March 12, 2008 - March 4, 2008
Friday, December 15, 2006
realized yesterday what we're up against with regard to the plight of
Israel. Not because of the holocaust deniers' execration underway in
Iran, although that's an important factor obviously. The most
outrageous villains are always easy to spot. They're not as scary as
the presumably decent people at the edges, the ones who have acquired
the trick of squinting away the signs that the unthinkable is becoming
not only thinkable but eminently possible.
Sean Hannity. He's aways been a pompous, undereducated
who repeats the same handful of points ad nauseam. But his
performance yesterday was one for the ages. He spent approximately an
hour hosting a screaming match between David Horowitz and some idiot
named Weber who's attending the Iran Holocaust Supporters' Convention,
and he interrupted at intervals to denounce Weber as an anti-semite. In
the event, Horowitz didn't need any help exposing Weber as a deceitful
Jew-hating piece of scum. What was interesting was what happened
afterwards. Hannity immediately reran a lengthy excerpt of his previous
night's conversation with Mel Gibson, somewhere between 15 and 20
minutes of him French-kissing Gibson's ass: fawning over the speed of
his mind, the power of his creativity, the gloriousness of his latest
filmic bloodletting, and the incredible humility with which Gibson has
responded to his recent public pillorying. Ad nauseam is an
insufficient term for this particular display of feckless idolatry. And at no point did he appear to recognize
the contradictions represented by the two segments.
I thought about the terrible things Gibson said in his drunken spree, I
thought about the MSM and Hollywood libs who ostentatiously condemned
him at the time, and I thought about the Uber-Tolerant left who have
adopted the threadbare cause of the Palestinians, and I saw exactly how
the second holocaust will come about.
THE 'ONE GOOD EXCUSE' THEOREM:
Make no mistake. Gibson is
anti-semite. Not all forms of belligerent, hateful drunkenness are
created equal. The inexcusable things said to family and friends in
such episodes admit of multiple interpretations -- a gush of personal
pain, the twisted expression of long repressed grievances, a cry for
help, an inside-out bid for intimate contact. Not so with more
categorical topics like politics and race. This is the area where the
adage "in vino veritas" rings true. If this is the realm into which
your existential rage reaches in a fit of chemical-induced insanity,
you are revealing something fundamental about the state of your soul.
But as far as Hannity is concerned, Gibson has an excuse. Drunken
forgivable. It can be overlooked, explained away, exalted into the the
transcendant virtue of repentant humility. Unlike Weber, Gibson doesn't
need to be interrogated about where he stands on the question of just
how many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. That would be impolite.
Hannity also has an incentive to forgive Gibson because so many of the
liberal MSM and Hollywood critics of Gibson's behavior are clearly
explicit or implicit sympathizers with the Palestinian and other Arabs
who are plotting the extermination of Israel. The enemy of my enemy is
This last cliche sounds as if it might be the unifying principle, but
it isn't. If it were, MSM libs who blasted Mel Gibson would be embracing Israel and the
Jews, as well as the U.S. policies the muslim nations see as
transparent proofs of irrational American allegiance to Israel. But
they're not. Mel Gibson's outrageous behavior merely provided them with
an opportunity to be showily indignant in a way that could be cited
later as evidence that they never intended or wanted the ghastly fate
that befell the Israelis when Iran unexpectedly launched its nukes.
Another beautiful excuse.
Of course, not all of this theorem is about Gibson. Academic lefties
didn't waste a lot of time piling on, and in parts of Europe, notably
including the U.K., Gibson's popularity actually rose
a notch because of his
diatribe. The truth is, he's irrelevant to their excuse, which has
mostly to do with their preference for the incompetent over the
capable. Translated, this means they have empathy for the weak, who are
always the victims of the strong. Why? Because they know in their own
souls that they also have become the weak, and by dint of experience
they know that the greatest strength of the weak against the strong is
continuous irrational accusation that wins not on its merits, but on
its refusal to see reason ever.
Europeans hate the Jews because they have a history of being subjugated by
the aristocracy, that group which claimed for centuries to be their
betters. Jews are even worse than the Europeans' ancestral oppressors because
their longevity, survival, and ultimate prosperity demonstrate that
they're the most fearsome force in human society -- a natural
aristocracy. You can't repeal the ascendancy of the Jews, or mitigate
it with socialist bureaucracies. Jews will always find a way to excel,
and to produce real accomplishments, and make everybody else look bad
in the process.
That's why the Arabs hate them, too. Israel from the moment of it birth
has been surrounded by 300 million mortal enemies who have never
demonstrated the ability, the industry, the courage, or the vision to
drive them from their ancient homeland. The only weapons the Arabs possess
are perseverance and hatred. Thus far, Israel has proven their equal at
perseverance, which leaves only hatred and the low treacherous cunning
of the inferior who knows himself to be inferior.
America just doesn't get how deep and dangerous this hatred is because,
with the exception of the hard left, Americans are
the exception to the rest of
the world, unafraid of competition, even with a tiny, ancient desert
tribe who called themselves Chosen and whose survival unto the present
day with a distinct cultural identity proves it.
The rest of the world loves to indict America for bigotry because with
the right kind of squinting the unique American experience can be the one sufficient excuse
own eternal racial and ethnic hatreds. Except that the squinting misses
everything important. Americans are
different from everybody else. The spirit of competition on relatively
equal terms is so ingrained in us that we have also assimilated the
value of admiring those who excel on their playing field, whatever that
field is. Thus, we are able to say to ourselves, yeah, I don't care
much for Jews, but that
is a real smart feller, and he made me better by competing with me.
That's why ordinary, average Americans embraced Sandy Koufax, and Hank
Aaron (even when he broke the Bambino's record), and Miles Davis, and
Jack Kennedy, and Fiorello La Guardia, and Joe Louis, and Juan
Marichal, and Al Jolson, and Ella Fitzgerald, and F. Scott Fitzgerald,
and the black muslim Muhammed Ali, and Philip Roth, and Michael Jordan,
The American experience has been so profound that the overwhelming
majority of us now reject utterly the idea that a member of any ethnic
group who truly wishes to belong to our country cannot become a vital
and valuable part of it, and should not be prevented from doing so in
any categorical way.
The ironic danger to that American experience is those who continue to
identify with European sensibilities in the belief that Europeans are
more civilized than Americans because they have been there longer than
we have been here. Unfortunately, these oafs tend to be some of our
most educated in formal terms, and as a group they tend to be the ones
who have the most dexterity at constructing a rational excuse for the
most depraved possible positions. A New York Times columnist -- or a
Dartmouth political science major or a Hollywood leading lady or an ex-president
-- who tolerates the flat, ugly candor of muslims --
Palestinian or otherwise -- who chant "Death to Israel" without
realizing that these angry Arabs mean it in the most literal possible
sense is an accomplice in what will
occur if decent people don't stop it.
So are the Sean Hannitys. And everyone else who has dreamt up that
perfect personal excuse for not seeing that Holocaust II is being
actively planned right now. The consequence will be exactly what it was
for Holocaust I. If you didn't play an active role in preventing it,
you helped bring it about.
To hell with Mel Gibson. To hell with Jimmy Carter. And, for that
matter, to hell with Sean Hannity.
If you don't listen to this broadcast
great liberal MSM saint Edward R. Murrow, to hell with you too.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
more clever repartee.
. InstaPunk is
old. And obsolete. Too polite by about a mile and a half. Did you hear
him making nice with that D-Cup
bimbo? She's a left-wing loon. There's no point in talking with loons.
So we retired him. With prejudice. This is supposed to be scriver
territory. It will be from now on.
We almost retired him back in April
But he was more resilient
than we figured. Part of him being too f***ing clever for his own good.
That's all done now. Youth will be served.
It's not that InstaPunk was wrong. He knew that this country was
meandering through the valley of death checking out the store windows
while the dragons were circling overhead. But he was too circumspect.
He tried to exchange ideas with people who are actually part of the
problem. Like that InstaPundit goof, who's as fascinated by digital
cameras as he is by the campaign tactics of Harold Ford and Barak Obama
as he is by the legal niceties of the GWOT. If you put that boob in the
crosshairs of a sniper's rifle, he'd be asking questions about the
optical precision of the scope while you were pulling the trigger.
That's the American disease: smug obliviousness. He doesn't deserve a
wife with a rack like that. So there won't be any more grovelling here
for -- what do they call it? -- an "insta-lanche."
Reasonableness is a dangerous trap. There's absolutely no point in
trying to persuade people to see the obvious. If they can't see their
f***ing nose in front of their f***ing face, f***'em. Here's some of
the obvious crap that InstaPunk was trying to be reasonable about:
The United States Congress is full of spineless, self-obsessed retards.
When Republicans had the majority, Congress was a joke. Now that the
treasonous Democrats have the majority, Congress is a loaded gun aimed
at our heads. Everyone who voted in a way that helped Nancy Pelosi
become Speaker of the House should be stood up against a wall and shot.
2. The President of the United
States had -- for several years -- balls.
Fine. He deserved praise and some loyalty for that. But he let them get
clipped off by person or persons unknown. Rice and her State Department
fags? Pelosi and her hormone-crazed castration fantasies? Who knows.
All that matters now is that he's an inarticulate eunuch who listens to
the advice of ancient zombies who should be locked up in Alzheimer's
sanitariums. He's a menace. InstaPunk just never could overcome his
irrational loyalty to an over-achieving fighter pilot. We can. Bush has
become the enemy he once had the courage to confront. That's tragic.
But it's also despicable.
3. The mainstream media is a
colossus of traitors. Everyone who works for a major newspaper or
network news organization should be hunted down, rounded up, and shot
in the back of the head. They are actively working to enable our
enemies to destroy America. It doesn't matter why. Self-hatred.
Post-Modern ennui. Existential angst. Post-Soviet vindictiveness. Who
gives a flying f***? Kill them all. Now.
4. Political Correctness is the
new Black Death. All the topics that can't be discussed are part of the
pandemic that's killing America. Feminists so pin-headed they lend
their political support to anti-semitic death merchants whose religion
defines their sex in terms of slavery. Academics who abandon their
subject matter expertise for political rants in support of forces that
would exterminate them without a second thought. Minority rights
activists who sup with traitors on a daily basis while they demand the
extension of exceptional American privileges to those who would rape
their wives, subjugate their children, clap them in chains, and
entirely eliminate the gravy train on which they have feasted for a
5. The death of Christianity is
the end of human civilization. Period. Muslims are, at best,
semi-conscious barbarians, a thousand million f***ing idiots who think
their problems could be solved by murdering all of the twenty million
Jews on earth. All the eastern religions so prized by New-Agers are in
the business of killing individual consciousness so that the faceless
group can rule the masses. Scientific atheism is the patricidal bastard
spawn of the only faith willing to tolerate their arrogant fantasies of
omniscience. Only Christianity encourages thought, freedom, creativity,
exploration, and accomplishment while seeking to restrain the baser
human instincts that lead to sadism, sexual violence, totalitarianism,
genocide, and cultural death. The fight against Islamic jihad should be a religious crusade, but
nobody anywhere has the guts to say it. If a billion muslims have to be
killed to save human civilization, the benefit still outweighs the
cost. And virtue is not
obliterated by choosing to kill rather than be killed.
6. It's not true that the
crusade, or any one of its battles, can't be won. It could be won in 90
minutes. Everyone keeps forgetting that. The only question is, how much
do you believe in the value of the civilization that created you, all
your experience and beliefs, and your children? Are you willing to
commit suicide and end the lives of your own offspring in order to
avoid hurting murderous morons who would cut your throats in an instant
given a knife and a chance? The Romans knew the answer to that question
for close to a thousand years. The Egyptians knew the answer for almost
three thousand years. But since you're so much smarter than they were,
it's taken you less than 250 years to come up with the dumbest possible
TruePunk. We know that complications are generally evasions and
delusions. That's why we may not be here for long. Too many morons have
too much to lose when we speak the truth. But we're here for the
moment. Listen while you can. If InstaPunk returns, you'll know we've
Monday, December 11, 2006
Reyes, chairman-designate of the House Intelligence Committee.
'O' IS FOR....
Here's a dictionary definition from Word Web Online
Noun: oversight 'owvur`sIt
- An unintentional omission resulting from failure to notice
- Management by
overseeing the performance or operation of a person or group
- supervision, supervising,
- A mistake resulting from inattention
Technically, I suppose the definition that applies to Congress's view
of its responsibility to monitor aand investigate the policies of the
executive branch is the second one listed, but it's hard to resist the
notion that all three definitions of 'oversight' are close synonyms
when it comes to the legislative branch.
Yeah, I'm talking about the little "quiz
Reyes failed that most every right-wing blogger will be chortling about
over the next day or two. Just an excerpt from an article by the
National Security Editor of CQ.com, Jeff Stein, for those of you who
need a reminder:
Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or
“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about
“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.
“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.
He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club
house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.
That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up al Qaeda consider all
Shiites to be heretics.
Al Qaeda’s Sunni roots account for its very existence.
I don't know where to start on this. There are so many implications. In
fairness to Reyes, though, I'll cite another quote from the same
article that some of us righties will probably omit (by inadvertence,
To his credit, Reyes, a kindly,
thoughtful man who also sits on the Armed Service Committee, does see
the undertows drawing the region into chaos.
For example, he knows that the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between
Sunnis and Shiites not only fuels the militias and death squads in
Iraq, it drives the competition for supremacy across the Middle East
between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.
That’s more than two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee knew
when I interviewed them last summer. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and
Terry Everett, R-Ala., both back for another term, were flummoxed by
such basic questions, as were several top counterterrorism officials at
In fairness to myself, I'll note that I've conceded the
stupidity of Republican politicians
in the past, more
, in fact. But we're entering a new phase in our national
policy-making process, one in which the Congress is going to try to
steer national foreign policy by committee. The Republican dunces, bad
as they were, played a different role in the government. They used
their political skills to try to give their party leader, the
President, as much of what he wanted as was consistent with their
overriding desire to get reelected. Under the new regime, the Democrats
are planning to harass, undermine, and obstruct the President in the
mistaken belief that their recent electoral victory represents an
endorsement of their political positions rather than a repudiation of
Republican corruption and sloth.
In this context, it's much more relevant to ask what they really want,
what they anticipate as the results of their policies, and what base of
knowledge drives the first two. Reyes's quiz performance tells us
something important about these general questions and something
specific about two individual politicians: himself and Nancy Pelosi.
As to Reyes, Jeff Stein's assertion that he is "a kindly, thoughtful
man" is ridiculous. To aspire to a life-and-death responsibility one is
totally unqualified for is the opposite of kindly; it is selfish and
utterly uncaring of others. It is also the opposite of thoughtful,
because it's far from considerate to perform surgery without medical training. To be a member of Congress
voting at frequent intervals on matters that relate to the national
security of your country without bothering to learn essential facts
about the competing factions of the enemy who is sworn to annihilate
the people you represent is criminally ignorant. Reyes may be "nice,"
but he doesn't know enough to be a back bench congressman, let alone
chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence. He should be sent home
Then there's Nancy Pelosi. Elected to her seat by a few hundred
thousand voters, she is now the second most powerful figure in the
United States government. How does she choose to use her new power? By
plunging herself -- and, not so incidentally, the country she intends
to "govern" -- into one vengeful bitch fight after another,
consequences be damned. First, she nominates a demonstrably corrupt and
old ward heeler
to be her number two in order to score off an old
male rival. Then, she nominates two completely laughable candidates --
Hastings the Crook and Reyes the Dolt -- for chair of the House
Intelligence Committee. Why? Because she just can't stand to be in the
same room with that c*** Jane Harman, a fellow female legislator from
her own home state.
In case you're not getting it, we're talking All-Time Dumb here.
Classic Democrat affirmative-action diversity. Hastings was black, so
she figured San Francisco voters (the only ones she's accountable to,
don't forget...) wouldn't mind that he's as ethical as Marion Berry and
Al Sharpton combined. And Reyes is hispanic, so she never even thought
to ask if he actually knew anything about the Islamic fascists who are
killing Americans every day of the week. Government by face color as a
substitute for competence. In fact, she doesn't give a rat's ass about
corruption, competence, or even the lives of her dimwit constituents.
She cares about destroying her political enemies and sucking up to the
brain-dead hedonists of her decadent city.
Lest we forget, that's why the framers of the Constitution created an
executive branch and gave it so much power to conduct foreign policy,
despite their deep fear and long bad experience with kings. When it
comes to life-and-death national issues, decision makers have to be
accountable to more than 0.001 percent of the voters. And decisions
made by committees of politicians are both accountable to no one and
doomed to prefer showy rhetoric to rational rigor.
Is all this funny? Yes. In a way. As long as you're a fan of Desperate Housewives
. It's also not
funny, because U.S. security
over the next two years, at least, is being driven by a compulsion to
surrender to an implacable enemy simply because surrender is the
opposite of the hated opposition's policy. Many Americans are going to
die from sea to shining sea because Nancy Pelosi's stunted self-esteem
requires inside-the-beltway victims aplenty. Pathetic.
The rest of us should be asking of the new Democrat leviathan, What do
you really want? What do you think is going to happen if you get your
way and drive GWB from office in disgrace? Does it matter that hundreds
of thousands will die in Iraq? Since when did you really care about the
lives of American troops? Did you ever take any responsibility for the
million and a half dead in Cambodia after you had your tantrum in the
Sixties? Have you ever really learned anything? Or is the whole agenda
just a kind of Hollywood movie remake -- the evil Nixon (Bush)
triumphantly replaced by the sublime Carter (? Where can we
find anyone as bad as that
?) -- with no thought of any kind
given to the real-life events that follow the closing credits? When
you're from California, the future -- that is, the real-world future --
is frequently an oversight.
Reyes, if you really are a kindly man, resign. Pelosi... well, forget
it. We'll skip to the next step, which is identifying the new Carter.
God. Help. Us. All.
Back to Archive Index