• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!



    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Archive for February, 2007

RandyGate Part 2: Spy Story

Posted by s.z. on February 13th, 2007

Now that Melissa has also resigned (and, per Michelle Malkin, candidates have decided that bloggers are to be avoided, since only people like Bill “I like children” Donohue read them), I guess I won’t be getting that job as wingnut advisor to Mitt or Rudy.  So, I no longer need to try to be responsible and/or fair, and have no reason to blog except for the fun of it.  Therefore, here is my completely idiosyncratic post on the grand jury charges against ”Dusty” Foggo, the former #3 official at the CIA.  (Foggo, was, of course, appointed by former CIA Director Porter Goss, who was appointed by George W Bush as an act of aggression against an intelligence agency which refused to respect his intelligence.)

First, here are the interesting bits from the AP story:

The CIA’s former No. 3 official was charged Tuesday with accepting lavish vacations, private jet flights and a job offer from his best friend, a defense contractor who in return got inside information that helped him win agency contracts.

A federal grand jury returned 11 counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering against Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, executive director of the CIA until he resigned in May, and contractor Brent Wilkes. The charges grew from the bribery scandal that landed former U.S. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in prison.


Wilkes allegedly paid for Foggo and his family to join him on a family vacation in Scotland in August 2003, paying $12,000 for private jet flights, $4,000 for a helicopter ride to play golf and $44,000 for a stay at a posh estate. Wilkes allegedly paid $32,000 for Foggo to join him on a New Year’s trip to Hawaii in 2004.

In the fall of 2003, Foggo allegedly arranged for one of Wilkes’ companies to be a middleman in selling bottled water to the CIA.

Okay, so Wilkes shelled out almost $100,000 to show his best friend Foggo a good time, and in return for that he got the CIA bottled water contract.  In order for this to make good business sense, that has to be some pretty expensive bottled water!

In a separate indictment, Wilkes was charged with 25 counts of conspiracy, bribery, money laundering and unlawful monetary transactions to Cunningham in return for government contracts.

The indictment included three counts of money laundering totaling more than $12 million. Wilkes also allegedly spent more than $1,600 on prostitutes for himself and Cunningham during an August 2003 trip to a high-end Hawaiian resort.

The question on everyone’s minds now is: how many prostitutes $1600 will buy at a high-end Hawaiian resort?  (Did they get two, at $800 each, or get 16 of the economy models bussed in from the Motel 6 down the road, or what?)

Here are a few more interesting details about Wilkes and Foggo from a 2004 San Diego Union-Tribune story:

Poway military contractor Brent Wilkes has long been active in local political circles, serving as the San Diego County finance co-chairman of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign and the state finance co-chairman for President Bush. [...]

Wilkes’ career in political relations dates to the early 1980s, shortly after Foggo joined the CIA. Foggo was sent to Honduras to work with the Contra rebels who were trying to topple the Sandinista government of Nicaragua, according to sources within the CIA.

Wilkes had moved to Washington, D.C., and opened a business named World Finance Corp. about three blocks away from the White House. One of his chief activities, sources say, was to accompany congressmen – including then-Rep. Bill Lowery of San Diego, whom Wilkes met during his participation in the SDSU Young Republicans organization – to Central America to meet with Foggo and Contra leaders.

So, the roots of this scandal go back to Iran Contral and the Young Republicans.  It figures.

Wilkes spread his taxpayer-provided funds throughout his company, taking executives on periodic retreats to Hawaii and Idaho.

In Honolulu, Wilkes stayed at suites at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel or rented the beachfront mansion of the late hairstyling mogul Paul Mitchell, which typically goes for $50,000 a week.

I’m guessing those $1.600 prostitutes were Paul Mitchell’s, but I could be wrong. 

But there’s more to the story, as we learn from the Washington Post:

Wilkes was said to have hosted poker games at the Watergate and other upscale Washington hotels, including one 1999 party attended by Foggo, Cunningham and a former CIA official nicknamed “Nine Fingers.”

Those were apparently the poker parties Michelle Malkin was referring to when she wrote about a shady transportation company getting a government contract to drive prostitutes “to longstanding poker parties held at the Watergate and Westin Grand hotels” — parties hosted by Wilkes, and attended by Randy Cunningham, in addition to Foggo and “Nine Fingers.”  I can hardly wait for somebody at the White House to link the identify of “Nine Fingers.”  While the most likely candidate is Porter Goss himself, I’m hoping that it’s former CIA official George HW Bush.

Anyway, while there’s undoubtedly a whole lot more to this story, I think we need to follow Deep Throat’s advice, and ”follow the hookers and the Young Republicans.”  Developing … 

P.S.  In light of Melissa’s resignation, I think the following info might be on interest to any foul-mouthed bigots out there:

Members of the Catholic League’s board of advisers include conservative author and media analyst L. Brent Bozell III; conservative radio host and syndicated columnist Linda Chavez; right-wing pundit and author Dinesh D’Souza; former Republican presidential and senatorial candidate Alan Keyes; and National Review Washington editor Kate O’Beirne.

If anybody knows of anything offensive that any of THEM has written, it might be in the interests of justice to make it public.

Ohhhhhh, Archie…!

Posted by scott on February 12th, 2007

Via Elayne (again!), it seems that Amanda has quit the Edwards campaign.  I have no doubt that this is a mature, politically astute decision on her part, but the thought of that Archie Bunker-sounding bigot Bill Donohue crowing about his “victory” fills me with equal measures of disgust and despair, like a Perfect Martini of bile.

Good luck in the future, Amanda, and may the next Democratic candidate who hires a blogger have the stones to face down the more obvious misogynistic anti-Semites clogging Fox News’ Rolodex.

Meanwhile…I need a drink.

Image courtesy of Superdickery.com.

My days of comic literacy are long gone, but for those who are more conversant with the four color world (and other pop cultural niches), you will likely enjoy ComicMix.  And if you’re one of those hardasses who demands street cred from their comic blogs, look no further, since one of the contributors is the savvy and well-connected Elayne Riggs.

Go Forth and Geek.

Take A Peek, You Perves

Posted by scott on February 12th, 2007

Amazon has finally (some 7 or 8 months after publication) implemented the Search Inside feature for .  If you’ve thought about buying it, but haven’t yet taken the plunge, feel free to follow the link and root around in the books unmentionables.

And if you have read it, please consider dropping by Amazon or Barnesandnoble.com and leaving a review.  Even if you’re .


Two Wingnuts To Watch

Posted by s.z. on February 12th, 2007

I like to think that this blog is kind of an “American Idol” for wingnut columnists, in that we give these eager unknowns a chance to strut their stuff for you, the Paula Abduls, Simon Cowells, and generic other guys of the Internets. So, judges, allow me to present two new wingnuts for your consideration.

First up is Marsha West, ”a freelance writer specializing in Christian worldview” who is ”currently writing a series of children’s books for homeschoolers” when not penning columns for Renew America.  I believe that with a lot of work (and a lot … of ellipses), Marsha could be the Kaye Grogan of her generation (whatever one that may be). Today she will be singing an a cappella version of “Radical feminism: The kiss of death.”  Take it away, Marsha!

As a result of the feminist movement there are no gender-based role differences in many marriages. Wives wear the pants in the family, husbands show little or no leadership and are often wimps, and children are unmanageable. Is this what God intended for the family?

NO!  God is strongly anti-pants for women!


See, I told you! I can read God like a book.

The Bible teaches that the husband is to lead, provide for, and protect his family. The wife is to help her husband by managing the household and taking care of the children. Children are to be raised with discipline and love. That’s God’s way. Today’s children are train wreck.

Plus, they don’t write very well.

They’re undisciplined, disrespectful and, frankly, as lazy as a Sunday morning. Sadly, this is the rule not the exception.

We should just reinstate the draft, lower the age of military service to 12, and ship all the lazy, sassy, little bastards to Iraq.  That would fix their wagons!

Obviously something has gone terribly awry. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles, ordained by God as part of the created order, have been blurred.

And this causes kids to be as rude and gumptionless as a mess of chittlins.

Men have become un-masculine, thus unattractive to women; women have become un-feminine, thus unattractive to men.

And now nobody wants to have (heterosexual) sex anymore — which is actually a good thing, since all the kids resulting from it have turned out to be such disappointments.  But still, there are those Victoria’s Secret models — they are reportedly attractive to men, n’est-ce pas?

Granted, some women have a feminine appearance. But don’t let that fool you. In the blink of an eye, females spew obscenities that would make a bull rider blush.

And a potty mouth on a woman ends sexual attraction faster than a June bug mating with a centipede in a crocodile patch.

Which brings me to the latest trend among teenage girls. I’m not talking about body piercing, tattoos or electric pink and green hair fashions. I’m talkin’ street fights. I’m talkin’ knock down drag out hair pulling fisticuffs caught on cell phones and distributed on the Internet. (Watching girls’ exchange body blows is not recommended for the feint of heart.)

Recently, an older gentleman with a feinting heart was rushed to the hospital with chest pains after watching a video of Lulu Robinson smacking Rita Sanchez.  However, it turned out that his heart was just faking it, which really annoyed his doctor.

Standers by, both male and female, fervently root for their favorite girl to win. Most self-respecting females would find it humiliating to have their bruised and battered faces plastered all over the Internet. Oh contraire! Today’s girls think it’s cool to kick butt.

I think you can now see why I believe that Marsha could be the new Kaye — but there can be only one, so I think the two women should duke it out to decide which one gets to wear the crown.  The loser gets to take on radical feminism for the world championship. 

Now we will hear from James Lewis, a columnist for “The American Thinker.”  His piece is entitled “The Left’s identification with murderous aggressors,” and it’s every bit as nutty as it sounds.

Psychiatry is familiar with an odd syndrome called “identification with the aggressor.”  It’s sometimes called the Stockholm Syndrome, after the behavior of air passengers taken hostage by PLO terrorists at the Stockholm Airport in 1973, who, when they were rescued,  came out singing the praises of their murderous captors.

And speaking of oddness, when you click James’s link, it says that, “The syndrome is named after the Normalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Normalmstorg, Stockholm, Sweden, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage.”  But I guess that’s just another lie told by the liberal Internets –it seems that only James dares to reveal the robbers’ covert PLO affiliation, and to tell the world about the secret airport hidden under the bank.  Either that, or James is doing some Instapunditing and linking to stuff he hasn’t read.

Recently we saw the same human oddity when two Fox News reporters were kidnapped in Gaza, and forced to convert to Islam at the point of a gun. After his freedom was bought (at a reported cost of millions of dollars), reporter Steve Centanni told the world that:

“I hope that this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover the story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful and kind hearted. The world needs to know more about them. Don’t be discouraged.”

“Kind-hearted” and “beautiful” are not the first words that come to mind to describe kidnappers who were quite ready to murder Steve Centanni only a day before. 

So obvious Centanni was suffering from some kind of Leftist syndrome, for any sane person (or conservative) would have denounced all Palestinians (and probably all Arabs) as murderous savages after such an experience.  That Steve Centanni didn’t only proves that liberals hate America, or something.

Anyway, let’s skip James’s attempt to diagnose the Left with battered wife syndrome, and go to his central thesis: that liberals are terrorists themselves.  

To make things worse, the Left itself is ruthlessly aggressive against conservatives, democratic individuals who happen to disagree with them. There is a true persecutorial viciousness in the Left’s attacks on Republican presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush. Emotionally, these people want to destroy those who defy their demands. Almost all the assassins and would-be assassins of American Presidents since JFK have been Leftists, starting with Lee Harvey Oswald. So their rage is not exactly harmless.

We could discuss such Leftist would-be assassins as “Squeaky” Fromme and John Hinckley, but I think it’s more important to identify all those successful Leftist assassins of American Presidents since JFK.  You start.

Most of the time the Left just aims at destroying conservatives’ careers and public reputations - as they have tried to do with ferocious fury in the cases of Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Ann Coulter, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, and numerous others.

So, it’s OUR fault that Ann Coulter has a bad reputation?  (And why did we kill all those Presidents since JFK, but gave her a pass?)

They are driven by paranoid rage: They are in fact the aggressors. But when it comes to assaults on their country, the Left blames the victims. The most militant Leftists seem severely damaged psychologically. The recent suicide by the militant lesbian President of UC Santa Cruz may be only the tip of the pathological iceberg.  

Yes, militant lesbians may soon be jumping out of building by the thousands, once the the Left’s Titanic of mental health hits the pathological iceberg of, um, clinical depression.

Many radical Leftists seem to suffer from a basic twist in character. They constantly confuse aggressive and defensive actions by their own country, on whose freedom and protection they depend every hour of the day. They constantly indulge sworn enemies of our freedom and well-being. They constantly push for government actions that seem plausible on the surface, but which inevitably hurt the very people they are supposed to help. It happens over and over again.

When I was young I thought the Left was just confused, but now I’m increasingly drawn to the idea that there is a deep, if unconscious, malevolence at the bottom of the history of disasters inflicted by those people. They are dangerous.  

After all, American Leftists are the ones who kidnapped Patty Hearst and made her shoot Israeli athletes in Munich. (If you don’t believe it, look it up yourself.)  So beware, BEWARE!

Law & Order Report

Posted by s.z. on February 12th, 2007

Our friend Anntichrist Coulter chastised us (and rightfully so) for not mentioning that the case that Law & Order ripped from the headlines last Friday was Ted Haggard’s.  Only this time, the male prostitute was murdered.  

While ripped-from-the headlines Ted comes in for lots of scorn (and an arrest for murder), the main target of derision is his megachurch empire (which Jack McCoy says is so much of a business that it will probably be going public soon).  Even D.A. Cornpone can’t think of anything nice to say about it.  Interestingly enough, I just did a Google search and can’t see where James Dobson or Don Wildmon has denounced NBC yet.  But maybe they still are trying to avoid any association with Pastor Ted, even though he’s now 100% heterosexual, and only uses meth for sex with the wife.

Looking Ahead: But you know the story that the L&O franchise is already working on is the “Astronaut love triangle, with adult diapers” one.  In fact, it’s so big, I’m predicting it will appear on both the original AND on “Special Victims Unit.”  However, only one of them will have Anna Nicole Smith be the victim of the love-crazed astronaut.

Anyway, from what I could tell from the previews, Bill O’Reilly does not murder Keith Olbermann this week for continually calling him “The World’s Worst Person.”  However, Detective Stabler apparently finally snaps and kills somebody.  If only the victim was D.A. Cornpone, I’d be tempted to go for jury nullification …  

A Story of Even More Import than Dead Anna Nicole

Posted by s.z. on February 9th, 2007

If you want more proof that the Right just doesn’t have a sense of humor, read some of the shrill pronouncements on Amanda&MelissaGate.  Happily (for us anyway, because we’re too tired to do much research), the shrill and humorless Michelle Malkin has rounded up some choice reactions over at her blog.

For instance, she points us to this response from Dawn Eden to Amanda’s apology (in which Amanda said that, “My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics”).

I guess it’s nice to know that all those times her blog referred to Our Lord and Saviour as “Jeebus” — in 114 blog entries to date (the most recent last Sunday) — she was only kidding.

A search of Pandagon archives shows that Amanda has yet to devise a similarly ha-ha name for Mohammed.

Dawn, honey, she didn’t come up with that moniker for our Lord and Savior, the writers for “The Simpsons” did.  So, I’d take that as a pretty good sign that she was indeed just joking — sorry it went over your head.  So, instead of finding and counting all the “Jeebuses” on Pandagon, perhaps you could make better use of your time by exploring this concept we humans call “humor.”  I have it on good authority (well, Doug Giles) that Jesus was a heck of a standup comedian, so it’s pretty much your religious duty to take a break from frothing and go watch MST3000 or something.

Next, Michelle presents some words from everyone’s favorite hissyfitter, Jeff Goldstein:

Lots of gloating already in the comments by the flying monkeys the left typically dispatches to sprinkle schadenfreude over the poppies. But that’s to be expected, I guess. That their commentary is rife with further attacks on the faithful and suggestions that those who find Marcotte reprehensible have been saddled with tiny penises—well, this, too, is about as surprising as a Marcotte post that doesn’t somehow wend its way back to the institutionalized torturing of her pudendum by misanthropic godbags. But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed.

(Apparently, Jeff’s comments are in reference to Edwards’ statement that ”intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else,” but that Amanda and Melissa had assured him that “it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith.”)

Jeff, old chap, humor and satire aren’t meant to be taken literally, but they aren’t also “lies.”  For example, when the Sadly, No! guys say that you eat paste, they aren’t (necessarily) claiming that you really consume Elmers Washable School Paste on a regular basis.  However, they aren’t attempting to pull the wool over their readers’ eyes by implying that you’re kinda dim, when they actually believe that you’re the smartest man who ever lived.  (Sorry, I asked them, and they really don’t think that about you.)  They are using humor to make the point that you’re kinda stupid, which is something they truly believe.  (And by so doing having forfeited any chance for a job on a political campaign once the League of Paste Eaters demand their heads.)

And speaking of funny, the Corner’s K.Lo, who is closely following PottyMouthGate, brings us this announcement from the Catholic’s League’s William ”Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Catholicism but like anal sex” Donohue:

Edwards said today that ‘We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked.’ I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about, and it won’t be about the nation.  It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.  

We will launch a nationwide public relations blitz that will be conducted on the pages of the New York Times, as well as in Catholic newspapers and periodicals. It will be on-going, breaking like a wave, starting next week and continuing through 2007.

And then Mr. Donohue took off his shoe, pounding it on his desk, and screamed “WE WILL CRUSH YOU! For WE in the Catholic League control the debate!  And WE control the vertical!  If you think this is over, you’re wrong — dead wrong! You’ll pay for tampering in God’s domain!  They said we were mad, but who’s mad now!?!?!? Muah ha ha”

(Note to Jeff Goldstein: Bill Donohue didn’t really do this.  However, I am not trying to pull the wool over my readers’ eyes, as I truly do believe that Donohue is a wingnut, and a … what was that phrase … oh yes, a “posturing blowhard.” Also please note that none of the above signals any intent to disparage Catholicism or Catholics in general — however, my respect for other faiths this is not in conflict with my belief that of all the Leagues of my acquaintance, to include bowling leagues, the Red-Headed League, the Leagues of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, I find the Catholic League under it’s current leadership to be the least admirable.)

But hey, on a completely different topic, here’s the Corner’s (and Canada’s) Mark Steyn :

Thought for the day 

“There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.”

- Ayatollah Khomeini

Anyway, you can now go about your business — but try to keep it clean, because I’m still attempting to get picked up as a consultant on wingnuts by one of the candidates, and I don’t want to blow my chances.


We want to thank Powerline’s Paul (the one without a snappy nickname) for alerting to the book “,” because is sounds, um, fascinating.  Here’s part of his review:

The essays essentially narrate the intellectual voyages of twelve leading thinkers under a certain age (I’m guessing around 60, with the average age under 50) who can be considered conservative. They are: Peter Berkowitz, Joseph Bottum, David Brooks, Danielle Crittenden, Dinesh D’Souza, Stanley Kurtz, Tod Lindberg, Rich Lowry, Heather Mac Donald, P.J. O’Rourke, Sally Satel, and Richard Starr.

Not all of them actually turned right. Lowry was never other than a conservative — his tale is about how he became an armed and dangerous one.

I was wondering how Rich, who (like fellow contributor Dinesh D’Souza) was the editor of a right wing college paper funded by the right wing Collegiate Network, and then went from one conservative sinecure to the next, ever was ever on the left.  Now I know that he just became a gun nut (and therefore is NOT just another baby-faced conservative wuss, despite what you might think) somewhere along the line.  Yes, this does sound like a real page-turner.

Crittenden was always conservative — her tale is about how she shed the feminism of the 1970s.

Yes, Danielle, who “began her career in journalism as a teenager, with a column in the Toronto Sun” — which her stepfather just happened to have co-founded, is hardly an example of a lefty who eventually came to her senses.

O’Rourke came from good Republican stock and returned to something like his roots after getting (in his telling) as much sex as he could from the “fetching” girls of the left who wore “peasant blouses, denim skirts, and sandals” and “strummed guitars, smoked unfiltered cigarettes, and drank beer straight from the bottle.”

So, basically this book is about people who were always conservatives, but did sleep around in college, so they can now see how much much better they are than all those deluded liberals who they used to exploit.

Well, Paul does indicate that some of the contributors actually did have a change of heart — presumably either after 9/11, when everything changed, or at a dinner party where their lefty friends ate all the pie, thus revealing the weaknesses of liberalism.

Anyway, now that I know that there is a market for this kind of thing (well, as least a publisher for it), I’d like to edit a similar volume.  So, if you would, please share YOUR story of how you saw the light and became a conservative.  (If you want to see the template for such conversion stories, TBogg provides a good one).

And if your story is included in my volume (which I am tentatively titling ”‘Why I Sold Out: Leading Baby Boom Conservatives Chronicle Their Journeys from Closet Jerks to Out-and-Out Bastards”), you won’t get any money (I, as the editor, will keep it all as a tribute to capitalism), but you will get your name on the cover, probably.  So, start writing!

Three Easy Pieces

Posted by s.z. on February 5th, 2007

Today it’s Wacky Conservative Thesis Day.  Our three theories come from three very special Town Hall columns by three of conservatism’s deepest thinkers.  I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

Thesis #1:  Liberals Just Want to Help Others Because Their Bad Childhoods Make Them Think This a  Good Thing To do

Yes, another conservative shrink has arrived on the scene to tell us that liberalism is a mental disorder.  But, hey, pretend that you haven’t heard it all before, and welcome Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD (sure, his sobriquet isn’t as catchy as “Dr. Sanity,” but he does sound like he could be a Monty Python character).  Dr. Lyle “served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army,” is the author of
The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, and is a new columnist for Town Hall.

Take it away, Dr. Lyle!

Radical Liberal Themes::By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD 

Certain neurotic themes are dominant in the radical liberal mind’s perceptions of the world. All of them portray the citizen as a suffering child who is victimized, helpless and in need of rescue. All are evident in various liberal platforms. They represent the liberal mind’s transference of childhood dynamics into the world of adult relationships.

And that’s just the first paragraph!  Later on we get even more incredible psychological insights, such as:

These and related themes of deprivation and neglect, exploitation and abuse, domination and control, blaming and punishing, caring and caretaking, protection and security, rescuing and nurturing—all are the radical liberal mind’s unconscious projections of early childhood dynamics transferred into the political arenas of adult life. These projections define the transference neurosis of the radical liberal mind:

I think we all understand Jesus a little better now.

Thesis #2: The Reason Conservatives Aren’t Funny Is That They Are Just Too Gosh-Darned Nice

This thesis is brought to you by our friend Doug Giles in his column “It’s Time for Conservatives to Take Comedy Seriously.  Dout starts out on thin ice by admitting that “Steve Colbert, John Stewart, David Letterman, Carlos Mencia, Dave Chappelle and Bill Maher are funny hombres,” while the only conservative comics out there are “Dennis Miller, Brad Stine, Julie Gorin” — and none of them can elicit even pity giggles from an audience high on nitrous oxide.  (Okay, Doug doesn’t actually say that about his hero Dennis, but it’s implied.)  But hey, don’t shoot Doug, Brad Stine fans, since he’s just the messenger. 

Now for the explanation of this humor gap:

The secular left is an amalgam of mayhem, a veritable Star Wars bar scene, a rogue gallery of freaks, geeks, nuts, sluts, slick politco’s and skanky ho’s—and we’re letting them walk without skewering the living day lights out of them.

What’s wrong with us? We’ve become nicer than Christ.

That’s undoubtedly the explanation.  (Because even Jesus had a killer stand-up routine about the Left’s skankiness and geekdom.)

And here’s more about it:

Conservative comedians, especially Christian comedians, are not that funny. The reason why? Well, I think they’re too nice. They don’t really set the hook. They don’t really deliver the dig. For some reason, the laughmeisters of the Right are PC addled. Fear of negative press has gripped most of our funny men and women. When one is worried about what others will think they cannot really queue up to deliver a scorching and hilarious screed aimed at deflating whoever they’re after. Political correctness kills the comedian’s ability to say what needs to be said and how they need to say it. If conservatives want to compete comically they’re going to have to get raw.

I think I speak for everyone when I say that we are all looking forward to Julia Gorin raw.

Thesis 3:  America May Very Well Face Nuclear Annihilation Next Year, All thanks to Non-Binding Resolutions and Illegal Aliens

Musclehead Kevin McCullough spins this scenario for your reading pleasure.

“Why America was nuked!”

Only two weeks after the elections in November of 2008, The United States of America, a nation of former greatness lay in absolute desolate ruin. Within the previous 72 hours a series of eight successive, delayed nuclear devices had been detonated. Indescribably large portions of metro Washington D.C., Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, and two thirds of the island of Manhattan have been turned into steaming craters. Millions are dead, President George W. Bush is in intensive care, two-thirds of the Cabinet – including the Vice President missing or dead.

So, it’s kind of a mixed bag.  (KIDDING!)

But why?

How did it happen?

It was all YOUR fault, for failing to watch enough “24″!

No, wait, Kevin wants to blame somebody else.

Turn back the clock to the week of February 5, 2007. With a courageous handful of dissenting votes against the measures, the two houses of Congress – purposefully ignore the pleas of General David Petraeus and both pass non-binding resolutions that condemn the President’s call for victory.

Yeah, Congress is always condemning victory.  It’s bad that way. 

But let’s name names.

Most disappointing in the entire sick, pathetic process are the cowardly actions of those who refuse to answer even simple questions on talk radio shows. Names like Boehner, Cantor, Warner, and McCain take actions, evade questions, and sponsor resolutions that then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates confirms will embolden the enemy.

Yes, legislators who fail to answer questions on talk radio are the very worst kind of traitors!

It matters not that at 6pm EST across America Hewitt, Levin, Gibson, and Savage tried daily to remind us all of what would come.

America, when you refused to listen to prophets like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Savage Wiener, God washed His hands of you!

Even the then “new media” known as the blogosphere rallied tens of thousands of signatures and bloggers to speak back to those in power, only to be evaded, shut down, and ignored.

As the well-known saying goes, “First they ignored the wingnut bloggers and their meaningless online petitions, and I didn’t care, because I was not a wingnut.  Then they failed to heed Rush Limbaugh, and I didn’t care, because I don’t own any pharmaceutical stock.  Anyway, it all ended up with the Nazis ignoring me, or something.”

From those resolutions the remaining remnants of Americans who knew in their hearts the importance of victory over the terrorist movement of Islamo-facisim, begin to resign themselves to the reality that the maniacal and dangerous voices from the left had achieved full victory.

Woo hoo!  We dangerous maniacs achieved full victory!  We’re number one!  We’re number one! 

But we haven’t yet heard the REST of the story. But it’s kind of tedious (Iran and Al Qaeda take over Iraq and go nuclear, then the Obama/Hillary ticket carries 39 states, so Iran bombs Tel Aviv, etc.), so let’s cut to the mushroom cloud:

Because the Congress had decided to de-fund the southern border fence there is noted increase in the number of border crossings by people attempting to get in to the United States.

With them are the final two persons needed to activate the final two portable nuclear devices in American cities.

… Beginning at 5am on Wednesday morning, Al Qaeda agents incinerate historic Washington D.C., downtown Manhattan is leveled, and the Sears Tower in Chicago sprays bits of glass as far as DuPage county.

Will we then be a nation UNITED towards victory? 

No!  Because Vice President Hillary is so just-plain evil that all true blue patriots will refuse to support her or her government even when we’re at war with Al Iran-q.  I hope that answers your question, Kevin.

So, those are our Conservative Theorems for today.  Vote for your favorite.  Or, for just $9.99 (plus shipping and handling) you can have all three!  Order now and we’ll throw in Dr. Lyle at no additional charge!

For Those of You Who Were Wondering …

Posted by s.z. on February 2nd, 2007

…  NewsBusters.org (“Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias, Because Getting Paid to Watch TV and Whine About How It’s Unfair to Idiots Is a Pretty Good Gig”) provides a screen shot of the ripped-from-headlines Ann Coulter who will cause a murder tonight on “Law & Order.”  (Apparently an embryo is the real killer.)  You will note that the pseudo Ann is much more womanly (or, as NewsBusters puts it, “huskier”) than the real Ann, and has actual breasts.  But hey, just keep repeating to yourself, “Willing suspension of disbelief.”

NewsBusters then goes on to catalogue all the slights that NBC crime dramas have made about the sweet and gracious Miss Coulter.  (Presumably all such remarks were made at Keith Olbermann’s behest, since he is behind all the liberal bias that goes on at NBC — per Bill O’Reilly).  It’s not as big a list as you might imagine, but if you throw in the digs at Rush, Bill O’Reilly, and Nancy Grace made by the L&O franchise (which the Busters didn’t), it’s clear that the writers of NBC crime dramas do have a liberal bias against obnoxious conservative media ”personalities”  — and so, in all fairness, NBC should be forced to air a crime drama in which the lead detective is either a drug-addicted conservative loud mouth with sexual performance problems (or a thin-skinned, short-fused, not-that-bright conservative know-it-all with a kinky addiction to phone sex, vibrators, and sexually harassing his female employees).  His sidekick should be a corosive blonde bimbo in a black cocktail dress who is always making witty quips such as “I know you are, but what am I,” and “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”  I’ll leave it to you to come up with a title for the new series, and then we’ll pitch it to NBC, no doubt with the full support of “NewsBusters.” 

Oh, and remember to watch L&O tonight, but only if you have nothing better to do, and only if you don’t think that you will throw things at the TV when you realize for the umpteenth time just how formulaic and stupid this once enjoyable series has become.