UPDATED Below 

As a quick Google search shows, Jonah Goldberg spent much of 2004 declaring that no falsehood could ever pass the pink and oh-so-kissable portal of Bush’s lips, while simultaneously declaring that the tongues of Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Joseph Wilson lay like raisins in the bottom of their mouths, shriveled by deceit.

Now alas, Jonah has come to the conclusion that while George Bush was George Washington when it came to claims about Iraq’s thriving nuclear arms industry, he’s Baron von Munchausen when it comes to brown people wriggling through the gaps in our border security.  And it hurts, man.  It really hurts!

How have people who oppose illegal immigration allowed themselves to be painted as both anti-immigration and, more absurdly, “anti-immigrant?”

Liberals and — dismayingly — many “pro-immigration” conservatives will tell you it’s because the “anti-immigration” right is racist, nativist, hate-filled and the like.  That’s basically President Bush’s view….There’s a reason so many people claim that conservatives speak in “code” about immigration. It’s because so few prominent Republicans or conservatives are actually saying anything objectively racist.

Bush is actually willing to fib about his political opponents in order to cast them in a negative light and advance his own agenda?  Jonah nearly choked on his Ho-Ho.  And it’s all the more unfair because it’s so untrue!  Yes, Jonah opposes immigration from Mexico, but only because “that’s where the problem is.”  He certainly doesn’t object to the current influx on the basis of race, merely national origin.  After all, as Jonah says:

Philosophically and politically, I am on the side of every pro-immigration movement of the last two centuries. We’re a better country because of previous waves of immigrants.

I don’t see how you can more thoroughly debunk accusations of anti-Latino bias than by noting that you retroactively approve of all the white people who arrived here a hundred years ago.  Even the Italians.

Still, as painful as these baseless slurs may be, they can’t prevent Jonah from doing what he does best – argument by tautology:

Whether you agree with them or not, most “anti-immigration” conservatives actually think that there is an important distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Want a hint as to why? One is legal and the other isn’t.

and for dessert:

The most important immigration policy is to enforce the policy

But even the chance to chuck a little rhetorical chin music doesn’t take the sting out of your Commander in Chief calling you a bigot.  And so fluently!  One would almost think Bush had lied before, if we didn’t have Jonah’s own testimony to the contrary:

For Bush to have lied, he had to have known that there were no WMDs, right? It’s not a lie unless you know the truth. If you say something you think is true that later turns out to be false, we don’t call that a “lie,” we call that a “mistake.”…But nobody has made a remotely persuasive case that Bush lied. – Jan 16, 2004

The Democrats deeply deranged by anti-Bush fever insist on making the most damning - and implausible - charge possible: that Bush willfully lied to the American people about Iraq.  As I’ve tried to demonstrate in this space before, the idea that the president lied to the American people hinges on - at least - one almost impossible fact: that George W. Bush knew for a certainty that the intelligence agencies of America, Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, as well as the United Nations and countless independent experts were all wrong.   Virtually all of the anti-Bush conspiracy theories - most of which contradict each other - depend on the “Bush lied” thesis. But Bush’s critics won’t let go of this idea, disqualifying themselves from the deadly serious task of dealing with what went wrong.  – January 18, 2004

Bush “lied” because he believed the same intelligence John Kerry believed. Bush “lied” even though John Edwards called the threat from Iraq “imminent” — something Bush never did. No one bothers to ask how it could be possible that Bush lied.  How could he have known there were no WMDs? — Oct. 8, 2005

As it turned out, Wilson’s accusation that President Bush lied in his State of the Union speech about Iraq seeking “yellowcake uranium” was debunked by the Senate Intelligence Committee. — September 6, 2006

Those were the days.  And of course, you can still trust Mr. Bush’s veracity when he speaks about Iraq.  But when the topic turns to immigration reform, suddenly the air is filled a nose-crinkling whiff of burning leg hair, as the Presidential Pants spontaneously combust:

The White House says it cares about enforcement, but Bush’s credibility — indeed all of Washington’s credibility — on illegal immigration is simply nonexistent.

Well, at least now Jonah knows how Philippe felt in The Fallen Idol.

UPDATE.  In comments, Doghouse Riley helps Jonah put the whole painful ordeal into a bit of historical perpective:

Hey, in fairness, I can’t begin to count the number of times Jonah has expressed his admiration for the United States’ steadfast refusal in 1939 to allow the nine hundred German Jews aboard the St. Louis to enter the country in violation of immigration quotas, despite the fact they all wound up back in Germany. After all, there’s legal and then there’s illegal.

Wingnuts | 11 Comments »

Over at her blog, D.Sidhe has been discussing the side effects of her new migraine medication, which may include shortness of breath, difficulty orgasming, and zombies.  The good news is, of these three, she’s only noticed the latter symptom; even better, zombies are fairly easy to wrangle if you can convince them that they’re actually Sasquatches.  Which is why it astounds me that Professor Dr. Mike Adams, Ph.D still can’t seem to get a grip on the phantom feminists who pop out of his Id like clockwork after each speaking engagement.

Recently, a bright, young, conservative woman told me I had gone too far in my criticism of feminism. She even said my harsh criticism of feminism “almost made her want to be a feminist.” In addition to being dead wrong she may be in danger of becoming a liberal. 

That last sentence, in case you didn’t notice, was supposed to be a joke.  I point this out because in today’s column, Dr. Professor Mike will prove that modern feminists are so lacking in humor, and so full of vaginas, that they’ve given his funny boner a case of E.D.

The “you almost make me want to be a feminist” statement reminds me of one I heard from a young liberal woman after a speech I gave in Spokane, Washington. The livid lib was upset because I referred to college professors who support speech codes as “dope smoking hippies who dropped too much acid in the 60s.”

By implying that a large amount of acid was required to make sense of the speech codes, I was simply making a joke. I was also drinking wine that night before the speech but that’s okay because the audience was Catholic.

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH!–wait.  What?

It is predictable that a liberal would approach me after a speech…

Yes it is, Mike, since that’s pretty much the same gimmick you use in every column, except when it’s an email from an irked feminist student or a tizzified metrosexual.  (You know, some day that strident dyke who always accosts Dr. Adams after a speech will climb into the cab driven by that guy who cruises around La Guardia all day waiting for a chance to vindicate Thomas Friedman’s preconceptions, and we’ll finally get the whole world straightened out.)

… and say “I’m now more liberal because of your harsh comments about professors who use acid.” By stating that I reinforced her liberalism by using offensive language (read: by making her even angrier) she simply reinforces my true definition of a liberal:

…anyone who laughs at his penis, otherwise known as “Li’l Mike,” “Oscar Mayer,” or “Mr. Softee.”

One who suffers from an emotional disorder that renders him, her, or it unable to appreciate humor.

If you don’t think Dr. Mike is funny, it’s only because you were molested as a child, and you’re a sociopath.

Putting aside my disdain for a “conservative” who contemplates moving to the left because my comments have caused “offense,”…

Bravo.  And I’ll put aside my own disdain for a conservative who sneaks onto the practice field at night and stabs the tackling dummy in the back with a screwdriver, then tells all his friends he won a bar fight. 

I have come to the firm conclusion that I’ve not been nearly harsh enough in my treatment of feminists. And today I plan to start treating them the way they deserve to be treated. 

Biatches, prepare to dance the Apace Dance with Dr. Mike!

My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism – the fossil record, etc. – he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn’t be able to sleep around.

At the heart of his support for Darwinism was a desire to get God out of the picture by any means whatsoever. And his desire to get God out of the picture was in turn motivated by his desire to copulate with as many people as possible without feeling guilty. I wonder whether some untenured psychologist would dare to publish a paper called “A Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Human Devolution.” I think we all know the answer to that question.

Yep, we do:  That anyone that stupid would have no chance of securing tenure, but he might possess sufficient animal cunning to realize that his best hope of clinging to employment would be to spew inflammatory anti-feminist screeds on a right wing website, so that any effort to dismiss him could be framed as a civil rights issue.

As I think about the candid remarks of the freely fornicating biologist, I am reminded of a sociology professor’s response to a film…

Mike knows a lot of imaginary academics.  If this keeps up, he’s going to have to build an addition to the Bedlam in his head.

…showing an ultrasound of an abortion being performed on a fetus during its so-called first trimester of development. Without addressing the issue of when life actually begins she pleaded for the preservation of a woman’s right to choose by reminding people that a woman who gets pregnant “might not know” or “might not even like” the man who got her pregnant. 

That sounds like the sort of argument a professor of sociology would employ to defend reproductive rights.  Sometimes I can’t even believe how lucky we are that Dr. Mike is always on the scene with a steno pad when some female academic is making an ass of herself.

The similarities between the remarks of the freely fornicating biologist and the slut-sympathizer-slash-sociologist are analytically indistinguishable. 

I should put out, for the benefit of our readers who came in late: these are the jokes, people.

And the remarks of the latter are a grim reminder that the feminist mantra that a “woman has right to control her body” is not a reference to the fetus at all.

Um, no.  “A woman has the right to control her body” sounds like it refers to, uh…her body.

Given that a) feminists who defend abortion invariably fall back on the “right to control her body” argument and, b) this argument is invariably motivated by nothing more than lust

Yeah.  You wish. 

the following re-definition of feminism is in order: 

Ah, at last.  Now he’s gonna bring teh funny…

Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.

Hm.  Not really a “ha-ha” kind of funny.  But then, observational humor depends upon a shared frame of reference between comedian and audience, and doesn’t always translate when the observations are based on the comedian’s own hallucinations.  (”You know how the ghosts of all those animals you’ve killed on canned hunts will gather around your bed in the middle of the night and stare at you in mute reproach, their silvery blood puddling beneath them until it looks like the entire floor is covered in a pool of mercury?  Don’t you hate that?”)

Those who would quibble with my assertion that all feminists commit murder do so based on the mistaken assumption that a woman must have or actually perform an abortion to commit a murder. That isn’t so. 

For instance, some feminists might get involved with one of their Associate Professors while in school, and wind up marrying him.  Then, years later, they might find him pitching email-enabled woo at some other credulous co-ed, and impulsively grab a handgun from his large collection of loaded, easily-accessible firearms…

Charles Manson never actually stabbed or shot any of the five people at the Tate residence. Nor did he stab either of the LaBiancas the following evening. His conviction on all seven counts of murder was due to his choice to enter into a criminal conspiracy with the very people who did, in fact, directly commit the murders.

Well, I’m no academic like Dr. Mike here, but it seems like his analogy isn’t entirely airtight, given that conspiriing to commit murder is criminal, while supporting legal abortion is not.  I guess there’s some clause I missed in the Constitution, whereby a legal action becomes becomes illegal if an Associate Professor of Criminology thinks it’s icky.

Whether they have ever had or performed an abortion themselves, all feminists today are voluntarily involved in a movement whose principal issue/goal is abortion on demand. And this meeting of the minds renders the term “baby killer” equal applicable to both the committed and casual feminist alike. 

Well.  At least he ended with a joke.

Why Can't A Woman Be More Like A Man? | 38 Comments »