Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Make America great again!

Headline joke swiped from Ed: should we call this a promise or a threat?

Donald Trump has a message for celebrities who say they’ll leave the country if he’s elected president: Pack your bags.

The Republican presidential front-runner said Tuesday on ‘Fox & Friends’ that purging the United States of Rosie O’Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg and Lena Dunham would be a pot sweetener if he wins the White House.

‘We’ll get rid of Rosie? Oh, I love it. Now I have to get elected!’ he said during an early morning phone-in interview.

‘Now I have to get elected because I’ll be doing a great service to our country.’

He certainly would be. But they won’t do it. These whimpering asswipes always threaten the same thing every election cycle that has a Republican running in it; I’ve been mocking them here for it since the Dubya days, and not one of them has ever actually followed through on it, more’s the pity.

Another ‘View’ co-host, 30-year-old Raven Symone, boasted in February that she already had her escape route to Canada planned if the presidential election doesn’t end the way she wants it to.

‘My confession for this election is if any Republican gets nominated, I’m gonna move to Canada with my entire family,’ she said in February.

Bold added, by me, to highlight that the fascist moron slipped up and inadvertently told the truth there: these people talk about Trump being another Hitler, but the fact is they’d much prefer it if Republicans were simply prohibited from running for office, or speaking out, or even holding beliefs they disagree with; if they had their way about it, every conservative would be rounded up and herded into one of the gulags their ideological ilk are so justly infamous for. Tell me, who’s the Nazi again, now?

Donald Trump Jr., the real estate titan’s son, said in late February that he would fund the exit of any famous people who want to abandon the country in a Trump administration.

‘I’ll buy them their airfare,’ said Donald Jr. ‘Those are endorsements for Trump.’

The candidate later said he would ‘join with my boys and bank for it.’

Cher, Eddie Griffin, Barry Diller, Al Sharpton, Jon Stewart, Samuel L. Jackson and Omari Hardwick have all publicly discussed moving outside the U.S. if Trump wins.

And good riddance to every last one of you Marxist mouthbreathers. Any citizenry that prefers liberty to slavery would be way better off without you infesting and undermining it. Stop talking about it and just do it already, like Johnny Depp. At least he has the courage of his idiotic convictions, you can say that for him.

Well. Kinda, I guess. As a more intelligent man than they’ll ever be once said:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,

which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

Actually, Cromwell’s famous speech could be addressed to our own iniquitous Congress, too. In truth, it ought to be posted on the wall we’ll eventually end up having to build around Mordor on the Potomac. And Hollywood too, I guess.


Yes, they really are this stupid

Wow. Just…wow.

DURING THIS HOLIDAY SEASON, LET’S ALL PRAISE THE SOFTER SIDE OF ISIS: In a tweet Sunday afternoon, Joyce Carol Oates asked why “All we hear of ISIS is puritanical & punitive; is there nothing celebratory & joyous? Or is query naive?”

Why, yes it is. On the other hand, it seems pretty obvious from their snuff films that ISIS does lots of joyous celebrating after each beheading. But why rely on hearsay? “I suspect that you have the funds to visit Raqqa and come to your own conclusions,” Bob Owens tweets in reply. “I suspect you’ll come out a head.”

Words fail me. It really is true: it’s impossible to parody these people anymore.

Memory loss update! Y’know, if this keeps up I may have to rethink my indifference to Twitter.

On the night CNN aired a controversial and, as many legal critics call it, flawed documentary on sexual assault on college campuses, Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton tweeted solidarity with victims of sexual assault. The response could not have been what she was hoping for.

The link in her tweet went to a campaign webpage on sexual assault on campus that starts with a quote from a speech Hillary gave in September: “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”

Clinton’s original tweet…

Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015

Guess what happened next. Go on, guess. I assure you, it’s hilarious.

(Via Glenn)


“Heroism” jumps the shark

I wasn’t going to post on this; it’s none of my business, it’s kind of sad and sick, and I really don’t give a damn anyway. But now, blast it, I gotta. My hand has been forced.

The Price of Caitlyn Jenner’s Heroism
A NEW goddess has emerged like Botticelli’s Venus rising from the sea. Caitlyn Jenner gazes out from Annie Leibovitz’s July Vanity Fair cover, bare save for a satin bodysuit. Her auburn curls tumble over alabaster shoulders. Can she really be the avatar of personal freedom and self-expression the media claims her to be?

Caitlyn Jenner’s transition is more than a private matter. It is a commercial spectacle on an enormous scale, revealing some disturbing truths about what we value and admire in women.

Inside the magazine, Ms. Jenner poses in skintight dresses, a cinched black lace corset and two different gold evening gowns — the kind of outfits favored by her voluptuous stepdaughter, Kim Kardashian. She lounges on a sofa, peers into mirrors or reclines with her head thrown back, eyes closed. In keeping with the classic iconography of female stardom, Ms. Jenner appears languid and glamorous, her body still and on display rather than performing any activity.

Ms. Jenner is 65 years old, but Caitlyn “codes” many decades younger. Her features are tiny and doll-like, her lips plumped, her skin lineless. Even her new chosen first name feels bizarrely girlish, conjuring more a college student, or maybe a sixth Kardashian sister, than a grandmother.

We have known for months that Bruce Jenner was becoming a woman, and we rejoice if this brings her happiness. But were we prepared for this woman?

“Caitlin” is many things–sad, wretched, pitiable, confused, pathetic–but a woman is definitely not one of them. I’ll let DC McAllister explain why:

Not every girl has such an embarrassing story, but each one remembers. They know what it’s like to grow up and become a woman, and those experiences are integral to shaping their feminine identity—and an identity that is rooted in their nature, in their genes, not in their fantasies. It’s something no transgender man can ever know. He might become an imitation of woman with artificial breasts and hormone injections, but he will never be a girl who became a woman—and that is all the difference in the world.

He’ll never know what it’s like to be a girl, to bravely face the realities, not the fantasies, of nature. He won’t know the joys, either. The comfort of a girl resting in her father’s strong arms. The sweetness a woman feels when her husband makes love to her and they create life together. The soft movements of a child as she or he grows inside her womb. The peace she feels as she feeds her baby at her breast, having given life and now sustaining it.

The celebration of Jenner “becoming a woman” is a fantasy. It’s artificial. It’s make-believe. It’s not authentic at all. It’s a mirage. Jenner has always fantasized that he’s a woman, dreaming of the possibilities of becoming what he imagines himself to be. But possibilities in life are only fantasies when they aren’t rooted in something real. You can’t become a woman without being a girl, complete with XX chromosomes that determine our sex. The man posing as a woman on the cover of Vanity Fair is a delusional mockery of every woman who knows what it’s like to be a girl with all the pains, humiliations, and joys of actually growing up and becoming a woman—and each one of us, in different ways, has faced it bravely through every stage.

As always, the argument Progressivist nitwits–and that’s who it is out there cheerleading poor Bruce Jenner’s “transformation” from a sad, damaged man into a sad, damaged man who calls himself a woman and has had his willie chopped off, or expects to eventually–are having isn’t with any person or political party; it’s with reality. More not on Jenner specifically (the article is from 2014) but covering the whole gruesome mess here:

This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

The transgendered suffer a disorder of “assumption” like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

You won’t hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.
We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

I wouldn’t be in favor of legislatively limiting anyone’s right to surgically mutilate himself because of a mental disorder, necessarily; I AM, however, all in favor of not lauding such piteous souls to the high heavens as “heroes.”

If ever there was a more overused word in the English language, I’d have a hard time coming up with it. And now it’s being tossed at people who are not only sick but so narcissistic as to go to such hideous extremes in indulgence of their underlying pathology. The liberal experiment in taking easily understood words (such as, say, “liberal”) and forcing a redefinition of them until they come to signify the opposite of their traditional meaning in public discourse continues apace, I guess.

He’s a unicorn–a beautiful, beautiful unicorn update! Or a Centaur.

Americans of all stripes have showered accolades upon the new Ms. Jenner, all the way up to the White House. “It takes courage to share your story,” Barack Obama’s Organizing for America Twitter account declared; White House fixture Valerie Jarrett echoed this praise. Countless media outlets heralded Jenner’s “bravery”; others thanked his/her “life-affirming” public transformation. Many naïve souls praised Caitlyn’s beauty, which led, somewhat hilariously, to an immediate leftist backlash, with various commentators bemoaning “female objectification” and the oppressive reinforcement of white, upper-class beauty standards. There are certain squares in this cosmic bingo match, friends, where you can’t win.

One can view Caitlyn’s positive, wall-to-wall, quasi-obsessive cultural reception as a welcome sign—an indicator that most Americans, despite our nails-on-the-chalkboard, marathon culture wars, just want to be kind, supportive, and accepting. For most people, this is certainly true. Why should anyone care about someone else’s personal decisions? What difference does it make? These questions, however, are based on the assumption that “live and let live” is a two-way street. Unfortunately, for most hard-core transgender supporters, that’s just not the case: In their world, we all must agree. Because of this, many people are simply too scared to say what they really think.

Caitlyn, of course, is not really a woman. Mr. Jenner has not even shed his essential lower male infrastructure, let alone his pesky, clinging XY chromosomes. In this sense, he’s actually more of a proverbial Gender Centaur, or even a proverbial Gender Mullet, than anything else. This might be uncomfortable, but it is the truth. It certainly doesn’t lessen Jenner’s worth as a human being or as a child of God. Yet, strangely, if you calmly note this simple scientific fact, certain people will get very, very upset. 

They don’t like facts; all facts ever do is get in their way, and make them feel bad.


“I felt I had watched a very friendly stranger go to a party on the third floor of my family’s house, while my family was being held captive in the basement, desperate to escape”

Stop helping.

A few weeks ago, when I heard Conan O’Brien was in Havana to shoot an episode of Conan, my heart sank. I’ve always liked him but I’m allergic to the tourist gaze. My many trips to Cuba have taught me how damaging it is. The Cuban regime, like all dictatorships, depends heavily on propaganda and learning it would take center stage on a late night show filled me with dread. Conan promised that his goal in Cuba was to make people laugh, that he wouldn’t touch the complicated politics of the situation. Ay Conan, if it were only that easy.

You can’t go to Cuba and be apolitical. Traveling there is a political act alone. The brands he joked about at the grocery store were all companies that were appropriated by the Cuban government. That cigar factory he visited was taken from a Cuban family of cigar makers. Cubans cannot afford to eat at paladares because the average Cuban only makes $20 a month, creating an unofficial tourist apartheid where foreigners enjoy Cuba while Cubans endure the regime. The “ruins” that took Conan’s breath away are dilapidated buildings that thousands of people have to live in because they are not free to move out of them without government permission.

He was there to connect with the people. But he was only connecting with the people that work in tourism — which any Cuban will tell you are a small and distinct sector of the population. Even acknowledging that would have been nice, but instead Conan lamented that in a few years there will probably be American stores in colonial Havana. That’s when he lost me.

Why shouldn’t there be a Foot Locker or a Gap in Havana? If Paris can handle multiple Nike stores — I’m pretty sure Havana can too. The idea that commerce would ruin the “ruins” disregards the desperate need for things to change in Cuba. Why shouldn’t Cubans benefit from capitalism the same way Conan does without losing what makes them special? After all, every show clip I clicked on came with an embedded commercial. If Conan really loved the Cuban people as much as he seemed to, why wouldn’t he want the same opportunities for them that have given him such a wonderful platform?

Every good totalitarian knows you can’t have socialism without slaves. They’re necessary to properly service the nomenklatura and their useful idiots like Conan, Michael Moore, and a bazillion other disgraceful, willfully-ignorant schlubs, maintaining the privilege and profligacy of their masters while being carefully hidden from view as much as possible. That’s the reality of it, whether Hollywood-Left dilettantes choose to admit it or not.


Russell Brand versus…Johnny Lydon?

Okay, this is a fun piece.

Invited to contribute to the November issue of Prospect, the UK’s “leading magazine of ideas,” the man who sang “I wanna be anarchy” in 1976 now declares that he is no longer an anarchist: “Anarchy riddles itself with dictatorial policies and doesn’t like to be questioned.” He called Brand a “bumhole” and expressed little patience for his anarchic vision. Urging young people not to vote, Lydon said in an interview to promote his book, “is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard.” When asked if a revolution like Brand’s is possible, Lydon responded,

No, what you’ll get is a rat-pile of infestation, laziness, and eventually you’ll all be evicted. If you don’t contribute or in some way try to reshape the society around you, you’re gonna have no effect, and therefore become ineffectual, ignored, condemned. What [Brand is] preaching there is a lifestyle of cardboard boxes down by the river. He’ll make you all homeless.

Like Michael Moore, who has more houses than Century 21, Brand is “preaching all this from the mansion. Lovely, innit?” His advice to Brand’s constituency? “Get smart, read as much as you can, and find out who’s using you.” Perhaps that last bit suggests that they examine whether they are being used by Brand himself.

Russell Brand and John Lydon are disenchanted with the current state of affairs—as are we all. But Lydon has grown to see that “The older you get, the more you learn, and you have to be able to put yourself in the position of going, ‘Ooh, I was wrong there,’ or ‘There’s room for flexibility.’” Revolution without a workable plan, he now understands, is just spinning your wheels. “I always thought anarchy was a mind game for the middle classes, really. Impractical.”

“Anarchists can’t get anywhere without motorways,” he adds with an impish smile.

Somebody oughta tell these idiots.

Evidently Seattle is experiencing a lot of problems rebuilding a highway that goes through the western edge of the city. Vox acts like it’s very concerned about cost overruns on the highway, but liberals never seem to express concerns about cost overruns on any other kind of government program. The Vox solution to the problem? Don’t rebuild the highway; just replace it with city streets!

When a city tears down an urban freeway, some cars will be diverted to other roads. But many other drivers will respond to the lower capacity in other ways. Some will shift to taking transit to work. Others will shift their commutes earlier or later in the day to avoid periods of peak congestion.  Still others will move closer to downtown, or take jobs that are closer to where they work. So taking out an urban freeway won’t generate as much traffic on other roads as naive projections might suggest.

So a highway isn’t really needed. Or is it? Cars diverted to other streets will only create worse traffic problems on other streets. People shifting their commute times? Many workers don’t have that option. Other workers will move closer to their jobs? That’s not too probable, as the city has a finite space for residences. That’s why people moved to the suburbs in the first place. So for all these spurious reasons, traffic won’t be a problem!

Liberals who call for the demise of highways also call for more spending on bike paths and “light rail.” Bicycle paths are useless, of course, for people who have to go more than a few miles, and unusable even for that for the old and the handicapped. As for “light rail,” I’m not sure why it’s called that, because “light rail” can weigh almost 50 tons, and be very expensive to maintain compared to much cheaper bus service. (I think they like the word “light” because it sounds like you’re traveling on a diet.)

The fact remains that cars are the greatest liberating technology in the field of transportation, and we should support highways.

Which is exactly why “liberals” hate them, of course.


At the intersection of Progressivist idiocy and AGW hysteria

This is where you wind up:

In an interview with radio shock-jock Howard Stern, Canadian rocker Neil Young suggested a fight against the Islamic State (ISIS) is not worth the release of greenhouse gases from military vehicles.

“And yet we are fighting what? ISIS…al-Qaeda. And we are fighting these wars against these organizations and their carbon footprint has got to be like 1% of our huge army and our navy and all of this stuff that have with all our big machines. We’re doing more damage to the earth with our wars.”

That alone is a self-beclowning of truly epic proportions. But as I’m sure you’ve already guessed, it gets even better:

While Neil Young spoke to a Calgary news conference at the Jack Singer Concert Hall prior to his Sunday night show, five rock star-style motorhomes were left running outside, spewing fumes into the Calgary air, even though they were mostly unoccupied.

I knocked on the doors of all of the buses, rented or leased from Florida Coach Luxury Design and Leasing, and only one was opened by a young man who introduced himself as a cook. The chef explained that the motorhomes, must be kept running to run the equipment aboard.

Maybe it’s time for Neil Young to walk the walk and join Al Qaeda for its smaller carbon footprint.

Maybe it’s time for morons like Neil Dung and the rest of the limousine-liberal set to try to put something in those empty heads before their Muslim terrorist pals lop them off. As Glenn always says: I’ll believe AGW is a crisis when the people who keep shrieking that it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis. Until then, to hell with every man Jack of them.


7 loathsome celebrity-Left morons who just love them some communist oppression, impoverishment, and murder

You guys know you can always count on me to say it straight and pull no punches, I’ll just say that much for myself.

(Via Insty)

Useful idiots update! Michael Moynihan asks what would have to be just about the easiest question in the world:

It’s a thought experiment I often present to the Western Chavista, one that usually ends up demonstrating that sympathizers of the regime, both in this country and in Europe, have something of a colonialist attitude towards Venezuela. Because one wonders the reaction of these faux progressives if Prime Minister David Cameron, President Barack Obama, Chancellor Angela Merkel–pick your the imperialist lackey!–arrested an opposition leader who had organized peaceful street protests? Or if the CIA shut off the internet in politically restive cities like Berkeley and Brooklyn; blocked Twitter traffic it found politically suspect; and took over PBS, forcing it to broadcast only pro-administration agitprop, never allowing the opposition party to traduce the government across public airwaves? Or if the president forced the removal of BBC America from all cable providers for being too anti-American?

Perhaps reactions would be muted if motorcycle gangs loyal to President George W. Bush circled anti-Iraq War protests physically attacking–and occasionally murdering–demonstrators. How about if a judge ruled against President Obama’s domestic spying apparatus and, in return, the White House ordered that judge thrown in prison? How long would an American president be allowed to run up massive inflation, despite massive oil revenues coming into government coffers? How long would it be considered reasonable–and not the president’s responsibility–to preside over 23,000 murders in a country of just under 30 million people, a rate that would horrify the average resident of Baghdad? How long could supermarket shelves remain bare of basic staples like bread and milk before The Nation or The Guardian would gleefully decide that America was a failed, kleptocratic state? Or if Bush or Obama’s economic policies meant that toilet paper could no longer be found on the open market?

So I ask a rather straight-forward question to those who pretend to care about the Venezuelan people (much like those who miraculously lost interest in the Vietnamese people after 1975 or the Nicaraguan people after 1990), those who care so deeply for the poor and destitute in Latin America: Why the double standard?

A: because they’re Leftists, and without hypocrisy, double standards, delusion, and dishonesty, their ideology would of necessity cease to exist, and they themselves would shrivel up and blow away. Right after their heads exploded, natch. As for the answers to his questions in the second paragraph, we’ll be finding out soon enough, unfortunately.

Via Ace, who says:

The chilling thing that separates, in my mind, the leftist from the liberal is the former’s “By any means necessary” ethic. They are willing to defend — and perpetrate themselves — true evil because, they assert, their mission is so intrinsically good that its accomplishment will redeem all sins (including the sin of murder).

It’s a scary mentality. Anyone who has convinced himself that a little bit of murder in the service of preferred politics is excusable should proudly accept membership in the club which he has joined. And that club includes Stalin, Mao, Osama bin Ladin, and, yes, Hitler.

It is indeed scary, to say the least. Considering how many millions their evil ideology has already put in the ground, they’re truly scary bastards, damn them all to Hell. Hence the importance of calling them what they actually are, not allowing them to hide behind euphemisms or a phony “civility,” and not flinching from the truth about them. Them, and their damnably foolish celebrity enablers right along with them.


Doughy, fat Hollywood queef to bring down the NRA with a (GASP!) Meryl Streep movie

Well, that ought to be enough to “make them wish they weren’t alive,” as the limp-wristed schlub threatened. That’s how I feel about the prospect of sitting through another heavy-handed Streep propaganda flick anyway.

As far as I am concerned, this is great. I mean it. Good for Weinstein and Meryl Streep. That’s what America is all about. If Weinstein thinks that we don’t “need guns in this country” and that the “NRA is a disaster area” then he should definitely make his movie. I disagree with him pretty vehemently, of course. But so what?

I’d only ask that he does it properly: That is, that he sinks as much money and time and effort into the project as possible. Really stick it to the Second Amendment and to the majority of Americans who support it. Don’t bother with prosaic and quotidian nonsense like politics, contributions, or fundraisers, just put the eggs into this basket and kill Americans’ taste for the right to bear arms in one fell, expensive, dramatic swoop. Bang!

Don’t bother with a weak-tea message of “gun safety” or “common sense,” either. Just put it out there. No guns. Guns bad. Take the guns away. I’m no director, but I think I can see the scene now in which a sheriff goes door-to-door taking away people’s firearms and using the Socratic method to explain to them why it’s for their own good. It could be set in, say, rural Tennessee.

For my money, I think Weinslime ought to use Bracken’s book as the base narrative for his cinematic whining– thereby turning it from yet another pointless fascist harangue into a worthwhile cautionary tale with an important lesson for no-load assholes like him to either heed or get bitten hard by.

Come and take them, you gutless “liberal” pussy.


Talking ass

Is he ever.

Update! Related–or perhaps I should say all of a liberal-fascist piece:

President Obama warned that the GOP was “running out the clock” and “drowning out” the American people on the issue of gun control at a White House event this afternoon. “Their assumption is that people will just forget about [Newtown],” Obama said in his speech alongside the families of gun-violence victims. He accused those “powerful voices on the other side” of trying to make the push for stricter gun-control measures “collapse under the weight of fear and frustration.”

Goddamned right we are, you piece of shit. It’s very well-established that facts, logic, reason, and honesty are all things to which your side is entirely immune. And every would-be tyrant damned well ought to be afraid of a well-armed populace that is fed up and committed to not allowing him to steal one more shred of their freedom. That’s sorta the whole point of the 2A in the first place, and the more ideologically-committed of the neo-Marxist revolutionaries who have hijacked our nation –Ogabe being one of those–know it very well.

Updated update! A former SEAL, teacher, and tactical training consultant speaks some basic truth on school shootings and how to deal with them:

I deeply respect the composite American virtues: to question authority and doctrine; to be emboldened by a sense of self-reliance; to be empowered by our own critical thinking; and to be guarded by vigilance. However, these virtues are increasingly challenged in our society today by their correlative vices coupled with a degenerating irresponsibility. Our virtues become criss-crossed and uprooted when we allow ourselves to trust gun mythology and ideology; to be weakened by layers of dependency; to be disempowered by a litigious, intellectual zombie culture; and to be made vulnerable by laziness, complacency, and denial. Sun Tzu would warn us against allowing the rogue sociopath to let us become our own worst strategic accomplice.

Let previous school shootings serve as our lesson today. Let more schools stay on the active side of this menace. Under the best circumstances, more schools can negotiate this changing landscape of school security and avoid slipping down the wrong side of Sun Tzu.

I don’t necessarily agree with every single thing the man says, but he definitely lays out some wisdom and food for thought. In that, he’s about as far from an ignorant, braying jackass like Jim Carrey as it’s possible to be.

Shaming the shameless update! Shame? Not only does Ogabe have none, I doubt he even understands the meaning of the word.


A thought

From Bill, in response to a typically ignorant comment from loathsome, unfunny buffoon Jim Carrey.

You know, if gun owners were what the gun grabbers say they are, most of the gun grabbers, especially loudmouthed fucktards like Jim Carrey (an over-the-hill has-been whose funniest moments were decades ago) would have been gunned down by now.

Yeah, well, the gun-grabbing fascists are doing their level best to try to make it happen anyway, and they may just get it done yet if they keep on pushing.

Update! Herschel tosses a bucket of cold reality into ol’ Jimbo’s face:

Oh, don’t worry over me being offended Jimbo. You didn’t even come close. See, every time you wax on trying to be scholarly and serious, I just remember that you’re actually a no-talent Hollywood slapstick man who earns his living making juvenile faces.

It ain’t particularly relevant, but I gotta say it: the only thing that will send me screaming after the remote faster than a TV replay of an Adam Sandler movie is a TV replay of a Jim Carrey one. I’d rather watch golf, infomercials, or dwarf porn–with a toothache and a hangover, yet–myself.

Updated update! HA has the video of the abomination. Remember, this is what officious liberal pricks really think of you: you’re a bunch of stupid, inbred, slack-jawed hicks with a little-dick complex. Everybody involved in this lame attempt at insult and dismissal ought to be slapped in the face. Hard. The asshole Carrey is right about one thing, though: as he himself “sings,” only the Devil’s true devotees could profiteer from pain and fear. Y’know, like the gun-grabbing shitweasels are doing every time they climb on another coffin to try to press ahead with their evil agenda.

Come and take them, motherfuckers. I’m actually beginning to look forward to it if it means we’ll finally have the opportunity to take a few well-earned potshots at the likes of you.


The government you deserve…

…is very likely going to have Ashley Judd in it soon enough. No joke, people; remember back when the idea of “Senator Al Franken” was a completely ludicrous proposition? Well, who’s laughing now? As the good Prof says, take her seriously. The fact that her views are stupid and bizarre doesn’t preclude her from being every bit as qualified as any other Democrat Socialist candidate ever was. Quite the opposite, in fact.



“Just asking questions”: you’re doin’ it wrong

Ever-reliable liberal hack Howie Kurtz leaps into the fray to protect one of his ruling-class confreres.

I seriously doubt that he’s going to jail. But the D.C. Police Department apparently has nothing better to do than examine whether he violated the city’s gun laws.

Was the moderator of Meet the Press caught on tape, armed and dangerous, liberating a few Slurpees from a 7-Eleven? No, he waved a high-capacity ammunition clip on the air while interviewing Wayne LaPierre, asking why it shouldn’t be banned.

Doesn’t matter, or shouldn’t. Here’s the real question: did this liberal-fascist propagandist break the fucking law? A law he openly supports and advocates for–a law that, had it been you or me, we’d already be sitting in the hoosegow for flouting? He very obviously did, so the question follows: is this a nation of laws, or of men, where there is one set of laws for us pee-ons and another for those who would rule us? The answer to that one is so obvious as to be not worth bothering about.

The late word that NBC requested, and failed to receive, permission from the police certainly complicates the matter. But I don’t think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes.

Bullshit. Whether he “planned to” or not, it’s exactly what he did. Let him pay the price for it–or reveal beyond all debate and for all time what kind of a government we really have, and what kind of a nation we really are.

Update! A cautionary tale:

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: “In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defense to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”

And so it is with Gregory here. Lock his ass up. Or, as I said, demonstrate for us indisputably what kind of a nation we are…so we can get busy fixing this shit, by whatever means might be necessary.

Updated update! Don’t know why this didn’t occur to me before, but…another point. This: “…the D.C. Police Department apparently has nothing better to do than examine whether he violated the city’s gun laws.” Really? That’s their fucking job, douchebag. But since Gregory is a fully-paid-up member of Soviet Amerika’s nomenklatura, I guess Kurtz is right, and the DC police really have no business wasting everyone’s time investigating his crime.


Liberal idiot trips over own tiny dick

As I said earlier, I anticipate no shortage of opportunities to justify my major award from Ross.

If David Gregory were not David Gregory.

He’d already be in jail.

Now that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is on record that it told NBC News not to use the high capacity magazine in its segment with Wayne LaPierre, the big media is paying attention and taking this seriously.

TMZ is running interference claiming that NBC News was told by ATF that the D.C. Police said it was okay, but the D.C. Police say they were asked directly by NBC News for permission and that permission was denied.

I hope they prosecute his stupid liberal ass to the absolute fullest extent. The fullest. I hope he does hard time, and plenty of it. And not in no country-club prison either. Marion would suit quite nicely as far as I’m concerned. He’ll have the opportunity to meet some gun owners in there alright, who will give him one hell of a useful education on how effective gun control really is.

None of that will happen to the hopeless dimwit, of course. I doubt he’ll so much as pay a fine, or even be indicted or cited. The story will quietly dry up and blow away, and that will be that. The rich, “important,” politically-correct, and connected really are different from you and I, see.

But there is one small point about this story of liberal hubris and arrogance that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else: if waving the magic legislative wand and banning things solves all problems and gets rid of the things–alcohol, drugs, guns, smoking, unapproved thought, kids riding around the ‘burbs on bicycles without full body armor on, freedom–that annoy “liberals,” how the hell did Gregory get ahold of a magazine that clearly should have vanished into the ether the moment it was declared legally extinct?

Okay, time to justify that award. For those of you perturbed by the rough stuff, do NOT highlight the text below. For the ruffians, rowdies, roustabouts, and general miscreants who are my core target audience, enjoy. For David Gregory: this is for you, and I hope reading it is actually, physically painful should you by some strange chance run across it.

Dumb fucks. Dumb fucking fucks. HINT: If, after trying something once, twice, a dozen times, it is demonstrably true that your stupid fucking stratagem has failed in its stated purpose, the way to solve your problem is not, repeat NOT, to try the same fucking thing again in the hope that this time the magic will finally kick in and all will be as you desire at last. Hi-cap mags are already fucking banned, you reeking twat, yet you still didn’t have any problem laying your fucking grubby hands on one, now did ya? You still have a problem with hi-cap mags despite your stupid fucking ban on them. What are you gonna do now, instate a super double pluperfect ban this time? Get a goddamnded clue for once, dumbshit. You fucking idiot. You dumb, miserable fucking liberal-fascist asswipe.

Something else idiots like Gregory should consider is that the NRA he so viscerally loathes is made up of tens of millions of Americans who (appropriately, wisely) fear and distrust their government and the motives of the liberal-fascists currently stripping us of our Constitutional liberties every chance they get, or can manufacture. These people are generally law-abiding, nonviolent, and slow to anger; at the resumption of “liberal” attempts to destroy the freedom guaranteed by the 2A, that will change.

A substantial minority of those people will be pushed into actual insurrection by the final denial of their God-given rights and the attempted confiscation of the means of guaranteeing them–that, you can count on, despite the widespread and badly mistaken belief that they are no more serious about their principles and beliefs than the Republican Party is. The longed-for liberal-fascist gun-grab, should they manage to enact one, is NOT going to go smoothly and efficiently. It will be a slow, painful, and bloody slog, profligately expensive of both blood and treasure. And it will still fail as dismally as the hi-cap-mag ban Gregory just so publicly flouted did.

Funny how people whose claimed motivation is to “stop the killing” are so mulishly determined to pursue a course that will lead to much more of it instead.

It is therefore inadvisable, David, in your ignorant attempt to force the tyranny of your preference on us, to continue debasing the supposed ethics of your profession by openly advocating for yet another contra-Constitutional power grab by a regime already very much predisposed to them.

And ignorant it most certainly is. The ignorance of Gregory and other liberal-fascists about firearms, despite their smug lecturing on the subject, is total; it’s a black hole from whence not the merest photon of the light of knowledge and truth can escape. To them, a semi-automatic is an automatic is a revolver is a shotgun is an assault rifle is a Derringer is a Browning medium machine gun is a quad four. I mean, jeez-o-Pete, I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to know a bolt from a flash suppressor from a stock from a muzzle-brake if you sprang it on ’em unawares. But ferchrissake, the terms “automatic” and “semi-automatic” are NOT interchangeable, and they’ve reduced “assault rifle” to stark raving meaninglessness.

They can’t even get the terminology straight, or anything close to it. All they know for sure is that they don’t like ’em. Any of ’em.

And yet they’re content to splutter and froth on and on, shrieking and weeping and hopping up and down and waving their arms over their heads, making dire but impotent social-media threats of blood and murder they are in no way capable of fulfilling, not even realizing how thoroughly they’re convincing people who do know whereof they speak that they must never, ever be allowed anywhere near the Second Amendment–or any of the other ones, for that matter–no matter how smart they keep telling us they are. It’s a self-beclownment of truly staggering proportions, and it’s also profoundly dangerous. Mostly to them, but still.

Look, “liberals,” let’s make a deal: we won’t come sniffing and snuffling around a-scolding and trying to ban overpriced foreign luxury cars; triple-tipple vente mocha lattes with genuine organic imported free-range mint; supercilious light-jazz musicians, their boring, limp music, and the tiny, twee restaurants and coffee shoppes they perform in; or anything else we don’t know much about but hold in no small contempt.

Hell, we’ll even agree to let you have your useless gun-buyback weekends now and then in your squalid urban ghettos; all you ever get from those futile things anyway is a pile of rusty, broken-down old small-bore revolvers of the type your local gangbanger found in his grandpa’s nightstand drawer, that haven’t been capable of firing a shot in anger since V-J Day, and that said gangbanger is more than happy to trade in for a hundred bucks (“Yo, that’ll buy a lot of rounds for my Mac-10, nomesain!”).

In return, you stay the hell away from our guns.

Failing that, molon labe, motherfuckers. And rotsa ruck with that shit.


Just some more of that calm, rational, humane, and tolerant rhetoric from the Left

Revealing their superior intellect, compassion, and great philosophical depth:

On Friday, Author Joyce Carol Oates tweeted in response to that “NRA-sponsored massacre” that new gun control legislation might be forthcoming “if sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves.” If that wasn’t enough to be considered an implicit wish for more shootings, “CSI” star Marg Helgenberger made sure it was, tweeting that “one can only hope.”

Just remember, you’re the evil ones here, gun owners. And the funny thing is, they’re proving our point once again: it will never be anything near as likely that NRA members will be the ones getting shot, since they’re the ones most likely to be willing, able, prepared, and trained to shoot back. Instead, it will continue to be innocents rendered defenseless by the “liberal” insistence on stupidity and fear in place of reason and responsibility.

Via Glenn, who elsewhere, in response to another manipulative, opportunistic, and witless ghoul, unloads another of his perfect pithy lines: “NOTE: When people say things like “don’t let this moment pass without acting on gun control,” what they’re really saying is our arguments are so unpersuasive that they can only succeed when people aren’t thinking clearly.” Bingo.

Update! Apparently, “liberals” just want more children to die, since they so adamantly refuse to have a conversation about the only approach that has a ghost of a chance of stopping a mass murderer in his tracks.

A tragedy of this type inevitably resurrects memories of similar events in the past; Virginia Tech, Colombine, Jonesboro and others. But oddly enough, there is little mention of a school shooting that ended not with the gunman taking his own life, but with the suspect being forced to stop his rampage at the barrel of a gun, aimed by a school official who had the training and courage to fight back. We refer to the shooting that occurred in Pearl, Mississippi in October 1997.

We may never know the number of lives saved by Joel Myrick. When he caught up with Woodham, the shooter had returned to his mother’s car and was preparing to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School, where he planned to resume his shooting spree. Instead, Woodham was taken into custody, tried, convicted and sentenced to three life terms in prison. Woodham will be eligible for parole when he turns 65.

While the loss of life in Pearl was tragic, it could have been much, much worse. At a decisive moment, it was the presence of an armed citizen that prevented a much greater slaughter. And the Mississippi incident isn’t the only example.

No, it isn’t. But “liberals” have been very careful to keep that information suppressed to the greatest degree possible, since that would hinder the realization of their ultimate goal: absolute State control over a helpless populace stripped of all means of resistance. Another Tweet that says it all:

Hey, @BarackObama – you know all those nuts that fear you’re going to take their guns? You can take their guns now.

I’m sure that on some level, he’s glad to have the opportunity at last. Just like all the rest of the carrion-fowl.

(Via Maet)

RACIST update! Just a reminder: gun control has always been the despot’s favorite means of keeping minorities oppressed and enfeebled.

FUCK the GOP update! Just in case you’re one of the three or four people who still believe the disgusting, useless Republican Statist Party is on the side of freedom, the Constitution, and common sense: you need to get a clue, and fast.

Sowell for president update! Leave it to the good professor to cut through the bullshit and talk some damned sense.

Gun-control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun-control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem — including people who are determined to push gun-control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic, and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun-control advocates.

Read it all, natch.


Snitches get stitches

It really is true, you know. Most of the time, anyway.

Cameron Douglas, son of legendary Hollywood actor Michael Douglas, was recently attacked in prison by fellow inmates, suffering a broken leg and fingers. Douglas was targeted for violence after a mob boss put a bounty on the Oscar winner’s son for “ratting” on his drug dealers.

“He broke his femur, which is hard to snap, and had to have a rod inserted,” a source told the New York Post.

Douglas did not make the mistake of “ratting” a second time.

“He told health services staff that he hurt them playing handball. You don’t break a femur playing handball,” the source said.

A New York mob boss reportedly placed a $100 bounty on Douglas’ body during prison flag football season, after Douglas’ psychiatrist revealed during a 2010 bail hearing that Douglas had snitched on his drug suppliers, David and Eduardo Escalera, in exchange for a lighter sentence. It is unclear if Douglas’ broken femur and fingers are related to the bounty.

A hundred bucks? Just another reminder that life is cheap in the joint.


Doubling down on stupid

And, of course, liberal-fascism.

On CNN contributor Roland Martin’s podcast posted to his website Monday, Jason Whitlock, the columnist who inspired Bob Costas’ commentary on gun control during halftime of Sunday’s Dallas Cowboys-Philadelphia Eagles game on NBC, revealed his peculiar take on the National Rifle Association (NRA).

“Sports gets so much attention, and people tune out the real world, that I try to take advantage of the opportunity to talk about the real world when sports lends itself to that and try to open people’s eyes,” Whitlock said.

“You know, I did not go as far as I’d like to go because my thoughts on the NRA and America’s gun culture — I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests [at heart].”

You want my guns, molon labe, Roland Jason (oops, my bad), you fucking moron–you, personally, without hiding behind some thuggish government agency or ban. And as I facetiously said the other day, you want to ban something, howzabout we start with the NFL, which is far more to blame for Belcher’s rampage than any gun ever will be?

Costas’ brand of knee-jerk speculation cuts both ways. After all, Belcher played in one of the most violent mass-market sports in the world. Did that have anything to do with the crime? Deadspin reports that Belcher sustained a concussion on Nov. 18, and had been taking medication for it — all while drinking large amounts of alcohol, according to a source close to Belcher. “If you review the footage of the Cincinnati game, he took a few hits to the head directly,” an unnamed friend of Belcher’s told Deadspin’s Isaac Rauch in a series of emails. That mixture exacerbated tensions at home, where Perkins had just returned after the couple’s separation, according to the source.

And when it comes to Belcher taking his own life…sadly, this isn’t the first time that we’ve seen an NFL player commit suicide. There have been six suicides in the past two years, in fact. The NFL has recently, and belatedly, begun taking steps to prevent long-term brain damage to its players. The changes have been a long time coming, and might not be enough. As the New York Daily News reported on Sunday, evidence shows that chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) might not come just from concussions, “but also from repeated, less spectacular blows to the head — calling into question the future of America’s most popular sport.”

Did the concussion and/or Belcher’s medication cause him to kill? That kind of speculation becomes a lot more uncomfortable for commentators and networks that rely on the NFL for ratings and ad revenue, while gun manufacturers and owners make for a much safer target — pun intended. A medical cause seems a bit more likely than just having a handgun — but plenty of players have concussions without killing themselves or others. Perhaps sports experts should stick to sports, and report honestly on the dangers players face on the field, while we all let the police and medical experts investigate crimes themselves.

I should maybe say that I’m not actually in favor of banning anything here, especially in the wake of the sort of lunatic crime of passion that has been with us since the beginning of time, and which we’ll never do away with. But these asshats need some reminding about where the path of mucking about with human nature via government power always ends up.

Personally, I don’t give a tinker’s damn (*!) about football, and it certainly isn’t in any way necessary to the continued functioning of society. But, as is usually the case when you get right down to it, this is a freedom issue. There are already plenty of people out there who are advocating very seriously for banning football; Costas and Martin aren’t doing anybody any favors here, to include themselves, adding fuel to a fire that will ending up burning all of us in the end. As Ed says, these meddlesome, arrogant, ignorant liberals need to stick to something they know at least some small something about, and keep their damned un-American liberal-fascist politics to themselves during game time.

Update! Tripling down, via Andy:

In an interview with New York Times media reporter Bill Carter that appeared in Tuesday’s editions, Costas said: “I think most reasonable people uninformed, fact-immune liberal idiots like me think we do not have sufficient controls on the availability of guns and ammunition.”

Fixed it for ya, you stupid putz.

Ahistorical ignoramus update! Jeff G reminds Whitlock of a little history he’s either forgotten or, more likely, never knew in the first place–it not being a part of the approved government-school program of liberal indoctrination and his being a mouthbreathing, drooling dumbass and all. Also: RACIST!!!

Inevitable non-apology apology update! Might as well stop digging, dumbass. We know what you are now, and the damage–whatever that might amount to in a majority-Left nation–is done.

NBC’s Bob Costas tells sports radio host Dan Patrick his anti-gun remarks on Sunday night were a mistake because 90 seconds wasn’t enough time for him to “flesh out” what he meant to say so he was completely understood.

We understood you all too well, Bob: you’re a flaming liberal with no real knowledge of the Constitution, a strong resistance to the realities of gun ownership in this nation, and visceral, emotion-based antipathy to the Second Amendment. The fact that you used your NFL job as a forum to beat your viewers–many of whom are perfectly law-abiding and responsible gun owners, of whom not one would ever dream of committing an atrocious crime like the one at the center of the rhubarb–over the head with this obnoxious, fact-free dumbassery is the real problem, since no one seriously expects liberals to respect or understand the Constitution. Then again, nobody really expects liberals to resist interjecting politics in completely inappropriate places, either.

BOB COSTAS: And for a long time, I’ve been wanting to get off my chest my disgust with this idea that every time something tragic happens, no matter what it may be, that in any way touches sports, there’s a chorus of people saying, ‘You know, this really puts it in perspective.’ Which is a bunch of nonsense, because if that was true, we wouldn’t have to have that perspective readjusted every time the next tragedy occurs. It’s a bunch of nonsense.

Yeah, sure. That’s an all-too-familiar feeling to a lot of us these days, Bob. Maybe you oughta think about that a little bit more before you run your ignorant yap again.

Anyway, the rest of it is the usual “what I really meant to express was…,” “I’ve been misunderstood,” and “sorry you were offended” ass-covering horseshit we always get when a liberal just assumes that, being the smartest person in whatever room they may be in, everyone else is naturally in agreement with them, so you can skip it without feeling like you missed anything worthwhile. The only thing this sorry episode is likely to have changed his mind about is the advisability of unleashing his insipid opinions in mixed company. Which, thank goodness for small favors, I guess.


At LAST: can we ban football now?

After all, without the head injuries; the culture of violence and addiction; the permissiveness, excuse-making, and ass-covering on the part of the league higher-ups when a player misbehaves outrageously (especially at the college level); the overwhelming sense of entitlement on the part of pampered, amoral, noveau-riche thugs; and all that sort of thing, this crime would never have happened, right?

Update! Razorbacker:

Really? Really, Bob? It’s the gun’s fault? Not the booze? Not the pills? Not the brain damage caused by the way football is played? It’s the gun?

Well, Bobbie, here’s the thing. Pro football is a game. The Constitution is a blueprint for a society. If something needs changing, it’s pro football.

Amen to that. Funny how the Left always comes out with changing/ignoring/destroying the Constitution right from the gate, innit?



Hysterical broads have it exactly backwards, and Eva Longoria should shut her big mouth, put on something sexy, and bring me a damned beer.

Got that? Fraudulent Hollywood harridans and their hero in the White House have been deliberately deceiving women into thinking that eliminating Planned Parenthood subsidies would mean a catastrophic end to affordable cancer screening services. But the abortion provider’s purported “referral services” to outside mammogram facilities are negligible — especially given the widespread availability of free and low-cost breast and cervical cancer screening services across the country supported by both private and public grants.

Under Obamacare, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) will be empowered to determine which health care services are “medically appropriate.” For nearly three decades, the federal panel of primary care physicians and epidemiologists has issued nonbinding guidelines and A-F ratings of recommended medical procedures. But as Forbes columnist Dr. Paul Hsieh explains:

“ObamaCare links insurance coverage of preventive medical services to their USPSTF rating…(U)nder ObamaCare, Medicare payment decisions will become increasingly controlled by the new Independent Payment Advisory Board, explicitly created to reduce Medicare spending…To reduce costs, many private insurers will likely drop coverage for “C” and “D” rated services. Hence under ObamaCare, the USPSTF guidelines will likely become the de facto standards for both government and private health insurance coverage.”

And that means dropping coverage for the very services Scar-Jo and her femme friends are accusing the GOP of threatening.

Note: The USPSTF is the same review panel that advised cutting back on routine ovarian cancer screenings last month, recommended fewer prostate cancer screening tests in May 2012, and proposed mammogram restrictions in 2009.

It’s no surprise the Hollywood “cancer screening” horror ad script was written by left-wing actor/director Rob Reiner of “All in the Family” and Archie Bunker fame. These Obama-promoting meatheads and their hysterical handmaidens inhabit a manufactured world impervious to facts and fiscal realities.

Y’know, Michelle does snark pretty danged well when she wants to.

For the record: nobody’s talking about taking anything from anybody. Rubbers and abortion aren’t going to be outlawed. Neither are tampons. Stop lying and reintroduce yourselves to reality, bitches.


Hogwash Hill, population: Jon Stewart

I never could stand the smarmy prick anyway, but does this mean that Stewart has finally come out and admitted he’s a liberal? What next, is Bill Maher gonna renounce his supposed “libertarianism” or something?

He argued that on Bullshit Mountain, conservatives are animated by non-existent issues, or at least exaggerate the seriousness of certain issues.

“And on Bullshit Mountain, our problems are amplified and our solutions simplified,” he said. “And that’s why they won’t work. We face a debt crisis that we’ve never faced before. We are merely weeks from being a failed state, or even worse, Greece. And the way to solve it is to kill Big Bird. Now, let me say this, that is not a solution. And I believe tonight we will take you down from the mountain and you can come live amongst the people once again.”

But the truth is, on America’s long-term debt problem, our most perilous domestic challenge, it is liberals who exist in an alternative reality. Let’s call it Hogwash Hill.

On Hogwash Hill, liberals believe George W. Bush is entirely responsible for America’s debt problem because of the wars he initiated and the taxes he cut. They believe that when Bill Clinton left office, America’s finances were hunky dory. They believe that if we only raised taxes on the rich today, everything would be just spiffy.

This, to use a technical phrase, is utter crap.

It is indeed, and is one of the reasons I find it so annoying anytime someone officiously points out to me how “smart” Stewart is. He is smart, in truth, for certain values of “smart”–namely, the one that confirms Obama as a bona-fide genius.


What Obama is…and isn’t

Mark Krikorian hits it right on the point on top of its head:

Obviously, Madonna doesn’t really think he’s a Muslim (frankly, no one seriously believes he’s a Christian, either), but it’s clear that many of Obama’s supporters want him to be a Muslim, want him to have been born in Kenya. (This is precisely why his publicist advertised him as a Kenyan immigrant raised in Indonesia.) I guess I already knew this, but it really hit home that the greater his “otherness,” the more the post-Americans like him, precisely because they don’t like America or Americans. So the more non-mainstream he is, the more he differs from ordinary Americans, the better.

An adviser to former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s campaign noticed this widespread dislike of Americans among our elites. Political scientist Fredo Arias-King wrote of more than a dozen visits to Washington, where he visited scores of congressman and talked about a variety of bilateral issues, especially immigration. It’s worth reading his whole paper, but this quote sums up what he learned:

Overall, this author also perceived a sense of discomfort by the U.S. political class with ordinary Americans, whom they do not seem, as a class, to appreciate. One could not help but notice a desire by the congressmen to change the “chemistry” of America.

The fact that Obama is half-black is part of his appeal to the post-American crowd, but it’s not sufficient. A conventional black American wouldn’t hold the same appeal for these people–say, Colin Powell or Condi Rice or, among Democrats, say Doug Wilder or Harold Ford. They’re just not post-American enough-—different enough. Even Colin Powell, the son of Jamaican immigrants, is too patriotic, too American for them — evidence for which is that no one would be demanding to see his birth certificate or imagine that he was a secret Rastafarian.

And this suggests that many Obama fans are just the flip side of the birthers. The former like him in proportion to his foreign-ness, the latter can’t imagine America could produce such a radical, so they fantasize that he must be foreign. The difference is that birtherism is a fringe phenomenon on the right, whereas the mirror-image of birtherism — the infatuation with Obama’s otherness — is at the center of the left’s worldview.

Perzackly. It’s why the Left got so all-fired frothy over the Birthers: it disturbed their own fantasies about who and what Obama was, and what they wanted and needed him to be. But personally, I’m far more worried about the raddled, frightening hag Madonna’s threat to “take it all off” if Ogabe wins re-election. That awful eventuality is reason enough to vote against the jug-eared douchebag all by itself.

Permanent scarring update! Probably indicative of the psychological damage I’ve done to myself by digging up the terrifying pic I linked above, but I just can’t stop asking myself: what the hell kind of alternate reality are these people living in that would foster the delusion in the decrepit whore’s “mind” that anyone–ANYONE–would still want to see her naked? I mean, come on; we had those grungy black-and-white ones Playboy inflicted on the world thirty years ago–THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO–and they were bad enough; you could smell the limburger-and-halibut funk wafting off her unshaven and unwashed body like a bad disease. And that was THIRTY. FUCKING. YEARS. AGO. The actual pictures were nearly ten years older than that. What crippling psychosis could induce a woman whose “best” years–a dubious qualification anyway–are that far behind her to think that she still had the magic?

Hint: “you’re not getting older, you’re getting better” was an advertising slogan, honey. And as slogans go, it’s no more true than any of the other ones: “Not a cough in a carload.” “All it takes is a dollar and a dream.” Well, okay, “two great tastes that taste great together” is perfectly true. But trust me: you ain’t getting better; you’re getting older. Just like me, just like everybody else. Full stop, end of story. I hope.


Say it ain’t so, Danica!

The Saturday Steyn post, wherein I one-up Steyn, kinda sorta. Wait for it, it’ll be worth it. I promise.

CNN’s John King did his best the other night, producing a question from one of his viewers:

“Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?”

To their credit, no Republican candidate was inclined to accept the premise of the question. King might have done better to put the issue to Danica Patrick. For some reason, Michelle Fields of the Daily Caller sought the views of the NASCAR driver and Sports Illustrated swimwear model about “the Obama administration’s dictate that religious employers provide health-care plans that cover contraceptives.” Miss Patrick, a practicing Catholic, gave the perfect citizen’s response for the Age of Obama:

“I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans.”

Naturally, a pic of the entirely hot Patrick accompanies Steyn’s piece. But as I said, I can and shall do better. Thus:

More of this sort of wonderfulness here. As for her lame political dodge, umm, not so much:

That’s the real “hot topic” here — whether a majority of citizens, in America as elsewhere in the West, is willing to “leave it up to the government” to make decisions on everything that matters. On the face of it, the choice between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church should not be a tough one. On the one hand, we have the plain language of the First Amendment as stated in the U.S. Constitution since 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

On the other, we have a regulation invented by executive order under the vast powers given to Kathleen Sebelius under a 2,500-page catalogue of statist enforcement passed into law by a government party that didn’t even bother to read it.

Commissar Sebelius says that she is trying to “strike the appropriate balance.” But these two things — a core, bedrock, constitutional principle, and Section 47(e)viii of Micro-Regulation Four Bazillion and One issued by Leviathan’s Bureau of Compliance — are not equal, and you can only “balance” them by massively increasing state power and massively diminishing the citizen’s. Or, to put it more benignly, by “leaving it up to the government to make good decisions.”

Well, yeah. But on the other hand…hey, just look at her. Now, what were we talking about again?


Hollywood, heal thyself

Remember, these are the almost exclusively Leftist swine who spend so much of their time lecturing the rest of us, both on and off camera, about our “greed” and lack of compassion for the less fortunate.

Here’s a basic example of Hollywood Accounting: A studio makes a movie. The studio distributes the movie itself, and although the distributor is technically a separate company, they both belong to the same parent company. Also, the distribution arm sets whatever fees it wants. If they want to charge themselves eleventy quintillion dollars for distribution, they totally can. Then, even if the film earns billions of dollars in box office receipts, they’re still technically in debt (to themselves) and thus haven’t turned a profit.

Sound ridiculous? It happens all the freaking time. David Prowse, the guy who was in the Darth Vader costume in the original trilogy of Star Wars (before being ousted by that douche Hayden Christensen in the special edition) has never been paid for Return of the Jedi because it hasn’t turned a profit after nearly 30 years. That’s after dozens of home video and theatrical re-releases. (All the merchandising money goes to Lucas directly, of course.)

Similarly, someone leaked Warner Bros.’ accounting sheet for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix onto the internet, showing that the film that had grossed about $1 billion worldwide had lost $167 million on paper.

Winston Groom, the writer of Forrest Gump was told that the film based on his work wasn’t profitable. Of course, he got the last laugh when they came to him asking if they could turn the sequel, Gump and Co. into a film as well, and he reportedly told them, ”I cannot, in good conscience, allow money to be wasted on a failure.” In other words, “Go fuck yourself.”

And then there’s Art Buchwald, whose spec script got stolen by Paramount (remember that, it’s going to come up later), and got turned into Coming to America. When he took them to court and sued for a percentage of the profit, Paramount was totally cool with it, because according to their books, it hadn’t made any kind of profit, so they didn’t owe him one red fucking cent. The judge later ruled that it was “unconscionable” for Paramount not to pay Buchwald something in a settlement. Otherwise, he’d have to ask Paramount to open their books for the courts to review. Paramount quickly backed down and settled with Buchwald instead.

Sorta casts the “progressive” propaganda they continually spew forth in a different light, doesn’t it? Which only makes them typical examples of their ideological breed, natch.

(Via Maetenloch)


Teabagger wingnut threatens Obama!

Can you believe this violence-advocating rightwing hatemonger thought he’d get away with such a brazen threat?

“You know what man?” Titus said. “I am going to literally — if he gets re-elected president, I am going to hang out on the grassy knoll all the time, just loaded and ready — because you know what? It’s for my country. It’s for my country. If I got to sacrifice myself, it’s for my country.”

He wasn’t really putting Ogabe in the crosshairs there, of course. Guess who he was really talking about.

Go on. Guess.

So that’s all hunky-dory then, at least for Barrack’s Palace Guard, otherwise known as the MFM, and the rest of the New Civility cocksuckers. Nothing to see here, folks; move along, move along.



Asshole and ever-reliable moron Bill Maher:

When it gets down to two people, the electorate always holds their nose and votes the one they like the least. The economy is in the toilet — I, I, I think anybody could be president in this dumb, f**king country.”

Leaving aside that, as Bill notes, the idea that anyone could grow up to be President used to be something we were all kind of proud of, since the idea that achievement based not on the accident of “noble” birth but on virtue and effort was kinda integral from the git-go, this shitheel sure does love him some America, don’t he? Like most liberals, he just hates everything about it, and everybody in it who isn’t hip enough to despise it as much he does.

Is there any reason at all to assume that people who “think” like this could ever possibly have America’s best interests at heart? And that, as such, their suggestions for the direction we should be going in ought to be paid a moment’s serious attention?

Go crawl off somewhere and die in agony, you jackass.


Clown beclowns self

Kinda stepped in it a little bit there, didn’t ya, bright boy?

Campaign-finance laws are so complicated that few can navigate them successfully and speak during elections—which is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, federal laws have created “71 distinct entities” that “are subject to different rules for 33 different types of political speech.” The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of explanations and opinions on what the laws mean. “Legalese” doesn’t begin to describe this mess.

So what is someone who wants to speak during elections to do? If you’re Stephen Colbert, the answer is to instruct high-priced attorneys to plead your case with the FEC: Last Friday, he filed a formal request with the FEC for a “media exemption” that would allow him to publicize his Super PAC on air without creating legal headaches for Viacom.

How’s that for a punch line? Rich and successful television personality needs powerful corporate lawyers to convince the FEC to allow him to continue making fun of the Supreme Court. Hilarious.

How’s this for an even better punchline: pious, pompous dickhead ends up publicly demonstrating that he doesn’t know half what he thinks he does, and half of what he does know ain’t so. Read it all for the rest of the story on how one liberal jerk gave himself his own well-earned comeuppance by inadvertently making his opponents’ point for them.

Clown nose ON, shit for brains.




"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

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