Sunday, 25 September 2016

Hill’s Legmen

  Item: Clinton wants a step stool during debate.

When Hillary lost her stumping shoe,
And crumpled like a muppet,
The media to her rescue flew,
Becoming her sock puppet.

And then as dehydration struck,
She sought her daughter's door,
And questions medical no more could duck,   
It's her they carried water for.

And now, with all the journos rooting,
She'll brave a foe most truly,
But hide the frailty of her footing,
When mainstream is her stoolie.

Sunday, 29 May 2016

This Way to the Egress!

The circus came early to Vancouver this year, but it wasn't the Shriners, who pretend they're Arabs. It was the Conservatives who pretend they're conservatives. 
            First in the big tent was former ringmaster Harper, who broke a six-month silence to say absolutely nothing. The old tax tamer was obviously still convalescing from the mauling he got last October when he took on the Liberal pussycat, Trudeau the terrible. Without his whip he looked a broken man, and thanks to him and his cowardly party, we'll soon be a broken country. 
         Transmania notwithstanding, there were no bearded ladies (unless you counted the macho matrons vying to be the next leader). But a star speaker turned out to be something just as bizarre: a Muslim Tory. After calling out the party bigots who made her "feel that she didn't belong" in the party during the election, she got hugs and penitence all round. Poor freak. No one had the heart -  or the guts - to tell her that anyone who believes that a mass-murdering so-called prophet, who is the inspiration for nine out of nine acts of terrorism in the world, was the "most perfect of men," will not ever belong in the country! 
             On to the high-wire act, where the pseudo-righties walked the tightrope of gay marriage. The crowd grew hushed as the old one-man-one-woman plank was struck from the platform. The old stalwarts had to cover their eyes but the feat was finally accomplished: sods and sodbusters reconciled at last.  
            Next up were the Flying Amenders, acrobats who double as contortionists. Agreed: on just ticketing marijuana possession. Agreed: abortion, short term, late term, is here to stay. Agreed: the safety net must stay but taxes should fall. Agreed: we agree with the Liberals on just about everything. 
            Political correctness has banned most animal acts these days, so the big cats are gone. But the fat cats are everywhere. They run the three-ring circus of all the country's parties and that's why immigration is never on the bill. 300, 000 (mostly Islamic) "new Canadians" coming by year's end thanks to the Pretty Boy Tyrant, and the entire Conservative establishment has nothing to say about it except what they said during their own heyday in the ring: "Immigrants make good Conservative voters." And Conservatives make good Liberal cucks. 
            This is a party in need of a suicide assist. When they lose the next one in '19 after the Liberals import a new electorate, maybe we'll find a Trump to rally the right. Until then, send in the clowns!               

Monday, 16 May 2016

Is Something Burning?

A day after running its most preposterous smear against Trump to date, based on anecdotes and decades-old impressions from former dates and spouses, the New York Times is now assailing him for his upcoming "little is off limits" campaign against Hillary Clinton. It's the familiar lament: the Donald and women! Yesterday he was out of bounds getting in their pants; today he's off limits airing their dirty laundry. Will he never learn!
    The article offers nothing in the way of new information about either candidate, but as a testament of media bias it turns a corner - right off a cliff.

"For Mrs. Clinton, the coming battle is something of a paradox. She has decades of experience and qualifications, but it may not be merit that wins her the presidency — it may be how she handles the humiliations inflicted by Mr. Trump."

          Quite possibly, Patrick Healy may be the stupidest donkey in the entire Times stable. Never mind the blatant shilling for Hillary in what is purporting to be a piece of analysis: is he really suggesting that Clinton simply deserves the presidency over an unmeritorious Trump? 
         And never mind his confusion of "paradox" with irony: it may indeed be an irony that a political contender pushing a feminist agenda should get dragged down by such "patriarchal" baggage as traditional marriage vows, but there is nothing quizzically illogical, i.e., paradoxical, in merit confounded by shame. 
        But can't this idiot grasp the difference between an insult and a humiliation? If Trump succeeds in "inflicting" a humiliation on her, then, by definition, she's lost it. There are many ways of handling criticism or insults, the usual method being the one favoured by Trump himself: hurl back one or two of your own. 
         But there's only one way to handle a humiliation: you suck it up! So is Healy conceding that Clinton is damaged goods before the contest even starts? Seems to be the case, although he's loth to state it in plain English.

"Mrs. Clinton has often flourished in the wake of boorish behavior: her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation of her husband, the congressional impeachment proceedings."

These are examples of boorishness?  An infidelity, a judicial inquiry and a congressional vote? What dictionary is Healy using? Aren't they, in fact, straightforward examples of adultery, legal overreach, and a failed motion, respectively? But Trump is "boorish" so it follows that all who have challenged the Clintons are "boorish" as well. 

"In a telephone interview, [Trump] noted that women did not like seeing Mrs. Clinton insulted or bullied by men. He said he wanted to be more strategic. . ."

What telephone interview? Where's the transcript, Patrick? Or are your readers content to trust your paraphrase of the NYT's most hated enemy? It's highly improbable that Trump would have referred to attacks on Clinton as "bullying." That would be tantamount to conceding that he himself has been "bullying" her up to now. And according to the media and to Clinton herself, that is exactly what he's been doing. When Trump talks of the "woman card," what he really means is the bully card. 
          But, literally, a bully is defined as someone with an unfair physical advantage over another. There's no question of a physical encounter between Trump and Hillary, even at the level of a shouting match. In fact, it's doubtful that the two rivals have ever been in the same room together. So the term must be a metaphor. It is a figure of speech. In that case, unless his critics are conceding that the "bombastic" Mr.Trump has some mental or rhetorical advantage over the woman, they can only mean that he is verbally "abusive" toward her. But how, exactly? 
        A simple test of a street bully is whether he - or she - would fight someone their own size or even bigger. So a simple test of a sexist, metaphorical, bully would be whether he attacks men with the same vigour he does women. The last year proves that Trump is no bully: he insults one and all, all too indiscriminately. 
       Now, is this really where fifty-plus years of feminism has taken America: that no man can prevail over a woman in the rough and tumble of the political arena without being castigated for unfairly using what the gynocracy calls his "upper-body advantage" - recalling that the brain is indeed part of the upper body? If so, then it's time to dust off and update Harry Truman's old adage, and tell the woman who once so famously scorned the humble prospect of ever baking cookies: Lady, if you can't stand the heat, go back to the kitchen!

Saturday, 14 May 2016

Item: Trump has "no opinion" on school bathroom law.

Now, though pink doors may no longer close,
To pretenders in makeup and hose,
If Obama enforces
What folly endorses,
There's one cross he'll completely expose!

Saturday, 7 May 2016

News item: London votes in first Muslim mayor

.


London's bridges are falling down, 
Falling down, falling down;
London's bridges are falling down,
My fair lady.


Build them up with lies and hype,
Lies and hype, lies and hype;
Build them up with lies and hype,
My fair lady.



Lies and hype will get found out,
Get found out, get found out;
Lies and hype will get found out,
My fair lady.

Bolster them with bribes and threats,
Bribes and threats, bribes and threats;
Bolster them with bribes and threats,
My fair lady.

Bribes and threats will viral go,
Viral go, viral go;
Bribes and threats will viral go,
My fair lady. 

Silence all with blocks and bans,
Blocks and bans, blocks and bans;
Silence all with blocks and bans,
My fair lady.

Blocks and bans won't stop rage,
Won't stop rage, won't stop rage  ;
Blocks and bans won't stop rage,
My fair lady.

Crush them down with fines and jail,
Fines and jail, fines and jail;
Crush them down with fines and jail,
My fair lady.

Fines and jail won't kill the truth 
Kill the truth, kill the truth;
Fines and jail won't kill the truth,
My fair lady.

Give 'em a choice: dhimmi or Muz,
Dhimmi or Muz, dhimmi or Muz;
Give 'em a choice: dhimmi or Muz,
My fair lady.

Some will fight against the tax,
Against the tax, against the tax;
Some will fight against the tax,
My fair lady. 

Chop their heads off with an ax,
With an ax, with an ax;
Chop their heads off with an ax, 
My fair lady. 


Monday, 2 May 2016

Song of the Cockroaches

To the tune of "La Cucaracha"

La coo-coo Raza, La coo-coo Raza,
How crazy can they be?
To block the hotel plaza,
And hand Trump a backdoor victory!

La coo-coo Raza, La coo-coo Raza,
Yelling grievances and gripes,
While waving the flag for Aztlan,
Only boosts the Stars and Stripes.

La coo-coo Raza, La coo-coo Raza,
Trashing parks and police cruisers;
And every can they set ablaze,
Lights up the Donald with the Hoosiers.

La coo-coo Raza, La coo-coo Raza,
Spitting on and torching Old Glory,
Browning off even democrats yeah!
Who'll vote Trump and not be sorry.

La coo-coo Raza, La coo-coo Raza,
You'll rue throwing rocks in a brawl,
When they come back a tu casa,
Helping build the Donald's wall!

La coo-coo Raza, La coo-coo Raza,
Look yourself in your collective face,
And face the fact that, 
You've given Trump the race!

La coo-coo Raza, La coo-coo Raza,
When you planned your revolución,
Who knew you'd be asking,"Que pasa?"
When America got one of her own?

Sunday, 24 April 2016

His True Colors

Look who's low energy now!
Like a kid taking Ritalin cured,
The New Donald is seen but not heard;
Though life is more calm,
We can't hide the qualm
That a clockwork orange is absurd! 

Flushed with victory?
Though Christians couldn't help but recoil at
His thoughts on abortion, they're loyal yet;
But they'll reach for the Drano
If he follows the rainbow
Straight down a unisex toilet.

Clear all?                               
While journos ask, "Does he or doesn't he?" 
It's his language, not looks, that's so puzzly:
With Cruz crying fraud,
And supporters unawed,
By a plan defined more and more fuzzily.

Evolution?
As chameleons change with the flower,
Trump boasts great adaptational power; 
But he's in for a fall,
If he climbs down from the Wall,
Going from lizard to snake within the hour!

Movement?
So, as managers make him tone it down,
He'll be swallowing his words for a crown;
But if on his diet he's starts cheating, 
Foes again may be eating
Something soft and disgusting and brown!

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Double Cross Saw Buck

Old Hickory must be rolling in his grave -
Planter supplanted by a 4th estate slave!
Just another hero honor couldn't save,
Homeless in the former home of the brave.

Tis said the Master ran a right tight ship,
And at the Hermitage could oft let rip;
But as the Tubby-haters bite their lip,
We learn Obama, too, can use the whip!

Sunday, 17 April 2016

Rebel Without a Clause

     Ready, set, go to hell!   
It's a race to the bottom, they say. So be it, answers Trump. But is it really a race - or a game of street chicken? Like the delinquent adolescent that Ann Coulter (still one of his best supporters) likens him to, Trump is not one to back away from a contest of wills. Time and again he's revved up his fifties-era custom rod, blower and all, and come roaring down Mainstreet, the James Dean of political challenge. And, every time, it's the white shoe boys of the RNC and their mainstream mechanics that lose. The latest dust-up over the campaign manager that didn't - assault anyone, that is, and the candidate that wouldn't - fire him, that is, being a case in point. Loyalty is the first test of a conservative and Trump's got it. And in the end, what is loyalty except a kind of courage, His adversaries  have got the fancy machine with the big stock engine. But Trump's got the nerve.
     But does he have the delegates??? 
If not, Cleveland is a whole new race. Supercharging and nerve alone won't be enough. Maneuvering and judgment will also come into play, i.e., skill. The word is, though, that the artist of the deal isn't up to a brokered convention. He wants to turn the Grand Prix into a Demo Derby. Why is Trump spinning his wheels in show-off frustration while Cruz is under the hood tinkering and thinking?  Cruz knows the rules, clause by cunning clause. He's a lawyer. Trump's an actor. He can deal right enough because it is, as he writes, an art. But he's not used to rules or to being overruled by others who are used to them. He keeps spinning the fiction that a majority of delegates should take the prize, overlooking the fact that he does not now have and may not have a majority before Cleveland, but only a plurality. A majority can be his only at the final ballot.
          1237, go to heaven; 1236, pick up sticks. 
So there's Lyin' Ted picking up every delegate he can maneuver out of the pile while Trump, steamed at the "unfairness" of it all, wants to tell everyone to go to hell. Dear Donald, you bought into those same rules when you started this. So get back in the race and start ruling again!  


Saturday, 16 April 2016

When in Rome


Now some Syrian migrants from Greece,
In the Vatican found a new lease,
Where they'd happily dwell
With the dumb infidel,
Who blessed their "religion of peace."

Soon they were living in clover,
And communion was all that they strove for:
Though the wine was haram,
For the blood of the lamb,
By Allah, their cup ranneth over!

In the morning the strains of adhan,
Vied with the bells of St. Anne,
So for harmony's sake
She got a remake,
And now it's a mosque with a ban.

Being folks with a modesty obsession,
Art tended to make an impression,
So in the famous chapel
The guards had to grapple
To save Adam from naked aggression!

But there's solace for the Islamic sons,  
Fleeing the Caliphate's guns:
They'll feel right at home
Next a medieval dome, 
Where the women are all veiled as nuns!

And for kissing each journo-jihadi,
Il Papa was top sugar daddy;
The heights that they caroled 
His praises should herald
A renaissance in the art of castrati!

Sunday, 3 April 2016

Tales from the South

Now, Brer Rabbit accosted Tar Baby,
For insulting his bare-naked lady;
After a gaffe or two, 
He was stuck in the goo,
While Brer Rat looked on gleefully shady!

Then Brer Fox shouted,"What a fine catch!
"Let him toss where it's certain he'll scratch."
But he made his escape,
With barely a scrape,
Shouting,"I was bawn in a briar patch!"

Saturday, 2 April 2016

Fatality on Fifth Ave

Was it just lately he bragged like a crim,
He could murder someone and not dim?
But what a surprise,
At a sudden demise,
If that someone turned out to be him!

Sunday, 27 March 2016

Brussels' Sprouts - Illiberal Limericks 10

News item: Belgium world's number one exporter of home-grown jihadis.

Now, of all European cultivars,
The one caution most prudently bars,
Is a rank little cabbage
From a region most savage,
More lethal than microbes from Mars.

Though it once was a plant quite benign,
Til it was grafted to imports malign,
Its least little taste
Whole countries can waste
By destroying the national spine.

For, once having ingested the spore,
The victims start craving for more,
Their strange paralysis
Defies all analysis:
Lying five times a day on the floor!

Susceptibility varies by zone,
With the French being especially prone,
With Hollande the chief chef
They couldn't get enough,
Til their appetite softened their bone.

For Merkel the buds were hot-button,
When served up with Levantine mutton;
Being nothing loth
To consume the fell growth,
She was Europe's worst punishment glutton!

Here, too, our own governing class,
Is eager to import them en masse; 
For our multicult cuisine,
Now favouring the green,
Is more dopey than legalized grass!

But down south a leader less shamesome, 
Who has defied the whole empire of Lamedom,
With a spine that won't bend,
Has promised he'll send
The whole crop right back where it came from!

But Hillary said Let's not be hasty!
Believing those morsels quite tasty,
Savouring each ballot,
She broadened her palate
To include terror's halaliest pasty.

So beware of what grows in your garden,
And toward crossovers let your heart harden, 
For if you're subject to bouts
Of indigestible sprouts,
You'll be sorry you never debarred 'em!

Inventive Journalism - Letter to the Ed

Once again a member of the corporate media has rolled out a predictably distorted diatribe against Trump - ahem! - that’s  Mr. Trump in the New York Times, if you please, where the enemy must always be accorded the most decorous terms of formal address even as he is set up for the worst outrages of drive-by journalism. 
Mr. Cohn pretends to be offering an analysis of regional voter preferences, but his piece is little more than a barely concealed continuous smear against Donald Trump, convicted racist. The journalist takes it for granted that his readers understand exactly what definition of racism is in play here and that it applies unequivocally to the candidate whose support among Blacks and Latinos is perhaps the highest in the history of his party. No quote is offered to support the insinuation that Trump has ever uttered any racist remarks, public or private. No doubt Mr. Cohn, like scores of liberal writers who have preceded him in this collusive vendetta, is tacitly premising his smear upon the candidate's maiden speech of last June.Those remarks have been persistently although vaguely evoked to foster the notion that Mr.Trump said or thinks or believes the absurd generalization that “Mexicans are rapists and murderers.”  In fact, they imply the exact opposite. For if Mexico is "not sending us their best” then by inference many if not most Mexicans at home must be good people, although the candidate even then allows that some of the illegal entries, the object of his concern, may also be in the better category. As for Mr.Trump’s remarks concerning Muslims, similarly routinely twisted past recognition, the writers who cite them as being ethnically motivated rely upon an even more absurd premise, i.e., the invention of an "Islamic race.”
       Ten months of intense media smearing have left Mr. Trump's orange and unvarnished hide by and large free of taint. It’s time for the Times to throw in the towel - or use it to wipe the egg off their own faces.

Sunday, 20 March 2016

Unsocial Darwinists

Riddle: Why are liberals known as the party of the poor?
Reply: Because they're always begging the question!

On top of "fearful and frustrated," America's media have found a third pigeonhole to stuff Trump's supporters into: angry. It goes without saying that in the liberal universe, anger is always a sign of negativity, if not indeed of derangement. Unless of course, it's liberals who are angry. If a liberal gets angry, it's because some great and noble cause is being impeded by some miserable right-wingers. Anger then becomes not only justified, it's admirable. It's not even anger anymore, but rather righteous indignation. Those people disrupting Trump rallies, for instance: don't mistake their threatening gestures and obnoxious language for anger. Those contorted red (or black) faces are actually paragons of progressivism, if not of progress itself. The "protesters" are simply exercising their Darwinian right to shut down anyone to the right of themselves. Darwin? You bet! But that's also a privilege of the left.When rightists try it, they're pilloried for being "social Darwinists." (Shudder, shudder!) 
      Anger, like all the emotions, must have a vital use, however, fulfill a necessary function, or why would God - or evolution - have instilled us with its ever-ready fire?
      Its main use, in fact, is survival. If you threaten an entity, it will get angry in order to better defend itself. Adrenaline and testosterone and any number of other energy-boosting secretions start flowing when we're feeling threatened, and lucky for us that they do, too. Organisms without anger don't last long in a world ruled by the Darwinian imperatives of aggression and domination. So it's puzzling to find liberals, those self-professed disciples of Darwin, deprecating any exhibition of anger from their fellow organisms. Puzzling, that is, until it's understood that deprecating anger is part and parcel of their attempt to dominate said organisms. 
         When journos condemn anger they rely on the convention which bars such an emotion, and emotions in general, from our everyday situations. At school, at work, at church, or even at home: in most situations, anger is regarded as a disruptive, primitive force. Quite unsocial, in fact. And so it is!        
       But in the realm of politics, in the arena of democracy, is anger  to be similarly banished from the light of day? Since when? Athletes and spectators alike get angry at sporting events and it's taken in stride. Sports are sublimated war, after all, and no one expects their troops to be polite. But war is "politics by other means." By other means, not by other emotions. 
        The Trumpsters are angry, and to suggest their anger is somehow indecorous, out of place or un-American, is to ignore US history, which is replete with intemperate politics and mad pols. (Read some of Gore Vidal's novels to find just how intemperate and mad.) And it begs the fundamental question: Are they under threat or not? That is to say, Is their anger justified or not? In fact, of course, they are under threat, under attack, and it's no use having the media, which is constantly leading the attack on their conservative way of life, trying to persuade them otherwise. 
          For the human organism, one's way of life is practically indistinguishable from life itself. Hence, the whole Trump phenomenon is a case-in-point illustration of the inexorable battle for survival. These people have been slowly beaten back into a defensive corner and now they're coming out in a last do-or-die counterattack at their tormentors. Angry? Hell, they're furious
         Granted, Trump and his supporters threaten the liberals' survival, too. The entire entitlement culture which half the US citizenry depend upon, in some degree, feels threatened by the Make America Great Again crowd. Alas, nothing ever got great again on welfare.  
          So let the war proceed, but please spare us the logic games, journos. Anger is the lifeblood of politics and anyone who says it isn't has already got his fangs halfway into his enemy's throat. 

Sunday, 13 March 2016

Destwoy Twump!

Ladies and gentlemen of Radioland, welcome to the Drone on the Wall, your best source for behind-the-scenes scoops on all topics political. Tonight we take you into the very bastion of Mainstream, the editorial boardroom of the New York Times, where our roaming micro-bug finds itself sitting like the proverbial fly on the wall just as a highly secret teleconference is getting underway. This emergency session of the editors of all the Big Seven news outlets was evidently called in response to what the various media conglomerates regard as an impending challenge to their informational supremacy in the USA and, indeed, the entire world. The publisher of the NYT appears to be moderating the historic conclave. We join them literally mid-sentence . . .

                             

NY: Hewwo everybody! Welcome to our confewence! This is a special session, as you know, convened in wesponse to the national emergency facing us all. But befowe we start, may we have a woll call of attendance, just to make sure we're all here? First, WaPo, are you dere, WaPo? 
WP: Yes, we are here! Shalom, NYT-wits!
NY:  Time, come in, Time! Are you dere?
Time: Yes, we are here! Shalom!
NY: ABC, NBC, and CBS: are you dere, Big Thwee? 
ABC: Yes!
NBC: Yes!
CBS: Yes! We are here!
All: Shalom!
NY:  Did I miss anyone?
Newsweek: Yes, you missed us! We are still here!
NY:   Oh, wight!  No offense, Newsweek. Also, I would wike to welcome our guest, Fox News, who shares our concern in dis urgent matter. Are you dere, Wupert?
Fox: Yes, we are here! Sha, sha - lom? 
NY: Shawom to you, too, Fox. Also, I wish to welcome, as new recwuits, some of our young offshoots who have expwessed an interest in joining us, and who, we bewieve, may weap some vital insights into information contwol from our own wong and stowied expewience. Welcome Sawon, Powitico, Swate and Daiwy Beast! Are you dere?
All four: Yes, sir, we are here! Shalom!
NY: Now to get down to business! As you all know, our countwy is appwoaching a histowical cwosswoads unwike any we have ever befowe witnessed, an encounter with an enemy of bibwical pwopowtions, an enemy wike weviathan himself. A powitical Gowiath who thweatens our very existence.  
NW: Do you mean ISIS?
NY: No! I mean Donawd Twump! 
NW: Oh, right! And by "our country" you mean Is - 
NY: (cutting NW off) I mean Amewica, of course! 
NW: Oh, of course!
NY: What other countwy could I mean? Where was I? Oh yes: the thweat. Now, I think we all agwee that Mr. Twump is dangewous. 
All: Very dangerous!
NY: But are we all aware of just how dangewous he is and pwecisewy why he is so dangewous? Well? Any ideas, fwiends?
Time: Well, sir, it's that wall he's going to build.
WaPo: And deporting all those illegals, er, I mean undocumented workers.
NW:  And don't forget the trade thing. The man's an isolationist.
CBS: He's a racist.
NBC: A bigot.
ABC: A Hitler.
NY: Ok, yes, you're all wight, but what's the very worst thing he's said, the thing that's most dangewous of all? You young 'uns, can you help us?
Politico: He insulted women. 
Slate: He insulted Muslims.
Salon: He insulted us!
NY: All true and quite repwehensible. But what is it that makes him so incwedibly dangewous to us and all our pwiviweges? 
Fox: He's trying to cut into my slave labour -er, I mean our foreign worker supply. That's enough for me to hate him right there.
NY:  Of course, Wupert. We all, or rather our owners all share your concern. But don't you people see what this man has said that cuts us all wight where we wive?
All:  (Baffled silence) 
NY:  Wisten and wearn! Twump said: I say what I say!
All:  (Horrified) No!
NY:  Yes! He said it. And when I heard those disgusting, ominous words, I knew this was going to be a fight to the death. Do you not weawize what dose odious words mean? What will happen if dey catch on, if this thing spweads? I say what I say? No! We say what dey say. Not dem! We say! We have always said what dey say. Now do you understand?
All:  Horrible! Terrible! Monstrous! Iniquitous! Impious! Seditious!
NY:  It's not the wall that he's going to build that's so dangewous, it's the wall he's teawing down, the wall bewteen us and dem. That wall we've been building for over half a centrury, since the end of the war, that wall of words and images and attitudes that we owe all our ascendancy to. That wall, my fwiends, is cwacking.
All: Oh no!
NY: Yes, it's cwacking, and Mr. Twump is an out-of-contwol wecking ball that will destwoy it and us if we do not destwoy him first.
All: (Angry voices) Yes! Destroy him!
NY:  Therefowe, we must commit ouwselves as never befowe to attack him and his suppowters. We must pull out all stops, cast all decency to the winds, use every diwty twick in the book and work night and day for dis man's total and absowute destwuction. Are we all agweed?
All: Agreed! Agreed!
NY: Befowe we depawt, then, let us swear to one another to renew our efforts to bwing this man down. [They all swear] 
Now I suggest we all cwasp hands, viwtually speaking, and join in a two-minutes-hate against Mr. Twump. The monitor will dispaly his image as we chant in unison. Feel fwee to bang on the table and stomp on the fwoor. You're among fwiends here. I shall wead the way: (chanting) Destwoy Twump!  Destwoy Twump!   
WaPo and Time, join in, pwease! 
WP and Time: Destroy Trump!  Destroy Trump! 
NY: Evewybody! 









All: Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! (etc, for two minutes)
NY: Whew! That felt good. Now back to work, evewybody! See you at temple, young 'uns!


Thursday, 10 March 2016

Beware the Ides of March - AND the March of Ideas

      The right is on the march and come Tuesday one of the epic ideological battles in history will be joined in the voting booths of Florida.
       How fitting that the fate of Donald Trump, and perhaps of his country as well, should be decided next week on one of history's most ominous dates, the ides of March. This time around, it's character assassination that's afoot, though, and the perpetrators are Trump's own party members, who detest him for much the same reason that Julius Caesar's killers hated him - his huge popularity with the plebs, aka the "fearful and frustrated." No daggers and swords, then, but attack ads and smear tactics on a scale unprecedented in a country already notorious for its exorbitant and dirty politics. If Trump pulls the Florida haul of deleagtes away from the establishment's man Rubio, the nomination will be all but assured him. Failing that, he may get outmaneuvered by the backroom pols and see his wins on the ground snatched away behind closed doors. Caesar's murder plunged the state of Rome into fifteen years of civil war. If Trump falls, his party can expect a similar fate when the Don crosses the Rubio-con for a third party run at power.
       The soothsayers, however, say that Trump will prevail. In which case the treacherous party bosses should be prepared to emulate Brutus and fall on their own swords.  

Sunday, 6 March 2016

We’re All Nazis Now

It's a basic law of politics that all parties and movements must move to the center. And after three "reversals" in as many days, and after the revelation of a secret tete-a-tete in the bowels of the enemy, i.e., the New York Times, which, purportedly, saw even the sacred Wall itself up for negotiation, the word is out that Trump is getting ready to abandon his base, betray his followers, and submit to the law of the center like any other mortal. But he's not any other mortal. He's a prophet, right? For who but a prophet could defy all the prophecies of his own destruction?
    The media likes to play fast and loose with the Trump threat. On the one hand they're telling Americans that they can't trust Trump. Everything he says is a lie. But on the other hand Trump excites their fear and loathing because they do take his promises seriously. (It recalls Trump's own contradiction when he claimed that Carson's youthful pathology was incurable and in the same breath  derided it as impossible. Either it never happened or it did happen but is incurable: one or the other, Donald, but not both!) In other words, the media wants it both ways, Trump as a clown and Trump as a madman. A bombast and a Hitler. The consensus, however, seems to be gravitating toward the Hitler side of things. Not surprising, given the ethnic constitutuion of America's media.
        After all, this epithet was fore-ordained the moment Trump declared war on Mexico's illegal emmigrants. "Illegals" is just right-wing-speak for immigrants, period, right? Which in turn is dog whistle for Mexicans, i.e., all Mexicans, all Muslims, and all non-whites. And never mind that the stigma was in the pipe the moment Trump got identified as a "personality" candidate. "Personality" was just code for "cult of personality" which was wink and nudge for "demagogue," and so on through the by-now familiar sequence of racist, bigot, hater and finally, triumphantly, "Hitler." Ironically, most of the sites using the Hitler epithet against Trump, routinely flag and delete any commenters who so much as mention the name. Perhaps they're trying to preserve the epithet in all its pristine stigmatizing power.
     Problem is, although the left is a having a hard time accepting it, "Hitler" just isn't the ultimate term of opprobrium that it once was. Because a funny thing happened on the way to Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values: Hitler himself got transvalued. 
      The liberal exults in the spectacle of men turning into females and vice versa, (although we suspect that feminists can't help deprecating the idea of any woman wanting to join the ranks of such an inferior gender), women's rooms getting invaded by adult males, children scolding their parents, students expelling their teachers, whites bowing to blacks, and the whole world generally getiing turned inside out. My God, even the vampires and zombies are turning into the good guys!
       But lefty hasn't noticed that other shift in values occurring in the shadow of the first: office workers turning into warriors, housewives turning into heroines, racists turning into patriots and history's demons turning into saints.
       The liberals righteously denouncing Trump at WaPo and the NYT reflexively invoke the traditional categories of decency and propriety against him. But it's as though they're using a foreign currency in a different and far-off country. If it's decent to cut the jugular of an abortion-born child  - and the Obamaites seem to believe it is - how then is it indecent to mock the withered arm of someone who might have been very decently aborted as "defective?" There are two competeing currencies in the West these days. One mint of "decency" contains gold, the other does not. One is counterfeit, the other is true. The left wanted to transvalue everything and ended up transvaluing the language out of any common meaning. Transaction denied.
       Back in the day, getting branded a Hitler was a rightist politician's ticket to obvlion. Today, Trump almost seems to relish it. It certainly hasn't hurt him. He's "virulent," we're told. But their "virulence" has lost its own virulence. Trump is immune.
         All is relative, say the relativists. As backgrounds change, so change the features. Hitler looked odious - until Merkel showed up. Trump looked like a clown - until reality showed up.
       Trump doesn't have to move to the center, the center is moving to him. 

Sunday, 28 February 2016

Illiberal Limericks 9


Now, maybe you've read of old Samson,
Who was strong as a lion and then some,
Until shorn of his mane,
In the enemy's chain,
He toppled them pillar and transom!

In times modern another great hero,
Rose up who never could fear know;
But with one condition:
He must show no contrition,
Or his destiny soon would be zero.

For pride was the Trump's pride and glory,
And therefore that certain word "sorry"
Must his lexicon banish,
Or the voters would vanish
And that would be end of story.

His fame far and wide was enormous,
And his exploits on the experts still warm us:
Oh, the Fox still Ailes
Since he lit up their tails,
And taught 'em what a real firestorm was!

True, he made some Republicans bristle,
Who said his trumpet was just a dog whistle,
With a pitch so extreme
It caused them to scream:
To their careers it was so prejudicial!

He fought many a treacherous pagan,
Who professed the religion of Reagan;
But of all their spews,
The most damnable ruse,
Was a certain Dalaila called Megyn.

She looked coy and demure and endearing,
But at heart she was haughty and sneering;
Then into her lair
Came the hero with hair,
In his prime and in for a prime-time shearing.

But unlike that Hebrew so eyeless,
Our hero proved never so guileless,
As the Philistines jeered
The lion up-reared
And the blood flowed, including Dalaila's!

Now despite the establishment's fears,
His day of sweet victory nears;
And if they tear out his "ayes,"
Before he'll apologize
He'll pull the temple down obout their ears!

Sunday, 21 February 2016

The Definitive Mr. Trump


trump

 (Conservative's Version)

Definition of trump

  1. 1a  :  a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit —called also trump cardb  :  the suit whose cards are trumps for a particular hand —often used in plural
  2. 2:  a decisive overriding factor or final resource —called also trump card
  3. 3:  a dependable and exemplary person

    trump

     (Jeb Bush version)

    • : to beat (another card) by playing a card from the suit that beats the other suits : to play a trump card to beat (another card)
    • : to do better than (someone or something) in a contest, competition, etc.
    • : to be more important than (something)








    trump

     

     (RNC version)
    noun \ˈtrəmp\

      2:  a sound of or as if of trumpeting: "trump of doom";

From  Merriam Webster

Saturday, 20 February 2016

Lie of the Week

Lie:

"In Defense of Trump, Some Point (Wrongly) to Vatican Walls."  The NYT story goes on to say "Some of the walls in Vatican City were built in the ninth century by Pope Leo IV in an attempt to protect it from attacks by pirates and other marauders, historians said."  The source for the article is a Georgetown (Catholic) historian, who asserts that the walls do not entirely enclose the city state.

Truth: The main wall of the Vatican was built in response to enemy incursions, and Muslim incursions to boot! : "The Leonine Wall, which defines the Leonine City, was constructed by Pope Leo IV following the sacking by Muslim raiders of Old St. Peter's Basilica in 846. Built from 848 to 852 as the only extension ever made to the walls of Rome, this three-kilometre wall completely encircled the Vatican Hill for the first time in its history." - wiki
The main argument supporting Trump can be found here.

Thursday, 11 February 2016

Of Hate Speech and Speech Hate


“In the words of one writer, ‘in the absence of hard guidelines (which is the way the Trudeau government generally likes it, the better to keep the citizenry on its toes), people are left to explore the boundaries of their own bravery.’ ” 

OK, the actual quote refers to Putin, not Trudeau - but if it had been Trudeau, would anyone care? The article is out of the Washington Post, whose concern for free speech was noticeably absent during recent censorship outrages by the Merkel government, which was hailed in the headline for "springing into action" against Germans speaking out against the insane migrant mess: "Donald Trump may be testing the boundaries of tolerance on the U.S. campaign trail. But here in Germany, the government is effectively enforcing civility, taking aim at a surge of hate speech against refugees and Muslims."  Though the WaPo report plays cute with what even consitutes "hate speech," and runs the usual phony cautions about "critics," its tone is decedely supportive of the old witch and her digital witch hunt. Nice touch, too, that smearing inclusion of Trump! The boundaries of tolerance? I always thought he was testing the tolerance of boundaries - bewteen the US and Mexico, that is, and now, too, between America and Islam. To no one's surprise except the Jewish media's, it turns out to be very high indeed. 
       Putin's priorites are obviously at variance with those of WaPo, but let's never for a moment fall for the lie that either has any real regard for personal liberty. It's just that Vlad is so much more honest about his than the WaPo hypocrites.

Sunday, 7 February 2016

(CRUSADE)

A new wind bids fair to lift the old world's mist,
A force of once disparate elements:
A Christian, Rightist, Universalist,
and Secularist Alliance for the Defence
of Europe, born of recent dire events,
Its mystic mark a cross inside a circle,
And dedicated to these four intents:
No Marxists, migrants, Muslims, and no Merkel!
(All that's left is to find a name designed to irk all.)


Sunday, 31 January 2016

Lie of the week

Lie: "Germany's Merkel says refugees must return home once war is over."
Truth: She only said that she "expects" they would return, that they "would" (voluntarily?) go home. And, of course, that war is going to be over pretty soon, right?

Thursday, 28 January 2016

Item: Trump calls Brussels a hellhole.
Another shocking, disgusting, and outrageous example of this man's callous disregard for falsehood!

For confirmation of Trump's statement see this and be sure to scan the comments.

Tuesday, 19 January 2016

Who Let Them In?

Who let them in? 
 "Not I," said the PC politician,
Counting the votes from the latest admission;
"Never will Canada have no-go zones,
I swear to you by the Prophet's bones!"

Who let them in? 
"Not I," said the greedy businessman,
Projecting profits from his five year plan;
"Sure, I figured they'd work for less pay -
But now they're striking for the right to pray!"

Who let them in? 
"Not I," said the priest with his open views,
Blessing the rows of empty pews;
"Who was I to leave orphans in the lurch? 
Now there's a mosque in Holy Mother church!"

Who let them in? 
"Not I," said the mainstream journo
Running away from the urban inferno;
"Sure we know the power of the written word,
But what is that to a fanatic's sword?"

Who let them in? 
"Not I," said the careerist queen,
With a little white dog and a plasma screen;
"Kids! Are you kidding? It's cool to be sterile,
Don't tell me I was breeding up peril!"

Who let them in?
"Not us," said all the good dhimmis
Sitting at home with their TV and Timmies;
"Of course we didn't like it, but we were so busy; 
Now, can you tell us where to pay the Jizya?"

Saturday, 16 January 2016

Illiberal limericks 8

Now there was a young PM named Justin,
Whom the country had just put its trust in,
When he made a mad vow
To let in 25 thou
"Refugees," it was frankly disgustin!

The whole country then rose up in arms,

In response to jihadi alarms;
The plan re-examined:
Just mom and Muhammad,
So let tomorrow inherit the harms!

At notorious reports of FGM,
He felt compelled to completely condemn -
Not the custom or cleric,
But the term "barbaric,"
And the tide of intelligence stem!

On the alliance he turned his back,
While immigrants got the fast track;
Thus compassion was spouted,
As reason was flouted,
Getting it backwards was ever his knack!


Deciding their digs would the Syrians suit,
He gave every soldier the boot;
So with a curse and a frown,
The army stood down,
As it gave him the Trudeau salute!

Though he battled conservative baddies,
With an ardour to rival his daddy's,
To rule over the dupes,
He ordered new troops,
And christened them Justin's Jihadis.

Though gender's election didn't fit
 The agenda of every true Grit,
 At cabinet's roll 
PC took its toll:
Half men, half women, half-wit!

Minorities also obtained,
Portfolios where fairness was feigned;
So your chances were slight,
If your skin was white,
Where race o'er ability reigned.


Now from his father he got his acclaim,
And from Justice his moniker came;
But if he'd be true,
His choices are two:
 Changing his nature or changing his name!