Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Biology matters

Boys will be boys. Or girls. Or, y’know, whatever.

I’ve written before about how transgenderism destroys Title IX sports opportunities for girls and how this absurdly anti-science and anti-women stance will destroy women’s sports.

Shouldn’t even BE any “women’s sports.” Not anymore. Liberals worked very hard, for a very long time, to advance the ridiculous, reality-twisting idea that there is literally no difference between men and women. If that stupidity now clashes with their childish obssession with “fairness,” too damned bad for them. They should be forced to enjoy the fruits of their victory. They distilled this bitter cup of contradiction and folly themselves; now, let them drain it to its very last dregs.

Regarding hormones, men do not suddenly have more testosterone in puberty. To the contrary, boys, even in the intrauterine environment, are washed in different hormone concentrations than girls. They grow more quickly than girls. They’re different in babyhood. It happens again in toddlerhood. It happens finally, forcing secondary sex characteristics in puberty.

This is science. And then, these boys, who would be average athletes if they were to run, swim, wrestle, etc. against other boys, demolish the field because of their formidable, and unfair, biological advantages. The girls running against the boys know the difference.

Being a woman is not simply a matter of estrogen and progesterone. A woman’s hormones vary dramatically depending on her life cycle. For example, a woman’s testosterone elevates when she is pregnant. It also goes up proportionally against estrogen and progesterone during menopause. A female’s hormonal system is extraordinarily complex and ever changing. She can add more testosterone and growth hormone and even steroids to this mix but her bone density and structure, her brain, her lung capacity, muscle density, and on and on don’t magically change into a male’s.

Biological males cannot be women. Period. They can manipulate their hormones. They can receive breast implants. They can castrate themselves and mutilate their penises. None of these superficial changes can unwind the DNA helix.

All good, all true. But then things go a little sideways:

The solution to the dilemmas of the gender dysphoric child wanting to compete as the opposite sex is simple, but not easy: let them compete, but do not let them win. They have biological advantages over their female compatriots. A girl “transitioning” to boy and on testosterone, also should be allowed to compete but not win. Every race, match, etc. should automatically go to her competitor. Why? Because she is hormonally enhanced. A boy competing against a girl is hormonally enhanced. It’s not fair.

So what? What on earth could possibly be the point of allowing someone to “compete”…but not win? Doesn’t that sort of, I dunno, nullify the whole concept of competition?

No. HELL no. The very existence of “women’s sports” is discriminatory, segregationist, and sexist. It promotes inequality. Every athlete, regardless of gender or anything else, must compete on equal terms, on a truly level playing field, with no favoritism or distinction made according to gender identity. Only then will we achieve true equality. And that’s the most important thing of all, right?

Gender is a construct—a hateful, anachronistic holdover from a less enlightened era. Our betters have told us so, and we must accept their wisdom. So let us all embrace the new age of Progressivist enlightenment. Let us all finally take that last step into Liberal Utopia. Stop your whining about the “unfairness” of it all, girls; get out there on the field and take your lumps. This is the world the Left wanted, the one your feminist forebears made for you. Now you get to live in it too. Don’t let mere biology keep us all shackled to the old oppressive patriarchy and its restrictions, its degradation and denial of your boundless capability. Spread your wings and SOAR!

Remember to fly right on past all those chickens on your way up, and pay them no mind. They’re only coming home to roost, that’s all.

Share

Global not-warmening

A California faceplant.

California is the land of endless summer. The Beach Boys are catching a wave in front of bikini-clad girls with bushy, bushy blonde hairdos under the warm California sun. The Beach Boys were writing music long before global warming became a thing. In those days, Oscar winners were thanking all the little people for helping them win an award, not preaching to those same little people about climate change and our Cro-Magnon president.

The times have changed. The Beach Boys have been replaced by Katy Perry and Lady Gaga.

LIKE HELL. Not at my house, buddy. No way.




Yeah, the song is an ode to a damned old Chevy hunk of junk, but I still love it. Anyways.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported how cold February was, not reaching 70 degrees even once during the entire month. They bemoaned the poor coastal restaurants that needed portable heaters to warm waiters and diners eating outdoors, a staple of Southern California dining.

They didn’t mention how the heaters were powered.

Given the preponderance of enviro-Luddite loons in California, the really important question is probably how much longer they’re gonna be able to power ’em. Or maybe why such evil technological Gaia-busting devices haven’t been banned, confiscated, and destroyed yet in the first place.

The LA Times notes the month of below 70 degree temperatures is a record dating back 132 years, “since forecasters began recording data.” These myopic journalists don’t realize that LA has been around for more than 132 years. I suspect if one were to look back hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, there would be months far cooler than this past February, and far warmer than anything recorded in the past 132 years.

Given that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, it’s the ultimate in hubris to believe that the time we happen to inhabit the Earth represents “normal.” Modern journalism and hubris are synonymous. If you don’t believe me, just read CNN’s Jim Acosta’s Twitter feed.

Los Angeles even had a bit of snow. This causes a National Weather Service meteorologist to remark, “We’ve had cold mornings and freeze conditions, but I don’t remember seeing anything quite this cold.” I don’t recall any Beach Boys songs about Southern California snow.

Okay, so by now you’re probably getting the idea that this here is one snarky, sarcastic bitchslap of an article. It is, and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

Share

Whodathunkit?

Why, you could knock me over with a feather. Literally, maybe.

Surprise, surprise. Men who are physically weak are more likely to favor socialist policies.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Exhibit A:

Now go check out Exhibit A. Trust me, you’ll love it. Meanwhile, there’s more bad news for soyboys, vegans, Male Feminists, and other miscellaneous slope-shouldered Leftard sissymaries everywhere.

Many people still think that testosterone will cause you to kill your parents and run over small woodland creatures. But paradoxically, it’s often men with low testosterone levels that are moody, depressed, and even angry, while men with normal or high testosterone levels are generally sociable and gregarious.

Dr. Christina Wang of UCLA found that men with low T were likely to be snarkier and more aggressive than men with high T, but once the snarky ones received T replacement, their attitude and anger disappeared.

Hey, can’t argue with Science!™, man. Funny, though, how it seems to just keep right on vaporizing so many treasured Lefty shibboleths as arrant nonsense, innit?

Share

Can’t get no…satisfaction

Naked and belligerent” is no way to go through life, honey.

FEBRUARY 18–Cops today arrested a “naked and belligerent” Florida Woman for allegedly attacking her fiancée after he declined to have sex with her, according to a police report.

Officers responding early this morning to a disturbance call at a Vero Beach apartment building encountered Samantha Jewel Hernandez, 21, sans clothes and in an ornery mood. Hernandez (pictured at right) denied doing anything to her fiancée, “but was too intoxicated” to provide further information.

The victim, 21, told police that Hernandez “wanted to engage him in sexual intercourse,” which he declined. “Hernandez was angry at the fact that [the victim] did not want to have sex and began attacking him, striking him in the face and ripping his shirt.”

Saw this tucked into MisHum’s ONT thread, and of course you know I clicked on through wondering just how fat and ugly this gruesome manatee would be. So imagine my surprise:

nakedandbelligerent.jpg


Well, I’ll be danged. Proof positive of the truth in the old joke: no matter how cute she is, somewhere out there is a guy who’s tired of fucking her.

Share

Twitter twisters

Y’all know I ain’t a Twitter guy, and ain’t ever gonna be. Their obvious bias against us RightwingNaziDeathbeasts aside, I just don’t have much use for the damned thing, and can’t see why anybody slightly to the right of Stalin would subject themselves to the bannings, censorship, and general abuse they endure there. That said, though, I do sometimes run across good Twitter jibes and ripostes out there, and am happy to repost ’em here for y’all’s enjoyment when I do. For instance:


That’s good stuff right there, folks. As for True Conservative™ Trump-hater SE Cupp and her highly-cuckish Tweet—nicely ground into a fine powder and scattered to the four winds by Seton Motley above—Ace has a choice headline for her once-fine ass: “S.E. Cupp Isn’t Cute Enough Anymore to Get Away With Being This Dumb.” What can one say but: OUCH.

But wait—did I mention that the more things change, the more they stay the same just a moment ago? Why, yes. Yes, I certainly did.

Editors’ note: Jussie Smollett is now yet another hoax victim in the ongoing and endless narrative of the Unholy Alliance’s fake and self-made ‘hate-crimes.’ The leftist establishment media, doing its faithful Unholy Alliance duty, uncritically embraced and sensationalized Smollett’s elaborate “hate crime” story — of him being a victim of assault of white supremacist, homophobic Trump supporters. But, again, it turns out to be all untrue. In light of this new, but very expected, development, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to this escalating phenomenon of fake “hate crimes” that very conveniently serve the Unholy Alliance’s agenda.

We are therefore reprinting, below, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s article, The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t, from the November 18, 2016 issue of The Daily Caller, which reveals how totalitarian movements portray themselves in order to gain power.

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t.
The deranged fantasy world of the totalitarian cry-bully.

To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. 

In between my ellipses is a long but no-way-no-how comprehensive list of fake “hate crimes” perpetrated by lying Lefty frauds. You’d think they’d learn eventually, after enough of these things have blown up in their faces. Sadly, though—pathetically, even—that looks like yet another of those things that, the more they change, the more they remain the same.

Update! Somebody put together a database of hate-crime hoaxes—page, after page, after page of ’em.

Share

Friendly fire

Blue on blue on blue.

On Jan. 1, I wrote these unfortunately prescient words in The Post regarding the forces out to scuttle Amazon’s move to Long Island City: “The goal is to delay things long enough for Amazon to get fed up and go elsewhere.”

The strategy worked.

Getting run out of town is a mere glancing blow to Amazon, which can set up a new “campus” anywhere else. But when Jeff Bezos picked up his bat and ball on Thursday, it marked the onset of a new, dark age for New York City.

The city’s “progressive,” progress-hating forces won a thundering victory. It will only embolden them to take up obstructionist cause after obstructionist cause. It spells trouble for major land-use initiatives requiring the state or the city’s blessing all over town.

And the city’s needs be damned. The wishes of Queens residents, 80 percent of whom backed the Amazon project according to polls, are mere collateral damage to the higher purpose of routing capitalist enterprise.

When has that ever NOT been the case with Progressivists, pray tell?

I care not a whit about this story and have nothing much to say about it, except for this: Bezos is a Lefty. The people who stopped HQ2 are Lefties. Cuomo is. Most of the population of Queens, plus the rest of NYC, are too. This battle was entirely blue-on-blue, and everybody lost. I gotta call that a win, myself. So does Ace:

If this doesn’t send an extra bit of blood surging to your dirty bits, whatever style they come in, then you’re not fully alive.

I want blood on the floor. I want a Democrat Civil War between the Smash the State socialists and Crony Capitalists who want to give government money to corporations to bribe them for their support.

Seconded. Hey, libtards, let’s you and him fight some more!

Share

Double bubble trouble

YIKES! With (urk) pictures.

DESPERATE for a fuller bust Jacqueline Harvey spent her life savings on a boob job.

But the 23-year-old was left distraught after the “botched” op left her with malformed, “double bubble” boobs.

The graphic designer saved for five years, before splashing out £4,500 on the op – boosting her bust from a 34C to DD.

However, after waking up and looking in the mirror, Jacqueline immediately regretted her decision.

She realised her implants had caused a second bulge under her breast bone – creating what looks like four “bubble” boobs.

The average cost of breast augmentation in Australia is $13,000 [£7,000], so Jacqueline was thrilled to find a discounted price of $6,000 (£4,500).

But she now regrets choosing the knock-down rate as she will have to spend the same amount on corrective surgery.

She added: “It was a lot more affordable than what I had previously been quoted for breast augmentations, which range around $13,000.

There’s a reason for that. There usually is.

“But I regret my decision as I now need to spend this amount to correct the damage that was done in the first operation.”

Rule Numero Uno, kid: never, ever, EVER bargain-shop for tattoos, tools, shoes, surgery, helicopter pilots, or high explosives. It’ll end up costing more than if you just bite the bullet and drop the coin to get the good stuff right out of the gate. WAY more, and in more than just money, too.

I just don’t get the store-bought-titties thing, I never did, and I never will. For whatever it might be worth, I find synthetic fun-bags repellent—notwithstanding my having more than one or two female friends to whom I will never willingly disclose that opinion, in the interests of my own physical well-being. Not knocking anybody for their preference in knockers, mind, whatever it may be and however they may have arrived at it. To each his/her own, I say.

Share

Stupor bowl!

Not gonna be watching as usual this year, but I may look in on the halftime extravaganza. I’ve heard that it’s being called An NFL Tribute To Racist AmeriKKKa and will feature the players gathering at midfield to drop trou and take a big steaming dump while flipping off the fans, then wiping their asses with the American flag. Then they’ll charge the stands to assault the drooling, cheering fans before heading out to the parking lot to mug the suckers as they flee for their lives to their vandalized, stripped cars.

Now THAT’S entertainment!

Share

Gimme a buzz!

Useless information, annoying nagging, flashing “Information Center” messages telling you things you already knew…but nary a peep when you really need it.

Every new car has a belligerent seatbelt buzzer — but failing to buckle-up won’t hurt the car (or your wallet).

Many cars have buzzers — or similar irritants — for all kinds of other things, too. Most if not all of them having nothing at all to do with critical mechanical functions. I test-drove a Subaru recently that nagged me incessantly for the 30-something miles it took me to get home from Lowes with a few 2x4s stowed in back… because the liftgate wasn’t fully closed.

On purpose.

I could not have gotten the boards home otherwise. About a third of the 2x4x8s was in the breeze, with the tailgate safely secured (though not entirely closed) with rope. The car would not accept this and harangued me all the way to my driveway.

But a potentially catastrophic mechanical issue that demands immediate attention — and immediate action?

Eh… no big deal. Apparently.

There are warning lights, usually. But the not-hip often have no clue what the illuminated symbols means.

And there are gauges for things like temperature, oil pressure, voltage. Almost all new cars — even economy cars — now have them. They didn’t used to. It used to be that gauges were found almost exclusively in high-performance or at least sporty cars — on the theory that the people who bought such cars were largely car-hip and so looked at the gauges.

If your car is one of those with only an idiot light and no gauge to warn of a loss of oil pressure, here’s a Pro Tip for ya: when the idiot light comes on, pull over and shut that thing down RIGHTTHEFUCKNOWNOWNOW. Because by the time the light comes on, chances are your motor is already wrecked, or well on its way to it. Trust me on this one.

Share

No sacrifice too great!

Hard Easy pass.

I had a great dinner at a local Red Lobster the other night. The crab cakes were excellent, the staff and service friendly and terrific.

But alas that was my last meal at the Red Lobster.

The Red Lobster, which I thought was in the business of selling seafood dinners and lunches, is in another business altogether: leftwing politics.

The company, owned by an outfit in San Francisco called Golden Gate Capital, is run by a slew of Hillary Clinton supporters who have decided to follow a prompting from an ex-Clinton staffer and make censorship their main product, joining the anti-free press jihad that has made it their business to silence conservatives in the media. The latest example is the targeting of Fox’s Tucker Carlson, with the Red Lobster officiously and piously announcing the following:

Red Lobster’s advertising buying guidelines reflect our core values and commitment to supporting programming that represents the highest standards of good taste, fair practice and objectivity.

Unmentioned in the announcement from Red Lobster was this, per a report in the Washington Times:

Activists like ThinkProgress founder Judd Legum renewed the boycott, specifically calling on Red Lobster to pull its ads.

Ahhh, but of course. Once again the extreme far-Left is on yet another anti-free press and free speech jihad, this time bullying Red Lobster.

Then again, maybe it isn’t bullying after all. In plunging into politics by joining the side of the leftwing thugs, a closer look at those running Red Lobster reveals that there is, in fact, a built in leftward bias at the very top of the company that owns Red Lobster — Golden Gate Capital.

Giving up Red Lobster will be the easiest protest-slash-boycott “divestment” I ever made: I can’t stand the place, their food is terrible. I used to eat there regularly years and years ago, when I was a kid and my palate was a lot less, umm, refined. Maybe they’ve improved since then; I don’t know and don’t care. But as far as I’m concerned, they had nowhere to go but up. And wherever they’re going, they’ll be going without me…which I’m sure suits the both of us just fine, thqnks.

Share

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:

BrideOfGinsberg.jpg


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

(Via Bill)

Share

CONTROVERSY!

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.

Share

“The Kurd in the Punch Bowl”

I ain’t gonna get into the weeds excerpting or analyzing this one, especially seeing as how I don’t agree in the slightest with Weichert’s assertion that any “bipartisan consensus has formed that Trump erred” with his withdrawal from the Syria goatfuck. A Deep State/Uniparty/Endless Warmonger consensus, sure. But on what issue has that ever not been the case these last two years? It seems clear enough that Trump’s voters are in favor of it, not that their opinion matters one small whit to the aforementioned group. Probably a lot more than just Trump voters too, I bet.

That aside, though, I admit the headline had me rolling, sucker for a cheap dirty joke that I am. Click on over and read the post if you like, but far as I’m concerned I already quoted the best part.

Share

THE FEDERAL GOOBERMINT MUST TAKE ACTION!!

Well, this would certainly explain a lot.

Cheese Is Addictive as Cocaine, Science Says
In the research, 500 participants were surveyed on their food cravings. During the study, meals containing cheese were the most sought-after, owing to the amount of dairy found in the dish.

The dishes, including pizza, ranked highly due to high levels of casein, which triggered the participants’ brain opiod receptors to offer a similar reaction to that of drug addiction.

Well, okay, I guess. Given my own inordinate fondness for cheese of every variety except Limburger, I won’t argue. Unfortunately, with the last paragraph, it’s pretty easy to see where this is headed:

“This is a first step towards identifying specific foods, and properties of foods, which can trigger this addictive response,” says co-author of the study, Nicole Avena. “This could help change the way we approach obesity treatment. It may not be a simple matter of ‘cutting back’ on certain foods, but rather, adopting methods used to curtail smoking, drinking and drug use.”

Anybody who thinks federal regulation, or an outright ban, will be long in coming is kidding themselves. After which I’ll no doubt be herded off to mandatory “treatment” in some government “recovery center” in very short order. On the bright side, hope is rekindled in the “Related stories” headline found in the margins of the “cheese=crack” article:

Eating Cheeseburgers Is Good for You, Science Says

All RIIIIGHT. Now you’re speaking my language, people.

I must say, in wandering through my post categories to make selections for this one, I was astonished to find a pre-existing “Cheese” category, although God only knows what I might have put in there over the years, or what possessed me to establish it in the first place. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

Share

The American Empire

We do have one, I think, but contrary to the usual conception there’s more than one kind. Ours is atypical, in that it is guarded not by a dictator and the thugs he cowers behind, but by the bones of our honored dead.

JFK’S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60’s when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible. Rusk responded, “Does that include those who are buried here?”

DeGaulle did not respond. You could have heard a pin drop.

When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of ‘empire building’ by George Bush.

He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of Its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for In return is enough to bury those that did not
return.”

You could have heard a pin drop.

There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, One of the French engineers came back into the room saying, “Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do, bomb them?”

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: “Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.

We have eleven such ships. How many does France have?”

You could have heard a pin drop.

A U.S. Navy admiral was attending a naval conference that included admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French navies at a cocktail reception. He found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries.

Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks when a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, “Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?”

Without hesitating, the American admiral replied, “Maybe it’s because the Brit’s, Canadians, Aussie’s and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.”

You could have heard a pin drop.

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE…

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. “You have been to France before, monsieur?” the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.

“Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.”

The American said, “The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.”

“Impossible. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France!” The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, “Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.”

You could have heard a pin drop.

As Bill notes, some or all of these may well be apocryphal. Doesn’t matter in the least, they’re still true. If there ever was a case of something being “fake but accurate,” these little vignettes would be it.

Share

Expert opinion

Anybody who still buys into the Progressivist premise that the only sensible and proper way of running things is to allow “experts” to micromanage our lives for us—most especially, to plan our future according to their own stilted “vision” and half-bright assumptions—is a damned idiot.

As a scientific achievement, as a demonstration of cool nerve, or as an example of control of brain and muscle, cultivated to the point where it becomes instinctive, Wilbur Wright’s flight up the Hudson on October 4 is memorable. But the leap by which popular imagination flies to the interpretation that this performance establishes commercial supremacy of the aeroplane is purely fantastic. Emotion has run away with reason.

[…]

We do not query the interest or excellence of the Wrights’ mechanical achievement. There is no reason apparently why they should not vastly better any recorded performance—fly thousands of feet high, or hundreds of miles in distance. Our skepticism is only as to the utilitarian value of any present or possible achievement of the aeroplane. We do not believe it will ever be a commercial vehicle at all. We do not believe it will find any very large place in the world of sport. We do not believe its military importance is as great as is commonly supposed, or will extend (except accidentally) beyond the range of scouting and courier service. Even here it remains wholly indeterminate how much (except mutual destruction) can actually be accomplished by men in flying-machines, if other men in other flying-machines are trying to prevent the accomplishment. And even the attempt must always be limited by the absolute dependence of aerial navigation upon weather conditions which in most places and in average seasons exist during only a minor fraction of the time.

Emphasis mine, and sidesplittingly hilarious. Hidebound, arrogant “experts” who dismiss epoch-shattering developments only to be embarrasingly proved ass-backwards and wrong when their cherished assumptions are overtaken by creativity and innovation is an old, old story, of course. It’s applicable to a whole hell of a lot more than just aviation, too. As Novak says:

The airplane still had to prove itself in many ways. And respected people in respected publications were saying rather bluntly that not only would the airplane not be used for commercial purposes anytime soon, it would never be used for them at all. As the Literary Digest suggested, maybe airplanes were just novelties like the tightrope walker.

History would prove these people wrong. But history would also largely forget that there was ever a question that aircraft would zip around the skies transporting people and goods. There was nothing inevitable about the future, despite it always feeling that way—whether we’re talking about air travel, smartphones, or politics.

It isn’t even “inevitable” that we’ll HAVE a future in the first place, when you think about it. The one thing we ought to have learned by now is that, whatever the future may bring, it is unlikely in the extreme to look like anything even the most wild-eyed visionary nut among us could dream up. If you don’t believe it, go back and read some Heinlein or H Beam Piper. Marvel at the many things they got right, or were at least close…and then marvel just as deeply that, in most of the future worlds they so brilliantly crafted for us, people are still using paper as a primary means of communication, and computers are still printing out their calculations on it—laboriously, with much loud clattering, and sloooooowly.

We humans seem to have an immutable tendency to always assume that current conditions will hold forever, without change or adjustment, all historical evidence to the contrary. Assumptions of that precise nature are pretty much the primary basis of climate change hysteria, just to name one example—among those who ARE sincerely hysterical about it, rather than using it as a scam to pimp an anti-capitalist, anti-American agenda, anyway.

Don’t know how or where Novak ran across the old Engineering Magazine article quoted above, but it was a real find, and I’m very glad he shared it with us.

Share

You go, girl!

I keep saying that it’s just about impossible to satirize or parody them anymore. Thankfully though, there are still a stubborn few of us who successfully make the attempt.

My name is Titania McGrath. I am a radical intersectionalist poet committed to feminism, social justice, and armed peaceful protest. In April of this year, I decided to become more industrious on social media. I was inspired by other activists who had made use of their online platforms in order to spread their message and explain to people why they are wrong about everything.

This week the powers-that-be at Twitter hit my account with a “permanent suspension” (a semantic contradiction, but then I suppose bigots aren’t known for their grammatical prowess). This was the latest in a series of suspensions, all of which were imposed because I had been too woke. The final straw appeared to be a tweet in which I informed my followers that I would be attending a pro-Brexit march so that I could punch a few UKIP supporters in the name of tolerance.

Indeed, Twitter’s modus operandi appears to involve routinely silencing those who defend social justice and enabling those who spread hate. In my short time on the platform, I have regularly come across hate speech from the sort of unreconstructed bigots who believe that there are only two genders, or that Islam is not a race. It’s got to the point where if someone doesn’t have “anti-fascist” in their bio, it’s safest to assume that they’re a fascist.

The permanent suspension only lasted for a day, but the experience was traumatic and lasting. I now understand how Nelson Mandela felt. If anything, my ordeal was even more damaging. Mandela may have had to endure 27 years of incarceration, but at least his male privilege protected him from ever having to put up with mansplaining, or being subject to wolf-whistling by grubby proles on a building site.

Unfortunately, those who fight for the progressive cause are continually bombarded by alt-right trolls who like to engage in a form of harassment known as “debate.” Only a few days before my suspension, a misogynist referred to me as “shrill and humourless.”  As I was quick to point out, humour is a patriarchal construct. This is why it has been so gratifying to see the success of our current wave of feminist comedians, those brave women who are subverting the genre by ensuring that it doesn’t make anyone laugh.

Okay, as a diehard patriarchal misogynist oppresser myself, I can say but one thing: I think I am in love with this girl…uhh…woman…uhhh, wymryn. Y’all know I am no kind of Twitter guy at all, but for the sheer hell of it let’s go check out some of her Tweets and see what they’re like.



Yep, I am DEFINITELY in love. Bless your little fully-woke radical intersectionalist poet heart, Titiana! I am very interested in your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. This lovely young woman also has a new book to be released in March, blurbed thusly:

Being woke is actually much easier than people think. As Titania demonstrates, anyone can be an activist. By simply adding a rainbow flag to your Facebook profile, or calling out an elderly person who doesn’t understand what ‘non-binary’ means, you can change the world for the better. Indeed, social media has now made it possible to show how virtuous you are without having to do anything at all.

Timely and indispensable, Titania’s step-by-step guide will help you to become the woke person you need to be in an increasingly progressive world. In a non-patronising manner, Titania will explain why you are wrong about everything and how to become more like her.

As MX McGrath says: “I did want to call it My Struggle, but that title was already taken apparently.” I’m betting it’s gonna be a damned good read.

(Via Ed)

Update! Just so nobody gets the wrong idea: this, too, is satire. OR IS IT?!?

(HOLLYWOOD – Aessociated Press) Comedienne Ruth Buzzi is suing Arte Johnson for 140 counts of sexual battery, committed weekly from 1967-1973 on NBC network primetime television.  The suit is alleging stalking, harassment, criminal conduct, and is also suing hosts Dan Rowan, Dick Martin, and NBC Television for conspiracy to commit all of the above.

Buzzi’s attorney, Gloria Allwet, is asking for $140M in damages, a public apology, 50% ownership of NBC, Lakers courtside tickets, and they also want Rowan, dead since 1985, and Martin, dead since 2008, dug up and evicted from their current resting places because of #Me2,000,002.

“Ruth is 82, and she’s maintained her silence and shame for far too long. She has deep mental scars from the show’s rape culture, sexism, and rampant misogyny, and she’s tired of living with the damage of all those years of abuse, when she only won a Golden Globe, five Emmy nominations, and helped establish groundbreaking comedic roles for women in television like co-stars Goldie Hawn, Lily Tomlin, and Joanne Worley. That’s not enough anymore. This isn’t really about the money, so we feel a paltry sum like $140M, a mere $1M per assault, is simply a reasonable amount to ask NBC to cough up after Ruth was forced to live with the shame of a decade of unbridled comedic success and worldwide fame, at the expense of her self respect.

As commenter Eskyman says: “Well, if they’re gonna dig up Rowan and Martin, I shudder to think what they’ll do to Benny Hill.

Share

Rudolph, running

A, umm, unique take on our annual War On Christmas battle against the Destroyer Left.

Everyone’s talking about the article in the Huffington Post that has shown us the racism, homophobia, child abuse, bullying, sexism, and exploitation of the handicapped that lie at the bigoted heart of the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Christmas special, but I don’t think it goes far enough.

It’s time we got rid of every holiday tradition that originated in the Dark Ages of a united grievance-free country.

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, as I will shortly prove, is not just outdated, it’s a Communist attempt to turn our children into substance-abusing sex slaves.

I now ask a simple question:

What are Reindeer Games anyway?

Has anyone ever seen a reindeer playing a game? I suppose we could ask a Laplander, but I’m guessing no.

All those horns, all those hooves, the mixing of genders, the supple skin of the sleek does, the implied sadomasochism when they lock their antlers and toss each other around—Rudolph is obviously being told he’s not kinky enough for the big leagues, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

The story is an elaborate grooming technique, full of hints of forbidden pleasures that, because you’re socially awkward and wear glasses, you’re not allowed to experience.

Until…Santa tells you how much he loves your nose.

And merry old Joe Bob is just getting started. And now that he mentions all this, isn’t “merry” really just a synonym for “gay”? JUST SAYIN’…

Share

UNEXPECTED!

Repeat the Democrat-Socialist mantra after me: there is no election fraud, there IS no election fraud, there IS NO election fraud.

NORTH CAROLINA—Election fraud has been suspected in North Carolina’s 9th congressional district as Russian president Vladimir Putin emerged victorious in the contest Friday.

Putin gave an acceptance speech in Congress, but some still allege the election may have been tampered with. They cite the fact that some of the ballots looked suspicious, as well as that Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia and wasn’t even on the ballot. Those who support Putin have waved away these concerns, stating that “Putin rules, America drools.”

“I assure you, this was 100% legitimate,” Putin told reporters. “I got 154% of the vote, fair and square.” Puzzled congresspeople claim they have no recourse, and as such must accept the Russian president into Congress. “Let’s not jump to conclusions. He’s got the benefit of the doubt—innocent until proven guilty,” President Trump said.

It’s satire, natch—OR IS IT?!?

Share

Jolly, jolly, ho ho ho!

So I was puttering around in the archives whilst mulling over whether to repost some of my classic Ghosts Of Christmas Past here and there during this holiday season, when what to my wondering eyes should appear but a Christmas Eve 2010 post featuring a great Christmas ad:




“The beautiful ‘Christmas card carton'”—and damned if it ain’t, too. As I said in the post:

Full-flavored smoking enjoyment in open defiance of Nanny-state killjoys, splashy holiday graphics in bright red and green, and Ronaldus Magnus Maximus his own self. Plus, no unpleasant aftertaste! By gum, that oughta be enough peace-on-earth-goodwill-toward-men to get even Scrooge Picard a-wassailing.

I do SO love this time of year, I truly do. Oh, and over at the HQ’s Sunday Gun Thread you’ll find another heartwarming look back.

SOS update! Cue the killjoys, damn their eyes.

Lock her up.

You know who I am talking about, right? Melania Trump. She recently decorated the White House with red Christmas trees. I saw them on TV, and I will tell you I loved them: their brightness, their cheer, their impact as something artistically different while still tasteful.

But some leftists were in a huff. These critics need critics, and I volunteer, noting the obvious truth that this assault on the first lady is pathetic, still another example of petty, snobbish, misogynistic, nativist supremacy. It is more than a little interesting how our moral betters, in seeking a new America, seem to have climbed out of Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables. Most people on the left tell you they love immigrants, but apparently not when it comes to a charming, sincere, caring woman whose accent gives her away.

Melania Trump is not bathed in things American, and some of her choices demonstrate as much. But to make a big deal of the clothes this former model wears, for instance, is a slide down the ladder of good manners and contempt for diversity. She is not dumb, you know. She speaks five languages. How many do you speak?

Barely any, for most of the suppurating polyps of the Left—not coherently, anyway. Complaints about “blood-red Christmas trees” straight out of the Handmaid’s Tale from people who hate not only Trump but Christmas itself with a burning, bug-eyed passion are kinda hard to take seriously in the first place.

Share

Flore-duh finally gets it right

What the hell, why not.

FLORIDA—As Florida finally wrapped up its contentious recount of the votes tallied in the recent midterm elections, a winner was finally declared: Al Gore is now the president of the United States.

The recount process at long last found the “missing votes” that would have handed Gore the presidency back in 2000, making him the official president of the country.

“Well, it’s about time,” Gore said in his acceptance speech. “Thanks to all the fine people that made this happen. It really is too bad that the earth is going to be destroyed by fire by 2015–err, I mean, 2019, or else I could really savor my presidency.”

Gore will be granted two terms as US president, ousting President Trump and canceling the 2020 election. “We just assume he would have won again and ushered in a liberal golden age,” said an election official. “So he’s got 8 years to reclaim his lost time. Make the most of it, Al, and great job. You deserve it!”

It’s satire, natch…OR IS IT?!?

In other news, Republicans and conservative pundits across the nation rushed to declare VICTORY after this not-all-that-surprising development.

Share

Birthright citizenship: another Trump win

I’ll just let one of Aesop’s commenters say it:

And just like that… he has Democrats insisting that we follow the Constitution.

Masterful.

Ain’t it just. It’s a joy to watch the man work.

All ears update! Tell me more about this mysterious “Constitution” thing of which you’re so suddenly fond, libtards.

That the 14th amendment — the centerpiece of the Reconstruction Amendmentspassed and ratified under the Johnson and Grant administrations, but proposed and voted in by the Radical Republicans in Congress — applies specifically and only to the newly freed slaves is clear not only from its historical context, but to its very language…

The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The Court later ruled, in the Wong Kim Ark decision (1898), that children born to foreign diplomats, or born to enemy soldiers occupying U.S. territory, were not protected under the 14th, as they were clearly not under American jurisdiction. (Neither were American Indians, until 1924.) But then, neither are illegal alien invaders, who openly proclaim their contempt for American immigration law even as they march toward our southern border.

Further, our immigration laws were designed for lawful immigration, with some carve-outs for genuine refugees and asylum-seekers. What they were not designed to do is absorb a calculated onslaught of lawbreakers with no beneficent intent; instead, these people are very clear about their purpose: to manipulate the loopholes of the laws, force entry, earn money, and send it back home to their “countries” of origin — three of which (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) are among the most savage and violent places on earth. America has no domestic need for these people, and no moral obligation to admit them, especially under these circumstances. There is no war ongoing in their homelands (the violence is entirely of their own making, and cultural history) and economic “refugees” can apply through proper channels like everybody else. America is a sovereign nation, not an international charity.

Not if the Left has its way.

Unhinged update! Living rent-free in their empty heads.

The president should be given no ground on this issue. After so many years of peddling so many racist and xenophobic falsehoods—about former president Obama’s birthplace, about walls and refugees and caravans—Trump cannot be permitted to use a lie about the Constitution to advance his nationalist crusade.

If he abuses his position in an effort to undermine the protections afforded by an amendment to the Constitution that bars any abridging of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, the president must be immediately checked and balanced by responsible members of Congress and by the courts. The response from New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood office was appropriately blunt: “The Constitution is clear. If President Trump’s pre-Election Day ploy to unconstitutionally end birthright citizenship moves forward, we will see him in court.”

If Trump persists in this lawless endeavor, he should be introduced to an essential requirement of the Constitution. Article 2, Section 4, of the founding document states that “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Gee, wonder how the flapping, foaming fucktards at the Nation feel about the Second, now that they’ve conjured a reverence for the Constitution all of a sudden.

Shitlibs shamelessly quoting the Constitution at us—even more fantastical, insisting on a strict-constructionist interpetration of its words after all these years of “living document” horseshit, too. Did you ever think you’d live to see the day?

Just the facts update! It’s not that they don’t know anything. It’s that so much of what they know isn’t so.

The United States and Canada are the only two “developed” countries that retain unrestricted birthright citizenship laws. While many Latin American and Caribbean nations also maintain lenient naturalization laws, it is important to understand them in their historical context. Those laws came about not out of a liberal exigency to bestow citizenship onto foreigners, but rather as a mechanism of empire-building designed subdue indigenous populations by growing the number of Europeans in their midst. “The birthright laws in South America have remained due to low immigration numbers,” explains John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego.

In other words, if Scots-Irish Americans began caravanning to Mexico, demanding jobs and welfare, and driving up crime rates, odds are good that Mexico would turn “nativist” and amend its constitution to decrease the liberality of their naturalization laws. Indeed, every other Western country that has experienced mass immigration has amended or repealed their naturalization laws in response.

Tony Mecia of The Weekly Standard claims that the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark provides a defense of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, while the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh asserts there is “little legal debate over the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Not true. Not true at all.

Nowrasteh glosses over part of the amendment that specifies about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and takes it to mean that “immigrants, both legal and illegal, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government, jurisdiction being a fancy legal word for ‘power.’ Any other interpretation would mean that the U.S. government didn’t have legal power over tourists or illegal immigrants here, a crazy notion.”

Is that crazy? The citizenship clause, adopted in 1868, was never meant to extend to those with allegiances to another nation, i.e., non-citizens. It was the Wong Kim Ark case that expanded the constitutional mandate at the end of the 19th century to confer citizenship unto the children of legal, permanent residents.

Read all of it; there’s plenty more supporting evidence, including Supreme Court precedent and quotes from the architect of the citizenship clause himself. And then there’s this:

Moreover, the claim that Trump is out to “reverse centuries of American tradition,” asserted by the likes of John Yoo and Angelica Alvarez, is bunk. As far as anyone can tell, unrestricted birthright citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil began sometime in the mid-1960s, not “centuries” ago.

An institution that does not exist cannot be undermined, nor can such a farcical practice that is younger than the president himself constitute “centuries of American tradition.”

So basically, then, it’s the usual story: everything they say is a damned perfidious lie.

Share

UNEXPECTED!™

The Democrat Socialists acknowledge some home truths at last.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—After a string of mail bombings targeting Democrats ended in the arrest of a Florida man, Democrat leaders announced the commencement of a brief moratorium on calling for political violence against their foes.

Democrats said they would cease calling for violent attacks on conservatives “at least until this whole mail bomb thing is out of the news cycle.”

“Once all this blows over, we will resume demonizing our opponents and calling for mobs to harass people we disagree with in public,” said Maxine Waters at the press event. “We really thought our words would only incite violence against the right, and hadn’t really thought about it going back the other way. But now that we see how destructive and detrimental violence really is, we’ll just cool our jets for a bit.”

Yes, of course it’s the Bee, finding a way to do the impossible and satirize them again.

Share

Categories

Archives

"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

SHAMELESS BEGGING

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 FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


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