why did the first terrorist to touch our flag not receive a “warning shot” to the arm or leg, and the second terrorist, who presumably was not impressed by the admonition, not then have his head blown off?

On Wednesday morning, we learned that the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other embassy staff members were killed in the attack. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton offered statements of outrage and condolence, but some of the blame can be found when they look in the mirror.

Again, I ask, why are there not dozens of dead Libyan radicals lying on the American sovereign territory they were invading?

Because we lack the national will and self-respect to aggressively defend ourselves against barbarian, knuckledragging savages, that’s why. Regrettably, Kaminsky unintentionally provides an example himself in the very next paragraph:

The offending film, of which you can see a 14-minute clip here, is a pathetic farcical joke of a film which comes across as more like Monty Python than a serious critique of Islam or anything else. Furthermore, it was posted to the web two months ago.

Ahh, the obligatory “I, too, am offended by this offensive offense against free speech.” It is neither necessary nor remotely relevant. But thankfully, after quoting the pathetic coward in the White House’s odious response, Kaminsky gets back on track:

This is, not surprisingly, a remarkable misstatement of the First Amendment. Saying something offensive is not “abusing” free speech. And what about the Islamic world, or even much of Europe, makes them claim that the right of free speech is “universal”? Perhaps they meant in theory rather than in practice, in which case our Founders might agree, but what is the point of making a statement like that to people who will never believe it, and who will take such a statement as incitement to further violence simply because it proves that we have decided on a suicidal strategy of Islamic rope-a-dope… from which we will never suddenly hit back.

These radicals are made that much braver by the obvious timidity and pro-Muslim bias of Barack Hussein Obama. Can you imagine what the Islamic world is thinking after we react to attacks on our embassies with soft words and apologies on the same day that it is reported that Barack Obama won’t meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because it’s just too inconvenient for Obama’s campaign schedule? (I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Obama’s campaign advisers, desperate to win Florida in November, find a way to make the meeting happen.)

None of this is an accident or coincidence. It is our enemies testing us and finding us weak.

It is that. And nothing more. And it will never end, until we find the spine to make it so costly to the swine every time they try that the very thought of doing such again makes them spontaneously vomit from sheer terror.


Mission(s) accomplished

So of late there are a couple or three propaganda pieces fellating King Barrack the Wise, providing a litany of all his wonderful accomplishments for the good of government and the well-connected. But naturally, a certain stupid and diabolically evil snowbilly didn’t get the memo.

Just off the top of my head, a few of these concerning issues include: a debt crisis that has us hurtling towards a Greek-style collapse, entitlement programs going bankrupt, a credit downgrade for the first time in our history, a government takeover of the health care industry that makes care more expensive and puts a rationing panel of faceless bureaucrats between you and your doctor (aka a “death panel”), $4 and $5 gas at the pump exacerbated by an anti-drilling agenda that rejects good paying energy sector jobs and makes us more dependent on dangerous foreign regimes, a war in Afghanistan that seems unfocused and unending, a global presidential apology tour that’s made us look feeble and ridiculous, a housing market in the tank, the longest streak of high unemployment since World War II, private-sector job creators and industry strangled by burdensome regulations and an out-of-control Obama EPA, an attack on the Constitutional protection of religious liberty, an attack on private industry in right-to-work states, crony capitalism run amok in an administration in bed with their favored cronies to the detriment of genuine free market capitalism, green energy pay-to-play kickbacks to Obama campaign donors, and a Justice Department still stonewalling on a bungled operation that armed violent Mexican drug lords and led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people.
I’m sure I missed a few things, but the list is just for starters.

Well, sure, that’s all well and good to say and all, but…hey! A squirrel! And look, somebody is trying to ban contraceptives!!


Stupid snowbilly bint ruined EVERYTHING

Revisionist history, anyone? Joel Pollock ain’t having any:

I briefly served as a volunteer speechwriter on the McCain-Palin campaign in 2008. I was never part of the inner circle, and even if I had “dirt” to dish, I wouldn’t dare violate the confidentiality agreement I signed – even though that hasn’t stopped some former McCain campaign aides from publicly blaming Gov. Sarah Palin for everything that went wrong.

But here’s the truth about the McCain-Palin campaign, which HBO’s upcoming “Game Change” film attempts to shroud in fanciful anti-Palin fiction: Palin carried the campaign. She would have led the Republicans to victory had it not been for the September financial collapse and McCain’s disastrous decision to suspend his campaign so that he could vote for the TARP bailout in Washington.

The Democrats knew it, too. That fall, I was back in the classroom at Harvard Law School, surrounded by students and faculty who not only supported Sen. Barack Obama but were, in some cases, involved in his campaign at senior levels. They feared Palin and, after her arrival, could barely talk about the election without a sense of dread. They had no answer for her optimism, her authenticity, her femininity and her courage.

On the ground in New Hampshire, where I volunteered after classes and on weekends, Palin’s nomination had led to a sudden groundswell of support. Where McCain had struggled to fill an arena, lines outside events featuring Palin seemed miles long. She had awakened and rallied the conservative base.

And then, just as quickly, after the bailout vote, support for the Republican ticket collapsed. People who had greeted canvassers warmly just a few weeks before refused to talk to us. Some took razor blades and sliced their McCain-Palin bumper stickers so that only the “Palin” half remained (a few switched the names so that Palin was on top of the ticket). McCain changed the game – and Obama stuck to his strategy, casting himself as a beacon of stability in turbulent times. And he won.

The Prof dishes up more discomfiture for rabid, unhinged Palin haters here.


“Bold colors, not pale pastels”

Palin electrified ’em yet again, bless her little heart, and there’s much discussion of it out there, both hither and yon.

Palin will not accept that future because it is an un-exceptional one. An un-American one, to say the least.

“We are the heirs of patriots who cast off the chains of tyranny, of immigrants who braved the seas, of pioneers who pushed into the great unknown, of soldiers who stormed foreign shores, of farmers and workers laboring in field and in factories from dusk to dawn,” Palin said. “They toiled so their children would have a better life. That is America. And that is freedom. And that is why we are exceptional.”

Palin repeatedly said the door was open for a conservative victory, but the door that seemed to be open the widest was the one to her political future as the leader of the conservative movement and as heiress to the Reagan legacy.

It was her Party on Saturday, and it could be for the foreseeable future.

If only. More:

No one in their right mind would go on-stage after Palin’s political palaver. People who dislike or fear her are incapable of seeing or admitting it. But that doesn’t diminish the reality that Palin is a rare political celebrity and, therefore, an unharnessed power to be reckoned with within the GOP for the foreseeable future.

We’re not talking about her running for any office. We’re talking about her influence, her enduring proven ability to attract and then ignite a crowd — even before anyone sees her. The CPAC buzz was electric all-day. Impatient “Sar-ah! Sar-ah!” chants broke out during preceding speakers.

She has the ability to speak about issues that profoundly bother the audience in common ways and words that listeners instantly recognize and wish they had thought to say just that way. Watch in the video below of her full CPAC speech for how this church-going mother of five mocks Obama’s Winning the Future program with an almost off-color aside. And prompts shared laughter, not shock.

She gets immense unspoken credit for withstanding an amazing amount of abuse and keeping on ticking. Palin punches have power, like her elbows beneath the basket in high school athletic days. One supporter said to me, as if it was the highest contemporary compliment possible, “She fights like a girl!”

Most politicians these days talk to their audiences or, worse, at them. Even the Real Good Talker, who made his name on a 2004 convention speech and has been giving too many ever since. Governing is hard work. Campaigning is tiring, but much easier. So, he has been and will be campaigning, blaming others as usual.

Instead, instinctively Palin doesn’t speak at or to audiences. She speaks for them.

Well, she damned sure does for me, I’ll say that much. Given how the GOP nomination process has descended into tired, enervating farce–with a dishonest phony having come all too close to securing the nomination (with the obnoxiously presumptuous support of a lot of folks who should know better, along with plenty who will never get it), and a hold-your-nose field of also-rans nipping at his heels, thereby dispiriting just about everybody in a year that should have seen the slam-dunk denouement to the Tea Party shellacking of 2010–it’s actually, literally tragic that she didn’t run. But JE Dyer has an explanation for that that makes sense to me:

Six or eight months ago, the sea change in the voters’ sentiments and propensities might have been foreseeable, but it hadn’t happened yet. Those who think Palin could have won lots of primaries on the basis of pre-primary voter sentiments are wrong, I think. After all, the business-as-usual approach – Karl Rove tells everyone how bad a candidate is, the media magnify his or her every quirk or mistake, the media and some (not all) of the other candidates pile on with allegations that range from hostile spin to outright falsehood – has so far felled our most conservative candidates.

But in the process, the voters have been changing. That’s what Palin saw before others did. Do I think she is counting the days to a brokered convention? No. There is no one who could reasonably adopt that as a “plan.” She won’t run this year; that’s my rational assessment as well as my gut feeling.  (I could of course be wrong, although I think some big conditions will have to change more for that to be the case.)

But if she does run, it will not be because she has changed, but because we have. There are political conditions in which she could run successfully, and conditions in which she couldn’t. The latter have constituted our political environment up until the last couple of months.

If the conditions are changing now, I believe that is largely because voters are having to wise up to the flaws in our own thinking by going through this ugly spectacle. We already knew that the media have no intention of giving our candidates a fair shake, and that many in the GOP leadership want to submarine the small-government conservatives.  What many voters didn’t understand is that if we want to select leaders of character, we have to graduate from high school, and overlook the vicissitudes of “presentation” that sometimes make good people look like buffoons to those who see without humility, mercy, or discrimination. We have to see with better eyes. We have to think independently of the jeers embedded in the media narrative. We have to be wiser citizens, placing in political leadership only the hope that is appropriate to free men and women.

We can’t have a candidate who sounds like Mitt Romney, but will lead the way a small-government conservative would. That’s not an option. What we’re doing in this primary season is coming to grips with that reality. I think Palin knew instinctively that we would have to, before it would make sense for her to jump back into the electoral fray.

Like I said, makes a lot of sense to me. And not only does this analysis strike me as pretty wise, it also speaks volumes about Palin’s own natural, instinctive wisdom–a crucial part of her almost preternatural appeal. Could be she’s been misunderestimated yet again.

No wonder all the right people hate her so viciously.


Don’t call ’em death panels

They just hate it when you tell the truth like that, you know. They’re “ethics panels” now.

Caller: Basically what the document stated was that if you were over 70 and you’d come into an emergency room and you’re on government supported health care, that you’d get “comfort care”.

Mark Levin: Wait a minute…what’s the source for this?

Caller: This is Obama’s new health care plan for advanced neurosurgical care.
Mark Levin: And who issued this? HHS?

Caller: Yes. And basically they don’t call them patients, they call them units. And instead of – they call it “ethics panels” or “ethics committees”, would get together and meet and decide where the money would go for hospitals, and basically for patients over 70 years of age, that advanced neurosurgical care was not generally indicated.

Mark Levin: So it’s generally going to be denied?

Caller: Yes, absolutely…If someone comes in at 70 years of age with a bleed in their brain, I can promise you I’m not going to get a bunch of administrators together on an ethics panel at 2 in the morning to decide that I’m OK to do surgery.

No wonder the Snowbilly Bint makes ’em so mad they could just spit. Time after time, she just keeps on being correct about them and their nefarious schemes, and they haven’t yet found a way to shut her up.

(Via Ross)


Sleazy PDS slime-merchant lets cat out of the bag


From: Joe McGinniss To: Jesse Griffin Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:15 PM Subject: I have to ask you for help

Legal review of my manuscript is underway and here’s my problem: no one has ever offered documentation of any of the lurid stories about the Palins.

[. . . ]

Neither from you, the Enquirer, AlaskaWTF, or anyone else, have I seen a credible, identified source backing any of the salacious stories about the Palin family.

Thus–as Random House lawyers are already pointing out to me–nothing I can cite other than my own reporting rises above the level of tawdry gossip. The proof is always just around the corner, but that’s a corner nobody has been able to turn. Maybe Jeff Dunn has, in which case I’ll be the first to congratulate him. But frankly, at this point, I’m tired of it, and I’ve run out of time.

A lot of us are tired of it, asshole. And if “I’ve run out of time” means “I may have screwed up badly enough in my attempt to pimp a bunch of sordid, made-up wank-fodder to a drooling pack of mindless haters that I may end up sued or in jail over it,” well, so much the better.


These aren’t the droids you’re looking for

Glenn says he missed this one from Den Beste last week, and so did I. But it’s right on target.

Q: What does Obama want?

A: He wants a huge, and permanent, increase in the size of government. This is the “change” he campaigned on, but never really described. The goal was to make the US into a European-style “Social Democracy”.

Q: Does he really think he can finance it indefinitely with huge deficits?

A: Of course not. The plan was to corner the Republicans and force them to agree to huge tax increases in order to pay for it. So spending was raised first, and eventually the Republicans would face the choice of raising taxes or having the national debt spiral up to clearly unsustainable levels.

Q: Are Democrats in the House and Senate on board with this plan?

A: Mostly they are.

Q: Why haven’t they been honest about it?

A: Because they know that the majority of American voters would object. They’re trying to sneak the program through, relying on the fact that once it’s in place it will create its own constituency.

Read the rest. He covers it all pretty well — especially the very last, sobering bit. Also via Glenn, there’s this gem from The Locus Of All Human Evil:

If we were really domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us wouldn’t he? I mean he didn’t have a problem with paling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers apartment, and shaking hands with Chavez and saying he doesn’t need any preconditions with meeting dictators or wanting to read US Miranda rights to alleged suspected foreign terrorists. No, if we were real domestic terrorists I think President Obama wouldn’t have a problem with us.

Hell, he’d be looking to unionize us, giving us “stimulus” money, and swearing to avenge us against our corporate-jet-owning Israeli oppressors. Not to even mention how he snuggles up to Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, rubbing their feet, plumping the throw pillows for them, and asking them if he can make them a nice halal dinner while they rest on the sofa after another hard day of working to stop the Islamophobia pandemic. Nice slam on Waffles Romney, Professional RINO, too.


Who she is — and who they are

Jeff beats the liberal media’s incredible Palingate self-beclowning about the (pointy) head and (sloped) shoulders. Then he really takes off and soars.

Now, as most of you know, I’m not particularly religious. In fact, I’m agnostic — though I do believe in a higher power, or at least in the idea of a higher power, as a way to establish the provenance of natural rights (however you decide to name it). And here’s what I see in this letter: An optimism based in faith; a can-do spirit that used to be the hallmark of American individualism; a humility before a power Palin clearly sees as greater than herself — the power from which we derive our natural rights; a willingness to embrace difficult challenges; a love of family, and a recognition that because of the strength of that family, what at first appear to be challenges will, in time, reveal themselves as blessings…

– This is the Sarah Palin that is revealed here — far from the scheming, manipulative bitch willing to squeeze a slack-jawed political prop from her cooter (or pretend to do so, so that she can cover up that the child is not hers but rather is the illicit love child of her daughter and husband), what resolves here is a portrait of a hard-working, politically savvy governor who is vindicated in nearly every instance from the libels created to diminish her.

I wanted to just swipe the whole thing; it’s just that good. But since I’ve been fooling around with a sort of longish post of my own on a similar theme, and don’t wish to just lift the whole thing and leave you with no reason to go on over and read all of Jeff’s excellent piece, I’ll content myself with this other crucial bit:

I noted this before, but let me note it again: the antidote to Carter was not Howard Baker or George HW Bush. We’re at the brink. And if we can’t articulate the enormous CHASM that separates classical liberal and legal conservative principles from those on witness by the democratic socialists in power — who are actively working to increase government’s size and the people’s dependence on it, intentionally sabotaging energy production and private sector job growth while putting in place the bureaucratic structure to control us through our healthcare decisions and through regulations on the very exhalation that comes from our bodies, or the dust we kick up when we walk — we have lost our country anyway, and it’s damn certain that Mitt Romney and his carbon emission-sensitivity or his ethanol panders isn’t going to do dick structurally to help us get it back. At best he’s a kind of cultural procrastination. And at worst, he comes — like George Bush did in his two terms — to count as the benchmark of right-wing extremism, against which the next leftist candidate positions himself.

Aside from the basic problem with the “unelectable” argument — which is that you can’t know who’s “electable” before a single vote has been cast, unless you’re willing to put way too much faith in the sort of cooked polls that many of the same people usually (and rightly) scoff at for their manipulative bias, that is — hammering away at Palin, Bachmann, or anybody else as if they were somehow undermining conservatism by daring to run as actual conservatives ensures that the long slide leftwards continues, with no hope of a return to sanity either immediately or in the future. It concedes the game to the Leftists, who will be only too happy to choose our candidates for us before we even leave the locker room.

People who truly wish to see this nation turned around and put back on the Constitutionally-correct path really ought to stop insisting that actual conservatives have some sort of duty to abandon their principles for the sake of an unproven and unprovable “electability,” or just stay out of the fray altogether. It’s playing right into the hands of both the Left and the business-as-usual hacks, and it’s never going to get us anything but more of the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place.

Update! The Prof is right:

I agree that Palin has been unfairly but extensively damaged, but that does not mean she should not run. Pre-selecting our candidates based upon what the mainstream media does is a huge mistake, because whoever the nominee is, that person will be savaged by the mainstream media and entertainment industry beyond comprehension. Palin simply has been the test case. Perceived electability now says little about actual electability once the nominee becomes the focus of the pro-Obama media.

Let anyone who wants to run run, and let the voters sort it out in the primaries. If Palin is unelectable in a general election, that will be an argument against nominating her; just as it is an argument against certain other candidates.

The primaries will bring out the best or the worst in the candidates, and candidates either will overcome voter concerns about electability, or the candidates will not succeed. Let the voters decide, not the editors of The Daily Caller or National Review or even tiny inconsequential Legal Insurrection.

Bingo. Has anybody considered that the blue-on-blue damage inflicted by these doomsayers might actually contribute to a perception of unelectability as well, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? Jacobson wraps it up:

I trust the voters. It’s too bad some very vocal Republicans do not.

Yep. Kinda hard to trust them sometimes, honestly, especially in the sort of rigged system ours has slowly devolved into. But in the end, it’s all we got. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let a pack of liberal “journalists” and GOP insiders tell me who has any business even running in the first place, and who ought to fall on their swords and give up the fight “for the good of the party.” Hell with that; ever notice how they always insist it’s the strongest, most committed and principled fighters on our side who need to hang it up? Odd, that.



The Citizen Journalist Action Alert Brigade has already struck gold in HideousmonsterPalinwhoIhatemorethananythinggate. Hold onto your hats, folks, because you will scarcely believe the stunning HYPOCRISY evident in this e-mail. Thank God for Citizen Journalists and their demented obsession with Palin; otherwise, the LID might never have been RIPPED OFF of this OUTRAGEOUS SCANDAL, which demands a federal investigation, a fair trial, and a first-class hanging at the very least:

06/10/2011 10:40 PM Palin Needs A Drink
HuffPost’s Jason Cherkis:
According to a Washington Post account, Palin worried about leaving alcohol around the house: “With so many kids and teens coming and going in that house, esp during this season of celebrationstt [sic] for young people — proms, graduations, etc, I want to send the msg that we can be — and ‘the People’s House’ needs to be — alcohol-free,” the governor emailed Erika Fagerstrom, the executive residence manager, on May 6, 2007.

But by July 2008, Palin appears to have changed her tune, requesting that Fagerstrom hustle up some bubbly: “Pls get small bottles of champagne for the house. Thanks.”

Fagerstorm later replied: “They’re in the basement, but let me [know] – we can bring some upstairs. Thanks, E.”

Palin responded: “Yes, we’ll need some upstairs.” She later added further instructions about where the mini champagne bottles should go: “Just in the kitchen wine fridge is all I need at this point. I can bring them up from downstairs…where are they?”

The MONSTROUS, EVIL, ALCOHOLIC, DRUNKEN BITCH. Endangering our children with her uncontrollable lust for demon rum, in blatant contradiction of her HYPOCRITICAL and phony “concern” about maintaining her deception about her out of control drinking. She actually made a statement suggesting she intended to set a good example for our children, and then, a mere year later, decides to slake her rampant thirst for spiritous liquors with a few mini-bottles of champagne, without regard for either our children or her previous lie!


Plus, how about her staggering insensitivity to the Noble Poor, as she arrogantly orders her servants to stock her Larder of Sin instead of doing it herself? Oh, sure, she callously pretends to throw these poor downtrodden laborers a bone by saying she can “bring them up from downstairs” herself, but what reasonable person could doubt for a moment that this DISGUSTING LUSH would end up forgetting or something, and then breaking the spirits as well as the backs of her slaves by demanding that they do it for her? Probably while lashing them with a buggy whip laced with roofing nails the whole time?

Not only did she sully the Alaskan People’s House with her dissipation and debauchery; not only did she try to trick decent people with her intentionally misleading statement about keeping the governor’s mansion “alcohol free,” when she clearly had no intention of adhering to that most solemn of oaths; she WANTONLY BRUTALIZED her poor, hard-working staff by making them a party to her Bacchanalian proclivities. Not to even mention the profligate waste of taxpayer money involved in stocking her tawdry, trailer-trash mini-bar, and the deadly carbon wantonly released into the atmosphere by the completely unnecessary drive to the local likker store.

Is there no depth to which this vicious termegant will not sink to satisfy her grotesque appetites? No lie too brazen, no treachery too base, no shame too filthy to wallow in like a pig (with lipstick!) in mud? SHE WANTED A FEW CHEAP MINI-BOTTLES OF CHAMPAGNE, FOR CHRIST’S SAKE, a bourgeois drink favored by despots and slavemasters throughout history! How DARE she present herself as being in touch with the common people when she so defiantly indulges her decadence in such a fashion? WAKE UP, AMERICA!

If anyone had any qualms about courageously acknowledging this woman as PURE EVIL INCARNATE, let those qualms be laid to rest forever. THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US. AND HE CALLS HIMSELF SARAH PALIN.

Plus, she spelled “celebration” wrong — sic! Sic! Godammit, SIIIIC!

And those idiot Palin supporters made sport of us, saying there wouldn’t be any bombshell scandals lurking in this treasure trove of iniquity, dishonesty, and treason. WHO’S LAUGHING NOW, WINGNUTTZZ™?

Update! ZOMG!!eleventy!! IT GETS EVEN WORSE, if you can believe it:

Among the people talking up a vice presidential run to Sarah Palin before she was picked: George W. Bush.

Palin wrote her chief of staff Mike Nizich about an encounter she had with the then-president in early August — about a month before John McCain selected her as the running mate.

“The [president] and I spoke about military, [including] Track’s deployment and how Iraq is a different place than it was a year ago,” Palin wrote Nizich. “He also spoke about (and we joked about) VP buzz.”

CONFIRMED: the existence of a shadowy, vast right-wing conspiracy intent on stifling dissent and destroying our sovereign socialist nation! THIS WOMAN TALKED TO GEORGE W BUSH! They apparently did some light plotting on his illegal, immoral war for oil imperial conquest corporate fatcats Halliburton his monstrous ego his feeble “manhood” the destruction of the entire planet in Iraq, as well as firming up their plans to kill every man, woman, and child in the world who isn’t in the oil business and makes less than a million a year.

SHE TALKED TO GEORGE W BUSH! How much more do we need to have her summarily executed, for God’s sake? THE PEOPLE DEMAND JUSTICE!

Most pathetic update EVAR! NYT: our bug-fuck insane obsession with Palin is all Palin’s fault. Y’know, at some point, laughing at droolcases this pitifully retarded begins to feel a little…well, great, actually.


MFM self-immolation: ask yourselves why we’re laughing at you

My God. Just take a look at Prof Jacobson’s list of headlines from this BLOCKBUSTER NEWS EVENT. This has got to be one of the most pathetic gaffes ever committed by the most corrupt, transparently biased media establishment the world has ever seen.

How could anyone with even the merest shred of intelligence take these people seriously ever again? Possibly the funniest of them all: Sarah Palin Shall Have Her Revenge On The Mainstream Media. Indeed she shall. In fact, she already got it — and she didn’t have to lift a finger.


Calling all citizen journalists: YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU NOW MORE THAN EVER

Yeah, Palin owes you assholes something, all right. But it ain’t the kind of kowtowing and deference you were sniffily demanding from behind her bus.

More than 24,000 e-mail messages sent to and from Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday. Join The Post in digging through them. We are looking for 100 organized and diligent readers who will work alongside Post reporters to analyze, contextualize, and research the e-mails. Think of it as spending some time in our newsroom.

Our hope is that working together, we can efficiently find interesting information and extract new stories that will lead to further investigation. We don’t know what we’ll find, but we want you to be ready and open for the challenge.

And if their legions of trolls and weedy homunculi don’t find anything they can use to destroy her once and for all, they’ll certainly be happy to make something up, you betcha.

First thing we do, let’s kill all the “journalists.” They couldn’t be bothered to report on Ogabe’s unsavory associations, his myriad past declarations of fealty to socialism, or his complete lack of any useful experience whatsoever in his/their drive to usurp an office for which he’s patently unfit. They didn’t trouble themselves about Weinergate until it had rocketed out of their control, even after years of viciously disemboweling any Republican who ever showed evidence of having a sex drive. They buried John Edwards’ vileness and lack of character, as they did Clinton’s. Barney Frank’s frequent dispensation of government favors to his slimy sexual partners, and those partners’ running of prostitution and dope rings from his home, don’t exist for them. Ditto Rangel’s, Pelosi’s, Reid’s, and McKinney’s ethics transgressions, among many others.

But now that Palin has told them in no uncertain terms to go piss up a rope, they are by God going to get their revenge.

Liberal-media douchetools, ask yourselves why we hate you. Because believe me, we do. Anybody besides me out there fairly longing for Fox News to do something similar targeting any and all liberal-fascist politicians? They’re nowhere near sleazy or ethically depraved enough to, of course. But wouldn’t the sanctimonious expressions of shock and horror from the WaPo and NYT over such a thing be just delicious?




"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix