• Hey! We're on Twitter!

  • Buy The Book!



    Click to Buy The Mug

    Buy The Book

Archive for May, 2010

Mormons Are Versatile

Posted by scott on May 31st, 2010

Sure, they ferry other Mormons to Disneyland in muti-passenger stretch vans, but they do so much more…


They shoot you with paint pellets. And keep your sealed containers of crisis seeds and irradiated survivalist MREs in a cool, dry place. And teach you to play the violin and form a band. Or maybe they store your violin (probably in the pantry, or vegetable crisper); or shoot your band with splatballs — that part of the manifesto is a little vague..

The important thing is, they do all this while reminding you that family — even your crappy family — still matters.

(h/t to PJ)



“Puts some pants on.”


“Great…Now I’m all wired and I have to pee.”

Feminism: Your Gateway to Toilet Scrubbing

Posted by scott on May 29th, 2010


Apparently, two K-Lo posts in a two week period is just too much, causing Wo’C reader Fred Burfle to relive the climax of The Wicker Man, and that scene from The Dunwich Horror where Al from Quantum Leap dresses up in a dashiki and tries to ritually sacrifice Gidget.

So I’ve got a fresh new wingnut for you kids today — still in the original packaging. It’s Bruce Walker! (Please, hold your applause til the end. Thank you.) According to his various bios, “Bruce Walker is an author of more than one thousand online articles,” which have appeared in “American Thinker, WorldNetDaily, FrontPage, the Washington Times and many other online periodicals.” Additionally, Mr. Walker has written two books, one of which is apparently the Necronomicon:


Bruce’s bio continues, “his first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, has been ranked among the most essential books of our times.” I know I haven’t been able to get along without it, ever since the right front leg of the couch broke off. But aside from me and my cheap IKEA furniture, who else has ranked it? Well, it’s been “rated by professional reviewers from three continents as among the essential books for our time.”

In a strange coincidence, Bruce’s book has been reviewed by three different people on Amazon, presumably each from a different continent. One reader remarks that “[t]here is no index and I would have expected a correction of all the typos and spelling errors in the first edition. Not so. For example, Leni Riefenstahl is spelt correctly once but thereafter the Nazi filmmaker and photographer is called Lili Riesenthal.” Another states, “[w]ith a wealth of documentation, Bruce Walker reveals the shocking truth that there is no such thing as right wing extremism.” And the third pays perhaps the highest compliment, declaring “This author has performed an excellent service, as has Jonah Goldberg.”

So get yours today!

Mr. Walker has also written The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity, the thesis of which seems to be that the real target of the Final Solution was Christianity, and the Jews were just collateral damage. Alas, professional reviewers don’t seem to have gotten to this tome yet, but it’s inspired critiques by four different users on Amazon (no word yet on their continental distribution), one of whom rhapsodizes, “This is a short book (95 pages, 5 of which are Bibliography).”

Bruce has now reached the Scheherazadian score of 1001 online articles, with this week’s contribution to American Thinker, which puts Feminism in historical perspective, and Feminists back in the scullery where they belong:

The New Cleaning Ladies of Leftism

Forty years ago, American society (or at least those parts of it owned by the leftist establishment) was aflutter with feminism.

It was one of those crazy 70s fads, like pukka shell necklaces on men, Pet Rocks, mood rings, and those transistor radios that looked like the Pods from 2001: A Space Odyssey.


The Moral Equivalent of Feminism. (Except you could also use it to listen to ball games, or Blues Image doing “Ride Captain Ride.”)

This was the newest incarnation of the flower of leftism.

True, the word “feminism” had been around since at least the turn of the century, but 1970 was the first year the ladies were actually able to make it flutter.

Colleges rushed to include courses in “Women’s Studies,” oblivious to the fact that “Aryan Studies” in German colleges represented the nadir in human scholarship and that the stark “Women Good, Men Bad” animus of this pseudo-academic adventure smells just like something the National Socialist Student Association would have cooked up.

At a time when women were entering universities and the workforce in record numbers, some people felt there was room for a course or two emphasizing their contributions to society, especially as they’d previously been given rather short shrift in the history books. But in retrospect, it’s obvious the girls were just trying to do to men what the Nazis did to Christians — crush them beneath the boot of the Master Sex, round them up into death camps, and send their remains to the Easy Bake Ovens.

Men were dumbfounded to discover that they had been “oppressors” —

As shocking twists go, it rivals the later works of M. Night Shyamalan.

– that they had forced wives to stay home while they savored the sweet joys of rush-hour traffic and heart-attack jobs

This reminds me of that piece by Matt Patterson, in which he revealed that “feminism” was actually designed by men, who realized that fooling women into becoming well-educated and financially self-sufficient would naturally incline them to give “easy mating access” to smirking bachelors.

Sex differentiation in species close to Homo sapiens very closely mirrors those sexual roles which have independently evolved in wholly separate cultures for thousands of years. This surprising fact — that men and women are inherently different and complementary — never surprised conservatives, and to their great credit, conservative women emphatically rejected the notion that the apparatus of leftist inquisitions were needed to protect them from the dark hearts of wicked men.

Look at the example of Phyllis Schlafly. Although she’s spent her life in the public sphere as a writer, constitutional attorney, and conservative political activist, at home her behavior is so closely modeled on the Rwandan Mountain Gorilla that Dian Fossey rented the house next door to the Schlaflys just so she could spy on Phillis while she was mowing the lawn.

Something else happened, too. The tired, nagging voice of leftist feminism showed its dirty petticoats the first time that questioning ideological orthodoxy demanded decency.

I don’t mind a voice — even a nagging one — wearing an underskirt, especially for a dance or special occasion, but if you don’t keep them clean they can really make your throat scratchy.

Bill Clinton — if we are to believe the impassioned and credible tales of multiple women — did not just have affairs. He intimidated women. He sent goons to stalk them. He took advantage of women at their weakest. And, very probably, Clinton savagely raped Juanita Broaddrick. The New Cleaning Ladies, the aging ward heelers of stale feminism, came in and mopped up all the evidence, showing credentials which confirmed them as semi-officially sanctioned representatives of women everywhere.

The Cleaning Lady Cops (who were, ironically, dirty cops) flashed their badges as they brusquely took over the crime scene and tampered with the evidence, but fortunately, their staleness was later detected by the forensic specialists of CSI: Patriarchy, who noticed that the feminism didn’t feel fresh.

When George W. Bush launched campaigns in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the strategic prudence of his crusade was the subject of fair review. The impact of these campaigns on women, however, was clear: Whoever else may have been liberated, women were magnificently liberated.

As long as we’re putting things in historical perspective, Iraq under Saddam was a secular society and women enjoyed perhaps the greatest degree of social equality in the region. Since the U.S. invasion, many women have suffered a serious and widespread erosion of their rights, and a shocking increase in domestic violence, sexual assaults, and sectarian homicides, but in a really magnificient way.

The misogyny of Islam is a very old story, and radical Islam treats women worse than other versions. The explosion of crimes like honor killings in America and other parts of the West is ignored by the New Cleaning Ladies of old femi-leftistm.

Jonah Goldberg proved with Liberal Fascism that coining a paradoxical neologism for your ideological enemies is the shortest route to a Fox News appearance; and while Bruce will be the first to admit he was disappointed by the performance of the word “Sinisterism,” he really thinks he’s sitting on a gold mine with “femi-leftism.” It just rolls right off the tongue and drips straight into your shoes.

The nuttiest slanders of the Christian or the Jewish attitude toward women can be blown into a shrill shriek of horror by these old hags, but show them a girl subjected to “female circumcision” by enemies of America and its liberties, and the crones yawn.

Sure, Alice Walker published a book decrying the practice a decade before the Iraq war, but it took George W. Bush to actually stop the practice of female genital mutilation by dropping cluster bombs on civilians, because sometimes you’ve got to destroy the woman to save the clitoris.

But “the times, they are a-changing.” Now the scalpel of conservative writing cuts deeper than does just the pen of Ann Coulter.

Who, judging by the previous paragraph, is apparently now using her pen to perform female circumcisions?

She is not just brilliant, but beautiful and bold. Ann movingly wrote loving tributes to the memories of her mother and of her father, both of whom she clearly admired and adored. She was but one of the army of principled pens guided by female hands.

With Ann, the pen works on the same principle as the pointer on a Ouija board.

Sarah Palin, quite literally a beauty queen, stood up as perhaps the bravest braveheart in the conservative movement.

Because Palin also, apparently, likes to moon her enemies, and thinks the Jews started the Schmalkaldic Wars.

These are women who need no crutch of nebulous patriarchy to earn a place at the table of public debate. These women love and trust men as well as women.

Well that was their first mistake!

They trust in the goodness of Judeo-Christian traditions

Such as multiple wives, the “rule of thumb,” and obtaining divorce by transubstantiation into a pillar of salt.

and they worship God as common children, like all mankind, of His creation. Their cheerful, saucy, direct, and polemical assaults on leftism will force counterattacks — indeed, those counter-attacks have already begun. And because the left is, at essence, simply vile, the attacks on Sarah and Ann have been vile.

Yes, how dare the left counterattack after being assaulted. Especially when it was such a saucy assault!

In the corner, with the mop and bucket, stare the old ladies of femi-leftism, knowing their place, biting their tongues as their masters mock each element of womanhood which these conservatives possess.

I’m lost. Who are the masters of femi-leftism, and why aren’t the femi-leftists in charge of femi-leftism?

So Sarah has a special needs child? Men heap cruel mockery, and their female servants sit by.

Because Gloria Steinem didn’t arrest Bill Clinton for rape, men are now free to make fun of Down’s Syndrome.

So a male blogger has invented an affair with Nikki Haley? Well, the New Cleaning Ladies of leftism don’t think all men are bad.

Yeah, well you’re not exactly burnishing our escutcheon, Bruce.

Even the tiniest tweaks they make now, like about when Obama shoved aside Hillary and then gave her an empty job

Exactly. Secretary of State? Oh whoop-de-doo, he made her a secretary. She’s practically Peggy from Season 1 of Mad Men, except not even Pete Campbell wants to bone her in his office.

While the New Cleaning Ladies of leftism watch, real women, like Ann and Sarah and Nikki…will lovingly guide America to a happier future.

Yes. Real women like…Ann Coulter. Who, in keeping with a more modern, less Cleaning Ladylike feminism, wants to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.

A little further along in his bio, Bruce reveals that he’s “married and the father of four children.” The odds are against it, but I’m going to hold onto the admittedly naive hope that none of them are girls.

K-Lo and S-Pa

Posted by scott on May 25th, 2010


National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez is usually found mooning over dreamy, but married men such as Mitt (shoulders you can land a 747 on) Romney, and George W. (choked on a pretzel) Bush (or, when she really wants a challenge, confirmed bachelors like Pope Benedict), while telling other women to start having babies and stop having sex. But in her Townhall column this week, Ko-Lo blazes a trail through new and unexplored wastelands of rejection with a fawning, seductive tribute to Sarah Palin, in an apparent effort to stir up some hot prude-on-gal action.

Palin, History and Life

When Sarah Palin speaks, liberal feminists go wild.

Really? I ask because recently I had drinks with several women who could be described as “liberal feminists,” and when Sarah Palin appeared on the television, and not a single one of them drizzled beer on her t-shirt, whipped her bra over her head like a lariat, or danced on the table, with or without underwear. Next time I should probably turn the sound up a little more.

The woman is like a stilettoed catalyst for backlash from the professional political sisterhood.

The simile is like a Mason jar for backwash from a woman who likes to rinse and spit.

Much of the bitterness that gushes forth from the lefty ladies has very little to do with Palin herself.

As seen in the latest release from National Review’s line of Porn for Conservatives: Socialist Squirters #4: Lefty Ladies Lugubriously Lap Laissez Faire Lubrication.

It’s about many of the things she represents:

Greed, rank opportunism, and a non-stick-to-itiveness that suggests she sprays on Pam as a sunblock.

She’s a happy mom, surrounded by a big family and husband; she’s pro-life, religious and conservative; and, lest we forget, a political powerhouse the likes of which has not been seen for decades.

You’d have to reach all the way back to Lonesome Rhodes. So let’s tally up her powerful political achievements: she was trounced in her one national campaign, and quit halfway through her term as governor of a remote, sparsely populated state. But her time as pageant royalty technically counts as executive experience under a constitutional monarchy, so if you throw that in, then she’s about ready for her diamond jubilee.

Palin talked about “a new revival of that original feminism of Susan B. Anthony.” She said, “Together, we’re showing young women that being pro-life is in keeping with the best traditions of the women’s movement.”

The tradition of spending decades struggling for a basic and hard-won right, so that subsequent generations of women can spend more decades chiseling away at it.

Palin talked about “empowering women,” and in her worldview that translates into making sure women know that they have options when they are pregnant in “less-than-ideal circumstances.”

Those options include “having the baby” and “having the baby,” unless the pregnancy threatens your life, in which case you have the option of “getting a nun excommunicated.”

In the rhetoric and reality of the liberal feminist movement from which a comment like that is born, freedom doesn’t extend to the unborn child. Increasingly, Americans are not tolerating this. In the tradition of the suffragettes, women, increasingly, will have none of it.

Well, they’ll have abortions, but they’ll pay for them with Susan B. Anthony dollar coins, which will heroically slow things down at check out, and make it a real pain in the ass for whoever has to go to the bank on Friday.

And so I understand why women of the left react early and often to Palin. It’s not about her, it’s about the threat to their power she represents. They’ve based so much of their political activism on the tenets of the sexual revolution, which have been such a disaster for women, men, children, and families.

Yeah, I love getting advice on my driving from someone who decided to ride in the trunk.

But the jig is up. It didn’t fly with the likes of Anthony and Stanton. And it’s increasingly not flying now. It’s not the pro-lifers who went rogue in the first place.

I thought going rogue was a good thing, something worth paying stylists, branding consultants and ghostwriters a lot of (your publisher’s) money. But then I read the asterisked disclaimer:


Greasy Spoon

Posted by scott on May 24th, 2010


You may know Kevin McCullough as that guy who has a talk radio show with Stephen Baldwin that’s heard around the country — mostly in places you’ve never heard of (Morehead, KY? Why yes, please. Where my Morehead-heads at?), or as the pro-machismo activist who maintained a blog called “Musclehead Revolution.” Or perhaps you more clearly remember him as the Townhall columnist who declared that gays are “broodish animals,” that “liberals prefer perversion,” and who holds the record for discharging the most “aptly named World O’Crap” retorts in a single, sputtering post.

Kevin also memorably observed that “President Barack Obama is still just a lost boy,” who is “dangerously heaping hot coals of consequence on the heads of those who know better.” But worst of all, “Obama is not a strong leader…And his unwillingness to admit that the world is facing a crossroads of strength through force now, or humiliation and pain through attack in days to come is a demonstration of his paralysis in the most important question of our time.”

That question, of course, is:


Still, for all Obama being a “lost boy” and a dangerous hot coal-heaper, things have worked out marginally better than Kevin’s 2007 prediction that eight American cities would be nuked two weeks after the 2008 election, because of the “the cowardly actions of those who refuse to answer even simple questions on talk radio shows.”

Forked-Tongue-In-Chief at West Point

The most accurate definition of one who is “forked tongue” is not someone who directly disputes himself, but rather one who says something with such cloud that two completely different things could be intended or received, said vs. heard, meant while misleading.

I freely confess, I’ve often been guilty of this myself. Back in the day, I spoke with such cloud you wouldn’t believe, but eventually saw the light, and nowadays — as I think most people who know me would agree — I talk with minimal nimbus.

Liberals have generally been forced to practice such a verbal dance because no one would elect them outright if they said what they intended, and did what they believed.

Which is ironic, when you consider that what Obama said during the campaign turned out to be considerably more liberal than what he’s done since taking office. Which is probably why he lost the election.

In modern history when it comes to forked-tongue-ness President Barack Obama excels well beyond anyone’s imagination. Like most of his foreign policy speeches on American national security, his commencement address to the cadets at West Point on Saturday proves my point.

Sit back and relax while Kevin proves the virtues of the unitary, non-tined tongue.

In a disturbing trend he chose to place absolute belief in certain global institutions in the speech, but he has consistently believed less than he should about America, her fighting men and women, and the just causes they are sent in to.

In to…do what? And just how much should you consistently believe about America? Well, according to Martha Stewart, it’s 1 1/4 cups, unless you’re using high altitude baking directions.

Somehow international leaders who are not vested in America’s well being are to be believed as gospel, yet America is to be viewed with suspicion and contempt. It is an odd paradox that he lives with within himself. Even keeping it to himself would be fine. Letting it spill into the mainstream is another matter entirely, and taking it to the West Point graduates is simply uncalled for.

That’s a paragraph so chunky you can say it with a fork-tongue — but use a spoon-tongue, because you’ll want to get every drop of bullshit.

On Saturday President Fork-Tongue spoke of his intent to shape a new “international order” as it pertained to a strategy to keep America secure. Implying in his speech that America should not claim the mantle, nor the right of self-protection or self-responsibility. He also referred to America’s minimal role in “promoting democratic values around the world.”

Except he actually didn’t, since that quote doesn’t appear in the text of Obama’s speech. I don’t want to accuse Kevin of “directly disput[ing] himself,” or speaking with cloud, but he is, at best, a bit of a spork-tongue.

Sayeth The One

I can’t believe you guys are still sayething “The One.” Hasn’t the button popped up on that particular jar of Cling peaches by now? And why is it always delivered in this faux King Jamesian locution? It’s like insisting on calling Willie Mays the Sayeth Hey Kid.

Instead of countering violent terrorists, he’s permitted them to commit attacks against U.S. citizens on American soil six times since his inauguration.

What did he do — issue them a hall pass? “I’m sorry sir, but I’m going to have to place you under arrest for carrying a bomb onto a plane. What’s that? Oh, I see — you’ve got the piece of wood with the bathroom key attached. My mistake sir, have a good flight.”

The fact that panty-boy and the Times’ Square bomber got nothing more than smoke from their ignitions doesn’t mean that both attacks were not a severe danger to thousands of American lives.

I think Kevin’s keen interest in President Fork-Tongue and Pantyboy means that his heart isn’t really in political commentary, and his first, best destiny remains superhero slash fiction using his own made-up characters to avoid a cease-and-desist letter from DC.

Instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons he’s made every overture to Iran that he will do nothing to prevent them from gaining them. He’s even gone so far as attempting to muzzle other nations who will suffer an even greater direct threat from a nuclear Iran.

Instead of combating the false claims of the global warming propagandists who got caught by their own admissions in the lies, the cover ups, and the inaccuracies they had promoted, Obama went before the American people and mocked any who did not hold the lies to be truth.

Instead of sustaining global growth, his policies of propping up companies that should’ve been allowed to correct on their own or fizzle out all together have actually worsened the outlook for the average American, the American markets, and by extension the global economy.

You know what, Kevin? Fork you.

Later in his address to the West Point class of 2010 Obama said, “America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation… but by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice.”

The President is either woefully ignorant of America’s contribution to history, or he is being purposefully misrepresentative in such a statement.

To be clear, America has more often than not primarily succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation, leading the charge to form new coalitions

Granted, leading a “coalition” of nations certainly sounds like it would entail “international cooperation,” but these were special, back-stabbing coalitions, made up of countries who hate us and look for any opportunity to frustrate and sabotage our efforts. And that, my friend, is how you primarily succeed in this world. Tell your friends. Then kick them in the balls, and tell ‘em George W. Bush sent you.

…and when necessary going it alone out of a resolve to do so because of the moral demands placed upon us as the greatest nation on this planet.

While we cooperated internationally in the Second Opium War, the Boxer Rebellion, our intervention in the Russian Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and even Viet Nam, we did go it alone in the morally demanding Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and our countless Indian wars and Latin American occupations — pretty much any conflict in which we saw an opportunity to rape and pillage another country for land and resources. And morality.

From the American Revolution to the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq there were moments before us at every point that would tell us to “not get involved” to “let the rest of the world deal with it.”

But we’d elected a dry drunk with severe Daddy issues and a sociopathic enabler, so that wasn’t really an option.

Yet when those same nations fell at the hands of tyranny, despotism, and economic and religious enslavement – it was to the United States that they turned.

Like Iran, in 1953, or Chile in 1973. Those people were just damned lucky we picked up the phone.

Because President Obama is a liberal he cannot simply come out and say what he wishes he could, for if he did, he would be impeached. But behind the mask of attempting to sound moderate, reasonable, clean and articulate (Biden’s favorite qualities) lies a shadow of his meaning that may sound like something on the surface and to most ears who hear, but mean something completely different to the President himself.

I think there might be something wrong with my eyes who read, because I don’t know what the hell he’s talking about.

He is misguided at best, or a deceptive traitor at worst…

If only he’d drop the mask of attempting to sound clean. Then we’d have him!



“Victims? Don’t be melodramatic. Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare?”



“Help…? Rover’s trying to take me back to The Village.”

I Denounce Hitler For Calling “Dibs!”

Posted by scott on May 19th, 2010


For those who don’t know (and I certainly didn’t) “Barry Farber,” according to his author’s biography at World Net Daily, “is a pioneer in talk radio.” He’s also really, really old, and his writing is delightfully weird and frequently incoherent, so I can only guess that his extemporizing on the radio for hours at a time is a bit like listening to Lewis Carroll free-associate after taking the brown acid.

Mr. Farber, like many people, is a bit peeved at Adolf Hitler, but not for the same tired old reasons — warmongering, mass murder. Mostly he seems irked that the Führer’s bumbling has somehow made common sense fascism unfashionable.

Blame Hitler!

Do you know the origin of the handshake? It was to show the other person you weren’t holding a weapon. Forget that. It’s unimportant. You don’t need it.

Okay. What the hell did you bring it up for?

Do you know why so many otherwise reasonable people think Arizona is absolutely awful for its new immigration law? This is very important. America needs it big time.

But forget it. Who cares? You don’t need to know that!

Just as President Obama dumps a lot of blame on George W. Bush, I blame the late Adolf Hitler for the rather serious perversion that it’s racist to enforce this law.

So…Obama is right to blame George W. Bush? Or are you admitting that you’re given Hitler a bum rap?

Even those who have no memory of World War II, and never saw Peter Lorre in a movie, still hold a soul-memory of a jackbooted bad guy looming up before a terrified innocent refugee and demanding, “Vere are your papers?”

Well, Peter Lorre specialized in playing notably shady characters (including the murdering black marketeer in Casablanca and the child killer in M) rather than “terrified innocent refugee[s]“, so I guess he must have been the “jackbooted bad guy” in more World War II films than I thought (they say when you get older, your soul-memory is the first to go). I imagine it’s hard to loom when you’re 5′-5″, but Lorre was a consummate actor, and came across on camera as 6′-2″ and nordic.

Even though your typical Arizona cop is no Nazi, and an alien, if illegal, is no innocent refugee, the mindset of a civilized people recoils from the whole scene. We should congratulate ourselves for our instinct, and then get over it.

“I’ve concluded that you’re a kind, decent human being with a great deal of empathy, and I’d like you to stop it.”

Apparently, an ounce of instinct is worth a pound of rational thought. No, an ounce of instinct outweighs a ton of rational thought. How dare we let an idea as intrinsically worthy as identification papers lose out to folk-disgust based on comparisons barely excusable in an 8-year-old?

Is folk-disgust caused by disgusting folks? Because I’m feeling a little queasy all of a sudden. Know any good folk remedies?

I rejoice in the spectacle of not bad humans, but bad ideas crumbling and falling when hit by silver bullets of intellect.

According to Barry’s bio, “He speaks dozens of languages fluently.” None of them English, apparently.

There was such a moment on CNN in mid-May when the irrepressible James Carville got repressed, but good, by radio talk host and former Reagan Cabinet member Bill Bennett on this very issue. The question was, “Is it really important to round up and deport illegal aliens?” Carville offered forth the good old party line about most illegals doing nothing in America but working hard and trying to make a decent life for themselves and their families. Bennett quietly invited Carville to talk to police chiefs across the state of Arizona and ask them what kind of problems, if any, the illegals presented. “No,” Bennett concluded. “To say illegal aliens aren’t a dire threat to America is stupid.”

That’s some high quality repression.

So, you who view life from the campus, the pulpit, the union hall and the Oval Office reject the notion of American law enforcement asking likely suspects to show their ID in 2010 because uniformed Nazis did that same thing to suspected Jews and others in the 1930s and 1940s.

Not really, although the groups you mentioned — students, clergymen, trade unionists — were all persecuted by the Nazis, in a totally bizarre coincidence that we should be careful not to learn anything from. The Oval Office, on the other hand, was never sent to a concentration camp, but since the current occupant is black, the Germans probably would have made an exception.

How smart is that? The respect I’d accumulated for Mikhail Gorbachev for being such a failure as a Communist dictator was washed away when he taunted Americans for talking about building a fence along the Mexican border. He chided Americans on how distasteful we found the old Soviet Iron Curtain. A lot of Americans fell for that taunt despite its glaring, screaming infirmity. “Fences! Don’t you see? Bad!”

But I rejoice in the spectacle of not bad fences!

The eye-rollingly hypocritical Gorbachev knew most of us would be too dumb to harpoon that charge with the elementary observation that the Iron Curtain was designed to keep Communist subjects in; whereas the purpose of a Mexican border fence would be to keep unauthorized people out.

Why are we bothering to harpoon these observations? If we were smart, we’d shoot them with silver bullets of intellect, just in case they turned out to be were-observations.

I even blame Hitler for our drug problem.


If there’d never been a Nazi era and drug addiction had advanced to where we were, say, in the late 1950s, I believe members of Congress would have proposed we concentrate the addicts apart from the population to keep them from recruiting more addicts in order to support their habits. We could concentrate them together in camps. Maybe we could call them “concentration camps.”

Our society could have benefited greatly from Nazi methods of social control, if only they hadn’t been discredited by association with the Nazis. Still, the networks are rebooting all those old TV shows — V, The Rockford Files, Hawaii 5-0 — why not the Third Reich? (Although Arizona is running the risk that Hitler might sue them for theft of intellectual property. Look what Apple did to Jason Chen, and that was just over a phone.)

And those proposals would have come from liberals.

Ah, speaking of plagiarism, Jonah Goldberg would like his Liberal Fascism back.

The conservatives would have said, “Let’s try something else. Camps cost too much money.”

There’s got to be a way to monetize genocide. Maybe instead of “Final Solution,” we could call it “Planned Obsolescence.”

The notion of concentrating people together in camps is not likely in any decent country until history pushes “reset” and starts all over again. And if you think these notions of Hitler still exerting this kind of historical paralysis on our policy-making are frivolous, ask any scientist whatever happened, after the surrender of Nazi Germany, to the science of eugenics, improving the breed among humans. Don’t even bring it up. That’s what Hitler did.

According to his bio, “Farber is also an accomplished author, whose books include “Making People Talk” (presumably under duress).

Finally, there’s something racist about opposing the Arizona law. How dare you assume those likely to be in violation belong to any particular race?

Truly, it makes no sense, when the law clearly states that jackbooted Peter Lorres will be saying “vere are your papers” to everyone — red, yellow, black and white! It’ll be like the opening theme to Kid Power!

Be thankful bad ideas, and oil leaks, eventually end. So far there’s been no organized protest against stopping at red lights and going on green.

Driving while brown, however…

I mean, good God, man; don’t you realize that’s what they did in Nazi Germany?

I’m sure there’s a difference between “talk radio pioneer” and “80-year old guy in the rest home dining hall who insists Khrushchev stole his fruit cup,” but I admit, it’s too subtle for me.

Elsie the Borden Cow Thinks You’re a Slut

Posted by scott on May 17th, 2010


The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Pill has inspired a lot of wingnuts to spill a lot of electrons bemoaning the fetal famine of the last half century. But it’s also — refreshingly — caused many of them to drop all pretense that the pro-life movement is concerned with anything other than slut-shaming. Today, it’s World Net Daily columnist Patrice Lewis, a teabaggery matron who lives on a farm in Real America (the title of her column) and likes to dig down deep into the fertile loam of her homestead for metaphors and rich clods of yeomany wisdom. Now just to set the record straight, I have nothing against the agrarian lifestyle — for most of our history it was the backbone of the American economy, and my own family were all farmers until I came along to spoil it — so if Ma Ingalls here wants to blame the birth control pill because her cow got itself knocked up, well then, who am I to tell her she’s flipped her bonnet? Still…

The following post contains graphic scenes of bovine lust. Parental discretion is advised.

Keep your pants on, America!

One of our cows was in heat and we didn’t want the bull to breed her because we didn’t want a calf born in the middle of winter. But bulls, as everyone knows, are notoriously single-minded when it comes to hormones.

In the end, the bull won and the cow got bred. This is animal nature, folks, and sometimes you can’t do anything to stop it.

But I like to think humans are above animals in that respect. Sure, we have hormones just like cattle. But unlike animals, humans have the ability to think and reason. This allows us to control our urges and do what is best for ourselves and for society

Unless you’re taking the birth control pill, which makes women rut like cattle.

Right now feminists are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Pill, lauding its effects and congratulating society for allowing women to act like rutting cattle. See how far we’ve advanced in the past half-century?

So if you’re a woman and you enjoy sex, you will act like rutting cattle; but if you’re a woman who enjoys sex, and you’re on the Pill, then you will act like rutting cattle who are too selfish to have calves because they’re busy being bitches and breaking through the glass ceiling at the dairy.

Recently, a friend in Oregon was driving with her three homeschooled teenagers when they passed a billboard depicting a smiling, wholesome-looking young woman. “Take Care of Yourself!” announced the billboard (sponsored by – surprise – Planned Parenthood). “Free Birth Control!”

Outraged, my friend and her kids started bandying counter-slogans and came up with this: “Keep Your Pants On, America!” I think it’s brilliant.

Absolutely! But then, advertising men have known since the dawn of carnival barkers that nothing appeals to the consumer like a prim and purse-lipped disapproval of sex. On the other hand, it’s no “We keep you clean in Muscatine,” or “I Like Dick.”


(via Franklin Avenue)

Just think of the implications if America kept its pants on. If women kept their bloomers buttoned. If men kept their wick zipped.

If men kept their stockings gartered. If women kept their bustles unrustled. If men kept their trousers hiked up with both a belt and suspenders. If women kept their corsets laced and men kept handlebars waxed and their dickys starched. (However, I find that zippered wicks conduct too much heat, so I prefer button-fly candles.)

But no, instead we got the Pill, lauded by feminists the world over for allowing us to rut like cattle.

So if you ever hear your neighbor mooing, you know she’s on the Pill. Or she’s Pasiphaë gettin’ busy with the Cretan bull.

“For the first time in human history,” says Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a founding editor of Ms. Magazine, “a woman could control her sexuality and determine her readiness for reproduction by swallowing a pill smaller than an aspirin. Critics warned that the Pill would spawn generations of loose, immoral women; what it spawned was generations of empowered women who are better equipped to make rational choices about their lives.”

Empowered, that’s it. Women acting like rutting cattle are empowered.

…with the Power of Cow!

Proponents of the Pill point out the ability for couples to plan their families rather than having more kids than they can support. While the Pill has undoubtedly been used for this, it’s pretty obvious the majority of women who take it aren’t planning families with their husbands. They’re single women enjoying the freedom to rut like cattle with no side effects.

Well, I wouldn’t say no side effects. I’ve known women who’ve gotten migraines from the Pill, or experienced weight gain. And of course, since pilled-up cowgirls always insist on rutting in an open pasture in order to keep it real, there’s also the danger of windburn, or bee stings, or worst of all, winding up in a series of blurry, telephoto paparazzo pix in the gossip segment on Modern Farmer.

And if there should be a “side effect,” then Planned “Parenthood” (what a laughable name) stands in the wings waiting to “liberate” them. Gosh, I feel empowered.

Look, I understand that in many cases abortion can be be a difficult choice, but if you bring the pregnancy to term and give birth to a Minotaur, your husband’s going to know you’ve been rutting.

Economic historian Claudia Goldin says, “The Pill was a great ‘enabler.’ With the Pill, large numbers of college women could embark on careers that involved long-term, up-front time commitments in education and training as physicians, lawyers, veterinarians, managers and academics, among others. The Pill fostered women’s careers by effectively lowering the costs of training.”

Well, for Pete’s sake, it’s the easiest thing in the world to obtain all the education and career advancements you want. You simply keep your pants on.

Although you might want to invest in a crotchless pantsuit.

But this isn’t good enough for “liberated” women. Somehow they’ve concluded that mindless rutting is empowering.

I think someone’s jealous of their cow.

No less a person than sex icon Raquel Welch,

What does that mean? Is she more of a person than most people? Says who? You ask me, she’s only half the person Chang and Eng were.

who was in a unique position during the ’60s and ’70s to see the true effects of the Pill’s benefits

She was one of the few fur bikini-wearing movie sex symbols who also moonlighted as a board certified gynecologist.

…admits its failures. She said a “significant and enduring” effect on women was the idea that they could have sex without any consequences – with the result that fewer today saw marriage as a “viable option.”

After all this time, I’m not really surprised by the number of wingnut women who believe that every sex act must have “consequences,” but I’m a little dismayed at how comfortable they seem sharing the same moral universe as the axe-wielding serial killer from a mid-80s slasher film.

She adds, “Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it’s gotta be pretty bad.”

Your career? I wouldn’t worry; your revisionist history text seems to be making quite the splash with its target audience.

Feminists who applaud the Pill forget that multiple sexual partners and responsibility-free rutting causes mental, emotional and spiritual pain to women.

Crouching inside a wooden cow effigy — even a nice one made by Daedalus and upholstered in rich Corinthian leather — just so you can get nailed by an albino bull is bound to gnaw at a girl’s self-esteem. Or at least cause lower back pain.

We are no longer held up as something pure and beautiful through our maiden years. We lost our dignity and nobility. Courtship and vows went by the wayside. We’ve been reduced to the sum of our body parts, with our favors offered freely to uncommitted men for their use. Feeling empowered yet?

Once you’ve rutted, nobody’s going to want to fit you for a glass slipper, lock you in a tower, or put vegetables under your mattress. And you can just forget about French kissing an amphibian, or sharing costs by rooming with beasts or dwarves.

My friend who created the “Keep Your Pants On” slogan notes, “The business of promoting ‘safe sex’ to kids is clearly promoting kids having sex. This isn’t just moral decay, this is planned market development and sales. Start ‘em young, groom ‘em right, and you have a forever ready cash crop of 20-somethings who will keep forking over cash.” Hard to argue with that, since Planned “Parenthood” blatantly encourages teens to have sex, then offers “solutions” when girls become “victims” of unplanned pregnancies.

Except sex education and the Pill are designed to prevent pregnancies, so who’s making all this money off the hump-happy twentysomethings? Pfizer? Trojan? To whom are they forking over cash for the privilege of porking? Or are the rutting women modeling themselves on cow prostitutes, and charging the bulls for a roll in the hay?

I’ve seen the argument that sex is a natural part of human nature

Ha! As if!

…and to deny our urges is stupid and old-fashioned. “Why is sex made to be this big, sacred thing?” asks an Irish reader commenting on Welch’s article. “It’s completely natural, and if people want to sleep around that’s their business. Also, blaming the Pill is stupid. People had sex before contraception was invented, and what has it got to do with marriage anyway?”

Sure, go ahead and rut like an animal, sweetie. I hope it makes you feel empowered.

I’m a dazzling urbanite, so forgive my ignorance, but is “empowered” a rustic euphemism for “satisfied,” “spent,” or “less tense”?

Are feminists telling me they can’t control themselves?

I think they’re telling you they want to get laid this weekend, and are adult enough to do so without risking an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

That, like our cow in heat, they are mindlessly controlled by hormones? That they are incapable of keeping their pants on and therefore need artificial methods to allow them to advance their careers between sessions of mindless rutting? This is empowerment?

Actually Patrice, I think “this” is an unhealthy obsession with beastiality.

Maybe I’m missing something here, but I always thought humans were something special.

Really? I take it you’ve never read World Net Daily.

We have taken our large brains and created amazingly good and amazingly bad things. No other species on the planet is capable of impacting his world as much as humans.

Not that Patrice meant to accidentally endorse the theory of anthropogenic climate change. She just meant that we have been endowed with huge brains capable of creating planet-affecting pants.

To rise to such heights, we’ve learned to control our instincts by our logical behavior. If our instincts tell us to mate, our behavior guides the instinct into appropriate channels. Ergo, if you want to mate, then do so within a safe and appropriate context (marriage) which will maximize the benefits to offspring and society.

So in your farmhouse, sex is strictly procreational, never recreational? How’s your husband feel about that, Patrice? And why’s your sheep languidly smoking a cigarette?

Because of our cow’s ill-timed heat cycle, we will be giving her a shot of Lutalyse (an abortant) so she won’t have her calf in the middle of a bitterly cold north Idaho winter. Bingo, problem solved.

But is this really how you want to “solve” the problem of your teenage daughter’s ill-timed pregnancy? A quick trip to Planned Parenthood and bingo, an abortion? Have we really “advanced” this much?

It does seem primitive. In a truly advanced society, you’d be able to get an abortifacient delivered right to your home, like milk, or a strip-o-gram.

I suppose 50 years of the Pill has done some good. It’s shown us that returning to the roots of our morality isn’t such a bad thing. It’s demonstrated that sinking into the depths of hedonism doesn’t bring lifelong peace and joy.

C’mon, folks, don’t let a bunch of cows show us up. Keep your pants on, America.

Yeah, folks! Listen to the animal sex-watching cow-abortionist!

Post-Friday Beast Blogging: The Paranoid Pussy Edition

Posted by scott on May 16th, 2010


Riley: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!

Moondoggie: ZZZzzzzzZZZZZ

Our Tasting Menu Features Day Old Sex Symbols and Slightly Expired Ova

Posted by scott on May 15th, 2010


Katherine Jean Lopez, unmarried mother of none, is a woman of strong, yet simple desires. She wants women to stop painting, composing music, and writing books, music, and slash fiction, and henceforth confine their creativity to gestating a fetus, much like a retired sailor assembling a ship in a bottle. She wants all non-knocked up women to taste Raquel Welch (Caution: Raquel-tasting is contraindicated during pregnancy). And she really wants a turkey baster full of Mitt Romney’s semen, and she’s willing to pay top dollar on the black market for it.

Taste the Welch’s Truth

Raquel Welch just explained it all.

I hope it was good for you too. Now please stop drinking Welch’s juice, because K-Lo would like a crack at it.

If you need a quick primer on the birds and the bees and how a culture has been misled, the actress once declared “Most Desired Woman” by Playboy can help you out.

I hope you brought a standard ruled Composition Blue Book, a Number 2 pencil, and plenty of tube socks and Jergens. (This is the second in K-Lo’s series, Celibate Porn® series, following last months effort, The Ascent of Boehner.)

Welch has written a book, “Raquel: Behind the Cleavage,” which might just stand out on bookstore shelves. We need it to!

Perhaps the book could be displayed in three quarter profile, in some sort of push-up shelf.

In an article that coincided with her book’s launch, she wrote: “Margaret Sanger opened the first American family-planning clinic in 1916, and nothing would be the same again. Since then the growing proliferation of birth-control methods has had an awesome effect on both sexes and led to a sea change in moral values.”

I agree with the “awesome” part.

Go, Raquel!

Faster! Harder! Don’t stop!

Further, what she writes knocks the glimmer off the rose of so-called “sexual freedom.”

So Raquel Welch has deflowered the Sexual Revolution. That’s…kinda weird. And redundant. But awesome!

The concept, ushered in by the pill, she says, “has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner.”

Miss Welch believes human dignity would be enhanced if we mated for life, like voles, beavers, termites, and black vultures. In another helpful bit of advice, Miss Welch, who is currently on her fourth marriage, recommends using an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of your various anniversaries.

“Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune.”

Perhaps one day they’ll develop a vaccine for that — hopefully in pill form, since I don’t like needles.

In an otherwise largely celebratory forum on the pill that appeared on CNN’s website, Republican strategist and book publisher Mary Matalin cleverly wrote: “(P)ackages of portable liberation ushered in a generation of women determined to break free from their inferior patriarchal oppressors. And how did they manifest their superiority? Their freedom? Thanks to the pill, by casual, drive-by sex. Whoa. That really showed those stupid boys.”

Clever’s the word. As Ms. Matalin (currently on her third marriage) points out, thanks to the Pill, women are able to enjoy sex without the fear of being shunted into a grim and Dickensian Catholic home for wayward girls, or forced into a hasty and unwise marriage at the point of a shotgun. Talk about the girls kicking an own goal.

The feminist movement has a lot to answer for when it comes its open and enthusiastic embrace of the contraceptive mentality, which interfered with a woman’s relationship with her own body, never mind her relationships with men.

I wasn’t sure what the “contraceptive mentality” is, so I looked it up. After the Civil War, when abortion was first widely banned in this country, women who feared they were pregnant, and who could not — for health, financial, or other reasons — afford a child, would consult a “contraceptive mentalist.” These practitioners, who often wore turbans and were employed by carnivals, would use telepathy to convince a zygote to commit suicide.

Of course, many of the women of the “sexual revolution” generation paid the price in their own lives, later finding that their best fertility days were long gone by the time they realized they wanted to be women, not women suppressing that which makes them most creative.

Says the single, childless “editor of National Review Online,” who “writes a weekly column of conservative political and social commentary for Newspaper Enterprise Association.” But that’s because she’s a rogue womb who doesn’t play by the rules! While you, little missy, should be up at dawn, harvesting eggs from your ovaries like a chicken rancher in a henhouse.

Welch and Matalin’s message stood in contrast to the spin that was predominant this Mother’s Day, which happened to be the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, in some ironic twist of the calendar.

Personally, I find there’s much less irony and more synchronicity when Mothers Day falls on Died in Childbirth Day. And when both coincide with Perished from Septicemia After Botched Back Alley Abortion Day (which only happens once every 76 years), well then — Whoo hoo! Break out the Cold Duck and the coat hangers!

Among the parade of pill celebrations was an item from the AFP newswire which read like a press release from the group “Catholics for a Free Choice,” known more for being successful at getting press attention than representing anyone or any principled “Catholic” position. The AFP dispatch from the pill PR agency slammed the late Pope Paul VI for his warnings, basically, about everything Raquel Welch regrets in our oversexed culture, in his searing, prescient 1968 encyclical, “Humanae Vitae.”

In another coincidence, 1968 was the year Raquel Welch made The Biggest Bundle of Them All, which certainly sounds like an uplifting film about the joys of motherhood. Actually, it’s about a kidnapping, rather than a kid in nappies, but the anti-contraception subtext in clearly there, as it was in all Miss Welch’s movies.


Janet E. Smith, editor of “Why Humanae Vitae was Right,” among other books, and a professor of life ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, tells me: “I keep hoping common sense might have some force with the secular world.”

And what’s more commonsensical than sex advice in a dead language from an elderly, ostensibly celibate man who lives in the Vatican (which is basically a frat house — full of smug, entitled, condescending Greg Marmalards living on someone else’s money — except nobody ever graduates).

In the spirit of that hope, Welch’s comments are a welcome change. When the first “Sex in the City” movie came out a few years ago, I went to the most depressing opening-night showing in midnight movie history. The reactions of the young audience in their Jimmy Choo knock-offs suggested a little talking-to from Janet and Raquel might do them a world of good.

K-Lo was so eager to be depressed she went to the first midnight screening? Here’s a tip: if the title of the movie features two things you disappove of, maybe wait for the bargain matinee.

Welch echoes another pope when she talks about sexual explicitness in our culture. In an interview, she asked: “Do we really have to go so far where nothing is happening unless we’re getting graphic? Can’t we use our imagination anymore?”


“I hope you boys aren’t shooting blanks.”

Welch continued, “A woman is wonderful thing. We are a real prize to be won.”

I won a woman at the County Fair once. Had her on the grill of my truck for awhile, but she got rained on, then the stuffing started to come out.

“It’s not an easy role to play, but a beautiful and powerful one.”

No offense, Raquel, but I’ve seen your work, and judging by the results, none of your roles were easy to play. At least, not convincingly.

The late John Paul II called it the “feminine genius.”

It’s a peculiar kind of genius: smart enough to breed, but dumb enough to let your reproductive organs be remote controlled by the bishopric.

She also talks about other “traditional” ideas that have been out of style in elite culture. She embraces the “ideal” of a two-parent family, of marriage, despite her own admitted failings on these fronts. She emphasizes the different roles of the mom and dad and how they can truly make a formative difference in a child’s life.

I’m not exactly sure how the availability of oral contraception affects the way you raise the offspring you do decide to have. But Raquel left the father of her two children, and then married three more times, making for a total of two husbands per child. Pretty darn formative!

I understand why many in the media worked overtime spinning the pill as good for man- — and woman- — this Mother’s Day. But the truth is that motherhood is at the heart of what it means to be a woman

Said the — oh, forget it.

and the pill has helped deny that reality.

May I ask reality a question? What about women who got creative with their wombs, then went on the pill to prevent, or space out, subsequent pregnancies — does the Pope still want to excommunicate them from Womanhood, or is he content to just defrock them of their ovaries and let them be lay-women?

Mind you, you don’t have to have children to be in tune with that great gift to the world, but you do have to know it, acknowledge it, and not pop a pill whose purpose is to treat fertility as if it were a disease rather than a tremendous power.

Pfizer should stop meddling in the meaning of womanhood, and devote their resources to developing a cure for unctuousness.

To groups that have for decades insisted that they represented so-called “women’s issues” and interests, the truth behind Raquel Welch’s comments must be a bitter pill.

Ha, ha…ha?

So keep preaching it, Raquel!

Just not in a Catholic church.

It’s a more liberating message –about the nature of life and love and men and women — than the feminist revolution ever offered.

NOTE: I started this post last night, then had to leave to catch a (free — I emphasize free) screening of Robin Hood (ouch). But when I visited Roy’s place this morning, I saw he also has a piece tracking the Sisterhood of the Traveling Hymen, and where, in comments, Jay B. delivers probably the ultimate rebuke to the red sash-wearing members of the Junior Anti-Sex League:

I “came of age” during the Reagan/Bush, AIDS and the dreaded baggy sweater era. Sex was, literally, sold as death. I’m betting — and this is just a hunch — people will continue to run the risk of having unmarried sex despite the droning post hoc morality of a pearl-clutching cluck and a bullshit “trend” piece which directly contradicts last week’s trend of tarted up turbo-sexed teens.

And if Death didn’t stop the kids from humping, I doubt K-Lo — even backed by the awesome power of Raquel Welch! — is gonna manage it.